Guild Wars 2

SynfulChaot.3169:

We already have seven non-pet-bound classes.

What does it matter? Is there something that says there has to be a pet class? And even so, we’re not asking for removal, we’re asking for an option. You keep saying that it was ANet’s intention to have it be this way, but who gives a hoot? Are you against change and progress? ANet has already changed plenty of things with this game they said they wouldn’t originally.

An idealized class philosophy doesn’t come close to cutting it for a reason to keep a class mechanic if it doesn’t work when it matters. And I don’t know what end-game you are playing, but most dungeons, fractals, and W3 wipe the floor with pets. Putting them on passive just negates your dmg ouput. And this game is all about two things: dps and CC/dodging.

Bottom line is, most of us want an option to have both, and you only want the pet. I’d say we’re being way more reasonable in that department.

Obsidian.1328:

SynfulChaot.3169:

We already have seven non-pet-bound classes.

What does it matter? Is there something that says there has to be a pet class? And even so, we’re not asking for removal, we’re asking for an option. You keep saying that it was ANet’s intention to have it be this way, but who gives a hoot? Are you against change and progress? ANet has already changed plenty of things with this game they said they wouldn’t originally.

I want progress, yes. Improvement of the pet. Removing the pet isn’t progress. It’s avoiding progress.

Obsidian.1328:

An idealized class philosophy doesn’t come close to cutting it for a reason to keep a class mechanic if it doesn’t work when it matters. And I don’t know what end-game you are playing, but most dungeons, fractals, and W3 wipe the floor with pets. Putting them on passive just negates your dmg ouput. And this game is all about two things: dps and CC/dodging.

Sorry, but as a player that actually plays my ranger in dungeons I find that I have little issue in most places keeping both myself and my pets alive. Yes, with a glassy build and zero points in beastmastery. If you always insist on only a few pets and don’t switch them out, then you’ll have trouble. But if you change up your pets to the encounter, then you should have little trouble.

Now, yes, there are a few encounters in which the pet will cause lowered DPS. But those few encounters are not enough to scrap the pets when fixes to the mechanic would do just fine.

Obsidian.1328:

Bottom line is, most of us want an option to have both, and you only want the pet. I’d say we’re being way more reasonable in that department.

You’re wanting a disabling of the core class mechanic. I’m sorry, but I don’t find that to be reasonable.

Now if the pet wasn’t the core class mechanic, then I’d have little issue. But that is what the ranger is built around. That is our core mechanic. I’m fine if you don’t want to run with one. But you should not be rewarded for doing so. If you don’t want the pet then you should not get that DPS back.

SynfulChaot.3169:

But that is what the ranger is built around. That is our core mechanic. I’m fine if you don’t want to run with one. But you should not be rewarded for doing so. If you don’t want the pet then you should not get that DPS back.

So…they built an entire class’s dps around an AI? What on earth were they thinking? That’s fine your pet survives well, not everyone is a micromanager. Or wants to be.

And you think we should be ok with just running around without a pet but no compensation? I don’t know how to respond to that. Sounds like you want to punish people who want control over their dmg output. That’s just insane.

+1

There should be the option to do so. Overall, it will give the profession more diversity and combat options.

Obsidian.1328:

SynfulChaot.3169:

But that is what the ranger is built around. That is our core mechanic. I’m fine if you don’t want to run with one. But you should not be rewarded for doing so. If you don’t want the pet then you should not get that DPS back.

So…they built an entire class’s dps around an AI? What on earth were they thinking? That’s fine your pet survives well, not everyone is a micromanager. Or wants to be.

Yes. Yes, they did. That’s what pet classes do. Pet classes require managing your pet.

If you didn’t want to deal with a pet, then why did you roll a ranger in the first place? *scratches head*

Obsidian.1328:

And you think we should be ok with just running around without a pet but no compensation? I don’t know how to respond to that. Sounds like you want to punish people who want control over their dmg output. That’s just insane.

Yes. Because you want to remove what makes a pet class a pet class because you don’t want to play a pet class … despite the GW2 ranger always being described as a pet class.

SynfulChaot.3169:

Yes. Yes, they did. That’s what pet classes do. Pet classes require managing your pet.

If you didn’t want to deal with a pet, then why did you roll a ranger in the first place? *scratches head*

Yes. Because you want to remove what makes a pet class a pet class because you don’t want to play a pet class … despite the GW2 ranger always being described as a pet class.

I rolled a ranger because I fell in love with the class in GW1. After all…it’s the same devs right? How different could it be?

And did they also describe to the player base that they suck in mass AoE environments? Or that you share your dmg output with them? Is there anywhere in the wiki that states that?? No, there isn’t. Us players had to find that out on our own. It’s ludicrous they don’t tell you that up front.

Obsidian.1328:

SynfulChaot.3169:

Yes. Yes, they did. That’s what pet classes do. Pet classes require managing your pet.

If you didn’t want to deal with a pet, then why did you roll a ranger in the first place? *scratches head*

Yes. Because you want to remove what makes a pet class a pet class because you don’t want to play a pet class … despite the GW2 ranger always being described as a pet class.

I rolled a ranger because I fell in love with the class in GW1. After all…it’s the same devs right? How different could it be?

And did they also describe to the player base that they suck in mass AoE environments? Or that you share your dmg output with them? Is there anywhere in the wiki that states that?? No, there isn’t. Us players had to find that out on our own. It’s ludicrous they don’t tell you that up front.

The classes aren’t all the same as they were in GW1. The ele doesn’t specialize. The mesmer hardly interrupts. The assassin … I mean thief doesn’t have attack chains.

GW2 isn’t GW1. It is a very different game set in the same world. The gameplay is vastly different. Why should it not follow that the classes would be as well.

