Guild Wars 2

So I think a really great tweak to the ranger class would be to change the way stow pet button works. I propose something like this:

Stow Pet – Pet no longer automatically comes out upon entering combat. While pet is stowed, Ranger gets +15% damage.

That’s basically it. I think this would encourage more/different builds and also solve a lot of problems people have with pets at the moment.

I don’t like this idea. Keep pets mandatory for Rangers, but allow them to stow during combat.

Dutch Master.7208:

So I think a really great tweak to the ranger class would be to change the way stow pet button works. I propose something like this:

Stow Pet – Pet no longer automatically comes out upon entering combat. While pet is stowed, Ranger gets +15% damage.

That’s basically it. I think this would encourage more/different builds and also solve a lot of problems people have with pets at the moment.

That’s wouldn’t encourage new builds. That would encourage people to throw away a valuable mechanic us rangers have.

A lot of fellow rangers I have talked to in game really like this idea.

there won’t be ever any fixes for rangers, simply because the profession is dead, even the devs intended to do so :P

tiboi.3108:

there won’t be ever any fixes for rangers, simply because the profession is dead, even the devs intended to do so :P

JonPeters.5630:

You guys must be channeling some psychic powers this weekend. We agree arrows need to be a bit faster to make DPS against moving targets a bit more reliable. 12/14 can’t come soon enough. :P

JonPeters.5630:

Agreed. Signet of the hunt needs to and will go to 25%.

JonPeters.5630:

FYI this is slated for the 14th of December.

Just hang in there. Its all just 5 days away.

Just because Rangers would have total control over their kit doesn’t mean pets are magically not mandatory anymore. What’s the biggest problem with (strong) pets? Aoe nukes! How might we be able to keep our pets alive? Hrmm…

Stow Pets Allow Us to..

• Keep strong pets safe in our pocket
• Release the beast when we need em
• Not be slowed down by being in combat for an hour

Why the kitten are engineers allowed to swap between their kits at a blink of an eye and we have such long kitten cooldowns on all pet swapping and stowing? Because of the quickness trait yeah yeah. kitten that. Why should everything be on a cooldown because we have one option for 2 seconds of quickness. Make those who use traits tied to pet swapping have long cd. Not everyone!

NaturalPortman.9562:

That’s wouldn’t encourage new builds. That would encourage people to throw away a valuable mechanic us rangers have.

Ofc would encourage new builds. More options always offer more builds. And if this mechanic is valuable none will turn it off.

I find the idea of stow pet perma plusgetting a basic buff on dmg, the most logical thing exist. I would say 20% boost would be more ideal. And then let people choose. It would their choice and gamestyle, as also up to them to decide if its valuable or not.

Sounds like a good idea. If people do not want the pet why not let them choose? the game is supposed to be all about choice.

If you hate the pet so much, stop playing ranger and play another class. It’s like complaining you don’t want to shadowstep/stealth as a thief, buff allies as a guardian, switch elements as an elementalist, use your life bar as a necro, use your toolbelt or toolkits as an engineer, illusions as a mesmer and then expect a buff for not doing so.

Eh, the more i think of it the more i think we -should- let rangers who don’t want to use their pets to do so, but they should still do -less- damage than rangers who -do- use their pet, they’d have less utility, and they shouldn’t be compensated on signets or shouts for their choice to drop their class mechanic.

IE: if they’d get X% damage boos to not make it entirely unviable, but it shouldn’t make them on par with a pet using ranger.

Technically we’re outdamaging our pets all the time anyway, since most of the time our DPS is high enough to where we’re either doing or outdoing our pet’s damage at the same rate. I’d change it to 10% buff though, as a 10% buff to damage wouldn’t change the outcome, as with the pet out we’re doing the same amount of damage as we would with a 10% buff.

Personally I wouldn’t let players have the option of removing the pet. But I would make pet management less cumbersome. Either passive 80% damage reduction against AOE (so players and bosses can still kill the pet, but they have to make a conscious decision to do so) or reduce the cooldown for dead pet swap to 20s (so its still easy to kill the pet but you can’t shut down our core mechanic for more than a reasonable period of time).

