Guild Wars 2

I’ll admit I’ve been on and off with my ranger and information pertaining to rangers. But I know that from day 1 there have been major complaints about the ranger class mechanic: pets. Mostly revolving around three points:

1. The AI is terrible
2. It accounts for to much of our DPS
3. Its the only class mechanic that is openly detrimental to the class, and able to be shut down

Yet, its been almost 3 years now, and as far as I know, there have been seldom a hinting at this horrible mechanic being fixed. At most, we were told AI would be bettered awhile back, but of course, it never was.

(1) We know. There may be some fixes coming with the expansion. We’re in a holding pattern on this one.

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

(3) Lol, have you not met Mesmer illusions?

What exactly is your point here? I feel like you could have made a post saying:
1. Guardians and Eles give boons every time they break wind.
2. Warriors have highest base health and armor in the game.
3. Mesmer clones look like them.
4. Rangers’ pets are animals.

Even though people always and constantly claim the pet AI to be that horrible…
… Could you tell me an option how to make it better?
Because I don’t. I find it bearable. Quite fine but not perfect.

What I’d address is probably the survivability, their management … And that’s probably it. You can’t expect pet AI to be on a level of a human. They are not like that even in real life, for Christ’s sake.
They merely listen to your commands. They won’t make much decisions on their own.

Their reliability is the issue. Not their AI.

Sebrent.3625:

(1) We know. There may be some fixes coming with the expansion. We’re in a holding pattern on this one.

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

(3) Lol, have you not met Mesmer illusions?

What exactly is your point here? I feel like you could have made a post saying:
1. Guardians and Eles give boons every time they break wind.
2. Warriors have highest base health and armor in the game.
3. Mesmer clones look like them.
4. Rangers’ pets are animals.

The on going number for pet dps sits around 1/4 – 1/3 of a rangers DPS, this has been true for ages.

Mesmer illusions being difficult to use =/= being openly detrimental to the class. The two are difficult to compare since a mesmer has a much stronger hand in positioning their illusions, they dont persist like the pets do, and they attack like players do, so their pathing AI and attacking animations arent near as much of an issue.

Tragic Positive.9356:

Even though people always and constantly claim the pet AI to be that horrible…
… Could you tell me an option how to make it better?
Because I don’t. I find it bearable. Quite fine but not perfect.

What I’d address is probably the survivability, their management … And that’s probably it. You can’t expect pet AI to be on a level of a human. They are not like that even in real life, for Christ’s sake.
They merely listen to your commands. They won’t make much decisions on their own.

Their reliability is the issue. Not their AI.

Their reliability is directly tied to their AI, they arent responsive enough to manage for instance. If they were properly responsive then their survivability wouldn’t be such an issue.

Then there is the matter of their attack animation which is single target and easy to dodge for both players and NPC. If it cleaves and/or had a small range to it then it would fix many of the issues.

Many of us have been doubtful of them in the past, but gone are the days of temporary content being rushed out every 2 weeks. Anet seems set to right many wrongs with the expansion. All we can do is wait, show our support, and offer feedback.

Namica.2951:

Sebrent.3625:

(1) We know. There may be some fixes coming with the expansion. We’re in a holding pattern on this one.

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

(3) Lol, have you not met Mesmer illusions?

What exactly is your point here? I feel like you could have made a post saying:
1. Guardians and Eles give boons every time they break wind.
2. Warriors have highest base health and armor in the game.
3. Mesmer clones look like them.
4. Rangers’ pets are animals.

The on going number for pet dps sits around 1/4 – 1/3 of a rangers DPS, this has been true for ages.

Mesmer illusions being difficult to use =/= being openly detrimental to the class. The two are difficult to compare since a mesmer has a much stronger hand in positioning their illusions, they dont persist like the pets do, and they attack like players do, so their pathing AI and attacking animations arent near as much of an issue.

Where’s your proof that the pet DPS sits around 1/4 to 1/3 of a Ranger’s DPS?

I still see nothing but a claim.

Sebrent.3625:

Namica.2951:

Sebrent.3625:

(1) We know. There may be some fixes coming with the expansion. We’re in a holding pattern on this one.

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

(3) Lol, have you not met Mesmer illusions?

What exactly is your point here? I feel like you could have made a post saying:
1. Guardians and Eles give boons every time they break wind.
2. Warriors have highest base health and armor in the game.
3. Mesmer clones look like them.
4. Rangers’ pets are animals.

The on going number for pet dps sits around 1/4 – 1/3 of a rangers DPS, this has been true for ages.

Mesmer illusions being difficult to use =/= being openly detrimental to the class. The two are difficult to compare since a mesmer has a much stronger hand in positioning their illusions, they dont persist like the pets do, and they attack like players do, so their pathing AI and attacking animations arent near as much of an issue.

Where’s your proof that the pet DPS sits around 1/4 to 1/3 of a Ranger’s DPS?

I still see nothing but a claim.

Well it has been the go to percentage for ages, but if you want more indepth:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/ranger/Pet-DPS-number-crunching

Essentially, it can sit around 1300dps to 2100dps. That low end being without buff stacking and no pet traits.

