Guild Wars 2

I don’t feel pets should ever be a ‘forced’ gameplay mechanic for any profession unless the entire theme of the class is about pets, which is not the case for Rangers. It should be relatively easy to bake pets into a profession’s skillset without making them mandatory.

Making pets such an overly prominent component of the Ranger’s kitten nal was a mistake that you can see the results of now in-game. Rangers should be as strong as any other profession without a pet, then have weaker versions of the pets in their utility lines that are options alongside their other options. Their F skills would make more sense being survival themed, like different traps.

I think the simplest solution to your problem is this,

Don’t play Ranger.

I wouldnt have any problem with pets being forced on us if ANet was willing to put in the time to make them work properly and effectively, but since Jon has essentially told us he knows they dont work as well as they could/should but they arent going to fix it any time soon.. they really should consider reducing their part in the rangers playstyle.

Cufufalating.8479:

I wouldnt have any problem with pets being forced on us if ANet was willing to put in the time to make them work properly and effectively, but since Jon has essentially told us he knows they dont work as well as they could/should but they arent going to fix it any time soon.. they really should consider reducing their part in the rangers playstyle.

This has been my complaint as well. I want pets gone simply because ANet can’t be bothered to get them working in the first place. If they could get them to the point players were happy with them I’d be fine with them being a part of this class. But given they have the same problems they had a year ago, ANet has made it blatantly obvious in the other thread that pets aren’t on their radar, and pets are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this failure of a class, I’d say it’s time to wave the white flag.

Atherakhia.4086:

Cufufalating.8479:

I wouldnt have any problem with pets being forced on us if ANet was willing to put in the time to make them work properly and effectively, but since Jon has essentially told us he knows they dont work as well as they could/should but they arent going to fix it any time soon.. they really should consider reducing their part in the rangers playstyle.

This has been my complaint as well. I want pets gone simply because ANet can’t be bothered to get them working in the first place. If they could get them to the point players were happy with them I’d be fine with them being a part of this class. But given they have the same problems they had a year ago, ANet has made it blatantly obvious in the other thread that pets aren’t on their radar, and pets are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this failure of a class, I’d say it’s time to wave the white flag.

Ather, May i ask how many “ok folks its time to quit” posts you have made now???
I mean no offense, but, if you gonna spread doom and gloom, could you just silently reroll something and not ruin the mood for everyone?
If you could, thank you.

Cufufalating.8479:

I wouldnt have any problem with pets being forced on us if ANet was willing to put in the time to make them work properly and effectively, but since Jon has essentially told us he knows they dont work as well as they could/should but they arent going to fix it any time soon.. they really should consider reducing their part in the rangers playstyle.

It’s given me new hope that they’ll give us the option to perma-stow them or swap them or preparations.

Isn’t the first step to fixing a problem to admit that you have a problem in the first place? Step 1 is done! Time to move toward fixing it or get an option not to use it!

Ryan.9387:

I think the simplest solution to your problem is this,

Don’t play Ranger.

This, pretty much. Simple solution. I enjoy the pet, so I play Ranger.

I like how they say Pets account for 40% of the Rangers dps, but this simply isn’t true. When you take into account that all classes will have a % of their hits miss, blocked, glance, or interrupted, the Ranger suffers from this two-fold.

You don’t just have the ranger missing a % of their attacks, but now their 40% dps pet is missing a % of their attacks too. Basically, even Anet gave the Ranger a 100% hit chance that cannot be blocked, interrupted, or glanced, we’d still be in the rears compared to other classes, because of our pets fumbling their attacks.

I like the idea of a pet, but they need to make the pet an extension of the Ranger. One that cannot be targeted or damaged. Make it so it never misses.

Prysin.8542:

Atherakhia.4086:

Cufufalating.8479:

I wouldnt have any problem with pets being forced on us if ANet was willing to put in the time to make them work properly and effectively, but since Jon has essentially told us he knows they dont work as well as they could/should but they arent going to fix it any time soon.. they really should consider reducing their part in the rangers playstyle.