I personally don’t like the use of pets, I hope to see an option of having a permanent way to stow your pet, as because once you enter combat your pet jumps out I believe. I like how in GW1 you had the option of using and not using a pet.

Not a huge fan of pets either. Currently, I don’t really see the reason for having the ability to stow the pet as it does not give us any benefit. I would like some derivation of this to be implemented.

Xyvius.1679:

Not a huge fan of pets either. Currently, I don’t really see the reason for having the ability to stow the pet as it does not give us any benefit. I would like some derivation of this to be implemented.

It was implemented for jumping puzzles and for trying to sneak by mobs in PvE (pets agro), it was NOT added for people who don’t want to use a pet to be able to, that’s our class mechanic, that’s like going into elementalist and expecting not to have to swap attunements, -can- you? sure! but you’re going to be an absolutely HORRIBLE elementalist.

It’s pretty sad that pets are meant to be “half” a Ranger’s damage when, in fact, they are one of the ranger’s largest liabilities.

There are times when I just DO NOT want my pet around.
Some examples:
- Fractal Jade Maw fight. Waste of time to keep pet out as it seems to get targeted more than players holding the reflecting crystals. Also it keeps getting targeted after its already dead…
- Fractal Jellyfish Boss. Essentially I have to keep my pet on passive for the duration of this boss fight because I cannot risk him getting any aggro at all. If I don’t keep him on passive he will get grabbed and eaten by the Jellyfish, and as there is no way to ‘break free’ your pet, he just sits there and makes the jelly invulnerable and self-healing for a full 30s or so (Even switching out pets does not negate this)
- Various other times when a group wants to “skip mobs”. I was doing Arah explore recently and was trying to sneak along a wall to avoid some champion mob patrolling the room. Everything was going fine until I took the tiniest fraction of fall damage and my pet popped out, far enough away from me that the mobs were pulled and my group wiped. (Its moments like this that make people not want to group with rangers)

There are so many more instances where having a pet is a disadvantage too but I can’t think of any more to list at the moment.

Also another point about pets, WHY is there no hotkey for switching passive/aggressive stances? This is one of the MOST important functions, and it is completely absurd that rangers have to manually click a tiny button to keep their pets in line.

Xyvius.1679:

Not a huge fan of pets either.

So why are you playing the pet class?

Loki.4871:

Xyvius.1679:

Not a huge fan of pets either.

So why are you playing the pet class?

In most MMOs, the archer-like class has nothing to do with pets, and the playstyle of the Ranger is the closest you’ll ever get to Archer in this game.

That doesn’t change my point: the ranger in guildwars II is not an archer class.

Loki.4871:

That doesn’t change my point: the ranger in guildwars II is not an archer class.

Rangers rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature itself. Unparalleled archers, rangers are capable of bringing down foes from a distance with their bows. With traps, nature spirits, and a stable of loyal pets at their command, rangers can adapt to any situation.

I can see where many people might think you’re wrong…

Yes, it’s not an archery only class… But archery is kind of a decently big thing. Only other class that uses a Longbow is Warrior, and the only other Shortbow user is the Thief. So as one of three archery capable classes, to want to play one as a Ranger is a reasonable request.

Imo this is quite fair, I mean ANet theorized at the beginning two classes (warden and marksman) and then melted them together…. Why can’t we still chose between these two classes?
Well the option to be a lonely hunter with stow bonus or a pet based ranger, suits this…
+1 from here!

Wasdclick.1764:

Loki.4871:

That doesn’t change my point: the ranger in guildwars II is not an archer class.

Rangers rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature itself. Unparalleled archers, rangers are capable of bringing down foes from a distance with their bows. With traps, nature spirits, and a stable of loyal pets at their command, rangers can adapt to any situation.

I can see where many people might think you’re wrong…

Yes, it’s not an archery only class… But archery is kind of a decently big thing. Only other class that uses a Longbow is Warrior, and the only other Shortbow user is the Thief. So as one of three archery capable classes, to want to play one as a Ranger is a reasonable request.

