Guild Wars 2

Manekk.6981:

It’s not because of rangers that don’t know how to utilize their pet this thread was made, it’s because of the ones that do and still feel they too often get punished/crippled by their own class mechanic being crap in so much content.

I disagree. The tone of most people that want it gone make it clear they never liked having it in the first place. Especially as most seem to not want fixes to it. They just want it gone. They want it to be an archer/huntsman class instead of the beastmaster/archer class that ArenaNet designed it as.

Durzlla.6295:

Well… TA path F/U has been one of the hardest paths in the game and instead of Anet actually fixing that problem it was removed… i wonder if they’re going to do that with pets now… just wave them away and be like “Rangers Class Mechanic is not having one! yeah… that’s it…”

Unfortunately that is looking decently likely. TA F/U would have been easy to fix as well… T.T

Mardermann.7468:

— snip —

No. If you think that I am happy with the current pet system then you are mistaken. I like the idea of having a pet. The current implementation is … fundamentally flawed, though. I just want to see the system _*fixed_* instead of abandoned. Because as I see it, from my understanding of player behaviour, if the option to remove pets is made then even if pets are ‘fixed’ players will not resume use of them. It will practically kill off the pets permanently.

Durzlla.6295:

When i first heard of the whole pet swapping thing i was like “Oh that’s pretty cool” because they sold it as a sort of “you can swap pets but it’s better to stick with just one!” sort of thing, and now we have this….

Why is it all the really awesome things about pets were changed? Like picking their skill set (including what skill was the F2) from a pool of skills, the whole evolution system… the original training system… the original beast mastery traits…

I think another problem with pets, and it’s one I’ve noticed since launch, is that the beastmastery line and concept is fundamentally flawed.

Most of the trait line rewards running the same pets. Masters Bond makes our pets stronger the longer they stay out. All master beastmastery traits only affect specific pets. Yet the other traits reward pet swapping. The game mechanics reward both pet swapping and pet variety. It feels like they can’t decide if we’re supposed to always keep the same pet out or if we’re supposed to be constantly swapping.

There is a lot from GW1 that was better in regards to the pet. The pet ‘shouts’ were far superior. Current pet ‘shouts’ are a joke, IMHO. The pet controls were better. Current ones only allow the slightest modicum of control that we must use every last inch of. The pets were more reliable. The current ones have a tendency to die too easily and not hit their target. The ‘evolution’ system was great in that it allowed some variety in stats. You could have tankier or more damaging versions of all pets if you wanted. The current pets have no options.

There are many things they could do to improve our pets. I just want to see some of those things attempted instead of the, even optional, abandoning of our core mechanic. Because I’m willing to bet that if pet abandonment becomes an option then pets will cease to be a thing outside of PvP and roaming WvW, and those who choose to still run them will get run out of any group.

TA F/U only required a spider Despawn on deaggro/wipe, or a cap on spider spawns (which there used to be). I’m absolutely furious that they removed it, she was one of my favorite villains… AND she was a ranger… RIP: only feared Ranger in GW2.

And yeah, with the original trait system they had traits like Dire Training: Pet damage increased by X, and things that gave boosts to swapping pets (mighty swap and QZ stayed), and then some that promoted a single type of pet, like Canine mastery where all there skills recharged 30% faster and were 50% more effective…

Granted this was WAY back when the trait system was ENTIRERLY different, but still…

PS: those numbers could totally be wrong, they were heard from a friend who attended PAX and tried ranger for me.

Durzlla.6295:

TA F/U only required a spider Despawn on deaggro/wipe, or a cap on spider spawns (which there used to be). I’m absolutely furious that they removed it, she was one of my favorite villains… AND she was a ranger… RIP: only feared Ranger in GW2.

T’was my favorite path mechanically. I used to run all TA paths daily for a while. The boss encounter just got ruined coinciding with the AC revamp. And of the three courtier crazies that were seeking the tree I also found her to be the most amusing. It’s not every day, after all, that you get to see a crazy spider lady.

Durzlla.6295:

And yeah, with the original trait system they had traits like Dire Training: Pet damage increased by X, and things that gave boosts to swapping pets (mighty swap and QZ stayed), and then some that promoted a single type of pet, like Canine mastery where all there skills recharged 30% faster and were 50% more effective…

Granted this was WAY back when the trait system was ENTIRERLY different, but still…

PS: those numbers could totally be wrong, they were heard from a friend who attended PAX and tried ranger for me.

As a player who tried out GW2 at PAX back then, yes, the earlier pet traits were superior to the hodgepodge of mediocrity currently in our traitline. When people only go into the trait for either things not relating to the pet at all or solely for increasing the pet’s stats, then you know you did something wrong.

SynfulChaot.3169:

Because I’m willing to bet that if pet abandonment becomes an option then pets will cease to be a thing outside of PvP and roaming WvW.

Ofc it will, that’s crystal clear. It’s quite simple tbh, there’s no way to completely fix the pet mechanic without adding a pema-stow option, it does not work in this game. It “works” in spvp, but even there it’s clearly badly designed. It looks like jon sharp duped you with all that philosophy bullkitten. All the anet guys do is talking in a completely vague way about what they are doing “ye we know there is a problem with that bla bla bla we are working on that bla bla bla we can’t say anything more specific”.
Sorry but one year has passed, we have a lot of quaggan backpacks, but ranger pets are still kitten, it’s quite evident they don’t know how to fix the problem, or they are wasting their time philosophizing.

Fjandi.2516:

SynfulChaot.3169:

Because I’m willing to bet that if pet abandonment becomes an option then pets will cease to be a thing outside of PvP and roaming WvW.

Ofc it will, that’s crystal clear. It’s quite simple tbh, there’s no way to completely fix the pet mechanic without adding a pema-stow option, it does not work in this game. It “works” in spvp, but even there it’s clearly badly designed. It looks like jon sharp duped you with all that philosophy bullkitten. All the anet guys do is talking in a completely vague way about what they are doing “ye we know there is a problem with that bla bla bla we are working on that bla bla bla we can’t say anything more specific”.
Sorry but one year has passed, we have a lot of quaggan backpacks, but ranger pets are still kitten, it’s quite evident they don’t know how to fix the problem, or they are wasting their time philosophizing.

No. The reason we’ve not seen real improvement is all they seemed to care about before was PvP balance, where the pet was not the anchor it is in PvE. There it is at least mostly functional and mostly reliable. As they didn’t see it as a problem there they didn’t seem to care at all. Now that they’re seeming to actually look at PvE balance we should be getting some pet improvements.

