Guild Wars 2

Chopps.5047:

I don’t know how long you should wait. That’s up to you.

I, like many, are tired of waiting. That’s why threads like these are created. If you’re fine still waiting for nothing to happen though, you probably should refrain from posting in topics like this.

I’m fine with you disagreeing with something. But you disagree out of ignorance and not because you have something better to offer. You simply sit there praying ANet will get around to fixing it. It has been a year…

The first step to making pets better in this game would be to do what guild wars 1 figured out what they had to do a few years before the end of it’s life cycle; give the pet an inherent movement speed that is faster than players movement speed, that doesn’t count towards the movement speed bonuses that can be attained.

Quoted from http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Animal_companion

“Pets move 20% faster than party members by default, but this bonus is not counted against their max speed boost. "

jcbroe.4329:

The first step to making pets better in this game would be to do what guild wars 1 figured out what they had to do a few years before the end of it’s life cycle; give the pet an inherent movement speed that is faster than players movement speed, that doesn’t count towards the movement speed bonuses that can be attained.

Quoted from http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Animal_companion

“Pets move 20% faster than party members by default, but this bonus is not counted against their max speed boost. "

You still run into the problem that in this game, NPC’s appear to need to stop moving in order to attack. So short of increasing the attack range or making the attacks instant with a longer aftercast, I’m not sure simply changing movement speed will resolve the issue.

Atherakhia.4086:

jcbroe.4329:

The first step to making pets better in this game would be to do what guild wars 1 figured out what they had to do a few years before the end of it’s life cycle; give the pet an inherent movement speed that is faster than players movement speed, that doesn’t count towards the movement speed bonuses that can be attained.

Quoted from http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Animal_companion

“Pets move 20% faster than party members by default, but this bonus is not counted against their max speed boost. "

You still run into the problem that in this game, NPC’s appear to need to stop moving in order to attack. So short of increasing the attack range or making the attacks instant with a longer aftercast, I’m not sure simply changing movement speed will resolve the issue.

True. But it is part of the issue that pet’s have when it comes to sticking to a moving target. When a player is kiting a pet, they are kiting a pet. Pets by themselves have a very hard time sticking to players, and when you combine that with them needing to stop to attack where as a player doesn’t have to, it creates the situation where against a good player, your pet will rarely hit them unless you are capable of locking that person down.

In Guild Wars 1, players had to stop to attack just like pets did. So, even if the pet couldn’t necessarily hit a moving target, as soon as that target stopped to attack, the pet would be right there attacking them. In guild wars 2, because players don’t have to stop to attack but pets do, it gives players a noticeable amount of breathing room to deal with the pet. At least with the 20% movement speed above players, pets would stick to their target better, making players who are worse at positioning/kiting more susceptible to the pets pressure.

So agility training would give pets +30% base speed on top of the 20% inherent boost?

Chopps.5047:

So agility training would give pets +30% base speed on top of the 20% inherent boost?

I knew that was going to come up, and this game is very… different, with the amount of movement speed increases there are.

However, I don’t think it would be entirely crazy, when you look at the difference between in combat movement and out of combat moving speeds. Doesn’t it work out that like, every 25% movement speed out of combat is only a 7% movement speed bonus in combat? If so, then we are only talking about a pet that is moving 14%-10%-7% (depending on opponents movement speed bonuses) faster, that still has to stop and attack an opponent who doesn’t have to stop, which would actually make it humorously less broken than in guild wars 1, where, with an increased movement speed after the update, the pet had an insane success rate on hitting opponents, and basically just stuck to them and hit them every time they performed an action that wasn’t a stance/flash enchantment.

In guild wars 2, they could get a 33% movement boost on top of their 20% inherent boost, for a total of 53% total increased movement speed total, ~14% in combat. They would still have to stop to attack, where as players don’t, meaning that technically, the hit success rate wouldn’t be any higher on a moving target, it would just mean that the target would have to remain in motion in order to avoid getting hit, unless the target is crippled or chilled.

I’m not saying it’s a perfect solution, or the numbers don’t need tweaking. But there was a reason that guild wars 1 implemented that system, and it seems to be even more needed in guild wars 2, with it’s faster paced and more movement oriented combat.

The first step in making the ranger a viable class would be to remove the pets (doubtful) or make pets an option like it is on the necromancer.

I originally rolled the ranger because I like Archer classes and the pets seemed like a neat addition.

Little did I know that my pets would become nothing more then a liability.

The Teq. encounter is a prime example of how useless our pets truly are.

The proposed “leaked” buffs look great on paper. But, giving pets a hps bonus will still get pets one shot because Anet apparenlty likes 1 shot mechanics and it’s obvious pet AI will never be what it should. So once again pets would still be in exactly the same place as they were before.

Honest truth – the ranger in this game will always fall short due to the pets and I don’t for see a viable solution in sight to solve the problem beyond as I said making pets optional – which I don’t see happening either.

+1
I would love playing a ranger focused on traps and bows, but the pet is just annoying… The option should be there, but I wouldn’t use a pet…

mzt.3270:

after reading SynfulChaot.3169 posts, I have to agree. Pet option is really not a way forward. The pet has to go full stop as it is nothing better than a run of the mill NPC beast running around over Tyria. We should not have a buff over a pet (or a handicap depending how you look upon it).