I still remember when rangers were described as “A jack of all trades and a master of them all”. I had this argument before over the semantics of the fluff description, I’ll happily repeat them; the ranger does far more ‘skill shot’ attacks, aiming at specific bodyparts, whereas the warrior’s more ‘Fire and hope it hits them somewhere really squishy’.

Wanting to play as the Ranger with a longbow is perfectly fine. Wanting to play as the beastmaster class and expecting it to be better with just the weapon than the class designed to rely on just the weapon to win fights?
Rangers could beat warriors in the first public beta without the pets, undermining the entire point of playing the warrior class. Guess what, the beastmaster aspect got played up (damage nerf to the ranger, buff to the pet.) Yelling “LET’S MATCH THE WARRIOR WITH WEAPON DAMAGE” is like going “LET’S BUFF UP EVERYONE LIKE GUARDIANS” or “LET’S STEALTH LIKE THIEVES”. That isn’t the Ranger’s thing, the ranger’s thing is the pet.

If you want to play like a warrior then just go play a warrior, you will be much happier.

^Except we want an archer, not a melee fighter.

There are several reasons to want to play a Ranger aside from the pet. A warrior can’t trap. They can’t summon spirits to buff allies.

I don’t agree with the premise of being able to just get rid of the pet for an increase in damage. There are others who have suggested more flavorful things like “Spirit pets” and such that give Rangers a way of not mucking about with a pet’s AI, while still remaining competitive, and still having a distinct class feature.

And ultimately, that’s what we’re talking about. We’re not saying we need our weapon to do as much damage as a warrior’s, while also having our pet. We’re talking about alternatives to pets that will allow us to play with a few more options, while maintaining the sort of damage and utility we are supposed to be getting from pets.

Imo this is quite fair, I mean ANet theorized at the beginning two classes (warden and marksman) and then melted them together…. Why can’t we still chose between these two classes?

Same reason you can’t play Juggernaut. There were 12 professions worth of theory, and only 8 professions panned out in practice.

RyuDragnier.9476:

^Except we want an archer, not a melee fighter.

Play warrior, spec for Longbow traits, job’s a good’un.

If people want to use the pet, great. If people don’t want to, how does it hurt someone else if we were given the option to put them away and keep them put away?

Dredge boss in fractals you have to put pet passive so it doesn’t get aggro and stand in one spot when you are trying to kite. TA, the pet does not break spider eggs but does set off every frickin bloom in the place! Jump puzzles, if you make a big jump and take a little damage, giant pet butt in your face. (Guess I could use a bird or something but I hate swapping and renaming pets just to do a puzzle.) WvW, pet spends more time dead than alive. There are just some times I would take that increase in damage to put the pet in my pocket and leave it there.

Pochibella.8394:

If people want to use the pet, great. If people don’t want to, how does it hurt someone else if we were given the option to put them away and keep them put away?

Because then you’re a poor man’s warrior, utterly inferior to one?

Loki.4871:

Pochibella.8394:

If people want to use the pet, great. If people don’t want to, how does it hurt someone else if we were given the option to put them away and keep them put away?

Because then you’re a poor man’s warrior, utterly inferior to one?

Sounds like you’re butthurt about something.

I feel like you guys are talking past eachother.
One side’s all baseless hope and whimsey, Loki’s all practical grounded reality, and never twain shall these two concepts meet.

The practicalities of what currently is doesn’t affect what can be. But, on the flip side, this thread is beating a dead horse bloody so you really can’t blame your fellow forumites for biting out the politest ‘Well GTFO, then’ you ever did hear.

I mean, seriously, how many times are we really going to have to hear this same kittened ‘totally unique and original idea’?

For the love of all that is holy, stop whining about the pet. They’re the ranger class core mechanic and nothing, absolutely nothing, will ever make Anet remove them, nor should they.

RyuDragnier.9476:

Loki.4871:

Pochibella.8394:

If people want to use the pet, great. If people don’t want to, how does it hurt someone else if we were given the option to put them away and keep them put away?

Because then you’re a poor man’s warrior, utterly inferior to one?