No, I wasn’t duped. Don’t assume me an idiot and I won’t do the same for you, kk?

Yes, I believe they can fix the pet without a perma stow. Many other games have functional pets. We can as well. So let’s give them a short time to fix the pets before just crying for a removal and calling it done. Especially as their focus seems to be on PvE now.

I like my pets, and wouldn’t remove them, so can see no problem with making it OPTIONAL, so +1 to help those who want to be rid of them.

+1 BEcause the option would be great

As long as they gave us full control and better responsiveness, I would be happy with pets. As of now it’s unlikely, but a heel-face-turn is not out of the question. In the meantime I’ll be playing BF4.

After reading this thread (gave it +1 a few days ago), it seems that some people assume we all want to be buffed to high heaven for when the pet is not out. That’s not true. I just want it to not come out automatically when I’m in combat. I don’t want to think, “Oh look, the Jade Maw is targeting my pet again…now this is going to take even longer just because I can’t keep the pet inactive when I need it to.”

Is that so unreasonable? Yes, we want the pet fixed; but Anet hasn’t given us much of a reason to believe that pet fixes are on their way. I’m fine with believing that they are, but with the lack of communication in many instances there’s absolutely no way for me to tell.

Even just the ability to decide when the critter comes out would help me a ton. You know, so I can use it when I want to. So I don’t have keep it on passive (waiting for the right moment to strike) and watch it die anyway due to cleaving and AoE – no matter how much I move out of the way because the pet doesn’t actually stick to me that well.

And fyi, I love my pets dearly.

Fjandi.2516:

Sorry but one year has passed, we have a lot of quaggan backpacks, but ranger pets are still kitten, it’s quite evident they don’t know how to fix the problem, or they are wasting their time philosophizing.

I’m not convinced they realize what the problem is yet.

The problem is they’re trying to make a pvp game with bots as a significant source of DPS. To compound that problem, they didn’t even equalized the damage across the pets so it becomes impossible to balance.

People keep complaining about pets not being able to hit on the run, well it’s impossible to make any sort of balance if there’s no consistency, like if a jag could crit for 6k while a brown bear would crit for 800. Not to mention some pets hit more consistently than others. As a result your weapon scaling is being low balled while your pet damage ratio is wildly fluctuating. Even more so when you start to spec into BM. That ultimately leads to you having an unreliable pet, because they can’t even decide how often a pet should land a hit, and your weapons are kitten.

They need to hard cap pet damage at 10% max or better yet, eliminate pet DPS all together and make them a source of utility. Or they need to make the BM trait line act as a multiplier that takes down your weapon damage and upscales your pet damage the deeper you go into the BM line, while if you do not scale into BM, your weapon damage stays the same as other classes.

@Aridia;

You reminded me of how much I miss the guild wars 1 scaling system, where what you chose to put point into determined the damage you did.

For instance, in guild wars 1, you could take pets with 0 points in Beastmastery. However, they would just serve as another entity on the battlefield, and the weight of the DPS wouldn’t be carried by them. By investing in Beastmastery, pets became much, much stronger, and they weren’t limited to roles at any given point, so that you could choose to make them damage heavy, or choose to make them heal you while you attack. You could even make your pet teleport directly to your target and hit them!

Comparatively, guild wars 2 pets just drops the ball. Mainly, not necessarily by forcing players to use pets, but by forcing a very limited amount of roles the pet can be built for onto the player, including making such a large amount of DPS potential being carried by the pet at any given time.

For instance, maybe I want to use my pet as a mobile buffing machine to grant boons to allies. Maybe, I just want to use it as a shield, and then be the healer for it. Regardless of the options I can think of, I’m limited in what I can do based on the functionality the game and the traits limit me to, and tying such an amount of DPS output to the pet that dictates the usage of the pet.

I would love, and I mean, LOVE, to be able to use my pet solely as a support option. Having little to no damage output, but being able to send it around the battlefield healing allies and giving them boons, or even having the pet grant “bonds” to my allies and take a percent of incoming damage, without sacrificing a portion of my “natural” damage output to do it. It almost seems like this was a thought of concept too, it really does, like with the Moas heals and the bears condition removal, or any of the numerous AoE buff F2 skills. The problem is that the pet can only do that some of the time, and at any given point that it isn’t attacking, you are sacrificing an annoyingly noticeable portion of your DPS as the player.

There’s my gripe. Elementalists and rangers are the only two classes in the game that lose DPS by not using their class mechanic. And arguably, the elementalist loses more functionality than they do actual damage potential.

tl;dr: I just want more options.

+1
Not permanent. But ONLY when the user wants the pet, or not.

Reasons:
1. I want to RUN to get to a place.
I pop 5th skill on my War horn. Guess what, my pet attacks stuff even if the skill is not an attack (with auto attack on)
2. I want to RUN to get to a place fast.
If some mob hits my pet, the pet will fight the mob and will slow me down.
I have the option to put the pet on passive, but I always forget.
3. On mountains, slopes or uneven terrain, the darn pet has to go around for too long.
I am lucky if the pet gets to the mob I am fighting until I kill the mob.
4. Almost useless is WvW and PvP
5. Totally useless in condition damage areas. Dies like a fly.
6. F2 still not fixed
7. Lame F2 support

Of course, they saved my kitten a couple of times in WvW as well as in PvE.
That is why I would like an OPTION to disable it or enable it as I see fit.

Like that will ever happen

They need to hard cap pet damage at 10% max or better yet, eliminate pet DPS all together and make them a source of utility. Or they need to make the BM trait line act as a multiplier that takes down your weapon damage and upscales your pet damage the deeper you go into the BM line, while if you do not scale into BM, your weapon damage stays the same as other classes.
[/quote]

I would be all for the utility source but the practicalities affecting this again are concerning the pet mechanic. The pet would have to be an undying pet to achieve this and considering that a pet when downed can still rez you, this is also a possibility even for the 10% idea. But as a damage source it is useless as it still cannot hit accurately as you can on your own attacks, also all pets also have a long gap between hits and don’t have enough damage to verify those gaps in order to cope with GW’s harsh AOE and hits from both player classes and NPC chaps, lords etc. I am all for Anet to at least trying to fix the pet but I seriously doubt they can without disturbing someone’s feathers ( no pun intended) and people complaining that we would be OP, its bad enough many classes think we are simply " mobile auto-turrets" which is not the case.