1/3 of your damage was also the damage a pet does stated by the devs.

Now then, based on this, which is about as close as we’re going to get for calculating dps, ranger dps, inluding pet, with meta builds, sits around 7-8k. This is accounting for buffs.

http://gw2dps.david-reess.de/

Note, that in PvP, your pet will have less time on whatever its fighting, so, their damage will drop. Which is a problem, since by the devs own admission, pets should account for a sizeable chunk of our dps.

Perhaps my eyes are getting old, but I don’t see that showing what percentage of our DPS that is … just the DPS he is calculating for his own pet … in some cases using, in his own words, “crude methods” (see: not completely accurate math). In fact, if you read the thread, there is debate on some of the math.

Also, it’s not a great idea to take math done in a self-admittedly crude fashion from one time in the game and compare it to numbers that are more current … especially given that pets were nerfed between when these two sets of numbers were calculated.

Again, I ask … what is the point your OP?

Namica.2951:

Sebrent.3625:

Namica.2951:

Sebrent.3625:

(1) We know. There may be some fixes coming with the expansion. We’re in a holding pattern on this one.

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

(3) Lol, have you not met Mesmer illusions?

What exactly is your point here? I feel like you could have made a post saying:
1. Guardians and Eles give boons every time they break wind.
2. Warriors have highest base health and armor in the game.
3. Mesmer clones look like them.
4. Rangers’ pets are animals.

The on going number for pet dps sits around 1/4 – 1/3 of a rangers DPS, this has been true for ages.

Mesmer illusions being difficult to use =/= being openly detrimental to the class. The two are difficult to compare since a mesmer has a much stronger hand in positioning their illusions, they dont persist like the pets do, and they attack like players do, so their pathing AI and attacking animations arent near as much of an issue.

Where’s your proof that the pet DPS sits around 1/4 to 1/3 of a Ranger’s DPS?

I still see nothing but a claim.

Well it has been the go to percentage for ages, but if you want more indepth:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/ranger/Pet-DPS-number-crunching

Essentially, it can sit around 1300dps to 2100dps. That low end being without buff stacking and no pet traits.

1/3 of your damage was also the damage a pet does stated by the devs.

Now then, based on this, which is about as close as we’re going to get for calculating dps, ranger dps, inluding pet, with meta builds, sits around 7-8k. This is accounting for buffs.

http://gw2dps.david-reess.de/

Note, that in PvP, your pet will have less time on whatever its fighting, so, their damage will drop. Which is a problem, since by the devs own admission, pets should account for a sizeable chunk of our dps.

The PVP issue is my one gripe about the pets. I still have success with my build but it requires more attention to positioning to make it work better. But if the pets were a lot faster at firing off their skills and able to move faster to stick onto targets. That should be base line; they should generally be faster damage modifiers /extras should come from spec.

I read somewhere that they were looking at improving pet/minion ai which could mean something like them moving and using their abilities faster… Unless they are going to add something like an auto dodge function. But I doubt that as it’d probably require too much work.

Sebrent.3625:

Perhaps my eyes are getting old, but I don’t see that showing what percentage of our DPS that is … just the DPS he is calculating for his own pet … in some cases using, in his own words, “crude methods” (see: not completely accurate math). In fact, if you read the thread, there is debate on some of the math.

Also, it’s not a great idea to take math done in a self-admittedly crude fashion from one time in the game and compare it to numbers that are more current … especially given that pets were nerfed between when these two sets of numbers were calculated.

Not to mention the % varies too much depending on build, gear, and the type of pet.

Sebrent.3625:

Perhaps my eyes are getting old, but I don’t see that showing what percentage of our DPS that is … just the DPS he is calculating for his own pet … in some cases using, in his own words, “crude methods” (see: not completely accurate math). In fact, if you read the thread, there is debate on some of the math.

Also, it’s not a great idea to take math done in a self-admittedly crude fashion from one time in the game and compare it to numbers that are more current … especially given that pets were nerfed between when these two sets of numbers were calculated.

---

Again, I ask … what is the point your OP?

I feel as though no amount of information will sway you on this, despite other people in that thread posting their own numbers which are around the same as the threads original posters math and the ongoing estimate of pet dps sitting around 1.2-2k dps depending on traits as well as anet own admission that 1/3 is the expected dps a pet does in relation to the whole of a rangers dps.

And I suppose the reasoning is to once again try to put the spotlight on the problems with ranger pets. Case and point, the denial in this thread over the pet accounting for a large percentage of our dps and how they end up being a detriment due to this paired with their horrible AI.

There is this thing known as quality. If the quality of the information is low, then it is suspect. The quality of the information that you’re using is low. That is the problem.

I ask for numbers and you take numbers from before a pet nerf and use them from numbers after a pet nerf … do you not see the very obvious problem with that?

If you aren’t willing to do the work, then don’t make the statements. This is all very simple, basic stuff.

Where is ArenaNet’s admission that 1/3 is the expected DPS a pet does in relation to the whole of a Ranger’s DPS? That should be an easy one to provide the proof for if it exists.

Let’s get something clear as well … I’m not denying nor accepting that the pet is some X% of the Ranger’s DPS … I’m stating that you have not provided solid data to support the numbers you’ve provided. There is a huge difference that you need to wrap your mind around.