Sounds like you’re butthurt about something.

Hardly. The ranger is a poor man’s warrior, but the pet makes up for it in terms of damage. It also means damage is ‘modular’ in that if one is down there’s still damage being belted out, unlike a warrior who’s either hitting or not. There are different pets to encourage/synergize with different play-styles to the point even the same weapons and attribute points will work differently with the different pets. What does get me butthurt is people coming in, playing the beastmaster class like a warrior, then yelling
“Oh god this class is (bleep) and ANET are (bleep), make what is clearly designed to be a beastmaster class play like the warrior even though there’s already a class that does, called the warrior.”

Because the simple nasty fact is, while the classes can fufill various roles, some are still better at some roles than others. Specifically, the warrior is designed to be the one that’s best in a headbutting contest with only weapons. In beta 1 the ranger could beat the warrior while ignoring the pet, undermining the Warrior as a class. So they got ‘nerfed’ with damage being transferred from the ranger to the pet, further reinforcing the beastmaster aspect.

Loki.4871:

Xyvius.1679:

Not a huge fan of pets either.

So why are you playing the pet class?

In GW1, my main was a Ranger and I spent most of my time without the skill “Charm Animal” on my bar. Thus, I was just an archer without a pet. I don’t see how having the choice to lose the pet is such a big deal.

Xyvius.1679:

Loki.4871:

Xyvius.1679:

Not a huge fan of pets either.

So why are you playing the pet class?

In GW1, my main was a Ranger and I spent most of my time without the skill “Charm Animal” on my bar. Thus, I was just an archer without a pet. I don’t see how having the choice to lose the pet is such a big deal.

Because the ranger is the pet class.

My pet is usually dead so often despite my best efforts otherwise in PvP that I usually kill things without it, making it feel like it’s useless. The same goes in PvE sometimes, usually against bosses. Then again, I don’t have a single point in BM, so…

Xyvius.1679:

Loki.4871:

Xyvius.1679:

Not a huge fan of pets either.

So why are you playing the pet class?

In GW1, my main was a Ranger and I spent most of my time without the skill “Charm Animal” on my bar. Thus, I was just an archer without a pet. I don’t see how having the choice to lose the pet is such a big deal.

This was mine: OgMU8ELfzcS4G0GyS/G8GrM8gcGA

You want to run around with a longbow and get lots of big numbers when the arrows connect to make you feel good. I understand that, I like seeing my pet hit for big numbers.
What I’m saying is, the ranger is the ruddy pet class.
If you want to see big numbers when you hit someone with a weapon, go play warrior; that does more damage with the bow as it is designed to do.

^No, we want an annoyance that is unwanted to be able to be put away during battle so we can play the ranger without some blasted pet getting in our way.

Try a minipet then. A pet is for life, not just when you need it.

Does it really hurt all of those ‘Beastmasters’ here to have more options? If you guys want to run with pets, then please do so. If someone wants to stow their pets permanently, then let them have it. I participate in WvW quite frequently and all the time I am forced to drag my dead pet along. It is really not fun. My pets AI successfully prevents me from using them in any other way than the 20 sec cd source of quickness. They can’t avoid aoe. They die extremely fast even if they are supposed to stay by my side. Also they pull random mobs even if I don’t want them to. Finally I have to wait for their f2 to activate and it failed me numerous times. But I am not here to whine about pets (which I have already done, sorry about that). I am here to tell you that having more options does not hurt. Being able to run different builds is all that we have in this game. Take any other class in the game and their ‘core’ mechanics. For example, thieves and stealth. If you play one you can choose whether to build for stealth or not. I’ve seen many thieves without stealth. Why? Because they have an option to do so. And before anyone tells me to roll thief- I do not wish to lvl up another toon and spend my time to farm money for eq. I barely managed to equip my ranger in exotics, because I do not pvE so often. So in the end guys I think that perma stowing won’t be implemented in this game (and I really hope that I am wrong. Having an option to build a Marksman instead of a Beastmaster would be a great deal for all of those who enjoy RANGEd combat and that’s the main reason they’ve chosen RANGEr class

Should just make the best of both worlds.

