Guild Wars 2

+1

(Before it’s gone).

And I’m not humoring you, I’m right with you on that.

If you want to lose the pet you’re playing the wrong class.

+1

If you don’t want +1, you are posting in wrong topic. I play this class for bows, just like many thieves plays their for stealth (while steal is thief class skill).

I personally don’t want the pet gone. But I’ve also lost all faith in ANet ever getting the pet to the point where it’s a positive addition to this class. So if I had an option of removing the pet outright and increasing our damage accordingly vs. keeping a mechanic that doesn’t work 50% of the time?

Yea… +1.

+1

I always played archer classes in MMOs, I think it’s fair to let the player decide if he wants a pet or not. A warrior chooses not to use his F skill and receives bonuses for it through traits, it sounds fair to me if rangers received a bonus for not using pet.

I don’t want the pet to go, I got quite attached to them, however Anet really have to be honest and look at the Ranger again especially in the likes of PVP and WVW, where unfortunately mass AOE stuns, damage and confusion that have such high damage and boon affect time makes the pet really useless. If they wish to keep the pet then they need to address and admit that it has major flaws , if it cant be fixed ( no amount of pet health will solve this issue if the AI is completely trashed ), then the simplest thing is to bulk the ranger to give 90% direct damage to a 10% pet ratio ( I say direct direct damage that scales with power equally to other classes, not conditions as with all the boons for cleansing, condies are just useless now) , some burst damage options such as on the axe , sort out the skill tree to make sense – for example why on earth oakheart salve is not in nature magic is beyond me. Give rangers a decent AOE stun trap or boon for group support in WvW situations and a reasonable elite skill. Then I think most rangers would be happy. But yeah I am all for a +1 to this post if it means Anet will sort the underclass profession out with far better damage and skills to make it viable in dungeons and wvw group support.

Pet Removal Option

Sure thing, +1

We already have a Pet Removal option.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Warrior

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Thief

I like the idea of the pets, I do. I enjoyed chasing all of them down throughout the world and seeing their different skills and traits. But the pets just haven’t helped me in any possible situation I can think of. Make the pets more viable (and that doesn’t mean throwing them some extra health) or don’t force us to use them.

+1

runeblade.7514:

We already have a Pet Removal option.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Warrior

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Thief

As the saying goes, “you hit the jackpot”

And you did just that.

Well Done!

+ 100

You guys that are posting “Your playing the wrong class” should remember this is Petition for Pet Removal Option.

See the word OPTION there, those people that want to keep a pet can, it would be optional as per GW1

I did think about a warrior, but a warrior can only use a longbow.

I did think about a thief, but a thief can only use a short bow.

I played one character during my time on GW1, a Ranger from release date until the game gradually faded out a couple of years ago.

I always play a Ranger in every MMO I’ve played, and will continue to do so.

runeblade.7514:

We already have a Pet Removal option.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Warrior

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Thief

I little bit of me dies each time when somewhere, some kitten puts an unhelpful reroll answer to a question instead of actually being helpful. Rolling a new toon costs gold, of course if you are willing to give every ranger for compensation on a class that does not perform well – which in all cases is really Anets oversight on class mechanics , then you have my respect. If not then leave the answers on another forum post ( possibly not a ranger one ) XD

mzt.3270:

runeblade.7514:

We already have a Pet Removal option.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Warrior

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Thief

I little bit of me dies each time when somewhere, some kitten puts an unhelpful reroll answer to a question instead of actually being helpful.

Lol, yeah…but you have to admit it was pretty funny.

Solid Gold.9310:

You guys that are posting “Your playing the wrong class” should remember this is Petition for Pet Removal Option.

See the word OPTION there, those people that want to keep a pet can, it would be optional as per GW1

I did think about a warrior, but a warrior can only use a longbow.

I did think about a thief, but a thief can only use a short bow.

I played one character during my time on GW1, a Ranger from release date until the game gradually faded out a couple of years ago.

I always play a Ranger in every MMO I’ve played, and will continue to do so.