Others are the same. Wonderous has pointed out that there too is a huge amount of variance given the plethora of build, gear, and pet options.

What % is a pet for a Tanky build? A glassy berserker build? A condition build? With a bear pet? With a drake pet?

So many variables.

All you have provided is a combination of outdated data with new data which doesn’t make sense due to the changes that happened between the calculations of those two sets of numbers.

Provide quality information or just present your opinion as what it is … an opinion.

As far as “[putting] the spotlight on the problems with ranger pets” … I was unaware that people weren’t quite intimately familiar with the current status of pets. Did something get stealthily changed in some patch?

My view of your OP is, to be bluntly put, that it is just another gripe about pets and a statement that “I didn’t like things then and I still don’t like them and I don’t think that’s every going to change” … which is fine. But it is your opinion. It is not a fact outside of the fact that you don’t like it.

That’s my scientific dude. I like those kind of people.

Until it gets you and I butting heads, eh? ;-)

Good thing we are often equipped with very thick skulls :-p

You should pity my wife … she’s stuck with me, two clones of me (my two sons) and has a female version of me due in two weeks :-D

Sebrent.3625:

There is this thing known as quality. If the quality of the information is low, then it is suspect. The quality of the information that you’re using is low. That is the problem.

I ask for numbers and you take numbers from before a pet nerf and use them from numbers after a pet nerf … do you not see the very obvious problem with that?

If you aren’t willing to do the work, then don’t make the statements. This is all very simple, basic stuff.

Where is ArenaNet’s admission that 1/3 is the expected DPS a pet does in relation to the whole of a Ranger’s DPS? That should be an easy one to provide the proof for if it exists.

Let’s get something clear as well … I’m not denying nor accepting that the pet is some X% of the Ranger’s DPS … I’m stating that you have not provided solid data to support the numbers you’ve provided. There is a huge difference that you need to wrap your mind around.

Others are the same. Wonderous has pointed out that there too is a huge amount of variance given the plethora of build, gear, and pet options.

What % is a pet for a Tanky build? A glassy berserker build? A condition build? With a bear pet? With a drake pet?

So many variables.

All you have provided is a combination of outdated data with new data which doesn’t make sense due to the changes that happened between the calculations of those two sets of numbers.

Provide quality information or just present your opinion as what it is … an opinion.

As far as “[putting] the spotlight on the problems with ranger pets” … I was unaware that people weren’t quite intimately familiar with the current status of pets. Did something get stealthily changed in some patch?

My view of your OP is, to be bluntly put, that it is just another gripe about pets and a statement that “I didn’t like things then and I still don’t like them and I don’t think that’s every going to change” … which is fine. But it is your opinion. It is not a fact outside of the fact that you don’t like it.

Wait, you’re disputing my claim, and then saying the problems are real. I’m quiet confused here. Are you arguing for the sheer sake of arguing?

That said, am trying to find the dev post. But its not as easy as you’d think. The forum search feature is atrocious. I figured it wouldn’t need explaining since it caused such an uproar when they first said it.

I vaguely recall a Dev making that comment. If that Dev turns out to be Robert Hrouda, then we can definitely say it’s outdated

But I’ll have to disappoint a bit.
Just went there and test it (it seemed quite believable according to my experience, but I’ll admit I never went out to test it)…

So, the test on a Heavy PvP dummy with the PvE meta (6-5-0-3-0) were:
Pet used: Jaguar (Stalk)
The meta PvE build with 2333 power, 54% crit and 197% crit damage were able to bring down 1,68 = 168% times the targets HP for a duration of 1 minute.
Weapons used: Sword + Off Axe (Sigils used Air+Fire to maximize DPS)
The pet was able to bring down 0,64% in the exact same time period.

The experiment was made without outer interaction by using every single aspect that a PvE would experience. Both Ranger and pet were affected by Spotter, and were not affected by might, fury or any other boon.
The ranger was under effect of Predator’s onslaught and pet had it’s own vulnerability applied which compensated the difference (pet should have 5% bonus, but I didn’t have a way to apply constant non-damage slow). These benefits would normally be available for both.

Conclusion:
In stationary DPS rotation without any outer interactions such as Boons or Buffs except for those the Ranger can provide (Spotter, Frost Spirit),
the pet deals around 38% of Ranger’s DPS.
The numbers are not accurate since they do not count Vulnerability, Might, Fury, banners and “Strength in Numbers” boosts. They also provide a long-lasting fight that does not include using Longbow, since the weapon is stronger the shorter the fight lasts and would provide inaccurate numbers in 1 minute scenario.

Technically speaking – this percentage drastically changes if the fight requires movement, or uses cleave abilities that requires Pet dismissing or swapping. In such cases, even the Ranger rotation changes.
Without more specification – The highest self DPS pet – Jaguar – deals 38% of Rangers DPS in a stationary safe environment.

EDIT: The pet used Pet’s Prowess trait and was not affected by Companion’s Might. (even though both are part of the PvE meta build).
The test was made 3 times with results varying with around 7% target’s HP differences. The results are an arithmetical average.