Reduce the pets damage so it accounts for about 10% of the Rangers total damage.
Rebalance the Rangers damage so it does 105% of the damage of other top tier DPS classes to account for the impossibility of 100% active pet up-time.

These 2 things will then make the Ranger do about 95% of the damage of any other class without a pet active.

THEN you adjust the pet to provide the class’s utility and burst damage. You drastically improve the pets AE utility by debuffing enemies and drastically buffing party members. These buffs should either be unique, or combine numerous qualities of other buffs from other classes so a ranger is more enticing to a group. This way the Ranger is being brought for PvE for buffs and damage.

For PvP you make the Ranger consume some of their conditions/debuffs to make the pet do very large amounts of DPS. The amount of damage should still be less than the debuffs themselves, but the reason you do it is for the burst. For example, you would want to keep your bleeds fully stacked in PvE because they would do say 5,000 damage over 10 seconds and take about 10 seconds to fully stack. Whereas in PvP you would want to consume those bleeds instantly to do the burst, but the amount of burst damage would only be about 4,000 this way it isn’t a DPS advantage to do it in PVE except as a killing blow.

You would then do the same thing for dazes and criples where you could send your pet in to consume a daze or cripple for a ton of damage but in PvE since many things are immune to these mechanics they couldn’t be consumed and the pet isn’t doing any damage.

THEN AFTER ALL OF THIS you can divide the pets into classes. DPS pets that offer the burst outlined above, Utility pets with even more powerful buffs/debuffs, and defensive pets that would consume things just like the DPS pet, but would do other effects like tackle the opponent by rooting them to the ground until the pet is down to 25% life etc.

This way you maintain the pet aspect of the class and ensure it’s even more evident, you give the class its much needed PvE utility, and you give the class its much needed PvP burst.

vilman.7196:

Does it really hurt all of those ‘Beastmasters’ here to have more options? If you guys want to run with pets, then please do so. If someone wants to stow their pets permanently, then let them have it….
I participate in WvW quite frequently and all the time I am forced to drag my dead pet along. It is really not fun…. I am here to tell you that having more options does not hurt….

It’s part of the class, mesmers don’t ask for more dmg for not summoning phantasms and rangers play better with pets.
Pets dying in WvW/PvE can be solved many, many ways.

Oh and, sure, more options can help a game… but making the options they have going, and Anet has setup many options, actually work is a billion times better than adding in more kitten to cover up the many faults…

And stealth isn’t a thief’s core mechanic… that is initiative and steal… every thief uses initiative and steal just like every ranger uses his pet…

vilman.7196:

Having an option to build a Marksman instead of a Beastmaster would be a great deal for all of those who enjoy RANGEd combat and that’s the main reason they’ve chosen RANGEr class

They do have the skeleton of a marksmen spec already out there, they even released a marksmen tree and longbow for the sake of that. The problem is that Anet just hasn’t gotten around to making them worthwhile…

@vilman
It’s not ‘just a harmless option’, when every last one of these things frames the suggestion as a solution.
We’re not unawares of the fact our profession resource is an Healthbar, meaning the difficulty of managing it fluctuates relative to the content and that sometimes borderlines on the impossible for reasons entirely outside of our control. But we want real genuine actual honest to god fixes that make the difficulty more constant across game modes, not a handwavy non-mechanic that’s more about bending and breaking a class so it suits a taste than engaging in actual progressive dialogue.

Yeh +10 to this.

We should have an option to get rid of our pet, and still be equally effective.

There’s many situations where you don’t want to use your pet thing, and meny situations where the pet is totally useless or a liability to you and any other people you may be partied with.

Fine, leave the pet but make it not run 20 feet ahead of me. If it doesn’t trip spider eggs, make it not trip blossoms either. If I back up and am kiting, make my pet back up as well. Make it hit moving targets. Make it dodge roll out of aoe. Fix the other multiple bugs pets have had for forever.

I am not saying I want to stow my pet forever and ever, but if I want to put it away, I would like it to stay there until I take it out. Not pop out during a puzzle, or because I shot a bunny, or whatever.