This has been my complaint as well. I want pets gone simply because ANet can’t be bothered to get them working in the first place. If they could get them to the point players were happy with them I’d be fine with them being a part of this class. But given they have the same problems they had a year ago, ANet has made it blatantly obvious in the other thread that pets aren’t on their radar, and pets are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this failure of a class, I’d say it’s time to wave the white flag.

Ather, May i ask how many “ok folks its time to quit” posts you have made now???
I mean no offense, but, if you gonna spread doom and gloom, could you just silently reroll something and not ruin the mood for everyone?
If you could, thank you.

I haven’t said I’d reroll to my knowledge. I have one of most classes and I still come back to this class. But I’m also not an ANet apologist like many on this forum. Feel free to label me a pessimist if you must, but your attitude of ‘lets just have faith and things will work themselves out’ didn’t work for the first year. Perhaps it’s time to be a little more critical.

I can’t think of a single reason for someone to make a new Ranger today. If you can then preach on brother.

Atherakhia.4086:

Prysin.8542:

Atherakhia.4086:

Cufufalating.8479:

I wouldnt have any problem with pets being forced on us if ANet was willing to put in the time to make them work properly and effectively, but since Jon has essentially told us he knows they dont work as well as they could/should but they arent going to fix it any time soon.. they really should consider reducing their part in the rangers playstyle.

This has been my complaint as well. I want pets gone simply because ANet can’t be bothered to get them working in the first place. If they could get them to the point players were happy with them I’d be fine with them being a part of this class. But given they have the same problems they had a year ago, ANet has made it blatantly obvious in the other thread that pets aren’t on their radar, and pets are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this failure of a class, I’d say it’s time to wave the white flag.

Ather, May i ask how many “ok folks its time to quit” posts you have made now???
I mean no offense, but, if you gonna spread doom and gloom, could you just silently reroll something and not ruin the mood for everyone?
If you could, thank you.

I haven’t said I’d reroll to my knowledge. I have one of most classes and I still come back to this class. But I’m also not an ANet apologist like many on this forum. Feel free to label me a pessimist if you must, but your attitude of ‘lets just have faith and things will work themselves out’ didn’t work for the first year. Perhaps it’s time to be a little more critical.

I can’t think of a single reason for someone to make a new Ranger today. If you can then preach on brother.

Newbies or people who want to “catch em all!” with classes? It’s pretty well accepted and known that Rangers have handicaps in pve and WvW so most every veteran of the game isn’t going to make one for any serious gameplay.

Ryan.9387:

I think the simplest solution to your problem is this,

Don’t play Ranger.

While I respect your frankness, the problem with this is that there are many character archetypes contained within the Ranger class that don’t fit the theming of any other class. So I want to play a rugged wilderness survivor, but I don’t want to pet. What am I left with? Nothing. I don’t really think that’s an optimal situation. Pets should always be an optional component of any class unless the entire class concept revolves around pets (like say a puppetmaster class).

Einlanzer.1627:

Ryan.9387:

I think the simplest solution to your problem is this,

Don’t play Ranger.

While I respect your frankness, the problem with this is that there are many character archetypes contained within the Ranger class that don’t fit the theming of any other class. So I want to play a rugged wilderness survivor, but I don’t want to pet. What am I left with? Nothing. I don’t really think that’s an optimal situation. Pets should always be an optional component of any class unless the entire class concept revolves around pets (like say a puppetmaster class).

If all the classes would have (an option for) pets, ranger would be more useless than it already is. In pve my pet is the key of my survivability. Without it I would die and I would be useless.
Warriors and guardians already have huge hits and hp and survivability. Addidng a pet to that would make them immortal in PvE.

I don’t have a problem with the pet myself, but I haven’t been in a dungeon/fractal yet, so I might change my mind.

Ryan.9387:

I think the simplest solution to your problem is this,

Don’t play Ranger.

Some of us just want to play a Ranger, me included, in fact I only have one character a Ranger since the head start.

I hate the pet, and I don’t think they will ever fix it, but I don’t think they will admit to that and will continue to force us to play with a pet.