Now the only way I can see pets being viable is if Anet introduced hammers back to ranger class, to allow us to replicate the GW1 Bunny Thumper build. http://pvx.wikia.com/wiki/Build:R/W_Bunny_Thumper.

Imagine a move such as Karka Pounce on a hammer weapon that would make you launch at your foe, stun and place mass damage. Only this would make pet viable through a series of available knockdowns ( on reasonable length cooldowns) as the knockdowns as well as pet buffs would actually make the pet viable in all applications. It is because the ranger does not have access to much longer cripples or a close combat weapon that allows for knockdowns to slow opponents down, is possibly the biggest issue facing the ranger as well as the pet.

I am not saying that pets are a bad thing but when I am battling with a class that has heavy armor, fantastic condition into healing conversion ( far better than rangers own regen and have the raw power scaling to make regen viable for them), then the ranger is all wrong and no amount of pet will solve this in the long run. We need that power and the ability to slow or disable an opponent to keep us in the game. We also need that power to allow us to do dungeons as they were designed to be as well as making traiting for might viable; we get the same punch as other classes would traiting for it etc.
More importantly we need control back so we can be far more strategic in our decisions. I just need far more evidence from Anet to persuade me that pets have a future in GW, but let’s see what happens in the next update. Some great ideas and comments have been made here by all, each very viable. But yup – if Anet gave us back the Hammer and the Bunny Thumper it would be a start to solving some issue they have with pets

Aridia.3042:

I’m not convinced they realize what the problem is yet.

The problem is they’re trying to make a pvp game with bots as a significant source of DPS. To compound that problem, they didn’t even equalized the damage across the pets so it becomes impossible to balance.

People keep complaining about pets not being able to hit on the run, well it’s impossible to make any sort of balance if there’s no consistency, like if a jag could crit for 6k while a brown bear would crit for 800. Not to mention some pets hit more consistently than others. As a result your weapon scaling is being low balled while your pet damage ratio is wildly fluctuating. Even more so when you start to spec into BM. That ultimately leads to you having an unreliable pet, because they can’t even decide how often a pet should land a hit, and your weapons are kitten.

They need to hard cap pet damage at 10% max or better yet, eliminate pet DPS all together and make them a source of utility. Or they need to make the BM trait line act as a multiplier that takes down your weapon damage and upscales your pet damage the deeper you go into the BM line, while if you do not scale into BM, your weapon damage stays the same as other classes.

Very good post. I agree 100%.

jcbroe.4329:

I would love, and I mean, LOVE, to be able to use my pet solely as a support option. Having little to no damage output, but being able to send it around the battlefield healing allies and giving them boons, or even having the pet grant “bonds” to my allies and take a percent of incoming damage, without sacrificing a portion of my “natural” damage output to do it.

Good point. I’m sure something like that has been suggested before. This will pretty much fix the dmg scaling problem and the passive play our class is forced into. The problem is those smart devs have already designed this class around pets (traits that grant might to our pets, pet stats increase in bm tree…). I mean I’m trying to be as rational and realistic as possible. It takes them MONTHS to increase a kittening skill dmg by 15% (talking about maul here ofc) how long will it take to rework a whole class mechanic? Yes this is not gonna happen, exactly.
Trust me the point of no return has already been passed, the damage they made to the ranger class cannot be reversed (oh well it can tbh, maybe in a few years or so).
Another problem is the devs are stubborn, they don’t accept criticism, their idea (or philosophy, since they like this useless subject so much) is always the correct one. It doesn’t matter if 99% of the players (players like me or some of you guys who really want the ranger class to become a well designed and fun class in every game mode) don’t agree with their view. But let’s be honest here, it’s not a matter of subjectivity, their view is the wrong one and most game mechanics have already proved so.

Fjandi.2516:

Trust me the point of no return has already been passed, the damage they made to the ranger class cannot be reversed (oh well it can tbh, maybe in a few years or so).
Another problem is the devs are stubborn, they don’t accept criticism, their idea (or philosophy, since they like this useless subject so much) is always the correct one. It doesn’t matter if 99% of the players (players like me or some of you guys who really want the ranger class to become a well designed and fun class in every game mode) don’t agree with their view. But let’s be honest here, it’s not a matter of subjectivity, their view is the wrong one and most game mechanics have already proved so.

I disagree with you on this point. The ‘damage’ they’ve done to the class can be quite easily reversed if they actually start improving our pet. And unfortunately I cannot agree that it’s not a matter of subjectivity. What path is the ‘right’ one to take is entirely subjective. There is no measurable, quantifiable metric for what is ‘right’.

That being said, the pets have massive flaws that need fixing, and badly. I think we can all agree on that.

Durzlla.6295:

Atherakhia.4086:

Durzlla.6295:

I really do wish we only had ONE pet at a time… the whole having 2 pets you swap between really lessens the whole Companion vibe…

Pretty much. It just reinforces the idea that the pet is nothing more than a DOT that can’t hit moving targets :/

When i first heard of the whole pet swapping thing i was like “Oh that’s pretty cool” because they sold it as a sort of “you can swap pets but it’s better to stick with just one!” sort of thing, and now we have this….

Why is it all the really awesome things about pets were changed? Like picking their skill set (including what skill was the F2) from a pool of skills, the whole evolution system… the original training system… the original beast mastery traits…

Gw2 is made to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Any actual depth in a game usually requires intelligence and rewards said intelligence. That kind of thing doesn’t fit in a game where the key to winning PvE is “Hit it with your zerk Greatsword as fast as you can and press (dodge key) to not die”.

The game is a button masher ‘beat em up’ with quick time events.

+1 to OP.

-signed by a White Lion.

edit: for those that didn’t play Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning, they had these two trait options: Revenge and Loner
Loner: You deal 25% more damage when your War Lion is not called forth.
Revenge!: You deal 50% more dmg when your pet dies for 10seconds.

I’d really wish they put those into our trait options.

ps: I don’t ask you to make our pets as efficient as a War Lion, I won’t ask that much from you Anet. Just those 2 work around fix/balance (tweak the % values as necessary of course).

mzt.3270:

I would be all for the utility source but the practicalities affecting this again are concerning the pet mechanic. The pet would have to be an undying pet to achieve this and considering that a pet when downed can still rez you, this is also a possibility even for the 10% idea. But as a damage source it is useless as it still cannot hit accurately as you can on your own attacks, also all pets also have a long gap between hits and don’t have enough damage to verify those gaps in order to cope with GW’s harsh AOE and hits from both player classes and NPC chaps, lords etc. I am all for Anet to at least trying to fix the pet but I seriously doubt they can without disturbing someone’s feathers ( no pun intended) and people complaining that we would be OP, its bad enough many classes think we are simply " mobile auto-turrets" which is not the case.