Strange. I don’t seem to recall saying anything about wanting the pet to go permanently. I did say that I think we should be able to perma-stow the pet, but that’s simply for maneuverability in some sections where the pet loves trampling mines and stuff and being in the way. Not for combat or anything else.

Durzlla.6295:

SynfulChaot.3169:

Exactly. Why would anyone want a pet at all. Even an optional removal of pets would force that option to stay in the meta. There is little they could do in most cases to make the pet attractive as an option if no pet was an option. That’s the problem with removing the pet, even if it’s optional.

Seriously? You don’t see the benefits of having the pet outweighing NOT having the pet in most scenarios? Even IF we got damage compensation the pet would be a larger boon than not, the pet would provide us a TON of CC that we just flat out can’t have without them (almost all of our stuns, knock downs, immos, fears, etc come from pets). Not to mention if we opt out of a pet, we lost the #1 advantage that saves our buns in this current meta, CC isn’t that effective on us. Sure you can CC the ranger, but that pet is still there to kitten up your day with either damage, since they’re standing still so nicely for that little kitty to just slip into stealth and you scream “Sic’Em!” as you sit there dazed and confused. Or just interrupt their burst via a pig, dog, black/pink moa, Drake charging up their lazor (i’ve yet to see a single half decent player decide to eat that over just saying “kitten the burst”), etc etc. Not to mention in PvE you lose out on an agro bot, i know a LOT of the time my groups kitten have been saved because of a pet, hell, the ONLY reason my group managed to kick Mai Trins kitten in her time limit was because Chopps Bear and my Earth Elemental (was on my ele for the fight) were tanking her so beastly in those lightning fields and sucking up condis like kittening champions.

No. I can see the benefits of having a pet. But only in few circumstances such as PvP.

If we got damage compensation than the ranger would border on OP unless the pet was relegated purely to a support role. And all implementations of a pet would still, with the current AI failings, have troubles with survival in some instances. Mostly in PvE, that is. That survival issue is why people want the pet gone.

Now in PvP and WvW roaming, I can still see pets being used. That’s where rangers are strong right now, and that is partially due to the pets. And yes, they would save us in that meta. But again, that is the PvP meta. Not the PvE one. Outside of that the pets are a bit of a weakness and I can see practically every ranger, if given the choice, permanently abandon the pet.

Durzlla.6295:

Just because you don’t see how having a pet would be better than not in just about every situation doesn’t mean it wont be. As for those situations where pets just flat out suck? Yeah i’d love to at least have SOME way to be on part with everyone else during those encounters, and if they wont just give us flat out AoE immunity/reduction on pets than they can at least give us the option to stow it.

Hell if they don’t wanna give us a free pass to ignore our mechanic put a Grandmaster trait in the kittening BM tree Called Tigers Fury or Bestial Wrath or w/e you wanna call it that makes the ability to have no pet an option and you gain a small bonus from the pet attribute instead.

Again, I see how having a pet in some cases would be better. PvP and roaming WvW are some of those places. Outside of those, the pet would be widely abandoned and those using pets would be ostracized for ‘weakening themselves’. You and I may not believe that is true, but truth doesn’t matter to the majority. Nor does it to those wanting the pet removed.

If you don’t see how giving an option to remove the pet and give us a buff for it would cause the pet to be abandoned permanently by most players, then you may want to look again at the posts by those arguing for pet removal.

Obsidian.1328:

SynfulChaot.3169:

I do agree that we should be able to stow the pet and not have it automatically pop out if we so choose. I strongly don’t think that we should gain any buff for it.

So…given equal stats, you want to do less base damage then every other class? You do realize rangers share their total damage output with their pet right? Having the pet limp around kitten ily waiting for the swap CD to wear off just means you are doing less damage than everyone else. And putting it on passive means the same thing.

Yes. I realize that. I’d want a perma-stow option solely, as I stated before, for maneuverability without the pet messing the group up. By giving the ranger a buff, we’d be rewarded for not using our class mechanic. That kinda goes against their design philosophy.

But I guess this is what this thread is about, right. Wanting something other than we were told the ranger was to begin with. Or maybe noone bothered to read what the ranger was about?

Obsidian.1328:

Necro’s are a perfect example of using a “pet” in combat. They lose a utility slot per minion out, which limits them on what they can do to offset the extra dps. They have the option to do that, which is how it should be. Why not have the ranger pet just be a more powerful version of minions? The pet could use up the 3 utility slots with selectable pet-only abilities. That way, the extra dps would force the ranger to give up non-pet related utilities. Makes perfect sense. Pet lovers get their pets, and everyone else can play how they want to.

I disagree. By restricting the pet as such, we’d lose the ability to be anything but a beastmaster if we did so. We’d lose the ability to provide as much support just to have the pet. The pet that all of you are so adamant in not wanting in the first place.

If your necro example is the ‘perfect’ example, then why don’t I see minion necros about, hmm?

Funny thread … especially given how solid the Ranger class is in all modes of gameplay when well-played. Of course like each and every single class in this game, the Ranger could certainly use some tweaking and adjustments, but there is no “crisis” here lol.

Truth be told, the so-called pet “issue” is for the most part, no more than a learn to play issue.

Chopps.5047:

“I know it probably won’t happen”

Sometimes the first thing said is the most accurate thing said.

-1 because I want to see ANET make the profession a beastmaster-type that everyone loves

Huh?? I hope that’s sarcasm, I don’t know very many people that like beastmaster.