You are playing the wrong class because Ranger is meant to be a Pet class. This is not optional.

Ranger was advertised as a pet-based class from the start. If people don’t want a pet it is not unreasonable to point to other classes as there was no bait-and-switch here. We were given, from the start, knowledge that the pet is an integral part of the class.

Let’s, instead of asking or petitioning for pet removal, request pet improvement.

As far as your petition, though. You shame the community by asking for a class to change it’s primary mechanic and make us all look bad. -1

SynfulChaot.3169:

Ranger was advertised as a pet-based class from the start. If people don’t want a pet it is not unreasonable to point to other classes as there was no bait-and-switch here. We were given, from the start, knowledge that the pet is an integral part of the class.

Let’s, instead of asking or petitioning for pet removal, request pet improvement.

As far as your petition, though. You shame the community by asking for a class to change it’s primary mechanic and make us all look bad. -1

“Shame the community”, I think that’s going a bit far.

I wanted a Ranger, not a beastmaster.

I won’t say anymore about it other than it would be nice to have to option, which wouldn’t affect the way you want to play your Ranger in any way whatsoever.

Then nobody would be dictated to, you will or will not have a pet.

SynfulChaot.3169:

Ranger was advertised as a pet-based class from the start. If people don’t want a pet it is not unreasonable to point to other classes as there was no bait-and-switch here. We were given, from the start, knowledge that the pet is an integral part of the class.

Let’s, instead of asking or petitioning for pet removal, request pet improvement.

As far as your petition, though. You shame the community by asking for a class to change it’s primary mechanic and make us all look bad. -1

I followed this game for a year before it launched and still had no idea the pet was mandatory. Heck, I even leveled up to 40 before realizing it. Having a “strong” pet class and a “mandatory” pet class are two different things. Shame the community my kitten . It’s a broken mechanic that defies logic in dungeons and zergs.

If anything I’m guilty of not only expecting the Ranger to perform like its GW1 predecessor, but also of expecting them to perform like 99% of all video game rangers ever.

Also…they reeeeeeeally need to state it somewhere, in BIG BOLD LETTERS, that rangers share damage output with their pets. And state specifically how much that ratio is…i.e. 80/20, 60/40, etc.

It’s insane that you don’t know that when creating a ranger for the first time if you just bought the game. And the PvE until Orr is way too easy to notice it, you should be informed of that from the start.

+1

If they ever fix the pet, I won’t mind not having the option… But until then, please don’t make us work around a borked mechanic.

I’ll say as much as I love my pet, I’d prefer not to see him killed again… And again… And again…. And again… And again in some areas without anyway to prevent It…

+1

YES PLEASE
PLUS ONE +1

Seeing how they’re either dead or unable to attack 99% of the time for multiple reasons ya
+1

It’d be nice if we could stow them in combat at least, or get abilities that maybe utilize their powers and strengthen us while stowing them, but yeah… +1. Aragorn was a ranger but you don’t see him being forced to drag a pet with him.

a-net told us that we cant take the pet away, this is a-net imagen for the gw2 ranger, if you want play an archer you in the wrong game..deal with your pet, stop flame the mechanic and start to improve your gameplay, why people like me happy with pets!?
and i play pve(fast run coe,ac..)(frac48+),tpvp and wvw and i have no problems with my pet!?
sure sometimes it even happens to me that my pet is dead but most times it´s alive.
so i think it´s like 95% of computer troubles..they sit in front of it

PS: you want to know why no one likes ranger in pve!?
go with the meta and store your bow, if you dont want than stop flame them if they dont want to play with you

Not gonna lie, I miss being a lone ranger if you catch my drift.
+1

Solid Gold.9310:

— snip —

Obsidian.1328:

— snip —

Then you never read even the early descriptions they gave for the ranger. Even before it launched the pet was shown as a major component of what the ranger is. The class came about as a combination of a standalone archer and a beastmaster class as they whittled down the classes to a smaller number.