It’s not necessary to make pets immortal if they’re going to be a source of utility. You can simply give rangers multiple pairs of pets to hot swap like an Ele changing attunement. e.g.

Wolf/Spider
Jag/Drake
Eagle/Bear
Pig/Devourer

Each individual pet swap is the same 20 seconds when in battle like it is now. When you swap from the Wolf/Spider pair to Jag/Drake pair, the first pair goes to a cool down with the count down timer being lower the deeper you spec into BM. Just like how Ele spec into Arcana lowers attunement count down time.

The penalty for improper management is temporary not having the pet you want to use and not complete pet down time like we have currently when they’re both dead.

The problem with unreliable pet is easily cured, the moment they either hard cap pet damage and standardize pet dmg, or if they let players pick that sliding weapon/pet scale by putting a multiplier into the BM line, then they can figure out what’s the optimal number of times a pet should hit a target (pet should hit harder and be more aggressive the deeper you spec into BM to compensate for the lower weapon coefficient).

And no, we can’t expect pets to hit 100% since that’s grossly overpowered and will make every ranger fight a 2 on 1. The unreliability of the pet is just the symptom and not the real problem.

SynfulChaot.3169:

I cannot agree that it’s not a matter of subjectivity. What path is the ‘right’ one to take is entirely subjective. There is no measurable, quantifiable metric for what is ‘right’.

I was not saying the “paths” suggested in this thread are the correct ones. I was simply stating that their path is clearly wrong. I’m the first one to admit I’ve no idea how to fix our broken class mechanic.

Fjandi.2516:

SynfulChaot.3169:

I cannot agree that it’s not a matter of subjectivity. What path is the ‘right’ one to take is entirely subjective. There is no measurable, quantifiable metric for what is ‘right’.

I was not saying the “paths” suggested in this thread are the correct ones. I was simply stating that their path is clearly wrong. I’m the first one to admit I’ve no idea how to fix our broken class mechanic.

I do agree with you. The current path is wrong for real viability in PvE. I just hope, now that they seem focused on PvE/WvW balance, that they will make a real, visible attempt to fix our pets. There are tons of games that have shown how to do it right and how to do it wrong. Let’s hope they pay attention to the former group.

Aridia.3042 – And no, we can’t expect pets to hit 100% since that’s grossly overpowered and will make every ranger fight a 2 on 1. The unreliability of the pet is just the symptom and not the real problem.[/quote]

But a CC can happen at 75% if traited and still be far efficient than the pet and do far more damage. A Guardian can DPS hammer blow with mass damage 100% of the time. Why can’t a pet? If a pet is 40% of our damage I would jolly well expect it to hit 100%. I don’t see the logic of a 40% critter damage as being OP when scaled to what else is out there

+1

I want more options, more viable builds. The pet is often a detriment, one I do not want to be forced to take. Or give me a non-combat pet, like a parrot that sits on my shoulder tossing out boons. I don’t care what the solution is. I just want to be able to play my Ranger without worrying about my pet get eaten by bosses or AoE regardless of anything I try to keep it alive.

Aridia.3042:

It’s not necessary to make pets immortal if they’re going to be a source of utility. You can simply give rangers multiple pairs of pets to hot swap like an Ele changing attunement. e.g.

Wolf/Spider
Jag/Drake
Eagle/Bear
Pig/Devourer

Each individual pet swap is the same 20 seconds when in battle like it is now. When you swap from the Wolf/Spider pair to Jag/Drake pair, the first pair goes to a cool down with the count down timer being lower the deeper you spec into BM. Just like how Ele spec into Arcana lowers attunement count down time.

The penalty for improper management is temporary not having the pet you want to use and not complete pet down time like we have currently when they’re both dead.

The problem with unreliable pet is easily cured, the moment they either hard cap pet damage and standardize pet dmg, or if they let players pick that sliding weapon/pet scale by putting a multiplier into the BM line, then they can figure out what’s the optimal number of times a pet should hit a target (pet should hit harder and be more aggressive the deeper you spec into BM to compensate for the lower weapon coefficient).

And no, we can’t expect pets to hit 100% since that’s grossly overpowered and will make every ranger fight a 2 on 1. The unreliability of the pet is just the symptom and not the real problem.

This idea is pretty cool and I think I saw it posted before. With this atleast we’ll have closer to 100% up time. It’ll also give us more utility in being able to 4 active pets.

A change I would suggest though. Make them work similar to other minions.
1-Press>summons pet>2nd Press>F2 ability>Cooldown.

+1

I don’t care to get into it. I don’t like the pet system in this game. I’m in it for the bows and thats all.

Btw. thank you for adding making this thread. It was needed.

and again..you can flame a-net that they told you, you have to play with your pet this part no one of you read, but the part with the bows !?
srsly?

maybe the pet ai and system is not perfect, true its not.
but to remove the mechnic is a bit to much

dont know where your problems, i´m fine with my pet in tpvp,pve and wvw maybe the player are more the problem than the mechanic

Bambula.3649:

and again..you can flame a-net that they told you, you have to play with your pet this part no one of you read, but the part with the bows !?
srsly?
[img]http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/005/545/OpoQQ.jpg[/img]

maybe the pet ai and system is not perfect, true its not.
but to remove the mechnic is a bit to much

dont know where your problems, i´m fine with my pet in tpvp,pve and wvw maybe the player are more the problem than the mechanic

This thread is not about removing the class mechanic. Players posting here are simply asking for a pet mechanic rework or a perma pet stow OPTION. Your reading skills are clearly as good as your writing skills, so I don’t blame you for not understanding.

still the same problem..much skills/traits got synergies with the pet, with out the synergies they would be useless, but its true.
the people dont try to play with pets.

most rangers got lvl 80, play some dungeons, pet dead..go to forum flame a-net for this “bull****” and never try to play together with the pet again.

And Bamb, we have skills/traits that do not use the pet. It’s o.k., little buddy, to have a perma-stow option.