Also, I should point out that they released info on the classes, including the fact that the ranger is bound to the pet, long before launch. It even shows them as being a pet class on the profession selection screen.

As for sharing damage output … just think about it. If you gave full damage from the ranger on top of what the pet does then the ranger would be massively OP. Now maybe too much damage is on the pet. That may be true. Scaling some of the damage back to the ranger wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. But having full power on both gives the ranger the power of more than one player. And that’s just bad design.

SynfulChaot.3169:

And that’s just bad design.

Exactly. And so is having mandatory pets in a game where 1-shot mechanics and mass AoE’s have to be actively dodged and avoided. They just don’t fit in the end-game meta. If you think they do then you are fooling yourself. The vast majority of players agree with me, yet you think none of that should matter because “it’s just the way it’s supposed to be.”

I’m sorry, but blindly accepting a broken mechanic on pure “good faith” of the devs fixing it is not only naive, but wrong. What have they done so far to remedy it besides a minor tweak here and there that ultimately didn’t change anything? Why should any of us believe they will come up with some awesome fix to it when they have not only not done anything of consequence to remedy it, but also haven’t even really recognized there’s a problem?

Obsidian.1328:

SynfulChaot.3169:

And that’s just bad design.

Exactly. And so is having mandatory pets in a game where 1-shot mechanics and mass AoE’s have to be actively dodged and avoided. They just don’t fit in the end-game meta. If you think they do then you are fooling yourself. The vast majority of players agree with me, yet you think none of that should matter because “it’s just the way it’s supposed to be.”

I’m sorry, but blindly accepting a broken mechanic on pure “good faith” of the devs fixing it is not only naive, but wrong. What have they done so far to remedy it besides a minor tweak here and there that ultimately didn’t change anything? Why should any of us believe they will come up with some awesome fix to it when they have not only not done anything of consequence to remedy it, but also haven’t even really recognized there’s a problem?

There are other ways of fixing the issues than removing the pet. That is what I am saying. I propose getting the mechanic fixed rather than abandoned.

You’re right. We haven’t had much in the way of fixes in the past. I feel that most of that was due to practically all previous class balance revolving around only PvP. In PvP, the pet doesn’t have the survival issues it does in PvE as there isn’t the insta-death mechanics or the insane AoE spam.

With this next patch on the 15th, though, it seems more focus is being put on PvE class balance. And it’s going to start with the pet health increase. That, I believe, is the first step to improving the pet. It won’t be enough on it’s own. But once they gather metrics on how it will improve things they can determine how next to remedy our pet issues.

I’ll agree that most players don’t like the current pet implementation as it does have some glaring flaws. But I don’t think removing the pets should be the first step. Removing, or minimizing/mitigating the flaws should be. And that is what it seems that ArenaNet is going to do.

I expect more pet fixes to the pet to trickle out as they gather more metrics.

You give them way more credit than is their due.

I still don’t see why it would matter to you. After all, if you kept using your pet, nothing would change for you with a pet option. All that it would change for are the one’s who wouldn’t use it. And if more and more people go that route, why would that bother you? Who cares if they go petless, they aren’t making you do it. And who cares if more people ask for them in dungeons, etc.? Are you worried you won’t get invited in if you don’t remove your pet?

Honestly, it sounds like you’re reaching here. Citing company intentions over and over doesn’t really cut it when they’ve made so many other changes to the game over the past year. We both want to see a change, yet my change is deemed unacceptable because it’s not…what..true to a GW2 ranger? It’s not a cultural icon, it’s a video game class. They would do well to listen to their player base when 90% of them are screaming for this.

They won’t, but they should.

Obsidian.1328:

You give them way more credit than is their due.

I still don’t see why it would matter to you. After all, if you kept using your pet, nothing would change for you with a pet option. All that it would change for are the one’s who wouldn’t use it. And if more and more people go that route, why would that bother you? Who cares if they go petless, they aren’t making you do it. And who cares if more people ask for them in dungeons, etc.? Are you worried you won’t get invited in if you don’t remove your pet?

Honestly, it sounds like you’re reaching here. Citing company intentions over and over doesn’t really cut it when they’ve made so many other changes to the game over the past year. We both want to see a change, yet my change is deemed unacceptable because it’s not…what..true to a GW2 ranger? It’s not a cultural icon, it’s a video game class. They would do well to listen to their player base when 90% of them are screaming for this.

They won’t, but they should.

Either that or you give them less credit.

And yes. I am concerned that if buffed removal became an option that it would force the meta, in PvE and zerg WvW at least, away from pets as a valid option. Adding an option is one thing. But adding an option that changes the entire class and how it plays while invalidating the old way of playing is something else entirely. As much as you don’t want to see it, adding buffed pet removal would be the latter. It would basically remove pets as a valid option.

I honestly think they should stick to their vision of the classes and where they want the classes to be. Not acceding to the demands of people that didn’t want the pet in the first place.

To everyone commenting on this saying we should roll another class like a LB Warrior or a SB Thief, it’s not the same. Rangers are bow oriented and with their traps and non-pet related skills they are a waaaay different playstyle than Thief or Warrior. Some people just want that hunter feel, which the Ranger has, except for the pet…

Umm…pets aren’t a valid option in W3. They never have been. Even less so with zergs. In regular PvE it wouldn’t matter, it’s easy.

All you are still saying is that the way they intended it to be is more important than having it be more effective and reliable. That’s not only wrong, but also offensive.

A revamped pet AI, no matter how good, can not replace a human behind the controls. At all. If you can’t see that, we can’t have a reasonable discussion.

Obsidian.1328:

Umm…pets aren’t a valid option in W3. They never have been. Even less so with zergs. In regular PvE it wouldn’t matter, it’s easy.

Actually pets are a valid option in WvW. Not so much in the zergs, but they can be very good roamers.