Pets generally are very much OK. There is some element of RNG involved with the pets. while at their best performance, pets are probably the best mechanic in terms of boosing your battale preformace. One of the reasons rangers are very good 1v1.
The only problem I c with pets ATM is their uselessness in WVW zreg scenarios.

@Namica:
No. I was talking about the issues such as:

• Pet trouble hitting a moving target given they can’t both move and attack simultaneously
• Pet responsiveness to F2 commands
• Pet F2 abilities with needlessly/pointlessly long cast times
• Pet survivability issues in varying content … a decent % of content sadly

My issue with your post is that it:

• Hasn’t presented quality data
• Hasn’t presented anything new

@Tragic Positive:
Would you mind recording?

38% with the most damaging pet is interesting.

are you talking pve or pvp? In general, pets aren’t too bad when they get the extra stats from BM. Slap on SoW or some regen and they can stay alive in pve and small fights. I thought devourers were really good in all aspects of pve.

I noticed devs are moving toward giving pets more pbaoe effects, which increases pet utility and decreases their chance of missing. some F2’s need a much lower cast time, and some need to be more useful.

overall, I think pets will be in a much better shape come HoT with all the extra stats. also, there’s nothing wrong with their AI. the problem always has been attack animation times, which locks the pet down and makes their maneuvering seem delayed.

1. djeez, if you want “correct” and “accurate” data, then do some testing (well, a lot, since you need ALL pets AND setups to compare).

2. you will find that on average a pet will do around 1/3rd of the total damage a ranger can do. This is something that is pretty obvious.

The numbers might vary, and the differences are there between pets/traits/gear and what not, but it doesn’t change the fact that pets are one of the parts that contribute to the total dmg a ranger can do.

Now to OP :

1. The AI is terrible
Yes, in some ways it is, but it’s not as bad as it seems
2. It accounts for to much of our DPS
it’s one of the core mechanics of a ranger, so it’s quite logical they do a good chunk of damage. why else would you want a pet ?
3. Its the only class mechanic that is openly detrimental to the class, and able to be shut down
NOT the only class, but we understand your point. One should be able to disable the pet in certain situations or for those that don’t want it in some cases

1. The AI is not terrible. AI = Artificial Intelligence. That has nothing to do with mechanics and animations. Their behavior is fine. It has been for quite some time. I don’t remember a time when it didn’t do what I ordered him to.
2. I agree that there are some cases where I don’t want my pet out. For obvious reasons. I know that my pet will die and I won’t have it when I need it. And I’d like it the other way round.

#Sebrent
I mean… I could, but since I’m limited on my free time (exam period) I’d like to avoid it, especially when you can test it yourself, the way I did.
Everyone has access to the stats, pets and traits in PvP – and it takes you 3 minutes to do it yourself.
I’d have to search for a freeware recording program that actually works, then I’d have to edit it, find a place to upload … And it’s a lot of trouble that I feel like pointless since I know the results already – and even provided you with those.

And if you feel like finding for yourself – you could do it just the way I did. The difference is that I am already satisfied and feel no need to prolong the issue further unless a problem comes out.

I saw ppl stating that the pet is roughly 30% of the ranger’s damage done. Let’s go with that. Please consider bringing Guard shout, it increases its survivability and control, plus the Agility Training increases pet’s moving speed, it’s an adept trait on skirmish, a line where there’s not much (apart from 2 other pet related good traits) to give up for and it will have good impact on its management. Now tell me there’s other Trait/Utility skill worth 30% more damage to you.

TLDR:
When i ppl complaining on AI, i tend to ask: what AI? The pet is pretty straight forward you send in to a target, you call back to avoid tricky situation, there’s no need for Artificial Intelligence. It’s not like you want the pet to decide for itself after you’ve been to boss X that red circles on the ground hurt. You are the one having to adapt.
/tldr

Another pro tip is, sometimes spiders and devours for being ranged can survive bettter than bears, i see my spider/devour as a turret i can place on the battlefield with a 12 sec movable cooldown. Most fights the pet will be useful, without the guard utility and agility training to be honest, in several modes, but let’s face it, for WvW and PVP you’ll be using canine for it’s on-swap-on-demand knock down + F2 snare.

Ariete.6509:

I saw ppl stating that the pet is roughly 30% of the ranger’s damage done. Let’s go with that. Please consider bringing Guard shout, it increases its survivability and control, plus the Agility Training increases pet’s moving speed, it’s an adept trait on skirmish, a line where there’s not much (apart from 2 other pet related good traits) to give up for and it will have good impact on its management. Now tell me there’s other Trait/Utility skill worth 30% more damage to you.

TLDR:
When i ppl complaining on AI, i tend to ask: what AI? The pet is pretty straight forward you send in to a target, you call back to avoid tricky situation, there’s no need for Artificial Intelligence. It’s not like you want the pet to decide for itself after you’ve been to boss X that red circles on the ground hurt. You are the one having to adapt.
/tldr

Another pro tip is, sometimes spiders and devours for being ranged can survive bettter than bears, i see my spider/devour as a turret i can place on the battlefield with a 12 sec movable cooldown. Most fights the pet will be useful, without the guard utility and agility training to be honest, in several modes, but let’s face it, for WvW and PVP you’ll be using canine for it’s on-swap-on-demand knock down + F2 snare.