Asking them to remove pets is like asking to remove a guardian’s virtues, a mesmer’s illusions/shatters, or a warrior’s adrenaline. The class is built around the pet. It is integral to the design of the class.

If you really want a petless archer, then go for a warrior. Their longbow is more damaging than ours anyhow. Or maybe even ask for a new class. But please stop asking for the (even optional) removal of our core class mechanic. Because you do realize that if they make that option pets will be unviable for many things and the players that still use them will be shunned and pushed out of many a group.

omg yes please been a ranger since start love her but get rid of the pet and give us a 30% damage boost +1

SynfulChaot.3169:

Solid Gold.9310:

— snip —

Obsidian.1328:

— snip —

Then you never read even the early descriptions they gave for the ranger. Even before it launched the pet was shown as a major component of what the ranger is. The class came about as a combination of a standalone archer and a beastmaster class as they whittled down the classes to a smaller number.

Asking them to remove pets is like asking to remove a guardian’s virtues, a mesmer’s illusions/shatters, or a warrior’s adrenaline. The class is built around the pet. It is integral to the design of the class.

If you really want a petless archer, then go for a warrior. Their longbow is more damaging than ours anyhow. Or maybe even ask for a new class. But please stop asking for the (even optional) removal of our core class mechanic. Because you do realize that if they make that option pets will be unviable for many things and the players that still use them will be shunned and pushed out of many a group.

I remember reading somewhere that before the implementation of the ranger with the pet, they were originally two separate classes, the Marskman and the Beastmaster, before they were later merged into what eventually become what the ranger is now.

I don’t think it’s unfair for people to express their dislike through topics such as this. The actuality of ANet taking the time to rework an entire mechanic at this point in time is next to zero anyhow, so we may as well have a friendly (ish) topic where people, instead of spending the whole time attacking each other, just express their own opinion and vote accordingly.

If the topic persists like that, it’s a nice change of pace that allows for a place for people to go to just express their opinion in order to get a nice representation of where the contributing community stands on an issue.

For my participation in the topic;

I’m torn. I have mentioned numerous times my disappointment with the pet mechanic, in regards to its effectiveness as well as lack of player interaction as far as the amount of actions per minute it takes for the pet to be effective (aka, it requires management, but is very boring compared to juggling attunements or kits and a toolbelt).

Personally, I’d like to see a rework, where a single pet is stowed, until activated with F1 on a cooldown (F1 toggles to an attack my target). F2 can remain a unique attack. F3 is a pet invulnerability which also makes the pet inactive during the duration, with a cooldown. F4 calls the pet back, reducing the cooldown time on the activation. The cooldown would work like the spirits did, prenerf, where the cooldown starts upon activation, meaning the pet is capable of achieving 100% uptime.

However, depending on the capabilities of the dev team, if a rework is out of the question, but a removal option isn’t, I’ll take a removal option over the current implementation. Even if I don’t use the removal option, I don’t consider having more options to be a bad thing.

So I guess that’s a conditional +1.

SynfulChaot.3169:

Solid Gold.9310:

— snip —

Obsidian.1328:

— snip —

Then you never read even the early descriptions they gave for the ranger. Even before it launched the pet was shown as a major component of what the ranger is. The class came about as a combination of a standalone archer and a beastmaster class as they whittled down the classes to a smaller number.

Asking them to remove pets is like asking to remove a guardian’s virtues, a mesmer’s illusions/shatters, or a warrior’s adrenaline. The class is built around the pet. It is integral to the design of the class.

If you really want a petless archer, then go for a warrior. Their longbow is more damaging than ours anyhow. Or maybe even ask for a new class. But please stop asking for the (even optional) removal of our core class mechanic. Because you do realize that if they make that option pets will be unviable for many things and the players that still use them will be shunned and pushed out of many a group.

No…it’s not like asking other classes to remove their class mechanic. Just come up with something different. GW1 did it with the Expertise attribute. Granted that doesn’t work here because there’s no energy management, but that doesn’t mean they can’t find something else. Use their brains, be creative.