Obsidian.1328:

All you are still saying is that the way they intended it to be is more important than having it be more effective and reliable. That’s not only wrong, but also offensive.

A revamped pet AI, no matter how good, can not replace a human behind the controls. At all. If you can’t see that, we can’t have a reasonable discussion.

You’re saying that a pet can never be effective or reliable, which is untrue. It can be.

And sticking to design principles is important. Changing the game to all players whims would only turn the game into yet another standard MMO clone. They’re trying something different here.

You’re right that an AI will not match a player in skill. But. The ranger is a pet class. Pet classes have … pets. Which use an AI. You just don’t want a pet.

Again, the class was advertised from the start as a pet class. Instead of working with the pet and learning how to adapt, you just want it removed. And I’m the unreasonable one?

You mean people who realized the pet was a broken mechanic and doesn’t work. People who didn’t want the pet to begin with probably went with another class already.

Pet ai isn’t meant to replace human control and making the AI to good would be OP.

I don’t see how those of you who want a pet stow power boost option can’t see how it would affect those who choose to use the pet.

The player base believes sheer power is best. It like choosing between batman and superman. While batman can get the job done and has a lot of gagets and utilities to help like a pet ranger. Then you have Superman just Dominating with sheer Power.

Batman is very skilled and takes more skill to do what he does he is just a man who uses the right tool for the job at the right time. That masses what superman because he is perceived to be better. No matter how many times superman fails or dies he is still perceived as better.

I like being a Ranger because it takes skill and isn’t just smash smash. Having a pet stow option would force rangers into a more power role.

This is how it would affect Rangers across the board.

How about we change the pet mechanic in a way that you can keep the “spirit” of your pet within you, gaining some passive bonus and one or two unique skills? Of course, you can still summon it and let it fight like now.

And Anet admitting they made an error with the class? Not gonna happen

SynfulChaot.3169:

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.

Learn to kittening read.

Fjandi.2516:

I am not against pets

I would be totally fine with having a pet IF the mechanic worked at least decently. It does not. Oh and no i don’t want them to waste time trying to fix pets, it’s useless. Pets do not work in this game, they are a pain in the kitten in pve and wvw and an unfair advantage in spvp (not only that, but they contribute to screen cluttering and passive play).

Serraphin Storm.2369:

Pet ai isn’t meant to replace human control and making the AI to good would be OP.

I don’t see how those of you who want a pet stow power boost option can’t see how it would affect those who choose to use the pet.

The player base believes sheer power is best. It like choosing between batman and superman. While batman can get the job done and has a lot of gagets and utilities to help like a pet ranger. Then you have Superman just Dominating with sheer Power.

Batman is very skilled and takes more skill to do what he does he is just a man who uses the right tool for the job at the right time. That masses what superman because he is perceived to be better. No matter how many times superman fails or dies he is still perceived as better.

I like being a Ranger because it takes skill and isn’t just smash smash. Having a pet stow option would force rangers into a more power role.

This is how it would affect Rangers across the board.

Even though I don’t agree with the comparison between Batman and Superman (the two simply have different styles and abilities and I love them both for their individual talents) I agree with thee rest of what you said. =) I picked ranger because it was a ranged class with a pet and I’d be willing to bet that a fair number of people picked it for the same reason. Forum goers are almost never the majority in any MMO so the argument that most players would get rid of their pet if offered the choice really should be backed up by numbers.

-1 for the option to change what attracted me to the class in the first place because, whether you intend it to or not, it IS going to affect my game play. Better to improve the pets versus throwing my hands up and saying “they’re never going to fix it” when the game is barely a year old.

Serraphin Storm.2369:

Pet ai isn’t meant to replace human control and making the AI to good would be OP.

I don’t see how those of you who want a pet stow power boost option can’t see how it would affect those who choose to use the pet.

The player base believes sheer power is best. It like choosing between batman and superman. While batman can get the job done and has a lot of gagets and utilities to help like a pet ranger. Then you have Superman just Dominating with sheer Power.

Batman is very skilled and takes more skill to do what he does he is just a man who uses the right tool for the job at the right time. That masses what superman because he is perceived to be better. No matter how many times superman fails or dies he is still perceived as better.

I like being a Ranger because it takes skill and isn’t just smash smash. Having a pet stow option would force rangers into a more power role.

This is how it would affect Rangers across the board.

Well I’d much rather be batman because I’m not an idiot, batman has kicked the kitten out of every justice league member, ESPECIALLY super man, and has a plan to put any of them down if they go rogue….

Just because the idiot masses like seeing big numbers doesn’t mean that it’s the best option, I mean hell, look at the meta atm it’s totally condition based.

And I’m kinda dumbfounded how many people don’t want this option because THEY like the pet, who the kitten cares how much you like the pet? I LOVE my pet and it’s probably because I’m one of the few rangers who utilizes what my pet is doing (yes I pay attention to that kitten in a fight) and take advantage of it. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have an option for everyone who can’t stand pets.

EVERY and I literally mean EVERY MMO I’ve played where there was a nature themed pet user prof always had a large amount of people who wanted to play the prof minus a pet, why in gods name Anet took a step back from GW1 by forcing their nature based prof to use a pet I will never know…

To be honest I think the best option would to be 1) restrict rangers to one pet at a time 2) make F4 “Stow Pet” 3) implement 3 preparations as the F1-F3 skills and make F4 “release pet”, there’s a longer CD on calling pet back out if he dies, there’s no time limit on pet being out, the preparations wouldn’t be stronger than having a pet out, it’d just make the option viable, make traits in WS to specialize in preparations (or marksman I guess) like BM specializes in pets, problem solved.

