(edited by Rinse.6094)
[Idea] Pet Training Panel: More Pet Control
Well, it’s a bit complicated… and you already do something like that in game.
What would be great isn’t something really complicated. What would be great would be that they allow us to disable some pet skills so that the pet just don’t use them. With this, no more devourer fleeing, no more bird wasting time casting useless quickness, controle over some skill that we could want them not to use. We were able to do it in GW1 for the heros, is this to much to ask?
This would already relieve a lot of the pain due to the pet behavior.
(edited by Dadnir.5038)
Ai, it was not meant to be complicated at all.
There are only 1 + 4 questions, and they already exist hardcoded into the game.
This system would just allow Rangers to have a little bit more control.
I think your suggestion is also a great one pivoting around the same idea: more control. Disabling certain attacks on certain pets should indeed go a long way making certain pets more viable but it does not address some more general problems with pet behavior.
There are only 1 + 4 questions, and they already exist hardcoded into the game.
Just wondering, What do you mean with this?
In any case although i see your point and could solve some of the problems with the instances it wouldn’t solve the problem with the pets.
Here i expose some changes to pet pet system to fix the problem of the AI and also the instances probelm.
I won’t copy paste all the information here but basically i point out we have now 2 instances that are insufficient.
I suggest to make 4: Offensive, Defensive, Protective, Passive. The player could rotate them each time the click in the instance mode (A keybind would be nice) in that order to simplify the development.
Also some changes in the AI to actually make the pet to be aware of the surroundings. The pet somehow remind me to a noob that hit all the buttons as soon as they comes out of the cooldown, making the pet to waste too many opportunities.
Now that the new AI implement an supposed easy way to include decision trees to the mobs, do this for the pet should be easy enough.
Also change the shouts to become some sort of command/instances where the pet obtain some passive directives/buffs when those are active. So we can have more control about the role we want for the pet: Do we want the pet to be aggressive? Or we’d like the pet to play a more protecting role?
Although your ideas are really good i think in this case it wouldn’t solve the core problem with the pet.
You are right, these changes dont change the core problems with the pets but it’s definitely is a step in the right direction. Pets are to complex and flawed to be fixed with such a simple suggestion unfortunately..
There are only 1 + 4 questions, and they already exist hardcoded into the game.
Just wondering, What do you mean with this?
I suggest a system in which you can cater you pets combat behavior by answering the questions in my OP. For mode A you have to answer 5 (4 + 1) questions that set how a pet should react in combat and if this preset should change with your pet swap. At this moment you only have got 2 choices:
- Avoid combat, the pet has a leach of 3000 range (right?), and the pet always uses his fourth skill when swapped into combat.
- Guard, "" "" "".
I just want some more control over how my pets react as 2 modes for the entire game (instanced PvE, non instanced PvE, sPvP, WvW, GvG) just doesn’t cut it..
I had not yet read your previous post but what you are suggesting is acctually achievable in the system I am suggesting (although different in execution).
I shall give an example:
Should the pet attack when I get attacked
- No
Should the pet attack when I attack - Yes
This script now does the same as your suggestion for your ‘Attack’.
Answer the first question with Yes and the second question with No and you have the same script for your ‘Protect’ suggestion. Answer both with Yes and you get ‘Offensive’ etc.
And also, I completely agree with you about the AI changes, those should already have been implemented IMHO.