The problem as I see it is people will just go off and play a Ranger elsewhere, a Ranger that gives them the options they are looking for.

Ryan.9387:

I think the simplest solution to your problem is this,

Don’t play Ranger.

I think the simplest solution to your reaction is this:

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Ranger_02_concept_art.jpg

Oh yes sir, a anger with a bow. That’s how ANet sees the ranger and describes the ranger. A Master of the bow, and as long as we are not masters of the bow, why should we be forced to be masters of the Beasts? That’s not logical. I really feel the need to play the bows, because that’s what ANet describes as best for me, and I really want to use my pets, but I can’t because my pets are instant dead and my bows are useles. The problem is, I have put time money and effort into the ranger, because I believed in ANet and their description. Now I have to realize that they cheated on me. I guess that ANet has a step by step plan to erase the ranger from the game. The ranger being already useless in pave dungeons and world boss fights, now will become useless in pvp to, and after that they will step by step erase all of the ranged abilities of the ranger and reinvent the ranger as a warrior whit a instant dying pett.

If they gave me an option to just switch my class , i would do it in an instant . I love the ranger , hell i even like the feel of having a pet with me . The problem is , IT DOES NOT WORK PROPERLY . In harder dungeons i am handicapped , in WvW i am handicapped . In living story content… oh boy am i handicapped , remember aetherblade retreat ?

Just make the godkitten pet invulnerable to damage but unable to take agro . There , problem freeking solved

Don’t forget ascended gear scaling, wvw rank buffs and all those lovely statistical buffs that give us less benefit compared to other classes.

Oh and also gameplay mechanics that completely nullify the class core mechanic. (I’m looking at you Arah p2 end boss and Aether retreat.

Medens.4960:

Einlanzer.1627:

Ryan.9387:

I think the simplest solution to your problem is this,

Don’t play Ranger.

While I respect your frankness, the problem with this is that there are many character archetypes contained within the Ranger class that don’t fit the theming of any other class. So I want to play a rugged wilderness survivor, but I don’t want to pet. What am I left with? Nothing. I don’t really think that’s an optimal situation. Pets should always be an optional component of any class unless the entire class concept revolves around pets (like say a puppetmaster class).

If all the classes would have (an option for) pets, ranger would be more useless than it already is. In pve my pet is the key of my survivability. Without it I would die and I would be useless.
Warriors and guardians already have huge hits and hp and survivability. Addidng a pet to that would make them immortal in PvE.

I don’t have a problem with the pet myself, but I haven’t been in a dungeon/fractal yet, so I might change my mind.

You misinterpreted my post. I wasn’t saying all classes should be able to have pets, I was saying that pets should always be optional for any class that has them.

The theme of the class is about pets. Its our unique mechanic, like it or not.

Kilger.5490:

The theme of the class is about pets. Its our unique mechanic, like it or not.

Then they really should have kept the name of Beastmaster on the class. The class is actually a mix of the ideas of Warden, Beastmaster, and Archer. It’s why our traitlines feel so out of place and why we’re slightly awkward to play as in high level content…Anet combined 3 classes without ever completely making sure things worked.

RyuDragnier.9476:

Kilger.5490:

The theme of the class is about pets. Its our unique mechanic, like it or not.

Then they really should have kept the name of Beastmaster on the class. The class is actually a mix of the ideas of Warden, Beastmaster, and Archer. It’s why our traitlines feel so out of place and why we’re slightly awkward to play as in high level content…Anet combined 3 classes without ever completely making sure things worked.

Dude, a true Beastmaster would be awesome. Like a necro minion master but rather than it being a single build, being what the whole profession is about. Have up to 3 beasts out at a time, an elite beast, variable and responsive control over them, spells designed around the beasts. All personal skills would be defensive or movement in nature: evasion, repositioning, vigor, regen, etc. Skills like spike trap & muddy terrain and pet shouts would remain as ways to “get in the fight” and kite enemies. Build choices would be defensive (lotsa bears) tanking damage, cleansing conditions, chilling foes; offensive (cats/birds) bleeding, spiking, blinding; and supportive (spiders, moas) setting up poison fields, fury, might, and regen.