Ranger = marksman and beastmaster hybrid by definition

Chopps.5047:

Ranger = marksman and beastmaster hybrid by definition

^ This. The GW2 ranger has never been advertised as anything but this.

Obsidian.1328:

SynfulChaot.3169:

Nilkemia.8507:

So you just call my argument a strawdog and leave it at that? Weak.

You’ve got a better idea? Better pet AI? When’s that going to happen? It hasn’t so far, and I’m not holding my breath for it. So, like I said, either fix it, let us stow it when we want, or get rid of it for something else.

I do agree that we should be able to stow the pet and not have it automatically pop out if we so choose. I strongly don’t think that we should gain any buff for it.

So…given equal stats, you want to do less base damage then every other class? You do realize rangers share their total damage output with their pet right? Having the pet limp around kitten ily waiting for the swap CD to wear off just means you are doing less damage than everyone else. And putting it on passive means the same thing.

Necro’s are a perfect example of using a “pet” in combat. They lose a utility slot per minion out, which limits them on what they can do to offset the extra dps. They have the option to do that, which is how it should be. Why not have the ranger pet just be a more powerful version of minions? The pet could use up the 3 utility slots with selectable pet-only abilities. That way, the extra dps would force the ranger to give up non-pet related utilities. Makes perfect sense. Pet lovers get their pets, and everyone else can play how they want to.

Thank you. +3…wait, I can only give +1. Brambles…well, you get the idea. On one hand though, having a pet take up all 3 utility slots is a bit much when it already gets the F1-F4 slots to itself. Would be better to have a pet option take up one utility slot, then just give the extra skills to the F# slots while the pet is out.

I’ve always been on the fence about this, until I played against the new Tequatl. If they are going to keep creating content where our pets are 100% useless then we need a permanent stow option. Buff or no buff, I just want the kitten thing gone in fights like that.

+1

Indoles.1467:

I’ve always been on the fence about this, until I played against the new Tequatl. If they are going to keep creating content where our pets are 100% useless then we need a permanent stow option. Buff or no buff, I just want the kitten thing gone in fights like that.

+1

Why is it that you all want the pets removed instead of improved? Because you don’t think it’s possible or because you don’t want them in the first place.

If it’s the latter, then you chose the wrong profession.

Azreell.1568:

The Teq. encounter is a prime example of how useless our pets truly are.

I would say it’s exactly the opposite; that encounter is overdone and seems rather unfinished, especially not taking Ranger pets into consideration as if nobody played the Profession. I am all for difficult and organized content, but it is rather obvious they knew that the Ranger would be crippled on the event the way it’s currently designed, and STILL released it in such state (beta-no offense to all of those who worked so kitten it.)

Nilkemia

Well, if they did it the way I proposed, the F2 wouldn’t be pet related. Only the utility slots would. They’d find something else for the F2 mechanic which would only benefit the ranger.

SynfulChaot

I don’t think it’s possible. How can an AI dodge at the right time? The whole game is based around dodges and CC’s.

SynfulChaot.3169:

Chopps.5047:

Ranger = marksman and beastmaster hybrid by definition

^ This. The GW2 ranger has never been advertised as anything but this.

Well, at least it wasn’t advertised as an Archer to be sure. Rangers could very well use Greatswords and other martial weapons, and not each of them had to specialize in archery. In that respect, our Ranger is more “true” to the original RPG Ranger concept than in the many other video games-including GW1. People have become accustomed to so many of these Archer Ranger archetypes, making them believe that “Ranger” means “ranged combatant”, but it is nothing of the sort, and not only on GW2 but also on D&D (I know this is not D&D, but it certainly isn’t the other games with specialized Archers either.)

(Traditional Rangers also had pet companions, BTW)

No offense to any players-it’s fine to prefer Archer Rangers, and you can even take that approach if you so desire. It’s just not what our Ranger is ALL about.

(And didn’t mean to debate with you SynfulChaot, as I actually agree with your points. I can’t see the pet being optional and people actually using it over time due to meta group builds-which I don’t favor but most would.)

Obsidian.1328:

SynfulChaot

I don’t think it’s possible. How can an AI dodge at the right time? The whole game is based around dodges and CC’s.

Give us rangers the power to make the pet dodge. A brief block/evade/invuln period for the pet on command. And a pet call function that actually pulls the pet to us. Quite possible and that simple.

SynfulChaot.3169:

Indoles.1467:

I’ve always been on the fence about this, until I played against the new Tequatl. If they are going to keep creating content where our pets are 100% useless then we need a permanent stow option. Buff or no buff, I just want the kitten thing gone in fights like that.

+1

Why is it that you all want the pets removed instead of improved? Because you don’t think it’s possible or because you don’t want them in the first place.

If it’s the latter, then you chose the wrong profession.

For me, it’s because ANet has shown over the course of a year that they’re either oblivious to the problem or don’t care about the problem. Nothing has been done to realistically solve the issue. Only band-aid fixes like the rumored 71% increase in pet health we’ll be getting soon.

Before we even want to pretend pets are worth reducing Ranger damage at all… they need to at least be able to hit moving targets, survive more than 3 seconds under pressure, have F2 abilities that actually work, obtain aegis or 2 seconds of invuln every time the ranger dodges/evades, and synergize with the class through traits. None of this is true and why people often suggest just removing it in favor of boosting our damage by 25-40%.