AI is typically a catch all term in situations like this. Essentially in this case it means: poor pathing, poor responsiveness, and trouble hitting targets.

pathing is fine, pets are quite responsive now. problem is and always were the animation cast times on the pets.

The AI isn’t spectacular but I’m not sure what can be done about it making pets able to attack faster and/or while on the move would atleast take care of people that just run around and avoid them entirely with just normal movement I would be happy if pets did less damage if only melee pets could hit more consistently, I would also like F2 skills to execute even faster that is also an issue I frequently run into sometimes my pets simply will not use their F2 or obey any command at all I have no idea why this happens but it’s happened so many times I barely no longer react when it does it’s usually something that gets you killed too that would otherwise have had a chance at saving you.

I don’t agree it’s true to say they have never been improved though all these things were much worse before exept that they did more damage back then.

Namica.2951:

AI is typically a catch all term in situations like this. Essentially in this case it means: poor pathing, poor responsiveness, and trouble hitting targets.

I disagree. That’s what people think. And obviously misunderstand.
Not what it actually is.
That’s mechanics. Not AI.

The only AI part of it is the responsiveness. Because the pet needs to decide which ability to use by itself, and which one should it cancel to use the other.
And currently – that part is fine. Priority from F2>Long CD>Short CD.

Absolutely Fine. People should try to realize what AI actually is when asking to improve it.

Tragic Positive.9356:

Absolutely Fine. People should try to realize what AI actually is when asking to improve it.

Now i feel dumb, this guy only took one sentence to summarize my 3 paragraphs.
Thumbs up for you Sir.

Sebrent.3625:

Perhaps my eyes are getting old, but I don’t see that showing what percentage of our DPS that is … just the DPS he is calculating for his own pet … in some cases using, in his own words, “crude methods” (see: not completely accurate math). In fact, if you read the thread, there is debate on some of the math.

Also, it’s not a great idea to take math done in a self-admittedly crude fashion from one time in the game and compare it to numbers that are more current … especially given that pets were nerfed between when these two sets of numbers were calculated.

---

Again, I ask … what is the point your OP?

Point is to improve AI and revert pet to what it used to be (before the pet nerf), or making pet “optional”? (Pet’s damage had been cut by at least 70% since that nerf, making them an unreliable CC tool instead of decent damage)
What’s so hard to understand?

I still try to figure out why people seem to think the pet ai in this game is so horrible (for the ranger atleast. the necromancer what is fubar).

Ive been playing ranger since day one. And ive had very little trouble with the pet as far as control and movement goes (especially after the f2 override fix). And it usually features heavily into my combat style. Even in gvgs. The “ai” in this game is far better than some of the other mmorpgs ive played up to this date. (Try the AI in EQ2 or ESO..im not even joking) the only thing I believe I preferred more is the pet system from wow.

The biggest things I would change aren’t really pathfinding related.

Id have pets be able to use there auto attacks while moving if there melee pets. (the stop and start method is what causes alot of unnecessary misses). Im fine with heavier attacks being stop and cast because telegraphs are important to survival in this game and it would give decent counterplay. But auto attacks are a whole nother story as they’re supposed to be a method of maintaining light pressure. An AUTO attack should have less counterplay than a primary attack. Largely because it has less overall effect.

I would give ranger pets a method of resisting attacks there not the primary target of. (if there meant to be an extension of the core body. And not an extra such as necromancer pets or engineer turrets. Then they should have protections that exemplify that.)

And ultimately I would do something that I believe the core specialization changes are going to cover. Have it be so there is a SIGNIFICANT difference in how you play when you spec into your pet and when you don’t. The core specialization changes with the major pet buffs becoming minors in the BM line I believe will go along way towards that.

I have to agree with Serbent. I don’t get it. Our pets are fine in PvE where our damage is really high right now regardless of pet. In PvP, the pet can do anywhere from 0% of our damage to… I don’t know, a huge well placed spike. Relatively easy to use, situationally effective if you plan it right.

Maybe OP should be more specific about how they can be fixed. For example:

Pets would be better if they could move 30% faster in combat without training it.

Aomine.5012:

Sebrent.3625:

Perhaps my eyes are getting old, but I don’t see that showing what percentage of our DPS that is … just the DPS he is calculating for his own pet … in some cases using, in his own words, “crude methods” (see: not completely accurate math). In fact, if you read the thread, there is debate on some of the math.

Also, it’s not a great idea to take math done in a self-admittedly crude fashion from one time in the game and compare it to numbers that are more current … especially given that pets were nerfed between when these two sets of numbers were calculated.

---

Again, I ask … what is the point your OP?

Point is to improve AI and revert pet to what it used to be (before the pet nerf), or making pet “optional”? (Pet’s damage had been cut by at least 70% since that nerf, making them an unreliable CC tool instead of decent damage)
What’s so hard to understand?

What is hard to understand? Lol, that the OP never stated that.

Also … please show where the damage was nerfed by 70% … that number smells of fecal matter.