I don’t care either.

Although i start caring if these reduntant complaint voices eventually do make them get rid of the pet. Then where’s my favourite profession going to?

You’ve read people enjoying the added layer of managining the pet in combat. So for the 100th time, leave my profession alone and switch to another that don’t cause you such grief. It’s like you love to hate.

ITT, we learn that if it’s broke, don’t fix it because someone likes the broken mechanics…. that’s just hilarious.

Ryan.9387:

I think the simplest solution to your problem is this,

Don’t play Ranger.

while this may sound harsh, this is exactly what I did.
since I rerolled bow warrior I had a great time (until I quit because PvP is just dull in gw2 ^^)

Ariete.6509:

I don’t care either.

Although i start caring if these reduntant complaint voices eventually do make them get rid of the pet. Then where’s my favourite profession going to?

You’ve read people enjoying the added layer of managining the pet in combat. So for the 100th time, leave my profession alone and switch to another that don’t cause you such grief. It’s like you love to hate.

Its not about losing the Pet… it’s about choice, you want a beastmaster with pets thats great, we want a Ranger with no pet, both choice should be viable, especially with how unusable they are..

And to those that say you cannot survive without a pet? complete hogwash, totally false think to yourselves how much are your pets dead in game, for me its nearly all the time, the only difference is without a pet i wont get slowed down so much..

My build will have no issues surviving without the thing, i think i’d be a lot better off, i’ll even take the damage loss please..such as it is..

Why would you choose to use a class with a pet as their profession mechanic if you don’t want a pet? Serious question, because I am super confused. That’s like wanting to play a guardian but in light armor and only using duel pistols.

Fluffball.8307:

Why would you choose to use a class with a pet as their profession mechanic if you don’t want a pet? Serious question, because I am super confused. That’s like wanting to play a guardian but in light armor and only using duel pistols.

Because it’s a Ranger, and Rangers have a long history in films, games, D&D and much more.

And we Rangers want to play a Ranger, as we have done in every other game we have played.

And because it’s about choices, to choose when we use a pet, to choose when we want to wear town clothes, not for the pet or armour to pop out whenever we stub our toe on a twig.

It’s just called a ranger though. You can make a thief or warrior and roleplay it as though it were a lone wolf Aragorn type guy. Both of them can use a bow and duel wield melee weapons with no pet. Aragorn was a ranger in the sense of one who ranges/roams, he might as well have been the thief class or warrior class. (Eventually he became a guardian too!)

Would anyone complain if you were able to rename the profession of a warrior you rolled to “warden” and kept everything else totally identical?

They create the class first, then apply a name, this is where your confusion lies. This class is the obligatory pet class for gw2. It could have been called beastmaster or warden but they went with Ranger.

I know ranger can mean many different things, its not mandatory to make it a range or a pet class. However in this game it is. Every class in gw2 has a class mechanic, and ours is the pet. Therefore it is not going away.

Dont get hung up on the name.

Again, i have no problem with the pet . I have a problem with HOW the pet works , or does not work and atm IT DOES NOT WORK . When your main mechanic is a burden instead of a boon then you have a major problem

JonPeters.5630:

Summoned creature AI is a different can of worms that we aren’t opening for the same reason. Pets that delay F2 use isn’t some wait script we put into their skills it has to do with core AI behavior shared by all pets and creatures and how they decide tasks. Rewriting that has the risks of breaking millions of unknown things so we have up until now band aided the solution. It is something that needs addressing but won’t be addressed until we can kitten how and when we will test it.

Well, I mean a pretty ghetto way of fixing it would be to increase the base speed of pets and the range of their attacks (so they can hit moving targets)

Then, make F2 work as a shout through us. I use Sic’ Em, the pet gets sick em. So, if I cast “Howl” to pet gets “Howl”, etc.

Why make it work through the pets, when we can have it work through us?

That being said, the pet aspect makes total sense to me. I love the idea of the pet. I think the damage should be more on the ranger (unless you go beastmaster), but eh.