Star Ace.5207:

(And didn’t mean to debate with you SynfulChaot, as I actually agree with your points. I can’t see the pet being optional and people actually using it over time due to meta group builds-which I don’t favor but most would.)

Oh. I know. I agree on that. That is the danger of making buffed pet removal an option. For some formats (PvE for instance) it’d practically preclude pet use. And it’d give ANet no incentive to improve pet AI, which honestly should be the focus.

Atherakhia.4086:

SynfulChaot.3169:

Why is it that you all want the pets removed instead of improved? Because you don’t think it’s possible or because you don’t want them in the first place.

If it’s the latter, then you chose the wrong profession.

For me, it’s because ANet has shown over the course of a year that they’re either oblivious to the problem or don’t care about the problem. Nothing has been done to realistically solve the issue. Only band-aid fixes like the rumored 71% increase in pet health we’ll be getting soon.

Before we even want to pretend pets are worth reducing Ranger damage at all… they need to at least be able to hit moving targets, survive more than 3 seconds under pressure, have F2 abilities that actually work, obtain aegis or 2 seconds of invuln every time the ranger dodges/evades, and synergize with the class through traits. None of this is true and why people often suggest just removing it in favor of boosting our damage by 25-40%.

The health increase isn’t rumored. It, at the very least, has been officially confirmed. Yes, it’s not the only fix we need. But it’s a step. Not all changes must happen at once, you know.

Yes, it’s taken a while. As I’ve said many times before, that is because prior to recently all balance has been around PvP where the pet doesn’t have such issues due to the PvP meta. Now that there seems to be a more balanced approach to … well, balance … then we should see more attention to the pet issues.

Yes, none of those things you listed are currently true. Yes, all of them could massively help us. But they could be in the pipeline. We don’t know. It is obvious that they are working on improving the ranger if you believe anything they’ve been officially saying … or if you’ve been watching the occasional ‘leaks’. They know we are in a weak spot in PvE.

Let’s see what they bring us first before demanding them to change the class away from what it has always been about.

Star Ace.5207:

Azreell.1568:

The Teq. encounter is a prime example of how useless our pets truly are.

I would say it’s exactly the opposite; that encounter is overdone and seems rather unfinished, especially not taking Ranger pets into consideration as if nobody played the Profession. I am all for difficult and organized content, but it is rather obvious they knew that the Ranger would be crippled on the event the way it’s currently designed, and STILL released it in such state (beta-no offense to all of those who worked so kitten it.)

You REALLY think they thought “Oh wait, what about the poor old Rangers pet” when they designed the TEQ event, I think the poor old Rangers pet is the last thing on the developers mind with an event like that.

With the new content being added at a hectic pace, the pet is going to be dead, twisted and bent 99% of the time. (Even if they double it’s HP).

Remember this should be just an OPTION if you want to play with a pet, you can still, nobodies saying do away with pets altogether.

I like the pet. I just think it needs to be more valuable, for both the Ranger and allies. Either by improving the pet skills, or adding new skills to the pets, similar to the shouts.

Solid Gold.9310:

Remember this should be just an OPTION if you want to play with a pet, you can still, nobodies saying do away with pets altogether.

Unfortunately, if the pet has a buffed removal option then the meta will move away from using a pet in PvE, and those that choose to remain with the pet will most likely be comparatively underpowered. That is the risk of doing so. And it’d do the ranger a disservice.

How in the world can an AI anticipate all the various forms of attacks coming our way, hmm? The kd’s, the stuns, the immobilizes, the AoE condition bombs…

You really think they can come up with a pet AI that works fairly in SPvP, PvE, and W3 all at the same time?? That programmer is a god if he can do that.

There just is no substitute for human intuition…

SynfulChaot.3169:

Solid Gold.9310:

Remember this should be just an OPTION if you want to play with a pet, you can still, nobodies saying do away with pets altogether.

Unfortunately, if the pet has a buffed removal option then the meta will move away from using a pet in PvE, and those that choose to remain with the pet will most likely be comparatively underpowered. That is the risk of doing so. And it’d do the ranger a disservice.

Don’t agree, many people’s vision of a Ranger is no a Ranger with a pet, that’s a Beastmaster.

I don’t see what your worried about, with the correct balance you can still play your pet/Ranger and be equal to a Ranger without a pet, more options are better.

And they will never in a millions years as Obsidian.1328 has said, get the pet right in all the situations in this game.

We would like the option to not have a pet, but, you want to force us to keep the pet ?

Solid Gold.9310:

SynfulChaot.3169:

Unfortunately, if the pet has a buffed removal option then the meta will move away from using a pet in PvE, and those that choose to remain with the pet will most likely be comparatively underpowered. That is the risk of doing so. And it’d do the ranger a disservice.

Don’t agree, many people’s vision of a Ranger is no a Ranger with a pet, that’s a Beastmaster.

I don’t see what your worried about, with the correct balance you can still play your pet/Ranger and be equal to a Ranger without a pet, more options are better.

And they will never in a millions years as Obsidian.1328 has said, get the pet right in all the situations in this game.

We would like the option to not have a pet, but, you want to force us to keep the pet ?

It doesn’t matter what player’s vision of a ranger is. What matters is what ArenaNet’s vision of a ranger is. The vision that has been shown since before launch. This wasn’t a bait-and-switch. They’ve always been very clear that ranger == pet. Asking them to change their vision to match yours does the designers and the game a disservice.