The problem is, the class has a difficult time dealing with a missing 30% of its damage… I’m not sure any other Anet class has as hard a time with this much of its damage being relegated to MIA. Certain Ranger Melee builds have it easier, but anything ranged and the class is kitten particularly at long range.

Pet dies, kitten class… Pet has to chase, kitten class… Pet attacking whatever it likes, kitten class… Pet has to run 1200 units to get to what is targeted, kitten while getting there class.

3,861 hours on ranger, 3,893 across all characters….+1 that pet has been nothing but an annoyance since i started ranger…

Am i the only one that thinks the idea of “not using your intended class/skill/f2 to have the same damage as people with class/skill/f2” is wrong???

Pets do have there problems but essentially getting rid of them and buffing damage? hell if there doing that i want 30% MORE dam as i wont have access to my class ability like every other class that will be running around with the same dam %

If anet DOSE do this..i think it will show just how little they care for the ranger class.
But then again..look at the point its at now. i know theres a vocal minority but i think alot of rangers, new and old would prefer and use a option to turn there pet(CLASS MECHANIC)off just to have the SAME dam %…

And that’s sad

SynfulChaot.3169:

Obsidian.1328:

Umm…pets aren’t a valid option in W3. They never have been. Even less so with zergs. In regular PvE it wouldn’t matter, it’s easy.

Actually pets are a valid option in WvW. Not so much in the zergs, but they can be very good roamers.

Obsidian.1328:

All you are still saying is that the way they intended it to be is more important than having it be more effective and reliable. That’s not only wrong, but also offensive.

A revamped pet AI, no matter how good, can not replace a human behind the controls. At all. If you can’t see that, we can’t have a reasonable discussion.

You’re saying that a pet can never be effective or reliable, which is untrue. It can be.

And sticking to design principles is important. Changing the game to all players whims would only turn the game into yet another standard MMO clone. They’re trying something different here.

You’re right that an AI will not match a player in skill. But. The ranger is a pet class. Pet classes have … pets. Which use an AI. You just don’t want a pet.

Again, the class was advertised from the start as a pet class. Instead of working with the pet and learning how to adapt, you just want it removed. And I’m the unreasonable one?

Dude, a roamer in W3 coming across another single player is the same as an sPvP match. You know what I’m talking about here, don’t misdirect the issue.

If they can come up with a way for an AI to anticipate and react to it’s environment like we do, without having it to be told to do every little dodge, sidestep, roll, stay, sit, lie down, etc. etc. etc., then I’m all for it. But that ain’t gonna happen, you know it and I know it, so stop acting like it’s possible for them to make it happen. It’s wishful thinking based on your preferences.

I’m not trying to change the game to fit players whims, I’m trying to introduce some reason and sanity to the issue. Wanting full control over your damage output is as right as rain.

Nothing we would propose would change anything for you, the pet would still be an option, and they can still improve it. You’re worried not enough time would be devoted to improving it if this happens? Well, why should everyone else be made to suffer because it either? Heck, I’d even be for making a ranger with a pet, in the hands of a skilled beastmaster, actually better than one without in a 1v1 scenario. That’s not what we’re talking about though. We’re talking about those vast amounts of end-game content in which having a pet out means it will die quickly to all the things I’ve already mentioned.

If anything, Durz has it right with his preparations idea. It makes perfect sense. Why kitten a class in end-game content because a minority of players would be saddened they can’t have their pal around with them to enjoy it? It doesn’t make any sense.

Obsidian.1328:

—snip—

*sigh*

Continuing this conversation with you is like talking to a brick wall. I’ve made my points very clear, yet they are continually ignored/dismissed automatically. All the while you refuse to see how adding that ‘option’ would remove pets as a valid option to the community.

To everyone else, try stepping back and looking at what impact to the game removing the pet would do. Yes, it would make things easier for you. Unfortunately it would also put pets by the wayside as things that are not used, like necromancer minions and engineer turrets.

Please look at what’s best for the game, not just what’s best for you.

SynfulChaot.3169:

Obsidian.1328:

—snip—

*sigh*

Continuing this conversation with you is like talking to a brick wall. I’ve made my points very clear, yet they are continually ignored/dismissed automatically. All the while you refuse to see how adding that ‘option’ would remove pets as a valid option to the community.

---

To everyone else, try stepping back and looking at what impact to the game removing the pet would do. Yes, it would make things easier for you. Unfortunately it would also put pets by the wayside as things that are not used, like necromancer minions and engineer turrets.

Please look at what’s best for the game, not just what’s best for you.

Because there is nothing enjoyable from a dead pet and a dead you, all because your pet could never escape the insane aoe stun and damage spam that infects all of WvW. If your damage is only 60% of an adversary you will lose. I am not saying that 1v1 the pet is not viable , it is but in a WvW Zerg scenario its just useless and I am sure the majority of rangers would happily give up a pet it meant more offense/ defense skills to them and also more boon / retaliation/ stun to a zerg . Some of us are not PVPers, We do PvE but some of us do WvW quite a bit and its in this situation that rangers need our power/ defense and boons to keep us alive out there.

We may be good healers but nobody thanks the rangers for keeping people alive at the doors of an AC barraged keep, plenty thanks to retaliation and buff generators though. If pets are to be kept fine… but Anet either need to nerf the stun/ damage aoe ( which is easy to do) or buff the pets to the point it would be OP or give them an intelligent AI ( far harder and never will happen). Therefore if the majority of the players would rather have the majority of the damage to them and less to the critter, then it would make far better sense and easier software programming to cut the pet and develop another way of replacing that missing 40% damage. That is to either combine a new set of skills from various classes that already share similar mechanics to rangers (Necro would be nearest) and buff up the class or what they can do is nerf everyone else. Which is the most easier?

