Guild Wars 2

Alright, so I just had this weird, possibly interesting idea. We have two pets, but only one exists at a time. I would like to change that. I know people are trying to have less pets, I want to have more. I want both my pets to be active at the same time, but in two different roles.

The active pet will work the same as is currently the case. It will attack, use F2, all the normal jazz. The passive pet will stay by your side. It may use a different set of buffs, or do nothing, either way, but it will gain direct use of the F3 key for a unique buff or support skill. The passive pet is invulnerable, so even if you’ve swapped and both your pets are out of the fight the F3 key will always do something beneficial.

The current functionality of the F3 key will go to the flip side of F1. Currently if you want your pet to attack you hit F1, if you want it to attack something else you target something else and hit F1 again and if you want it to stop you hit F3. In this case you would hit F1 locking it on, attack would become return, then you hit F1 again to bring it back. F1 basically becomes a toggle.

All pets would gain a new power. If the pet’s current power is a support power they would gain a new power relevant to combat. If the pet’s current power is combat based they would gain a new power relevant to support. All Porcine pets would get two new powers because the power they all share in common is stupid.

Downed power 3 will still summon your active pet, because it would just be entirely unfair to have your invulnerable pet healing you while your other pet is still doing stuff.

There’s only one thing I can say about your idea: NO!

why no? i think its actually a good idea… swapping pets between active/passive with f4 and passive pet could be used to pump put some sweet group wide buffs. This way Anet could keep their Ranger Philosophy and we would have this “aspect”-kind of thing many people are asking for. I think its a good idea +1 from me

What I wanted to say is: How about no!
How much I would like to see it, pets in Guild Wars 2 aren’t the same as in for example Rappelz. (Which is centered around different kinds of pets etc.) Because of the simplistic skill-interface pets currently have it’s hard enough to use 1 pet let alone use 2. A second pet summoned in my opinion defeats the purpose of having it summoned when the cooldown on the f4 skill is only like 10 seconds if I can recall.

So no for me. 10 seconds isn’t that big of a deal to just use a pet for it’s buffs. Each class is balanced enough to be able to combine skills that will give you a certain playstyle. Build your ranger around a certain pet if you want to have DPS or have good party buffs. You can’t excel in both at the same time. Would make Rangers OP sending a jaguar and jungle stalker on someones kitten xD

MangoMonkey.7582:

What I wanted to say is: How about no!
How much I would like to see it, pets in Guild Wars 2 aren’t the same as in for example Rappelz. (Which is centered around different kinds of pets etc.) Because of the simplistic skill-interface pets currently have it’s hard enough to use 1 pet let alone use 2. A second pet summoned in my opinion defeats the purpose of having it summoned when the cooldown on the f4 skill is only like 10 seconds if I can recall.

So no for me. 10 seconds isn’t that big of a deal to just use a pet for it’s buffs. Each class is balanced enough to be able to combine skills that will give you a certain playstyle. Build your ranger around a certain pet if you want to have DPS or have good party buffs. You can’t excel in both at the same time. Would make Rangers OP sending a jaguar and jungle stalker on someones kitten xD

you did not read the post did you?
one pet is active (like our normal pets atm) and the other one is passive (no attacking just standing there being invulnerable) and giving some buffs for the ranger and maybe his teammates. one pet attacks and works exactlay like our petes now and the other one is the “Aspect” of a pet many people wanted to have. Just a moving bnuff station if you want so. no dmg dealt by it and no damage taken, maybe not evebn targetable

i already suggested something like this 6 months ago. People didn’t like it then, and i can see why.

How about an Elite skill that summon a second pet?

So basically you just want another traited spirit, except invincible and without a cool down?

There are plenty of elite skills that summon additional pets. If you rock a Human Ranger with spirits, Hounds of Balthazar, and a hyena, you can have up to 8 of those furry little guys running around.

No, I don’t like that idea about having 2 pets out at the same time…. Have been suggested Before from others.

Prysin.8542:

i already suggested something like this 6 months ago. People didn’t like it then, and i can see why.

I knew it would not be liked, I just thought of it while reading the after CDI thread and wanted to put it in writing. I’m actually amazed I got as much conversation as I did, as opposed to outright dismissal.

Tman.6349:

So basically you just want another traited spirit, except invincible and without a cool down?

It would work somewhat like a spirit, yes, except it would swap out since it’s whichever of your two pets is inactive. It would also be more reliable that spirits. The idea of having passive buffs, though, was only a possible if it wouldn’t become over powered. The main thing is the ready availability of one of two support buffs depending on which pet is inactive at the time. But it would still be on cooldown, since it’s an F-key ability. It would be shorter than a spirit cooldown, but the buff would most likely be less too. I’ve never really taken the time to compare pet F2 buffs to spirit active powers.

Or… since it’s invulnerable, it’s not targetable, which makes more sense.