No, the pet will never be as good as a player. That is true. But as that is true, if the pet has a buffed removal option … then what benefit would the ranger have to bring the pet? Outside of a few niche places (PvP, anyone?) the pet would be that useless option that noone uses. Like necro minions. Like engy turrets. Like mesmer mantras.

In order to get people to use mechanics you need to give them reasons to use them, not reasons to avoid them. Otherwise you’re removing a mechanic as a valid option.

Yes, you want the option to not have a pet. There is that option. There are other classes. But in GW2, ranger == pet.

SynfulChaot.3169:

Solid Gold.9310:

SynfulChaot.3169:

Unfortunately, if the pet has a buffed removal option then the meta will move away from using a pet in PvE, and those that choose to remain with the pet will most likely be comparatively underpowered. That is the risk of doing so. And it’d do the ranger a disservice.

Don’t agree, many people’s vision of a Ranger is no a Ranger with a pet, that’s a Beastmaster.

I don’t see what your worried about, with the correct balance you can still play your pet/Ranger and be equal to a Ranger without a pet, more options are better.

And they will never in a millions years as Obsidian.1328 has said, get the pet right in all the situations in this game.

We would like the option to not have a pet, but, you want to force us to keep the pet ?

It doesn’t matter what player’s vision of a ranger is. What matters is what ArenaNet’s vision of a ranger is. The vision that has been shown since before launch. This wasn’t a bait-and-switch. They’ve always been very clear that ranger == pet. Asking them to change their vision to match yours does the designers and the game a disservice.

No, the pet will never be as good as a player. That is true. But as that is true, if the pet has a buffed removal option … then what benefit would the ranger have to bring the pet? Outside of a few niche places (PvP, anyone?) the pet would be that useless option that noone uses. Like necro minions. Like engy turrets. Like mesmer mantras.

In order to get people to use mechanics you need to give them reasons to use them, not reasons to avoid them. Otherwise you’re removing a mechanic as a valid option.

Yes, you want the option to not have a pet. There is that option. There are other classes. But in GW2, ranger == pet.

You just highlighted why pets are a liability. Minions, turrets, and mantras are not used much for a reason. They die instantly to crowded AoE scenarios. Everyone knows this, that’s why their not used in those scenarios. And you’re asking us to deny that reality??

If you or anyone else can find a way to make that not be the case, I’m all for it. The reality is it’s most likely impossible to do so. And if it’s impossible to do so, why in the world should we be forced to deal with it?

Unfortunately, their vision of a Ranger has left them sub-par, forever having to give more effort to try and match some of the other classes, or still fall short of them anyway.

Try soloing the Champion Risen Abomination with a pet.

(Abomination does its charge up AoE smash)

(You dodge.)

(Abomination gains frenzy anyway because your pet doesn’t dodge with you, meaning you have to let the Abomination kill it, and leave it limping while waiting for the Abomination’s frenzy to hopefully wear off before it can hit you more.)

Meanwhile, any other class can manage that with less trouble, since they aren’t stuck with a forced summon put on them the whole time.

Obsidian.1328:

You just highlighted why pets are a liability. Minions, turrets, and mantras are not used much for a reason. They die instantly to crowded AoE scenarios. Everyone knows this, that’s why their not used in those scenarios. And you’re asking us to deny that reality??

If you or anyone else can find a way to make that not be the case, I’m all for it. The reality is it’s most likely impossible to do so. And if it’s impossible to do so, why in the world should we be forced to deal with it?

There are many things they could add. Give us the ability to let the pet dodge. Allow the recall pet to have them retreat with some haste. Let the recall pull them to us, not somewhere that might be close. That’s just to start.

There are many things they could do to improve the pet. But by giving the option to not have a pet, that will cause the PvE meta to discard the pet entirely. To remove it as an option by way of inadequacy. Instead of making us find ways of being useful with the pet you’ll be taking away that incentive. It’ll kill beastmaster as a thing in PvE. And that’s a shame.

Nilkemia.8507:

Unfortunately, their vision of a Ranger has left them sub-par, forever having to give more effort to try and match some of the other classes, or still fall short of them anyway.

Try soloing the Champion Risen Abomination with a pet.

(Abomination does its charge up AoE smash)

(You dodge.)

(Abomination gains frenzy anyway because your pet doesn’t dodge with you, meaning you have to let the Abomination kill it, and leave it limping while waiting for the Abomination’s frenzy to hopefully wear off before it can hit you more.)

Meanwhile, any other class can manage that with less trouble, since they aren’t stuck with a forced summon put on them the whole time.

Yes. But we can be given tools to make the pet better. Which is preferable to just removing it.

I don’t know, all these “experienced players” and their “experienced comments” make me chuckle. They’re not seeing how it’s going to make their lives easier.

I for one love to see it as an option, because I love my pets and I would love to kick some no-pet-rangers’ kitten s with them.

You can have all my +1’s

This thread is Ranger bigotry in a nutshell…

Recycle.5493:

I don’t know, all these “experienced players” and their “experienced comments” make me chuckle. They’re not seeing how it’s going to make their lives easier.

I for one love to see it as an option, because I love my pets and I would love to kick some no-pet-rangers’ kitten s with them.

No. We do see how it would. Some of us, like myself, just see that there would then be a problem in making pets a viable option. Something that actually gets used. Instead of something that gets permanently shelved. We have seven no-pet requred classes. Why insist on an eighth?