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 …

Hey, just because they are suddenly “working on it” by giving them more HP doesn’t excuse the last 9 months I’ve been waiting for them to make the pets worth a kitten . Don’t care if you find it rude. Fact remains that they’ve had time to fix this. It’s not like this is a single weapon skill or a single trait that sometimes doesn’t work right. This is a core mechanic of a class that has major problems. They’ve had long enough to fix it. I don’t think they can. If they could have, they would have. That really is what it comes down to. Glad the glass is half full for you, but for most of us who main a ranger Anet emptied the glass then threw it against the wall.

thefantasticg.3984:

And Bamb, we have skills/traits that do not use the pet. It’s o.k., little buddy, to have a perma-stow option.

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 …

Hey, just because they are suddenly “working on it” by giving them more HP doesn’t excuse the last 9 months I’ve been waiting for them to make the pets worth a kitten . Don’t care if you find it rude. Fact remains that they’ve had time to fix this. It’s not like this is a single weapon skill or a single trait that sometimes doesn’t work right. This is a core mechanic of a class that has major problems. They’ve had long enough to fix it. I don’t think they can. If they could have, they would have. That really is what it comes down to. Glad the glass is half full for you, but for most of us who main a ranger Anet emptied the glass then threw it against the wall.

They’ve had a long time to fix it, either fix it or give us the option.

The option to use a pet or not won’t affect those that think the pet can be “micro managed”, and think the pet is worth using.

The pet to me is a game breaker.

thefantasticg.3984:

Hey, just because they are suddenly “working on it” by giving them more HP doesn’t excuse the last 9 months I’ve been waiting for them to make the pets worth a kitten . Don’t care if you find it rude. Fact remains that they’ve had time to fix this. It’s not like this is a single weapon skill or a single trait that sometimes doesn’t work right. This is a core mechanic of a class that has major problems. They’ve had long enough to fix it. I don’t think they can. If they could have, they would have. That really is what it comes down to. Glad the glass is half full for you, but for most of us who main a ranger Anet emptied the glass then threw it against the wall.

Yes, they had time. No, they didn’t as they were blinded by the fact that the pet doesn’t show it’s flaws as glaringly in PvP, which is all they seemed to care about for balance.

Don’t assume I’m happy with where the pet is, either. I’m not. I do think they are capable of fixing it. I just think they didn’t due to not caring about class balance outside of PvP because of their eSports fetish.

You may have given up on the ranger but some of of us, those that actually understand that the ranger in GW2 is a pet class, have not yet done so. I don’t know if you’ve tried the new dungeon or not, but I noticed an … odd thing where my pet took significantly less AoE damage than usual. In fact, outside of the final boss I had far less issue with my pet than in most dungeon paths. Try it with your ranger. You might actually enjoy it.

Solid Gold.9310:

They’ve had a long time to fix it, either fix it or give us the option.

The option to use a pet or not won’t affect those that think the pet can be “micro managed”, and think the pet is worth using.

The pet to me is a game breaker.

And now that they are fixing it you’re dismissing fact that because they didn’t fix it already. Logic fail? Or impatience…

And making it an option would be disastrous for pet use outside of PvP and roaming WvW. It just wouldn’t happen. Because the pet doesn’t have the reaction times that a player does, unless having the pet would border on being OP it would not get used. And those that did choose to run a pet would not be welcome as they’d be seen as holding the others back.

Upping the HP will probably make it live 5 seconds instead of 4 seconds.

Yes I’m impatient, I’ve waited a long time, but to be honest I don’t think they will ever fix it.

And you are all missing the word OPTIONAL.

Solid Gold.9310:

Upping the HP will probably make it live 5 seconds instead of 4 seconds.

Yes I’m impatient, I’ve waited a long time, but to be honest I don’t think they will ever fix it.

And you are all missing the word OPTIONAL.

No. I saw you say optional. But what you, and many others, seem to not realize is that by making it optional most, if not all, PvE rangers will immediately abandon the pet due to the issues. At that point anyone that continues to run a pet will be shunned by the general community like they already shun bear/bow rangers. And that shunning will persist until and unless the pets get not only fixed, but made OP.

Basically the problem isn’t that it would be an option. The problem is the meta that would result from it and make pets considered unviable.

SynfulChaot.3169:

Solid Gold.9310:

Upping the HP will probably make it live 5 seconds instead of 4 seconds.

Yes I’m impatient, I’ve waited a long time, but to be honest I don’t think they will ever fix it.

And you are all missing the word OPTIONAL.

No. I saw you say optional. But what you, and many others, seem to not realize is that by making it optional most, if not all, PvE rangers will immediately abandon the pet due to the issues. At that point anyone that continues to run a pet will be shunned by the general community like they already shun bear/bow rangers. And that shunning will persist until and unless the pets get not only fixed, but made OP.

Basically the problem isn’t that it would be an option. The problem is the meta that would result from it and make pets considered unviable.

That’s selfish on your part. 90% of rangers want to use this option, and 10% are afraid they will get thrown by the wayside if it becomes an option. So that 90% should suck it up and deal with it?

No thanks.

SynfulChaot.3169:

Solid Gold.9310:

Upping the HP will probably make it live 5 seconds instead of 4 seconds.

Yes I’m impatient, I’ve waited a long time, but to be honest I don’t think they will ever fix it.

And you are all missing the word OPTIONAL.

No. I saw you say optional. But what you, and many others, seem to not realize is that by making it optional most, if not all, PvE rangers will immediately abandon the pet due to the issues. At that point anyone that continues to run a pet will be shunned by the general community like they already shun bear/bow rangers. And that shunning will persist until and unless the pets get not only fixed, but made OP.

Basically the problem isn’t that it would be an option. The problem is the meta that would result from it and make pets considered unviable.

Wait, we are already shunned, really, seems the shunning has persisted from just after beta, and you would like that to continue I guess, when somebody could just ask “Would you mind running this without a pet”.

So what if Rangers run without pets when they want to, what’s the big deal, don’t meta me this or that.

There are situations where the pet is fine and there are situations where the pet is completely unviable, why not let us choose when and where we run with a pet, then we would be welcome in any area of the game.

I only have a Ranger, I will only ever have a Ranger, I did storyline dungeons then had several bad experiences and haven’t been in a dungeon since, I would like to experience the whole game with my Ranger without the added worry of being booted from dungeon parties because of my pet, or having to spend hours trying to get in a party because I’m a Ranger.

With the new content being added in “Dungeon” instanced format, I feel even more excluded, at least with TEQ open world content I could take part.

I don’t see why people want to enforce the pet on us “You will have a pet”, it worked fine with GW1 and I don’t see why it wouldn’t work here.