Fluffball.8307:

Why would you choose to use a class with a pet as their profession mechanic if you don’t want a pet? Serious question, because I am super confused. That’s like wanting to play a guardian but in light armor and only using duel pistols.

In GW1 the ranger could play with or without the pet. If you wanted to play with the pet, you loaded the comfort animal skill which doubled as your revive pet skill, and you’d have a pet. If you wanted to play without the pet, you simply loaded a different skill. That made play-balancing really easy. A pet should have as much usefulness as a utility skill slot.

Lots of players complained they wanted to play a ranger with a pet, but didn’t want to be forced to give up a skill slot for it. So in GW2 that’s exactly what Anet gave us.

Now players are finding out that it’s not as great as they thought it would be. But it’s too late for Anet to go back and revamp the ranger to make the pet optional again – it’s hard-coded in with the F1-F4 abilities.

Fluffball.8307:

Why would you choose to use a class with a pet as their profession mechanic if you don’t want a pet? Serious question, because I am super confused. That’s like wanting to play a guardian but in light armor and only using duel pistols.

I don’t understand how people don’t get this. It’s like they’re only capable of thinking in gamist terms. Let me try again-

The Ranger is about more than the pet – ruggedness, survival, archery, etc. It has a unique theme even without the pet that no other class has. The fact that you can’t get the Ranger’s theme without being saddled with a pet that doesn’t even function that well is annoying. The pet should be optional.

The ranger’s theme is what you give it based on books/movies, or from their skill names, many of which are based around animals. Anet can’t control the former, and the latter indicates the class uses a pet.

I personally think they should have called thieves “rogues” or something similar and it would have cleared up a lot of these name problems.

If you can’t grasp the fact that the LEAD GAME DESIGNER said the PET MECHANIC is FARKING BROKEN and NOT FIXING IT any time SOON. There is no hope for you. You obviously want to play a toon with the class mechanic as a HANDICAP. I and many other do not.

Since there is going to be NO FIXING THE PET ANYTIME SOON there is NO REASON NOT TO WANT the class mechanic TO BE MADE OPTIONAL. Get over your kitten. That way people who might want, I don’t know, PREPARATIONS can use them (like in GW1) and people who want the pet can use the broken mechanic.

Feel free to rage all you want, but the lead game designer also said the ranger is GW2s pet class, and pet’s are what define it. It’s never going to go away.

The “ostriches” (players that are content with playing a class with a broken
gimmick) are quick to offer others a workaround.
A workaround implies that something is not working as intended.
Sooooo, just admit something is actually causing people a bit of frustration.

Some players actually “get it.”
Others – the ostriches – say, “Roll a different class.”

It’s nothing wrong with wanting things to function properly.

I would welcome Preparations on the F keys.

Bran.7425:

JonPeters.5630:

Summoned creature AI is a different can of worms that we aren’t opening for the same reason. Pets that delay F2 use isn’t some wait script we put into their skills it has to do with core AI behavior shared by all pets and creatures and how they decide tasks. Rewriting that has the risks of breaking millions of unknown things so we have up until now band aided the solution. It is something that needs addressing but won’t be addressed until we can kitten how and when we will test it.

I hate that quote so much, because my summarized version looks like “we understand that we implemented the pet poorly, but until now, we had more pressing things to attend to because fixing the pets are much too hard and we would rather aim for the lowest hanging fruit possible like changing the colors of Jellyfish. We won’t be testing any solutions for this until all other options for us have been expended, but in the meantime, we will do our best to continue to put band aid fixes on the problem as we can.”

Medens.4960:

Einlanzer.1627:

Ryan.9387:

I think the simplest solution to your problem is this,

Don’t play Ranger.

While I respect your frankness, the problem with this is that there are many character archetypes contained within the Ranger class that don’t fit the theming of any other class. So I want to play a rugged wilderness survivor, but I don’t want to pet. What am I left with? Nothing. I don’t really think that’s an optimal situation. Pets should always be an optional component of any class unless the entire class concept revolves around pets (like say a puppetmaster class).