I would prefer a Ranger more akin to it’s predecessor in GW1, where Beastmaster builds were a viable option…as were builds where you didn’t even have a pet.

I love pets. I also love seeing them survive encounters, and having the option to build my Ranger without a companion, if I so choose.

SynfulChaot.3169:

No. We do see how it would. Some of us, like myself, just see that there would then be a problem in making pets a viable option. Something that actually gets used. Instead of something that gets permanently shelved. We have seven no-pet required classes. Why insist on an eighth?

You’re not seeing what I’m pointing out. It is an option, not forced onto everyone. And just as I said, I love my pets as the way they are. What I want is that “pet-less as an option with no stat change in ranger him/herself,” which means easier killing the crippled rangers who are dumb enough to not use pets, which means advantages for those who prefer and use pets.

Honestly, I don’t care about class reputation or player criticism, if people want to cripple themselves by not having a pet, then fine, make it an option, but don’t give them stat increase when pet-less. Make them suffer for their own decisions.

Recycle.5493:

SynfulChaot.3169:

No. We do see how it would. Some of us, like myself, just see that there would then be a problem in making pets a viable option. Something that actually gets used. Instead of something that gets permanently shelved. We have seven no-pet required classes. Why insist on an eighth?

You’re not seeing what I’m pointing out. It is an option, not forced onto everyone. And just as I said, I love my pets as the way they are. What I want is that “pet-less as an option with no stat change in ranger him/herself,” which means easier killing the crippled rangers who are dumb enough to not use pets, which means advantages for those who prefer and use pets.

Oh. An option to shelve the pet with no change to the ranger in any other way? Yes. I’d like that as well. T’would be useful in a few select situations.

But that’s not what the others are demanding.

Recycle.5493:

Honestly, I don’t care about class reputation or player criticism, if people want to cripple themselves by not having a pet, then fine, make it an option, but don’t give them stat increase when pet-less. Make them suffer for their own decisions.

I’m in complete agreement.

I am not against pets tbh, but really the ranger class is so BADLY designed in this game it will never be fixed. I know exactly what the problem is, some anet devs were wow players (no offence but that game is kitten for nerds) or pokemon fans. So basically they wanted to recreate in gw2 the wow hunter (or whatever that class is called). Cool (not really) but the problem is the stupid pet mechanic they had introduced in this game didn’t work at all. Instead of fixing it (or removing it completely) they stubbornly left the mechanic in game, they simply added some even more stupid things like the absurd pet swap (“I choose you!” go pikachu). They will never fix this problem. They will probably increase pets hp, lol. So typical, they always avoid the problem instead of fixing it, cos tbh they have no idea how to fix the problem. But i don’t blame them, cos this class is so badly designed it’s like a losing battle.

+1, but this thread is useless, sadly.

SynfulChaot.3169:

That kinda goes against their design philosophy.

I don’t give a kitten about their class philosophy. Philosophy is useless anyway…not only that, but their philosophy is clearly plain stupid.

Fjandi.2516:

SynfulChaot.3169:

That kinda goes against their design philosophy.

I don’t give a kitten about their class philosophy. Philosophy is useless anyway…not only that, but their philosophy is clearly plain stupid.

It’s obvious that you don’t like the class’s design. So why insist on it changing to suit you instead of going for a class whose design philosophy you do like.

SynfulChaot.3169:

Fjandi.2516:

SynfulChaot.3169:

That kinda goes against their design philosophy.

I don’t give a kitten about their class philosophy. Philosophy is useless anyway…not only that, but their philosophy is clearly plain stupid.

It’s obvious that you don’t like the class’s design. So why insist on it changing to suit you instead of going for a class whose design philosophy you do like.

By your own words, why do you insist on keeping to suit your needs? Just because that’s the way it is now? That’s not good enough. Just because a game developer wants something one way, doesn’t mean we can’t question it. It’s our job as players to be critical of their decisions, not simply accept it blindly. And we’re beyond being constructive with that criticism, because they won’t engage a serious debate about it.

I gaurantee you the vast majority of rangers, if you include the thousands that have been shelved over the past year, would prefer the option to go pet-less if they want. Citing that it wasn’t ANet’s initial philosophy with the class to do that isn’t good enough, for all the reasons we’ve already stated.

Also, if doing this would make the “beastmaster” vastly less popular, then that’s a testament to the flaws inherent in it right now, not a reason to keep it.

Obsidian.1328:

SynfulChaot.3169:

Fjandi.2516:

SynfulChaot.3169:

That kinda goes against their design philosophy.

I don’t give a kitten about their class philosophy. Philosophy is useless anyway…not only that, but their philosophy is clearly plain stupid.

It’s obvious that you don’t like the class’s design. So why insist on it changing to suit you instead of going for a class whose design philosophy you do like.

By your own words, why do you insist on keeping to suit your needs? Just because that’s the way it is now? That’s not good enough. Just because a game developer wants something one way, doesn’t mean we can’t question it. It’s our job as players to be critical of their decisions, not simply accept it blindly. And we’re beyond being constructive with that criticism, because they won’t engage a serious debate about it.

I gaurantee you the vast majority of rangers, if you include the thousands that have been shelved over the past year, would prefer the option to go pet-less if they want. Citing that it wasn’t ANet’s initial philosophy with the class to do that isn’t good enough, for all the reasons we’ve already stated.

Also, if doing this would make the “beastmaster” vastly less popular, then that’s a testament to the flaws inherent in it right now, not a reason to keep it.