Obsidian.1328:

That’s selfish on your part. 90% of rangers want to use this option, and 10% are afraid they will get thrown by the wayside if it becomes an option. So that 90% should suck it up and deal with it?

No thanks.

Selfish for actually understanding that we should be rewarded for using our class mechanic rather than ignoring it? No. Selfish is demanding that the class mechanic gets stripped from the class.

Solid Gold.9310:

Wait, we are already shunned, really, seems the shunning has persisted from just after beta, and you would like that to continue I guess, when somebody could just ask “Would you mind running this without a pet”.

So what if Rangers run without pets when they want to, what’s the big deal, don’t meta me this or that.

If someone asks you a question like that you you don’t answer yes, you’re going to be kicked. Thus is the nature of the community. They want what’s easiest for them and what’s easiest for them will involve no pets, regardless of whether or not they are the one with the pets.

And if you want to run without pets, there are seven other classes. Pets are what defines the GW2 ranger. Without the pets we are just sub-par warriors.

Solid Gold.9310:

There are situations where the pet is fine and there are situations where the pet is completely unviable, why not let us choose when and where we run with a pet, then we would be welcome in any area of the game.

You’re right. There are a few situations where the pet is unviable. How about fixing the pet so it becomes viable rather than abandoning the thing, hmm?

Solid Gold.9310:

I only have a Ranger, I will only ever have a Ranger, I did storyline dungeons then had several bad experiences and haven’t been in a dungeon since, I would like to experience the whole game with my Ranger without the added worry of being booted from dungeon parties because of my pet, or having to spend hours trying to get in a party because I’m a Ranger.

If you learn to micro you pet and bring the right pets in, even if it’s untraited, then you should be able to complete all dungeon paths with minimal issues, even with PUGs. I mostly only dungeon run with my ranger and have very rarely been kicked.

Solid Gold.9310:

With the new content being added in “Dungeon” instanced format, I feel even more excluded, at least with TEQ open world content I could take part.

I don’t see why people want to enforce the pet on us “You will have a pet”, it worked fine with GW1 and I don’t see why it wouldn’t work here.

Try the new content with your ranger. You’ll find it far more accommodating to pets than previous dungeons. The difficulty is higher, though, but you should have little issue with pet survivability.

As for why people want to enforce the “you will have a pet” thing? Maybe because the GW2 ranger has, and has always, been shown as a beastmaster class.

No matter how much you say it, pets don’t define the ranger. It doesn’t matter if it’s the class mechanic or not, my crappy pet does not define my ranger. I do.

You can use phrases like class mechanic, ANet intentions, or meta all day until Sunday but it doesn’t change our valid arguments. You seem to think that once something is defined, it is impossible to change or modify. By your thinking, any core mechanic change made to a profession is just plain wrong. That’s incredibly stubborn.

The role of a game developer includes changing things that clearly don’t work. We’d like to try out a different thing with the ranger without taking away the pet, while you don’t want to entertain any change at all. And we’re being selfish?

You talk a good talk, but in the end you’re just repeating the same tired argument over and over, and we see through it. No matter how many times we’ve tried to explain it to you, all you end up saying is “doesn’t matter, the pet = ranger so no discussion.” Wow.

Obsidian.1328:

No matter how much you say it, pets don’t define the ranger. It doesn’t matter if it’s the class mechanic or not, my crappy pet does not define my ranger. I do.

Sorry, but in GW2 pets do define the ranger. I can tell you that it definitely isn’t our bows. >.<

Also you might want to note how many of our traits and skills are based around our pets? If that’s not defining, then you might want to look up the definition of the word.

Obsidian.1328:

You can use phrases like class mechanic, ANet intentions, or meta all day until Sunday but it doesn’t change our valid arguments. You seem to think that once something is defined, it is impossible to change or modify. By your thinking, any core mechanic change made to a profession is just plain wrong. That’s incredibly stubborn.

The role of a game developer includes changing things that clearly don’t work. We’d like to try out a different thing with the ranger without taking away the pet, while you don’t want to entertain any change at all. And we’re being selfish?

True. It can be changed or modified. But all you’re insisting on is removal. Yes, it needs to be changed. But there are more ways of change than just removing it. How about actually modifying them so they’re more effective, hmm?

Obsidian.1328:

You talk a good talk, but in the end you’re just repeating the same tired argument over and over, and we see through it. No matter how many times we’ve tried to explain it to you, all you end up saying is “doesn’t matter, the pet = ranger so no discussion.” Wow.

Sorry, but you’re doing the same in the opposite direction. You’re just repeating the same tired, but opposite, argument as well. I’m acknowledging what you’re saying and giving my rebuttal. You’re just not acknowledging my points.

SynfulChaot;
in GW2 pets do define the ranger

Now, in no way am I disagreeing with you. But I just want to point out that I believe this statement is also the problem. Pets are the class mechanic, and by definition, do to a large extent define the class. However, compared to what all of the other classes in the game are capable of doing with their mechanics, the pet mechanics for the ranger seem to much more narrowly define the capabilities of the class than with what other classes can do for their mechanic; particularly with options.

For a quick breakdown:

Warriors: Can choose whether to use their burst skills and make them more effective, or use gained adrenaline to increase damage output or passive healing by not using burst skills.

Guardians: Can choose to focus on the passive effects of their virtues, or make the activations of them more useful. Or, can choose to not focus on them at all, and have them their as just additional effects for the class as a whole.

Engineer: Probably one of the more lackluster mechanics. However, it’s 4 extra skills to work with, and in certain builds, like HGH/Elixir heavy condi removal builds, the extra toolbelt skills can be more removal, more boons. They can be focused on to get shorter cooldowns, and even used in a particular build for insane burst.

Thief: Initiative has it’s obvious benefits. Then, on top of that, stealing can be made more effective with Mug, or even more utility based with traiting out to sleight of hand to be able to steal with a daze every ~20 seconds while gaining boons and stealing more boons on top of it. Or, it can not have any focus at all, and just serve as another gap closer with an additional gained effect if successful.

Elementalist: Can gain tons of boons and effects on swapping attunements. Or, can gain just as many benefits for focusing on a single attunement and using the rest as supplementary attunement swaps.

Mesmer: Very simple but effective. Can choose to go shatter focused for the shatter effects, or can make clones and phantasms the focus, and gain the benefits of keeping them alive as long as possible.