Yes, I’m asking for another buff or utility, but I’m giving a reason for it to exist that fits the intended design of the class without taking up important skill or trait slots. Also, if you bothered to read fully you’d understand that I didn’t add any slots. F1-4 is finite, so the idea has to fall in line, without removing any functionality, which I accomplished.

I also hate the “pokeball” aspect of pet swapping. One pet just vanishes from existence and the other appears from nowhere. In this case it becomes more like a tag team. The one pet comes to your side while the other jumps out into the fray.

One more Reef Drake (I use this one because it’s the largest pet available to us) on screen, or even twenty, isn’t actually going to make that much difference. Not any more than having a horde of minions around Necros. The only actual problem this would cause is that everyone would know at a glance what our backup pet is, and can plan accordingly. This is a very limited problem, if it’s actually a problem at all.

I am saying you are adding a slot in the aspect that f3 becomes a utility or buff from the passive pet. One that was not already in existence. Which again is not really needed, whats needed are pets reworked to where they actually stay alive long enough for us to use them properly.

While you are right about necros more clutter on the screen means more lag for people in WvW in zergs. (No I have a decent computer so it wouldn’t affect me, but it would to a lot of others who are no so fortunate).. What you are wanting could very well be achieved with an added food buff that’s just for rangers or a added buff on the one pet we do get, that even while the pet is disabled is still active.

Having two pets out at the same time, while being more realistic is just silly. Especially in terms of whats really needed is the original pets reworked to do the damage its supposedly supposed to do while staying alive long enough to do so.

Oddoad.5478:

whats needed are pets reworked to where they actually stay alive long enough for us to use them properly.

Sorry, but these are not mutually exclusive. Having the passive pet would not impact the functionality of the active pet, as such the active pet would still need this if the passive pet existed or not. This statement and any argument related to it has no place in this discussion and is not relevant.

Yes, there are always other ways to do things. This isn’t a proposal, it’s an idea. This is the way I would like to do it if it were to be done at all.

You misunderstand, The idea is a proposal. But regardless I am giving my own, I am saying there is no need for us to have yet another skill slot, instead fix the slots and skills we have, our current objective shouldn’t be to add more room for failure to our class but to instead fix the class from within and fix the mechanics that are currently not at optimal standards.

Adding another skill slot does nothing but give us more work an tries to cover up the underlying issue of the class not working at the standards of other classes.

Oddoad.5478:

You misunderstand, The idea is a proposal. But regardless I am giving my own, I am saying there is no need for us to have yet another skill slot, instead fix the slots and skills we have, our current objective shouldn’t be to add more room for failure to our class but to instead fix the class from within and fix the mechanics that are currently not at optimal standards.

Adding another skill slot does nothing but give us more work an tries to cover up the underlying issue of the class not working at the standards of other classes.

And I’m saying I’m not interfering with that goal. That should be the case period. The Ranger needs to be fixed in a lot of ways. That’s not relevant to other ways the class can be improved or change or added to in general.

Your arguments cause the implication that to have this would take away from fixing the class. When it has nothing to do with that. It’s not like ANet read this thread and went, “Eureka! If we do this we can scrap all the rest of it. Get on that, now.” If they read it at all they would just note it as another Pet related thing and either say consider it as an interesting take on further class improvements to be examined at some time and possibly be worked into things they’re already doing, or ignored because who cares.

It does not impact class fixes. It does not impact current functionality, nor the direction ANet wants to go with the class. It would involve one button, that is right next to a button that you should already be using fairly regularly, so that’s not a huge leap in skill nor effort. Your complaints are not valid, which is beginning to be a trend I’m seeing. Your only valid and reasonable argument is that the same thing could be done without a pet, but since it amounts to the same thing but different it’s more of a nonissue than an argument.

No my argument is that its silly and irrational to think that this idea is plausible and or needed in any way. Why would we need yet another skill slot to further our class or make it better?

My counter argument is that instead of doing this, and adding yet another button or skill slot for us to use, is to instead get the class to run as it is supposed to, make the current pet worthwhile, and to fix the class from the current skills and opportunities we have.

I understand that adding this wouldn’t affect the current class fixes, but it adds yet another thing on the plate of the ranger that is unneeded. And is only considered so because the class is currently messed up as is. So your idea that my complaints are not valid are so far fetched as to be as funny as this ridiculously stupid idea.

Which is a non-argument, so whatever. You don’t like it, I get it. I knew most wouldn’t, for a variety of reasons.

But no, my interest in this idea has nothing to do with the current state of the ranger. If the ranger was working as intended and well balanced I might still have bought this out. It adds different functionality than current exists with the ranger, which could be fun to work with.

Unless you plan to bring something different than the last three posts, which all say the same thing, though, I think this has run its course.

Mechanic? No.

Elite? yes.