I bolded the area that is blatantly true, i kinda want them to add a petless option to ranger just so they can see how kittening badly pets need the help because we know how many people would drop that pet in a matter of seconds.

Obsidian.1328:

By your own words, why do you insist on keeping to suit your needs? Just because that’s the way it is now? That’s not good enough. Just because a game developer wants something one way, doesn’t mean we can’t question it. It’s our job as players to be critical of their decisions, not simply accept it blindly. And we’re beyond being constructive with that criticism, because they won’t engage a serious debate about it.

I gaurantee you the vast majority of rangers, if you include the thousands that have been shelved over the past year, would prefer the option to go pet-less if they want. Citing that it wasn’t ANet’s initial philosophy with the class to do that isn’t good enough, for all the reasons we’ve already stated.

Also, if doing this would make the “beastmaster” vastly less popular, then that’s a testament to the flaws inherent in it right now, not a reason to keep it.

Because I’m not going to demand that the game change a class entirely just to suit my needs. The Guild Wars 2 ranger has a pet. ArenaNet has been very clear about this from before launch. There are other classes if you don’t want a pet. Seven others, in fact.

And you cannot guarantee anything. Unless you can provide me with real statistics, which you cannot, you are doing nothing but posing conjecture as fact. Yes, some would prefer not to have a pet. Yes, some still want a pet. But you cannot prove one group is greater than the other.

All you seem to want is for the class’s entire core mechanic to be removed. Because instead of working with the class you insist on it being changed to what you want it to be. That’d be akin to not liking the initiative system and wanting it removed from thieves. Or not liking death shroud and wanting it removed from necromancers. Pets are the ranger’s core mechanic in GW2. If you don’t like the core mechanic, choose a class that you do like the core mechanic of.

Durzlla.6295:

Obsidian.1328:

Also, if doing this would make the “beastmaster” vastly less popular, then that’s a testament to the flaws inherent in it right now, not a reason to keep it.

I bolded the area that is blatantly true, i kinda want them to add a petless option to ranger just so they can see how kittening badly pets need the help because we know how many people would drop that pet in a matter of seconds.

They know how bad the pets are. They know how badly we need fixes. I think they want to see what the health buff does before making more changes. Gradual changes so as to not change too much to fast as that would make it too hard to gather real metrics as you wouldn’t be able to tell what results were from what changes.

We’re getting a health buff for our pets. More changes should come as they continue tweaking the system.

Synful Chaot

If you really think most rangers don’t want the pet removal option, then we can’t have a reasonable discussion.

It is hands down the #1 complaint since launch…

Obsidian.1328:

SynfulChaot.3169:

Nilkemia.8507:

So you just call my argument a strawdog and leave it at that? Weak.

You’ve got a better idea? Better pet AI? When’s that going to happen? It hasn’t so far, and I’m not holding my breath for it. So, like I said, either fix it, let us stow it when we want, or get rid of it for something else.

I do agree that we should be able to stow the pet and not have it automatically pop out if we so choose. I strongly don’t think that we should gain any buff for it.

So…given equal stats, you want to do less base damage then every other class? You do realize rangers share their total damage output with their pet right? Having the pet limp around kitten ily waiting for the swap CD to wear off just means you are doing less damage than everyone else. And putting it on passive means the same thing.

Necro’s are a perfect example of using a “pet” in combat. They lose a utility slot per minion out, which limits them on what they can do to offset the extra dps. They have the option to do that, which is how it should be. Why not have the ranger pet just be a more powerful version of minions? The pet could use up the 3 utility slots with selectable pet-only abilities. That way, the extra dps would force the ranger to give up non-pet related utilities. Makes perfect sense. Pet lovers get their pets, and everyone else can play how they want to.

Just came up with a much easier solution.

Sorrow of the Beastmaster/Beastmaster’s Rage: If your pet is downed, you gain your pet’s 40% DPS while pet swap is on recharge. This effect immediately ends when pet swap is off cooldown.

(Bonus points if it’s not a trait we need to slot for, but if it is, eh. Make it an Adept trait and we’re still golden.)

There. Gameplay remains largely the same. No more -40% DPS while pet is downed.

Pet remains an integral part of gameplay, and you still need to micromanage the wonderful critters so it’s not “HUUR IM GONNA LEAVE MY PETS DAED FOR MOAR DEEPEEUS”.

Still need better AI and pet’s that can reliably connect with PCs. But that right there should settle some folks down I would hope.

Obsidian.1328:

Synful Chaot

If you really think most rangers don’t want the pet removal option, then we can’t have a reasonable discussion.

It is hands down the #1 complaint since launch…

Yes. You’re right. It is the main ranger complaint I’ve heard. But you know what? Those players chose to play the pet-based class. Then wanted the pet gone from it.

Now if you go in knowing (as you should if you actually paid attention) that the class relies on the pet, and then you ask for it to be removed … now that shows that you’re not really capable of reasonable discussion as that request really isn’t reasonable.

CETheLucid.3964:

Obsidian.1328:

SynfulChaot.3169:

Nilkemia.8507:

So you just call my argument a strawdog and leave it at that? Weak.

You’ve got a better idea? Better pet AI? When’s that going to happen? It hasn’t so far, and I’m not holding my breath for it. So, like I said, either fix it, let us stow it when we want, or get rid of it for something else.