If all the classes would have (an option for) pets, ranger would be more useless than it already is. In pve my pet is the key of my survivability. Without it I would die and I would be useless.

This is an L2P issue pertaining to reliance on pets, then. I have no problems soloing content without mine despite the fact I take 67% longer to kill mobs. I also run a full LB/SB pure zerker archer. Give me the damage I lose from the pet and I’ll gladly one-up anyone because I’ve been playing and maining squishy DPS archers in games for over a decade.

Medens.4960:

Warriors and guardians already have huge hits and hp and survivability. Addidng a pet to that would make them immortal in PvE.

I don’t have a problem with the pet myself, but I haven’t been in a dungeon/fractal yet, so I might change my mind.

If they lose 40% of their damage for summoning a pet like the ranger does, I see no problem. So they’re tanky in PvE. Okay, cool. WvW the pets still get blasted. Major bosses the pets still get blasted. Dungeon runs and pets get blasted. Serious SPvP the pets get ignored because the ranger is running bunker spirits, anyways. If Warriors/Guards lose 40% of their damage, they can’t burst anyone down. All I see coming from this would just make them tankier in PvE at the expense of their own damage. This is the problem the ranger faces that people actively don’t like. I don’t need that gimmicky mechanic to stay alive and avoid hits. What I do need is the damage to actually kill my target so that I’m not just endlessly running away because I know I cannot kill anything else. Ranger has nothing to bring to the table for staying alive except for healing spring, so it’s not like building hyper-tank is even worthwhile just because that spot could be so much better-used by a real support/tank class running with a pet.

I don’t see why people contest the idea of stowing the pet for a damage increase. People like myself just want to play the game like they want to – as an archer – and no other class offers the experience. Either they need to give another class the longbow, like the thief (all rangers will re-roll lol), create a whole new class (near impossible), or actually fix and allow the choice of removing the pet for the damage lost.

There’s nothing to argue, here. Pets are amazing in open world PvE and allow for easy soloing of almost anything. ANet wants more build diversity, and people want to play in a way that is simply not offered. Pet AI/skill delay fixes are a literal impossibility as stated by JP in the Dec 10 thread, for client-side animations/skill use would allow for people to hack skills for damage and therefore have infinite skill spamming potential.

Nobody’s asking to remove pets. People just want to play an archer without one for both stylistic choices and because the mechanic doesn’t function in some scenarios.

Fluffball.8307:

It’s just called a ranger though. You can make a thief or warrior and roleplay it as though it were a lone wolf Aragorn type guy. Both of them can use a bow and duel wield melee weapons with no pet. Aragorn was a ranger in the sense of one who ranges/roams, he might as well have been the thief class or warrior class. (Eventually he became a guardian too!)

Would anyone complain if you were able to rename the profession of a warrior you rolled to “warden” and kept everything else totally identical?

Double post but whatever.

Nobody really cares what it’s called, honestly. There’s simply no alternative archer class. People say ‘Go play sb thief or LB warrior then" all the time, and almost every person who says it has not played either warrior, thief, or ranger. Reality is sb thief comes close, but it’s in no way viable as a build. It also suffers from a huge problem in that every autoattack always AOE’s, and your damage radius is shorter than most casters’. Kinda silly to play as an archer when you have no distinct range advantage.

For LB warrior, it’s a whole different ball game. You’re playing a heavy that shoots fireballs. Go ahead and try it. I think it plays more like ele than anything else. Not to mention power/precision builds simply do not work in this case, and you effectively just become a condi tank.

That’s really the critical factor, here. Rangers’ description states that the pet distracts the target while the ranger shoots the target down with devastating ranged attacks. Funny how those devastating ranged attacks are in fact not devastating, nor are they even ranged if a ranger is trying to build in any viable way.

So as mentioned above, either put LB on thief or ele (could be really cool tbh), or create a new class altogether and make ranger the dedicated pet class it rightfully should be, or simply allow for pets to be disabled.

There’s an easy fix among them that would prevent a lot of unnecessary complications, too, like people wasting efforts on a class they really didn’t want to play and being forced to reroll into another, and the likes.