Necromancer: Can choose to use DS as another survival tool for additional health, to make DS a central part of a power focused build, or can make DS a more massive health pool with a utility based usage that can gain boons on using it while still having effective skills to use against enemies, and in some builds, can even heal party members by using certain skills, or even leaving DS.

And lastly:

Ranger: Has a pet that can attack stuff. Some pets have a unique attack to them, but not a unique effect within the parameters of the game. Traits can make the pet better at doing damage. The traitline can make all of the pets stats better.

7 classes that get vastly different functionality from their mechanics and can choose to focus on what role they want their mechanic to take. 1 class who gets to choose how much they want to invest in their tacked on AI DPS.

And don’t worry, I know you’ve acknowledged that there are issues with the mechanics. I just wanted to get this added perspective out there.

jcbroe.4329:

— snip —

Yes. I do agree that we don’t have the options. But there are many options that could be added instead of pet removal, more passive-play style pets among them.

I think one of the real killers is the 60-second recharge when a pet dies as oftentimes it happens despite your best efforts to keep your pet alive. No other class has an entire 60-second period where their entire class mechanic, and linked 20-40% damage, is completely unusable. Doing something about this period would be a good first start.

SynfulChaot.3169:

Sorry, but in GW2 pets do define the ranger. I can tell you that it definitely isn’t our bows. >.<

Ye pets are definitely part of the class in this game. Its core mechanic. But pets do not define the ranger. That’s true for our bows as well, they don’t define the ranger. A ranger without pets is NOT a warrior. It’s hard to explain, but I’m sure every player who really likes the ranger class in every fantasy game (assuming it’s well designed ofc) understands what I mean. The ranger in this game is forced to use pets cos the “hunter” in that ugly stupid game aka wow (I’m sorry wow players, the offense is desired) was forced to use pets. I heard an anet dev used to work for blizzard. This explains everything. Not only wow is a fugly game, it ruined other games (like the one we play and we are trying to enjoy) .The hunter in wow is not a ranger. It’s a different class called hunter. This kitten is not a ranger:
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/Eu40gKy_8lY/maxresdefault.jpg

This is a ranger:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_kQerTWvlVnI/TTkuVH1ZdJI/AAAAAAAAADc/a6QvxONDne4/s1600/sketchbook3page19part2.jpg
http://guildwars2ranger.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/guild_wars_2_ranger-t2.jpg
https://dviw3bl0enbyw.cloudfront.net/uploads/forum_attachment/file/73398/conceptart5_1_.jpg
http://kekai.weebly.com/uploads/5/4/7/6/5476798/1632365_orig.jpg

And no this is NOT a ranger:
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/K9W0V0TtsrY/maxresdefault.jpg

I really like my pets on my ranger but they need to do two things to finally make them really viable:
1) Increase their speed by a massive amount or give them gap closers. Our pets need a way to actually hit targets like phantasms do. Someone tested pets that were moa’d. Suddenly the pet was able to hit moving targets. There is one solution
Increase projectile speed on ranged pets and give us a pet with 1200 range shots.
2) F2 responsiveness:
For example the wolf will always miss his knockback if the target moves away from him. This simply shouldnt happen.
They made it alot too easy to avoid pets. You cannot avoid other skills in the game that easily, only ranger pets. To avoid other players skills or even other players pets you have to dodge/block/invuln. You can’t just walk around and avoid most of their attacks. So please be kind to our pets and make them finally land their hits and abilities

No I don’t agree with that. Rangers are a pet class, so ‘no-pet’ should not be an option without nerfing yourself.

Although I don’t like how pets currently work. (speaking from pve side of view)

The whole game mechanics is about evading attacks, and there is no way you can command your pet to do the same, resulting it to die very fast. Pet AoE immunity would be too overkill in my opinion, but I’d like to see something like pet dodging same way player does, or pet gets “inv” buff for a short period of time when player dodges.

I tend to always run in 30 BM, and call the pet to me to try avoid AoE to keep it up, yet in boss fights, even when thigs go very good (group-wise), I will probably have at least one or two pet deaths.

Fjandi.2516:

Ye pets are definitely part of the class in this game. Its core mechanic. But pets do not define the ranger. That’s true for our bows as well, they don’t define the ranger. A ranger without pets is NOT a warrior. It’s hard to explain, but I’m sure every player who really likes the ranger class in every fantasy game (assuming it’s well designed ofc) understands what I mean. The ranger in this game is forced to use pets cos the “hunter” in that ugly stupid game aka wow (I’m sorry wow players, the offense is desired) was forced to use pets. I heard an anet dev used to work for blizzard. This explains everything. Not only wow is a fugly game, it ruined other games (like the one we play and we are trying to enjoy) .The hunter in wow is not a ranger. It’s a different class called hunter.

Just because early concept work didn’t involve pets doesn’t mean that the GW2 ranger is not defined by the pet. Just look at the current description of the ranger, the one that has existed since well before game launch, and you’ll see what I mean.

The current ranger, as it currently stands, is the merging of two ‘ranger-ish’ types. The marksman and the beastmaster. Originally, IIRC, these were meant to be two disparate professions that were later merged into the odd amalgamation we have today. I believe that the merging was due to wanting only to have so many professions. Were they to have had both professions, which current GW2 profession would have gotten the boot, and would that have been worth it? I don’t think it would have.

And no, I don’t think that the pets are due to WoW. Pets on GW2 (and GW1) rangers are most likely due to the fact that pets are a common, though not always used, theme in the fantasy ranger.

SynfulChaot.3169:

pets are a common, though not always used, theme in the fantasy ranger.

They are not common at all. I made a quick forum search since I was sure someone had already explained this in depth. I can’t quote his post cos that thread got closed (lol I wonder why).

“Rangers have been a staple of RPG and CRPG gaming forever. Game design giving them pets is a direct attempt to try to parallel the Hunter class from World of Warcraft under a different name. Historically they don’t have them in RPGs.

Some notable examples in PnP and computer gaming:

Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (1978) added the ranger to fantasy gaming. No pets.
Wizardry series, 1981-. No pets.
Ultima series, starting with Ultima IV, 1985. No pets.
DIKUMUD games (many), 1990-. No pets.
Elder Scrolls series 1994-. No pets.
Everquest, 1999. No pets.”

Again I wouldn’t be against pets, if they were well implemented. So I’m not saying “the ranger class shouldn’t have pets”.

Fjandi.2516:

SynfulChaot.3169:

pets are a common, though not always used, theme in the fantasy ranger.

They are not common at all. I made a quick forum search since I was sure someone had already explained this in depth. I can’t quote his post cos that thread got closed (lol I wonder why).