And I still don’t see how if Ranger X wants to play without a pet, how that affects anyone else. Let the Beastmaster trait line be for super pets. Let the marksman traits be for ranged. Etc. Give us options of ways to play.

I like my pets most of the time, but the issues I already mentioned are reasons I don’t want them 100% of the time.

Arenanet’s description of Rangers: “Rangers rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature itself. Unparalleled archers, rangers are capable of bringing down foes from a distance with their bows. With traps, nature spirits, and a stable of loyal pets at their command, rangers can adapt to any situation.”
It doesn’t emphasize that ranger’s are “the pet class”. It lists pets as one of the things that are in a ranger’s arsenal that can be used.

Atherakhia.4086:

Should just make the best of both worlds.

Reduce the pets damage so it accounts for about 10% of the Rangers total damage.
Rebalance the Rangers damage so it does 105% of the damage of other top tier DPS classes to account for the impossibility of 100% active pet up-time.

These 2 things will then make the Ranger do about 95% of the damage of any other class without a pet active.

THEN you adjust the pet to provide the class’s utility and burst damage. You drastically improve the pets AE utility by debuffing enemies and drastically buffing party members. These buffs should either be unique, or combine numerous qualities of other buffs from other classes so a ranger is more enticing to a group. This way the Ranger is being brought for PvE for buffs and damage.

BlahblahblahmorestuffIcutforthesakeofpostlength

So unless I’ve misread, you want to make the ranger do more damage with it’s weapons, so matches the warrior in damage again, undermining the warrior as a class. Then you want to turn the ranger’s class mechanic into eyecandy that’s a mass buffer, like the guardian, or a mass debuffer, like the Mesmer/Necromancer, undermining possibly three other classes in game.

…No.

I sympathise it’s probably s a shock to suddenly discover the ranger is no longer an archer with some fire-and-forget damage sponge, and it’s a beastmaster class that actually needs to make use of the pet. The class isn’t to your tastes, so stop trying to turn it into something else and go play the warrior or guardian, which you apparently would enjoy far more.

Pochibella.8394:

Arenanet’s description of Rangers: “Rangers rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature itself. Unparalleled archers, rangers are capable of bringing down foes from a distance with their bows. With traps, nature spirits, and a stable of loyal pets at their command, rangers can adapt to any situation.”
It doesn’t emphasize that ranger’s are “the pet class”. It lists pets as one of the things that are in a ranger’s arsenal that can be used.

I see your quote and raise you this pre-release one:

The pet system sounds much more robust than the one in Guild Wars 1. Are pets only one of many options for the ranger, or is there a clear overall advantage for those rangers who have one?

Having a pet is an integral part of being a ranger in Guild Wars 2. It is possible for a ranger to fight without a pet but fighting with a pet is always more effective. If a player wants to play a ranged character without a pet then they will very likely find one of the other professions more appealing. Every profession in the game has some sort of ranged option, be it magic, a bow, or a firearm.

Bolding and italics mine, source here

We get it Loki. You take your beastmaster roleplay very seriously.

But you have to admit there are times when it is beneficial to stow the pet! At the VERY least there should be an option to stow pet and keep it stowed, without the possibility of it popping out when entering combat (or taking fall damage).

Its just plain silly that the pet is more trouble than its worth in the numerous situations listed previously in the thread.

I can argue points for both sides here. I don’t want to lose the pet, because the pet is what makes the Ranger the Ranger.

But right now, the pet is so bugged and unreliable that it’s not that effective. It’s doing more harm than good, so in the end… We really feel like we are already playing gimped warriors.

What are you two doing exactly that actually makes a pet cross the border into ‘more harm than good’? I’ve never felt like the pet was a liability, only that factors beyond my control meant I couldn’t get the most out of it. Which is not quite the same thing.

The only thing I can think of is the possibility for aggro by the pet standing so far ahead of you…But it just seems like such a disproportionate amount of rage compared to the admittedly annoying but honestly effortless workaround. (For the record; face backwards on the last bit of your approach.)