That’s what this issue is really about. It’s not about rangers being upset that the class mechanic is pets, but them being upset there’s no archer alternative in the entire game worth playing.

That’s a huge shortcoming on ANet’s part, considering they basically just told a massive chunk of players under the pretense they would be able to play a viable archer (based again on flavor text and class description) to “deal with it and we’re not catering to you.” Does that sound like good management/design? Absolutely not.

Tako.7894:

Ryan.9387:

I think the simplest solution to your problem is this,

Don’t play Ranger.

I think the simplest solution to your reaction is this:

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Ranger_02_concept_art.jpg

Hold it!

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Juvenile_Hawk.jpg

Warriors have adrenaline skills. Mesmers have clones.

Rangers were always going to be a pet class. You came into the game knowing that. They’re working on our problems. There are problems.

But rangers will always have pets.

They’re not going away. We’re as likely to lose our pets as mesmers are to lose their phantasms and clones, or warriors are to lose their adrenaline mechanic.

Take it or leave it.

CETheLucid.3964:

Tako.7894:

Ryan.9387:

I think the simplest solution to your problem is this,

Don’t play Ranger.

I think the simplest solution to your reaction is this:

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Ranger_02_concept_art.jpg

Hold it!

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Juvenile_Hawk.jpg

Warriors have adrenaline skills. Mesmers have clones.

Rangers were always going to be a pet class. You came into the game knowing that. They’re working on our problems. There are problems.

But rangers will always have pets.

They’re not going away. We’re as likely to lose our pets as mesmers are to lose their phantasms and clones, or warriors are to lose their adrenaline mechanic.

Take it or leave it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV28ZEJOZfQ

It’s funny, because the class description implies that archery is just as important of a role as having a pet.

Quoted from the class description:

Rangers are flexible and durable—proficient with the bow, yet surgical with the sword. They rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature to slay their targets. Their loyal pets, which rangers tame and train, distract enemies while the rangers strike safely from a distance.

Also note that the book “The Making of Guild Wars 2” even explicitly states that the ranger is actually a hodge-podge of class ideas that never properly made it to the game. Stating that their current design as a dedicated beastmaster is some kind of master design is just factually incorrect. Pets became their mechanic because it was the only thing that made them stand out properly next to other classes.

Again, people are not so much anti-pet but against pet dependency and how much it inhibits people, as well as how there’s no alternative.

Pets dealing only a minimal portion of our damage would just be overpowered (it used to be this way in beta) because then the ranger shells out normal DPS with tons of extra utility and an aggro magnet.

It’s gotta be one or the other. What I don’t understand is why the ranger cannot be rewarded for not using his pet. Thematically, the damage reduction also even make sense, because when hunting with a pet, one must be more careful as to not kill his own animal. Take the pet out of consideration and one can be much more liberal with shots.

Not to mention that you only take a hunting pet when it’s necessary. I don’t know of many big-game hunters who use retrievers to help fetch or kill targets. Go moose hunting and have your dog try and kill it. Likely you’ll see your dog get gored into many small fragments spewing blood and guts everywhere. Last I checked, people who like their pets prefer not to send them on suicide missions.

There are some issues with the ranger, there’s no arguing about that. But the major problem, when it comes to most of you, is that you’re just bad, bad rangers.

DeceiverX.8361:

All that jazz

TL;DR
buff bow, no pet is better, srs real life example and so that is why my fantasy video games shouldn’t let us use pets in most situations.

You’re entitled to your opinion there but the fact is, pet’s aren’t going anywhere. Bow has been getting buffed every balance update, due another this next one.

Marksmanship/archery is very important to the ranger class. They’re not ignoring it. There will also be something there for pets. Maybe.

It probably won’t be your “everything about pets is perfect now” fix though. That’s very likely going to happen over time. Unless suddenly awesome.

And even when that does happen eventually, Rangers will still have pets that need to be managed to be effective.

If that’s not for you, you should move on.