Sebrent.3625:

Aomine.5012:

Sebrent.3625:

Perhaps my eyes are getting old, but I don’t see that showing what percentage of our DPS that is … just the DPS he is calculating for his own pet … in some cases using, in his own words, “crude methods” (see: not completely accurate math). In fact, if you read the thread, there is debate on some of the math.

Also, it’s not a great idea to take math done in a self-admittedly crude fashion from one time in the game and compare it to numbers that are more current … especially given that pets were nerfed between when these two sets of numbers were calculated.

---

Again, I ask … what is the point your OP?

Point is to improve AI and revert pet to what it used to be (before the pet nerf), or making pet “optional”? (Pet’s damage had been cut by at least 70% since that nerf, making them an unreliable CC tool instead of decent damage)
What’s so hard to understand?

What is hard to understand? Lol, that the OP never stated that.

Also … please show where the damage was nerfed by 70% … that number smells of fecal matter.

Bleh, why do I have to waste my time to pull out Anet’s 2 yrs ago update post of “decrease pet damage by x%” for you, when you’re not going to believe it anyway?

All I can say is Birds used to do 12k damage on F2 to a zerker, and jaguar used to hit around 7k on crit to someone when you put “30” points in Beastmaster (if you don’t understand what I’m talking about, then you really haven’t been in GW2 long at all)
Now it hits around 2k on crit for Jaguar and 4k with bird f2.

Believe it or not is none of my business. Every dedicated rangers knew this already.

I’ll believe it if you produce it. You made the claim. Provide the proof. Why in the world would I not believe a patch note from ArenaNet? That’s silly and an absurd excuse to not back up your claim.

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 google Beastmastery Math, you’ll see I’ve been around for a while doing pet math, so your comments amuse me.

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.

Don’t forget Pet UI https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/ranger/Please-Upgrade-Pet-UI/first#post5079603
Boon & conditions

Namica.2951:

AI is typically a catch all term in situations like this. Essentially in this case it means: poor pathing, poor responsiveness, and trouble hitting targets.

Pets obey the same rules as monsters do as far as pathfinding goes (read: they can only reach something if there’s an unbroken path to it because they can’t jump or climb like players can), once you realize that you can see there’s nothing wrong with it.

The problem is largely that pets have no way to dodge and no protection from AOE so they tend to die easily when there’s a lot of AOE being thrown around.

I gotta say, after playing ranger heavily the past few days in PVP (my main classes are engi/ele/mes) I find little fault with pets. They attack when i want them too, reliably trigger their skills and most of the time are right by my side (minor pathing issues aside). And ive been testing most of the pets too paying attention to their skills and timing their use at the most opportune time.

Well… My pet was able to blow a 17k crit.
That’s post 70% damage nerf. And if today’s damage is 1/3 of the damage only…
… Did the pet have higher damage than the Ranger itself? Doesn’t it sound absurd to you?

I do remember someone saying that pet damage got nerfed hard (by 50% if I remember correctly) as a NerfBat for Bunker BMs, but I haven’t been playing this game at the time of the nerf, and I never saw a proof of patch notes saying that.

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.

Tragic Positive.9356:

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.

Agree with this completely.

@Aomine.5012
I figured that you weren’t going to look up the posts to try to support your claims … because people like you never do … so I went and wasted my own time digging through the patch notes.

Here is the first instance of pet damage changes I found going backwards from most recent to least recent game updates.

• https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Game_updates/June_2013

The worst decreases were 50% to [Armor Fish: Bite], [Eagle: Lacerating Slash], Feline: Maul.

• Bite is an auto-attack
• Lacerating Slash is not their auto-attack but a specific Bird’s (Eagle) F2 ability.
• Maul is not their auto-attack but an uncontrollable (by the player) non-auto with a 20 second cooldown.

Now, here are some facts … pointing that out since what a fact is seems unclear…

• Nothing was as high as 70%.
• None of these constitutes a 70% damage decrease for pets.
• Not all pets were affected.
• Even the 50% damage reductions are not a 50% overall damage reduction as they are for single skills, not all attack skills for those given pets.
• Some pets had some of their attack damages increased.

Anyone else want to pull some number out of their butt and not back it up? It really does make you look like a champ, let me tell you…

As an aside … all those people that say “Ranger never gets any love” are fooling their selves. If you just browse through the patch notes, you’ll see all sorts of buffs for us for all sorts of traits, abilities, etc. throughout the years.

@Tragic Positive:
I’d say you summed up the state of pets fairly nicely.

I 90+% agree … I withhold the 10% as it depends on what you’d say if you elaborated on any of the points … because I’m “that guy” :-D

Sebrent.3625:

I figured that you weren’t going to look up the posts to try to support your claims … because people like you never do … so I went and dug through the patch notes:

Here is the first instance of pet damage changes I found going backwards from most recent to least recent game updates.