“Rangers have been a staple of RPG and CRPG gaming forever. Game design giving them pets is a direct attempt to try to parallel the Hunter class from World of Warcraft under a different name. Historically they don’t have them in RPGs.

Some notable examples in PnP and computer gaming:

Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (1978) added the ranger to fantasy gaming. No pets.
Wizardry series, 1981-. No pets.
Ultima series, starting with Ultima IV, 1985. No pets.
DIKUMUD games (many), 1990-. No pets.
Elder Scrolls series 1994-. No pets.
Everquest, 1999. No pets.”

Again I wouldn’t be against pets, if they were well implemented. So I’m not saying “the ranger class shouldn’t have pets”.

AD&D rangers, at higher levels, could gain followers, some in the form of woodland animals. In both D&D 3 and 3.5, both pre-dating WoW, rangers had animal companions starting at 4th level.

Just because some examples you picked don’t have pets doesn’t mean that it’s not a common theme. Like I said, they are a common, though not always used, theme.

SynfulChaot.3169:

Obsidian.1328:

No matter how much you say it, pets don’t define the ranger. It doesn’t matter if it’s the class mechanic or not, my crappy pet does not define my ranger. I do.

Sorry, but in GW2 pets do define the ranger. I can tell you that it definitely isn’t our bows. >.<

Also you might want to note how many of our traits and skills are based around our pets? If that’s not defining, then you might want to look up the definition of the word.

Obsidian.1328:

You can use phrases like class mechanic, ANet intentions, or meta all day until Sunday but it doesn’t change our valid arguments. You seem to think that once something is defined, it is impossible to change or modify. By your thinking, any core mechanic change made to a profession is just plain wrong. That’s incredibly stubborn.

The role of a game developer includes changing things that clearly don’t work. We’d like to try out a different thing with the ranger without taking away the pet, while you don’t want to entertain any change at all. And we’re being selfish?

True. It can be changed or modified. But all you’re insisting on is removal. Yes, it needs to be changed. But there are more ways of change than just removing it. How about actually modifying them so they’re more effective, hmm?

Obsidian.1328:

You talk a good talk, but in the end you’re just repeating the same tired argument over and over, and we see through it. No matter how many times we’ve tried to explain it to you, all you end up saying is “doesn’t matter, the pet = ranger so no discussion.” Wow.

Sorry, but you’re doing the same in the opposite direction. You’re just repeating the same tired, but opposite, argument as well. I’m acknowledging what you’re saying and giving my rebuttal. You’re just not acknowledging my points.

No, they don’t define rangers. They only do if you choose to. Tons of rangers pick the traits that only benefit them and not the pet, I would say most do just based off of observation but that’s subjective I guess. The reasons they do have already been exhaustively listed here, and it’s irrelevant that there are a lot of pet traits if you don’t choose them. It may have been ANet’s intention for pets to define the class, but the reality is different. Besides, other classes can choose to not utilize their F2 and still be considered the same class. The F2 doesn’t define classes any more than a bow defines a ranger. If you can’t see that you are fooling yourself.

And I was talking about changing the class mechanic, not the pet itself. I don’t want to remove that mechanic just modify it to better suit the reality of the game-world. Telling yourself it will be ok, to just wait, goes against reason…especially when everything points to the contrary. Giving the pet some more hp only validates that since they do the exact same gimmicky thing to bosses as a way to make them more “interesting” fights. It’s a tiny bone they are throwing to us keep us off their backs.

We’re acknowledging your point: “give them time to make legitimate changes.” We’re just saying that’s not good enough. The majority of the ranger community(and ex-rangers for that matter) can’t all be wrong about this.

Obsidian.1328:

No, they don’t define rangers. They only do if you choose to. Tons of rangers pick the traits that only benefit them and not the pet, I would say most do just based off of observation but that’s subjective I guess. The reasons they do have already been exhaustively listed here, and it’s irrelevant that there are a lot of pet traits if you don’t choose them. It may have been ANet’s intention for pets to define the class, but the reality is different. Besides, other classes can choose to not utilize their F2 and still be considered the same class. The F2 doesn’t define classes any more than a bow defines a ranger. If you can’t see that you are fooling yourself.

Sorry, but I can’t agree with you here. Pets really do define rangers. Just because you don’t personally emphasize that aspect of the class doesn’t mean that the class is not defined by the pet. I, myself, don’t trait any into beastmastery, instead traiting for more damage.

You can run a ranger without a bow and still be highly useful. You cannot run a ranger without a pet and still be highly useful. Pets, in the current design, are integral to the class. Speaking in pure semantics, for that reason the pets define the class.

Obsidian.1328:

And I was talking about changing the class mechanic, not the pet itself. I don’t want to remove that mechanic just modify it to better suit the reality of the game-world. Telling yourself it will be ok, to just wait, goes against reason…especially when everything points to the contrary. Giving the pet some more hp only validates that since they do the exact same gimmicky thing to bosses as a way to make them more “interesting” fights. It’s a tiny bone they are throwing to us keep us off their backs.

Changing how the pets are used as the class mechanic wouldn’t be a bad thing. I honestly don’t care how the pets get fixed so long as they remain the primary class mechanic and I’ve a feeling that most rangers feel similar. It’d only get bad if they were removed as the class mechanic and replaced with something else, being instead relegated to the role of a minor aspect of the class. I would bet real money that if there became a petless ranger option that pets would become as used in late-game PvE as minions and turrets, which is practically not at all. And that would be a shame.

Yes, the pet HP buff is a minor thing. I don’t think that’s all they’re going to be doing, though. They know the pet has deeper issues. At the very least Sharp does, and he’s the balance lead. I’m pretty sure they’ll be gathering metrics for how the class fares with that change, then they’ll make more changes with that information. Yes that’s pure conjecture, but I don’t hold them as having quite the malicious and uncaring view towards they game that they created than most of the vocal minority here seems to think they have.

Obsidian.1328:

We’re acknowledging your point: “give them time to make legitimate changes.” We’re just saying that’s not good enough. The majority of the ranger community(and ex-rangers for that matter) can’t all be wrong about this.

I don’t call the vocal minority that frequents forums the ‘majority’. Neither of us can claim to be the majority as we truly don’t know who the majority is.

Personaly, I like the pets, but I HATE that they come out automatically. Its annoying when climbing for one…. The utility buffs are nice and the helping in a downed state excellent. Pulling also great!

+1