That is the main problem though . The pet CANNOT be managed to be effective . There is massive delay in its ability casting and AI issues . The pet is far more likely to not do what you have told it to then the opposite . Usually its just click and pray . We dont even have say in when pets use 66% of their abilities . It is just sad

I had an idea some months ago that was based on changing the ranger’s mechanic and still having the pet.

The main change to the pets would have been that they are not as permanent, but are there when you fight and are more by themselves.

The four F button would be changed into Stances
Each stance gives a bonus either on expiration, activation or both.
Each stance activation adds a few seconds CD to other stances and a fixed CD to itself (which is same for every stance)
When a stance expires or activates, a pet is spawned for the duration of the same stance’s CD.
The pet menu would be revamped so that you can config 4 pets for each stance.

Persistent effects for stances can be in the sorts of:
Gaining damage reduction, gaining camouflage when standing still, faster fire rate, faster movement speed, bonus to pets etc…

Activation effects besides spawning pet can be in the sorts of:
Gain stealth, health, fury or other boons. Condition removal or condition transform, next hit does something, next something amount of damage is reflected etc

Expiration effects and conditions besides spawning pet can be in the sorts of:
Use a skill – next hit stuns, explodes, pierces, steals health, applies condition or is a critical
Get hit – gain swiftness, might, fury or other boons.

Since Rangers are all about adapting, the effects of Activations, Expiration and Persistencies can all depends on what kind of stats the ranger has which would contribute to many different playstyles because the ranger can mix stats so that two stats’ superiority depends on the weapon.

E.g. I have greatsword which causes my toughness to be above the other stat and an activation or expiration of a stance gives me something protective. I can then swap to my other weapon which causes the other stance to give me swiftness.

The stances can be made so that they have different effects out of combat and in combat. This already contributes to 2 playstyles; One where the player uses the stances and puts them on CD to prepare for a fight to deliver a strong blow and one where the player uses stances depending on the situation while fighting.

Now, placing points in different traitlines will have different effects on the stances. Everyone will have a small part of beastmastery but everyone can be a beastmaster but putting points in the BM traitline and therefore upgrading the pets because the bestmaster part of the stances are being upgraded.

The BM traitline can then be changed a lot, with traits that transform you into one of your pets when you have 3 pets summoned or sharing your stats with your pets (makes you weaker, them stronger) or using pets as decoys that give you bonuses when they get hit.

The fixed traits in BM would be generally useful for each type of beastmastery but the free traits would specialize into one type at the Adept level. The type can then be enhanced in different ways at the Master level and will gain a huge bonus at the Master level.

Basically, BM can be divided into two types: Defensive and Offensive = Decoys (deals no damage) and Real (deals normal damage). Those can, since there are 4 master traits, be divided into two types each. Offensive Decoy/Real or Defensive Decoy/Real
Examples:
Real Offensive leads to you sharing your offensive stats with them
Real Defensive leads to you sharing damage (or defensive stats) with the pets.

Decoy Offensive leads to your pets giving you offensive boons when they get damaged
Decoy Defensive leads to your pets giving you defensive boons when they get damaged (This doesn’t mean they will give you hundreds of boons, don’t be stupid)

That’s all I could come up with in 10 minutes without thinking much.
Pets would require huge amounts of rebalancing, same goes for traits and skill coefficients.

This idea was not inspired by anything, I just got the idea all of a sudden.

^^^

Interesting idea with stances, but I think any change would have to fit into the framework of the pet system. They arent going to change that much code for us, its not worth it for them.

Maybe a trait that buffs you when switching to a specific pet type would accomplish some of that, you’d tailor the buff (stance) by selecting certain pet type (dog/bird/etc), kind of like elementalists get buff by what attunement they switch to. They have something in there where the pet gets buffed by f2, why not you?

I can deal with the pet, its the fact that the bows aren’t closer to being the best DPS that I dislike. The pet F2 is blah in comparison to me.

Disagree here, its a pet class the only problem is that the pets are unreliable in terms of timing. Can’t tell you how many times my pet has canceled his f2 skill because I had to dodge roll two feet away, then it’s on CD and I’m SOL.