Hellmood.2097:

How about we change the pet mechanic in a way that you can keep the “spirit” of your pet within you, gaining some passive bonus and one or two unique skills? Of course, you can still summon it and let it fight like now.

I actually made a suggestion like that a while back, in this thread.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/ranger/Please-allow-us-to-stow-pets-in-combat/first

That would arguably be the best way I can think of to fix this problem with not too much effort and without ditching the pet completely. It would allow us to still use our connection to nature to tap into our pets’ powers without having to have them out all the time, and if the skills we get with each pet were varied and useful enough, it could actually give an incentive to find them all.

I honestly feel that the ranger’s connection to nature and their ability to “range” over the wilderness and be versatile should be considered their core mechanic, rather than just two summons at a time that you’re forced to have out in a fight with limited control over. But, it hasn’t been fixed then, and it probably won’t be fixed now.

mzt.3270:

Because there is nothing enjoyable from a dead pet and a dead you, all because your pet could never escape the insane aoe stun and damage spam that infects all of WvW. If your damage is only 60% of an adversary you will lose. I am not saying that 1v1 the pet is not viable , it is but in a WvW Zerg scenario its just useless and I am sure the majority of rangers would happily give up a pet it meant more offense/ defense skills to them and also more boon / retaliation/ stun to a zerg . Some of us are not PVPers, We do PvE but some of us do WvW quite a bit and its in this situation that rangers need our power/ defense and boons to keep us alive out there.

We may be good healers but nobody thanks the rangers for keeping people alive at the doors of an AC barraged keep, plenty thanks to retaliation and buff generators though. If pets are to be kept fine… but Anet either need to nerf the stun/ damage aoe ( which is easy to do) or buff the pets to the point it would be OP or give them an intelligent AI ( far harder and never will happen). Therefore if the majority of the players would rather have the majority of the damage to them and less to the critter, then it would make far better sense and easier software programming to cut the pet and develop another way of replacing that missing 40% damage. That is to either combine a new set of skills from various classes that already share similar mechanics to rangers (Necro would be nearest) and buff up the class or what they can do is nerf everyone else. Which is the most easier?

Here’s the thing, though. There are many things they could do to improve the pet in the situations in which they are weak, such as under heavy AoE spam as is prevalent in zerg WvW and certain PvE encounters. You even listed a few of them yourself. Why then, should we petition for removal of the mechanic instead of improvement of the mechanic?

Removal is the easy way out for those that didn’t want a pet in the first place. Improvement is for those that want the GW2 ranger to remain the GW2 ranger.

+ 1
for pet remove OPTION. so those that want pets can still have them. and those that do not want pets can remove them, cause they are almost useless in any situation except spvp.

+INFINITY

I’d really like the option not to have a pet out… Perma-stow is something I’ve been wanting since I realized the pets suck so bad it puts my hoover vacuum to shame. Now almost 1100 hours in the pet is always on passive (which I still do not understand why this is not able to be put to a keybind) because it is only worth the F2 in maybe 50% of the encounters without going 30pts into BM. And yes, if Anet had called the class “Beastmaster” instead of “Ranger” they would have avoided a lot of perception problems.

What I would like to see is this as a 2nd class mechanic:

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Preparation

So, if I don’t want to use pets I could use preps and be in heaven.

SynfulChaot.3169:

mzt.3270:

Because there is nothing enjoyable from a dead pet and a dead you, all because your pet could never escape the insane aoe stun and damage spam that infects all of WvW. If your damage is only 60% of an adversary you will lose. I am not saying that 1v1 the pet is not viable , it is but in a WvW Zerg scenario its just useless and I am sure the majority of rangers would happily give up a pet it meant more offense/ defense skills to them and also more boon / retaliation/ stun to a zerg . Some of us are not PVPers, We do PvE but some of us do WvW quite a bit and its in this situation that rangers need our power/ defense and boons to keep us alive out there.

We may be good healers but nobody thanks the rangers for keeping people alive at the doors of an AC barraged keep, plenty thanks to retaliation and buff generators though. If pets are to be kept fine… but Anet either need to nerf the stun/ damage aoe ( which is easy to do) or buff the pets to the point it would be OP or give them an intelligent AI ( far harder and never will happen). Therefore if the majority of the players would rather have the majority of the damage to them and less to the critter, then it would make far better sense and easier software programming to cut the pet and develop another way of replacing that missing 40% damage. That is to either combine a new set of skills from various classes that already share similar mechanics to rangers (Necro would be nearest) and buff up the class or what they can do is nerf everyone else. Which is the most easier?

Here’s the thing, though. There are many things they could do to improve the pet in the situations in which they are weak, such as under heavy AoE spam as is prevalent in zerg WvW and certain PvE encounters. You even listed a few of them yourself. Why then, should we petition for removal of the mechanic instead of improvement of the mechanic?

Removal is the easy way out for those that didn’t want a pet in the first place. Improvement is for those that want the GW2 ranger to remain the GW2 ranger.

Indeed I agree but the issue is that because of the constant complaints of PVP players which then go to affecting our classes ( regardless if we set foot in PVP or not) is grossly unfair and yet another example of Anet’s constant failures to investigate the mechanics of all classes in ALL aspects of the game before setting down a nerf or buff.

For example who on earth had the stupidity to place a nerf on the shortbow from 1200 to 900? In WvW that distance would close the gap in catching up those classes such as elementals ( who IMO already have more than ample combat viability to survive) also have speed signets and also have the opportunity to boost speed with Rune of the Berserk Emu or some other daft idea Anet like to place.

What I am saying is yes maybe the Pet is ok in PVE and PvP, but in WvW its not and its about time Anet should be addressing the majority of people who do represent their server in WvW other than in PVP. In WvW we have engies who cant even lob a grenade over a keep wall, they have to actually stand on a ledge to do it, yet a Mesmer can haul some poor sod off a wall without being near the lip. What is fair about that?