I do agree that we should be able to stow the pet and not have it automatically pop out if we so choose. I strongly don’t think that we should gain any buff for it.

So…given equal stats, you want to do less base damage then every other class? You do realize rangers share their total damage output with their pet right? Having the pet limp around kitten ily waiting for the swap CD to wear off just means you are doing less damage than everyone else. And putting it on passive means the same thing.

Necro’s are a perfect example of using a “pet” in combat. They lose a utility slot per minion out, which limits them on what they can do to offset the extra dps. They have the option to do that, which is how it should be. Why not have the ranger pet just be a more powerful version of minions? The pet could use up the 3 utility slots with selectable pet-only abilities. That way, the extra dps would force the ranger to give up non-pet related utilities. Makes perfect sense. Pet lovers get their pets, and everyone else can play how they want to.

Just came up with a much easier solution.

Sorrow of the Beastmaster/Beastmaster’s Rage: If your pet is downed, you gain your pet’s 40% DPS while pet swap is on recharge. This effect immediately ends when pet swap is off cooldown.

(Bonus points if it’s not a trait we need to slot for, but if it is, eh. Make it an Adept trait and we’re still golden.)

There. Gameplay remains largely the same. No more -40% DPS while pet is downed.

Pet remains an integral part of gameplay, and you still need to micromanage the wonderful critters so it’s not “HUUR IM GONNA LEAVE MY PETS DAED FOR MOAR DEEPEEUS”.

Still need better AI and pet’s that can reliably connect with PCs. But that right there should settle some folks down I would hope.

Dang it, forgot to put my cynicism on. We can’t have nice things because people are people.

Some people would just intentionally play their pets badly to have the recharge on cool down as long as possible.

Maybe add a “this can only trigger so often during X amount of time”, with Anet balancing it around an average, even a baddie player at least trying to utilize and keep their pet alive.

Arrive at a decent number that most people who would intentionally kill their pets off for the bonus can’t gain any real benefit from, while those who are trying to keep their critter alive are rewarded for it if things get dicey.

Make it not worth it for the one who would intentionally sac their pet. Reward honest effort and play. Take it away, Anet.

CETheLucid.3964:

Dang it, forgot to put my cynicism on. We can’t have nice things because people are people.

Some people would just intentionally play their pets badly to have the recharge on cool down as long as possible.

Maybe add a “this can only trigger so often during X amount of time”, with Anet balancing it around an average, even a baddie player at least trying to utilize and keep their pet alive.

Arrive at a decent number that most people who would intentionally kill their pets off for the bonus can’t gain any real benefit from, while those who are trying to keep their critter alive are rewarded for it if things get dicey.

Make it not worth it for the one who would intentionally sac their pet. Reward honest effort and play. Take it away, Anet.

I was about to say just that. You beat me to it.

But yeah. Not a bad idea if you add that cooldown to it to remove the incentive to just run a squish pet and suicide it.

Another thought is to lower the ‘dead pet’ recharge penalty. It’s just too long…

SynfulChaot.3169:

All you seem to want is for the class’s entire core mechanic to be removed. Because instead of working with the class you insist on it being changed to what you want it to be. That’d be akin to not liking the initiative system and wanting it removed from thieves. Or not liking death shroud and wanting it removed from necromancers. Pets are the ranger’s core mechanic in GW2. If you don’t like the core mechanic, choose a class that you do like the core mechanic of.

No. Wrong. We want to not be forced to use it every time we get in a fight.

There’s a big difference between death shroud/initiative and pets. Those are actually unique, while pets are basically just summons that we have a little control over (while nearly every race/profession has access to summons of their own). Also, initiative and death shroud are actually optional to use and are much more useful than pets.

Do I need to bring up the Champion Risen Abomination again?

Well, since I have access to other classes, I just play those instead. It’s a shame, rangers have some interesting things they can do, but their core mechanic just doesn’t work.

Nilkemia.8507:

SynfulChaot.3169:

All you seem to want is for the class’s entire core mechanic to be removed. Because instead of working with the class you insist on it being changed to what you want it to be. That’d be akin to not liking the initiative system and wanting it removed from thieves. Or not liking death shroud and wanting it removed from necromancers. Pets are the ranger’s core mechanic in GW2. If you don’t like the core mechanic, choose a class that you do like the core mechanic of.

No. Wrong. We want to not be forced to use it every time we get in a fight.

There’s a big difference between death shroud/initiative and pets. Those are actually unique, while pets are basically just summons that we have a little control over (while nearly every race/profession has access to summons of their own). Also, initiative and death shroud are actually optional to use and are much more useful than pets.

Sorry, but it is the class’s primary mechanic and we do have far more control over our pets than anyone else has over their ‘pets’. Also, I feel the need to point out that initiative is not optional to use unless the thief decides not to use their weapons. And that would make for a really, really, really horribad thief.

Nilkemia.8507:

Do I need to bring up the Champion Risen Abomination again?

Well, since I have access to other classes, I just play those instead. It’s a shame, rangers have some interesting things they can do, but their core mechanic just doesn’t work.

Yes. There are places in which the pet’s flaws are highlighted. There are only a few such places, though. If you look at all late-game content, the encounters in which rangers are thus weakened are few.

Yes, it needs work. None of us will argue that. But I think it’s far better to improve the pet then abandon it. We already have seven non-pet-bound classes. We don’t need an eighth when fixes to the pet would do just fine.