• https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Game_updates/June_2013

June 2013 Pet Damage Changes

hide spoiler

Pets

Armor Fish: Bite: Reduced the damage by 50%.
Bird: Slash: Increased the damage by 15%.
Eagle: Lacerating Slash: Reduced the damage by 50%.
Raven: Blinding Slash: Reduced the damage by 34%.
Canine: Bite: Reduced the damage by 27%.
Devourer: Twin Darts: Reduced the damage by 20%.
Drake: Bite: Reduced the damage by 27%.
Insect Swarm: This skill can no longer fire behind the drake.
Drake: Lightning Breath: Reduced the damage by 17%.
Feline: Maul: Reduced the damage by 50%.
Jaguar: Stalking: Critical chance increase while in stealth reduced to 25%.
Jellyfish: Tentacle Slash: Increased the damage by 50%.
Jellyfish Blue: Chilling Whirl: Decreased the damage by 33%.
Moa: Peck: Reduced the damage by 7%.
Pig: Jab: Reduced the damage by 25%.
Shark: Bite: Increased the damage by 10%.
Spider: Spit: Increased the damage by 10%.

The worst decreases were 50% to [Armor Fish: Bite], [Eagle: Lacerating Slash], Feline: Maul.

• Bite is an auto-attack
• Lacerating Slash is not their auto-attack but a specific Bird’s (Eagle) F2 ability.
• Maul is not their auto-attack but an uncontrollable (by the player) non-auto with a 20 second cooldown.

Now, here are some facts … pointing that out since what a fact is seems unclear…

• Nothing was as high as 70%.
• None of these constitutes a 70% damage decrease for pets.
• Not all pets were affected.
• Even the 50% damage reductions are not a 50% overall damage reduction as they are for single skills, not all attack skills for those given pets.
• Some pets had some of their attack damages increased.

Anyone else want to pull some number out of their butt and not back it up? It really does make you look like a champ, let me tell you…

As an aside … all those people that say “Ranger never gets any love” are fooling their selves. If you just browse through the patch notes, you’ll see all sorts of buffs for us for all sorts of traits, abilities, etc. throughout the years.

Finally some research done by yourself instead of yadiyadida.
Don’t expect people to give out everything for you k.
People with the same experience will understand and belief, while people who questions about the experience will do their own research and testing. That is the way of life, and it’s not my responsibility to babysitting you.

Btw 50% on auto and 50% on crucial f2 spike is huge too.
People doesn’t care about the “exact number” that you keep focusing on, but people know there was a “big nerf” to all of these, that it literally makes certain builds like BM master and Spirit ranger “distinct” in competitive scene, this is enough for people to understand how bad the impact is. It doesn’t really need to have exact and precise number like you kept on blabbing on.

Also, you have to take armor into consideration too.
For example, if one has 3500 armor and get hit by 4k by auto from felines.
When you decrease the damage by 50% on felines’ auto, because of lower numbers vs higher armors, the impact of damage can be larger than 50%, and pet can hit lower than supposedly 2k damage (which is true)
Oh, if you’re so concerned with exact numbers, please do the research and math yourself. Sometimes math may not be realistic in real life setting too, that you need to do the “field testing” yourself. If you don’t believe people, you can conduct your actual testing.

Last note: I never said ranger never gets any love. It’s kind of both sides. We kept getting nerf after nerf each patches back then. When we were at our bottom level where there’s nothing else to nerf and ranger becomes trash tier, Anet finally start buffing rangers. That’s why most rangers are depressive and pessimistic about all of these. Again, don’t expect people to give out all the details for you about all the nerfs, do the research yourself.

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 …

Sebrent.3625:

@Aomine.5012
I figured that you weren’t going to look up the posts to try to support your claims … because people like you never do … so I went and wasted my own time digging through the patch notes.

Here is the first instance of pet damage changes I found going backwards from most recent to least recent game updates.

• https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Game_updates/June_2013

June 2013 Pet Damage Changes

hide spoiler

Pets

Armor Fish: Bite: Reduced the damage by 50%.
Bird: Slash: Increased the damage by 15%.
Eagle: Lacerating Slash: Reduced the damage by 50%.
Raven: Blinding Slash: Reduced the damage by 34%.
Canine: Bite: Reduced the damage by 27%.
Devourer: Twin Darts: Reduced the damage by 20%.
Drake: Bite: Reduced the damage by 27%.
Insect Swarm: This skill can no longer fire behind the drake.
Drake: Lightning Breath: Reduced the damage by 17%.
Feline: Maul: Reduced the damage by 50%.
Jaguar: Stalking: Critical chance increase while in stealth reduced to 25%.
Jellyfish: Tentacle Slash: Increased the damage by 50%.
Jellyfish Blue: Chilling Whirl: Decreased the damage by 33%.
Moa: Peck: Reduced the damage by 7%.
Pig: Jab: Reduced the damage by 25%.
Shark: Bite: Increased the damage by 10%.
Spider: Spit: Increased the damage by 10%.

The worst decreases were 50% to [Armor Fish: Bite], [Eagle: Lacerating Slash], Feline: Maul.

• Bite is an auto-attack
• Lacerating Slash is not their auto-attack but a specific Bird’s (Eagle) F2 ability.
• Maul is not their auto-attack but an uncontrollable (by the player) non-auto with a 20 second cooldown.