If its not the botters its the cheaters, if its not the cheaters its the people finding loopholes in game mechanics to get the upperhand. So of course there are ways to deal with the mechanics or rangers but they will never be addressed fully unless any changes are looked on in an all encompassed view and that is clearly not happening. Don’t get me wrong I love my Pet, in PVE its great to have but WvW I could do far more and I would like to have the opportunity to have better camouflage, some stun options and stability that’s not part of a poor elite skill. If it saves people crying O.P because we get that and a pet, well I would rather just not have the pet.

I’ll make it simple for you SynfulChaot. We want the pet gone because after a year and no real changes to how it works, we have lost hope in any real improvements and would like the option to simple put the pet away for a while when it has no purpose or is a detriment to ourselves. It should be much easier for them to add a permanent stow feature than it would be to create new mechanics for the pet. Therefore, this is an easy solution to a problem many of us share. It is an improvement for us, just not one you comprehend.

mzt.3270:

Indeed I agree but the issue is that because of the constant complaints of PVP players which then go to affecting our classes ( regardless if we set foot in PVP or not) is grossly unfair and yet another example of Anet’s constant failures to investigate the mechanics of all classes in ALL aspects of the game before setting down a nerf or buff.

For example who on earth had the stupidity to place a nerf on the shortbow from 1200 to 900? In WvW that distance would close the gap in catching up those classes such as elementals ( who IMO already have more than ample combat viability to survive) also have speed signets and also have the opportunity to boost speed with Rune of the Berserk Emu or some other daft idea Anet like to place.

I agree here. The balance focus on PvP and PvP alone did real damage to balance elsewhere. It made warriors practically gods in PvE and lowered rangers to the point where many dislike having us around. And the SB range nerf was completely unnecessary and was lazy design. It was made solely to force LB use instead of making the LB more attractive to use in it’s own right.

But with the latest patch announcements (and leaks) for October 15th, it does seem like ArenaNet is finally starting to look at the state of the PvE game. We can only hope they will continue to do so.

mzt.3270:

What I am saying is yes maybe the Pet is ok in PVE and PvP, but in WvW its not and its about time Anet should be addressing the majority of people who do represent their server in WvW other than in PVP. In WvW we have engies who cant even lob a grenade over a keep wall, they have to actually stand on a ledge to do it, yet a Mesmer can haul some poor sod off a wall without being near the lip. What is fair about that?

More like good in PvP and roaming WvW, barely acceptable in PvE, and useless in zerg WvW.

mzt.3270:

If its not the botters its the cheaters, if its not the cheaters its the people finding loopholes in game mechanics to get the upperhand. So of course there are ways to deal with the mechanics or rangers but they will never be addressed fully unless any changes are looked on in an all encompassed view and that is clearly not happening. Don’t get me wrong I love my Pet, in PVE its great to have but WvW I could do far more and I would like to have the opportunity to have better camouflage, some stun options and stability that’s not part of a poor elite skill. If it saves people crying O.P because we get that and a pet, well I would rather just not have the pet.

Let them cry OP. Their arguments have no weight if they’re not based in fact. The complaints of the ignorant should not have any effect on the balance of the game.

Now as you stated you like your pet, would you prefer removal of the pet or improvement of the pet so it no longer feels like it’s dead weight hindering you?

thefantasticg.3984:

+INFINITY

I’d really like the option not to have a pet out… Perma-stow is something I’ve been wanting since I realized the pets suck so bad it puts my hoover vacuum to shame. Now almost 1100 hours in the pet is always on passive (which I still do not understand why this is not able to be put to a keybind) because it is only worth the F2 in maybe 50% of the encounters without going 30pts into BM. And yes, if Anet had called the class “Beastmaster” instead of “Ranger” they would have avoided a lot of perception problems.

What I would like to see is this as a 2nd class mechanic:

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Preparation

So, if I don’t want to use pets I could use preps and be in heaven.

I’d rather they just made it so you swapped from pets to preparations in combat, but that’s just me…

Indoles.1467:

I’ll make it simple for you SynfulChaot. We want the pet gone because after a year and no real changes to how it works, we have lost hope in any real improvements and would like the option to simple put the pet away for a while when it has no purpose or is a detriment to ourselves. It should be much easier for them to add a permanent stow feature than it would be to create new mechanics for the pet. Therefore, this is an easy solution to a problem many of us share. It is an improvement for us, just not one you comprehend.

It’s not had any changes because, like I’ve said too many times to count now, all previous balance was done with only PvP in mind. And in PvP the pet isn’t the anchor it can be in other game modes. Now that we’re starting to get some PvE-based balance changes such as more pet health, I believe it’s showing that they are starting to work on the pet issues as regards to PvE.

I mean seriously. We’re just short of a pet buff and you’re crying for pet removal before we can even see how it will affect the game?

Yes, I know that that’s not all the pet needs. But it’s a first step. Now if that comes out and then there is no further change for months? Yes. I’ll agree that maybe removal is an option. But right now, when they do seem to be working on fixing our issues, I strongly don’t believe that it’s a valid request.

And I comprehend it just fine. Yes, it is an easy solution. Yes, it would be an improvement. No, I don’t believe they should contemplate it yet. I don’t believe they should throw in the towel before determining that it is unfeasible for the game to have a beastmaster class.

Durzlla.6295:

thefantasticg.3984:

+INFINITY

I’d really like the option not to have a pet out… Perma-stow is something I’ve been wanting since I realized the pets suck so bad it puts my hoover vacuum to shame. Now almost 1100 hours in the pet is always on passive (which I still do not understand why this is not able to be put to a keybind) because it is only worth the F2 in maybe 50% of the encounters without going 30pts into BM. And yes, if Anet had called the class “Beastmaster” instead of “Ranger” they would have avoided a lot of perception problems.

What I would like to see is this as a 2nd class mechanic:

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Preparation

So, if I don’t want to use pets I could use preps and be in heaven.

I’d rather they just made it so you swapped from pets to preparations in combat, but that’s just me…

I could live with that option too.

SynfulChaot.3169:

Indoles.1467:

I’ll make it simple for you SynfulChaot. We want the pet gone because after a year and no real changes to how it works, we have lost hope in any real improvements and would like the option to simple put the pet away for a while when it has no purpose or is a detriment to ourselves. It should be much easier for them to add a permanent stow feature than it would be to create new mechanics for the pet. Therefore, this is an easy solution to a problem many of us share. It is an improvement for us, just not one you comprehend.

It’s not had any changes because, like I’ve said too many times to count now, all previous balance was done with only PvP in mind. And in PvP the pet isn’t the anchor it can be in other game modes. Now that we’re starting to get some PvE-based balance changes such as more pet health, I believe it’s showing that they are starting to work on the pet issues as regards to PvE.

I mean seriously. We’re just short of a pet buff and you’re crying for pet removal before we can even see how it will affect the game?

Yes, I know that that’s not all the pet needs. But it’s a first step. Now if that comes out and then there is no further change for months? Yes. I’ll agree that maybe removal is an option. But right now, when they do seem to be working on fixing our issues, I strongly don’t believe that it’s a valid request.

And I comprehend it just fine. Yes, it is an easy solution. Yes, it would be an improvement. No, I don’t believe they should contemplate it yet. I don’t believe they should throw in the towel before determining that it is unfeasible for the game to have a beastmaster class.

What are they doing to pets on Oct. 15th that you seem to thinks lends them some credibility? They mentioned bear condi cleansing, and moa’s and fernhounds. None of that addresses the issue. And I swear if ANet does what they like to do, which is just throw more hp at the problem, it’s a sign they don’t know what to do about it.

Tell you what SynfulChaot, if they decide to simply increase pet hp or toughness vs AoE’s, they fail. 2 weeks…

Obsidian.1328:

What are they doing to pets on Oct. 15th that you seem to thinks lends them some credibility? They mentioned bear condi cleansing, and moa’s and fernhounds. None of that addresses the issue. And I swear if ANet does what they like to do, which is just throw more hp at the problem, it’s a sign they don’t know what to do about it.

Tell you what SynfulChaot, if they decide to simply increase pet hp or toughness vs AoE’s, they fail. 2 weeks…

We already know that the HP buff is coming. That has been officially confirmed. I’d not expect a lot more in that patch as far as the pet is concerned as they will need to gather metrics before making further changes. It’s the next few patches after that one that are the key ones.

SynfulChaot.3169:

Obsidian.1328:

What are they doing to pets on Oct. 15th that you seem to thinks lends them some credibility? They mentioned bear condi cleansing, and moa’s and fernhounds. None of that addresses the issue. And I swear if ANet does what they like to do, which is just throw more hp at the problem, it’s a sign they don’t know what to do about it.

Tell you what SynfulChaot, if they decide to simply increase pet hp or toughness vs AoE’s, they fail. 2 weeks…

We already know that the HP buff is coming. That has been officially confirmed. I’d not expect a lot more in that patch as far as the pet is concerned as they will need to gather metrics before making further changes. It’s the next few patches after that one that are the key ones.

Gather metrics?? What have they been doing this past year then?

Obsidian.1328:

SynfulChaot.3169:

We already know that the HP buff is coming. That has been officially confirmed. I’d not expect a lot more in that patch as far as the pet is concerned as they will need to gather metrics before making further changes. It’s the next few patches after that one that are the key ones.

Gather metrics?? What have they been doing this past year then?

Gather metrics on how the change, the buff to pet health, affects the ranger. Theorycrafting is fine and all, but it needs to be tested in the field to see how to tweak it. That’s what metrics they need to gather.

Think about it. If they made … let’s say five changes to the pet simultaneously and then found that they went to far and overbuffed it. How would they be able to tell which one of the five was responsible for it going too far? That is the reason for making more gradual changes. So you can implement one at a time and gather metrics for the effect of each.

Now again, as I stated before, if there are no further changes in the couple months after the health buff and the ranger pet is still in a bad place then I will hesitantly agree that maybe the pet needs to go. But right now we’re on the start of what could be the progress we need to make the pet come into it’s own. Let’s let that process come to it’s conclusion, good or bad, and in a reasonable timeframe before just abandoning the pets.

SynfulChaot.3169:

Let’s let that process come to it’s conclusion, good or bad, and in a reasonable timeframe before just abandoning the pets.

That time frame for me has been the last year (about 9 months of that I actually played). Done with waiting.

thefantasticg.3984:

SynfulChaot.3169:

Let’s let that process come to it’s conclusion, good or bad, and in a reasonable timeframe before just abandoning the pets.

That time frame for me has been the last year (about 9 months of that I actually played). Done with waiting.

So now that they’re actually seeming to be actively working on it, when before they were not, you’re still to impatient and want it perfect now? How demanding … and rude …

SynfulChaot.3169:

thefantasticg.3984:

SynfulChaot.3169:

Let’s let that process come to it’s conclusion, good or bad, and in a reasonable timeframe before just abandoning the pets.

That time frame for me has been the last year (about 9 months of that I actually played). Done with waiting.

So now that they’re actually seeming to be actively working on it, when before they were not, you’re still to impatient and want it perfect now? How demanding … and rude …

Lol, I think you’re trolling at this point. One year is not long to wait at all for a basic class function.

Obsidian.1328:

Lol, I think you’re trolling at this point. One year is not long to wait at all for a basic class function.