Now, here are some facts … pointing that out since what a fact is seems unclear…

• Nothing was as high as 70%.
• None of these constitutes a 70% damage decrease for pets.
• Not all pets were affected.
• Even the 50% damage reductions are not a 50% overall damage reduction as they are for single skills, not all attack skills for those given pets.
• Some pets had some of their attack damages increased.

Anyone else want to pull some number out of their butt and not back it up? It really does make you look like a champ, let me tell you…

---

As an aside … all those people that say “Ranger never gets any love” are fooling their selves. If you just browse through the patch notes, you’ll see all sorts of buffs for us for all sorts of traits, abilities, etc. throughout the years.

---

@Tragic Positive:
I’d say you summed up the state of pets fairly nicely.

I 90+% agree … I withhold the 10% as it depends on what you’d say if you elaborated on any of the points … because I’m “that guy” :-D

I don’t know why you feel the need to niggle about “maths” and derail this thread…

@Swagger:
What is the thread about? The issues with Ranger pets.

Have some people made claims that a problem is that pet damage is 70% worse than before? Yes, they have.

Is there patch note history that shows that this 70% is horribly incorrect? Yes, there is.

Did someone try to then say that a 50% reduction would be even more of a reduction than 50%? Yes, they did.

Is that assertion about 50% reduction reducing it by more than 50% Incorrect? Yes, it is.

What part of this flow is difficult to follow?

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.

Sebrent.3625:

@Swagger:
What is the thread about? The issues with Ranger pets.

Have some people made claims that a problem is that pet damage is 70% worse than before? Yes, they have.

Is there patch note history that shows that this 70% is horribly incorrect? Yes, there is.

Did someone try to then say that a 50% reduction would be even more of a reduction than 50%? Yes, they did.

Is that assertion about 50% reduction reducing it by more than 50% Incorrect? Yes, it is.

What part of this flow is difficult to follow?

this thread was not about “maths”, but for some reason you feel the need to make it about that unnecessarily and miss the larger topics. keep going if that really makes you feel better.

How is that “experience” proof for itself? By that logic, these threads where people’s “experience” tells them that Thieves can one-shot anyone would result in Thief damage being nerfed to unintelligent levels … because despite their “experience”, they are wrong.

Your claim that pet damage was reduced by 70% is another example where despite discussing your “experience” you were horribly wrong … followed up by being horribly wrong about a % damage reduction being more reduction than the % specified.

Furthermore, just look at the other parts of the conversation in this thread … people’s experiences differ despite playing the same class in the same game.

This is why we have facts and we have opinions. Some of those opinions are backed up by facts. Some are not. Guess which have more weight.

You tell me to actually do the research, testing, etc. myself … yet where is yours for your claims? If you want to just keep score … you have 1 claim to 0 research/proof. I have 1 counter-claim to 1 research/proof … 0% to 100%.

You are correct that you don’t have to provide it … I stated this before … just don’t be unhappy when people point out that you have no proof and then dismiss what you have to say because of your lack of proof … or worse, proof that shows you’re wrong thereby harming your credibility.

Sebrent.3625:

How is that “experience” proof for itself? By that logic, these threads where people’s “experience” tells them that Thieves can one-shot anyone would result in Thief damage being nerfed to unintelligent levels … because despite their “experience”, they are wrong.

Your claim that pet damage was reduced by 70% is another example where despite discussing your “experience” you were horribly wrong … followed up by being horribly wrong about a % damage reduction being more reduction than the % specified.

Furthermore, just look at the other parts of the conversation in this thread … people’s experiences differ despite playing the same class in the same game.

This is why we have facts and we have opinions. Some of those opinions are backed up by facts. Some are not. Guess which have more weight.

You tell me to actually do the research, testing, etc. myself … yet where is yours for your claims? If you want to just keep score … you have 1 claim to 0 research/proof. I have 1 counter-claim to 1 research/proof … 0% to 100%.

You are correct that you don’t have to provide it … I stated this before … just don’t be unhappy when people point out that you have no proof and then dismiss what you have to say because of your lack of proof … or worse, proof that shows you’re wrong thereby harming your credibility.

And more than 90% of the posts here are base on their experience. They don’t link to detail update post, do some accurate math, show proof of screenshot, and post a detail video about how their builds work.

If you like to discredit all of them, feel free to do so. It is really none of our business whether you believe us or not.

@Aomine.5012:
Do you see me discrediting everyone in the forums who has an opinion? Nope. There’s nothing to discredit when it comes to opinions. Everyone has them and they are free to them.

Do you see me zero in on unfounded claims like your 70% that you threw out? Heck yes you do.

Do you know what the difference is?

• One is an actual opinion given as an opinion.
• The other is some stated as a fact … in your case, an arbitrary number you pulled from your nethers … thrown out with nothing to back it up. In fact, in the case where you provide something that is false, one could even call it a lie if they felt so inclined to be that harsh.

I don’t know why you continue to argue this.

• Did you say it was 70% reduction? Yes.
• Did the patch notes show that you were wrong? Yes.
• Did you say that a 50% reduction could reduce it by more than 50%? Yes.
• Did basic mathematics show that you were wrong? Yes.

I fail to see what is left to debate there.
Check your pride and hide your keyboard for an hour.