No. I’m really not. And if you read any of what I’ve been saying you’d already know that.

I want to see the ranger in a good place as much as you do. Probably more than you do. I just want to see it done right. Not hastily. If that happens to be with the pet? Good. If it happens to be without? Also good. But I don’t yet think it is time to abandon the pet. Not with active work now being done on the issue.

Now if another few months come and go and the pet is still having severe issues with seemingly no attention being payed to it then maybe it will be time for the pet to go. But right now they are seeming to be working on the pet issues. It’s not that hard to wait a short while to see what comes of the changes.

Sigh…

You still don’t have a valid option for that though. No one does. Giving the pet an on-call dodge or instant recall won’t be nearly enough. There’s no AI in the world that can replicate a human being reacting to what’s on the screen. That’s the bottom line with the issue, not tweaking it with some clever utilities.

Obsidian.1328:

Sigh…

You still don’t have a valid option for that though. No one does. Giving the pet an on-call dodge or instant recall won’t be nearly enough. There’s no AI in the world that can replicate a human being reacting to what’s on the screen. That’s the bottom line with the issue, not tweaking it with some clever utilities.

No. There isn’t. And again, that is one of the drawbacks to a pet class. A pet class you chose to play. Noone forced you to play a ranger. At least I don’t think anyone did. And if somehow they did, then you have bigger issues than ranger balance. :P

You can, however, improve their AI to avoid AoE and potentially dodge or take reduced damage from the attacks you must dodge. You could also give the ranger the ability to make the pet dodge. Yes, it makes the ranger require micro-managing the pet. But again, that is one of the drawbacks to a pet class.

Basically you’re arguing that there is nothing they can do and that the pet should be scrapped regardless, without any evidence proving that your statement is correct.

Again, right now if you want a petless class, then there are seven more classes to choose from.

“I want progress, yes. Improvement of the pet. Removing the pet isn’t progress. It’s avoiding progress.”

What if I told you…

That Anet’s programmers are not capable of improving the pet?

Lorelei.3918:

“I want progress, yes. Improvement of the pet. Removing the pet isn’t progress. It’s avoiding progress.”

What if I told you…

That Anet’s programmers are not capable of improving the pet?

Then you’d not necessarily be speaking the truth. You don’t and can’t know that. Therefore I’d have to dismiss your claim as unsubstantiatable.

hehe…oh gawd now I am on the spot.

The issue is Anet actually need to take class mechanics and the viability of them in-game seriously, this includes the PVE and WvW. There are very apparent /unequal balances between certain classes just now, It was once warriors as the gods, they got nerfed and so the elementalists and necros are currently meta. This always changes as Anet tries to work out what best to do. .With rangers they never thought or tested the pet in mass damage WVW AOE spam etc, this is because the game has people and people by design will try every darn cheat and loophole to get the upper hand.

Look at thieves, perm stealth was a broken mechanic and Anet addressed that it was never the intention for perm stealth. But despite all the pleas to repair this ( and they could repair it quite easily via software changes) and the good reasons why , they don’t and so people continue to abuse it for an upper hand class.
We also mentioned Anet addressing the ranger changes towards PVE ( I would hope this inc dungeons too). For example it’s a common story to hear rangers are often kicked off parties for simply being rangers, the reasons because the pet interferes with the " skip it" mentality and that Rangers by design, don’t do enough significant damage to overly high damage/ high health pool lords and some parties in dungeons don’t want them.
The questions they need to ask are " Why are rangers not wanted?, why are they being refused from pug groups?, why are people saying damage is too low and pets are a liability?.
If Anet are allowing elitist and unequal classes to manifest but can place " across the board" high damage/ high life pool NPCs yet expect a pet that cannot escape barrages of AOE stun and damage, how do they expect rangers to cope equally and fairly in the PVE environment, knowing that pet AI cannot deal with it.

Now here is the huge question, with all the class changes being directed from PVP QQers (and Anet actually foolishly listening to them), especially when PVP is an arena enclosed environment, then the most worrying part is Anet not actually knowing what they are supporting.
" Are they supporting PVP, are they supporting WVW/ PVE?" No matter what they do, they cannot successfully please both worlds unless they do an across the board buff / nerf to even out all the loopholes. That is a big job but it is not un-achievable, and I do feel that the upcoming ranger changes will be a good start to that.
I agree we should let such people especially those in PVP whine away, I agree most of it is hogwash and built less on fact and more on bruised egos .
There should not be " Gods" it should be an even keel and the whole class system needs an overhaul quite frankly.

I digress.. If I got rid of the pet, I would like to have an equal scaling of power scaling and damage to my weapons. Some on-hand stability (not in an elite skill) and some offensive evades or to make up for the atrocious AI. I would like my damage buffed to power scale with all classes. I would also either like like more chills or stun or seeing perm stealth on hand, some good camouflage is good. Also I would expect a far better elite than entangle which although un-blockable is far too easy to escape from ( haha actually it is avoidable which kinda negates the unblockable bit :P).

If I have to keep a pet I want it buffed like Stallone on concrete steroids and hit like a truck as well as keep my damage (even though its not actually going to solve the issues unless Anet tame the AOE spam/ Champion NPC damage/ solve the poor pet AI). I don’t care a toffee what people say is OP, OP is worried people scared of taking a fall from the top class. Mass AOE stun and perm stealth is O.P, so people would just have to deal with my overly buffed pet.
I also want Sic em to sniff out all perm stealthers regardless of targeted or not (if that’s Anets plan to keep that broken mechanic there), so we have a good combat to stealth rather than the idiotic version they are proposing (especially as you don’t have time to target a low cool-down, perm stealth thief). Anet need to look at all these issues once and for all and just curb the system abuse, as well as sorting out the issues with the underdeveloped classes such as ranger.