And if they can’t figure out how to do that then they just plain have a bad trait system. Good grief, are you serious? I don’t know anyone that likes their pet in high dmg aoe situations…which just happens to be the end-game in GW2. Why in the world would anyone like having 1/3 of their dps not controlled by them and in the hands of a kitten y ai. /facepalm

Obsidian.1328:

No…it’s not like asking other classes to remove their class mechanic. Just come up with something different. GW1 did it with the Expertise attribute. Granted that doesn’t work here because there’s no energy management, but that doesn’t mean they can’t find something else. Use their brains, be creative.

And if they can’t figure out how to do that then they just plain have a bad trait system. Good grief, are you serious? I don’t know anyone that likes their pet in high dmg aoe situations…which just happens to be the end-game in GW2. Why in the world would anyone like having 1/3 of their dps not controlled by them and in the hands of a kitten y ai. /facepalm

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

Obsidian.1328:

No…it’s not like asking other classes to remove their class mechanic.

Yes… that’s exactly what you’re asking them to do here. It would be akin to you asking them to take shadow stepping away from thieves or burst skills away from warriors.

Better pet AI, better something to make pets more competent against PCs, reliable in general, and user friendly? Absolutely. Removal? No.

Ranger was always advertised as a pet class. If you don’t like that, you have other options. The pet mechanic is what makes the ranger the ranger in this game.

Please. The pet mechanic is basically a summon that follows us around that we have some control over. It is nothing compared to the other class mechanics, as not only do the other professions have far better control, they can benefit from using them and not using them as well.

Hounds of Balthazar? Thieves Guild? Warband Support? Phantasms? Those are essentially summons or pets as well, except they despawn after a time limit (Phantasms after they die or the target dies) and you can’t make them come back to you or do a certain attack. But at the same time, you have the option to not use them. With the pet, the moment to get in a fight, you’re stuck with it. And while it helps early on, once you get to a Risen Abomination or anything that uses lots of AoE, your pet is either dead or just making things worse for you.

The pet mechanic makes a ranger a ranger? Please. It breaks the ranger more than not. Either fix it, give us the ability to stow our pets in fights so they can’t be used against us, or ditch the mechanic in favor of a better one. So far, they’ve done none of that.

Until they do, the ranger remains a sub-par profession compared to the others.

Nilkemia.8507:

Please. The pet mechanic is basically a summon that follows us around that we have some control over. It is nothing compared to the other class mechanics, as not only do the other professions have far better control, they can benefit from using them and not using them as well.

Hounds of Balthazar? Thieves Guild? Warband Support? Phantasms? Those are essentially summons or pets as well, except they despawn after a time limit (Phantasms after they die or the target dies) and you can’t make them come back to you or do a certain attack. But at the same time, you have the option to not use them. With the pet, the moment to get in a fight, you’re stuck with it. And while it helps early on, once you get to a Risen Abomination or anything that uses lots of AoE, your pet is either dead or just making things worse for you.

The pet mechanic makes a ranger a ranger? Please. It breaks the ranger more than not. Either fix it, give us the ability to stow our pets in fights so they can’t be used against us, or ditch the mechanic in favor of a better one. So far, they’ve done none of that.

Until they do, the ranger remains a sub-par profession compared to the others.

You sure refuted that soundly. Look here, I found another thing you can so accurately compare ranger pets to.

It reminded me of your argument. Definitely needs a buff. Flame burst is gonna eat that poor pup alive. ):

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

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

Nilkemia.8507:

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

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

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

-1

Better vote on when this thread will be locked.

Terkov.4138:

+1

If you don’t want +1, you are posting in wrong topic. I play this class for bows, just like many thieves plays their for stealth (while steal is thief class skill).

Bows is but one Ranger archetype. There are many others. And you can already use those bows as well as the other archetypes (getting rid of the pet won’t make the Ranger strictly an Archer.)

Ranger on GW2 is not a GW1 Ranger, nor a Hunter or Archer as seen in many other games. It’s actually an amalgam of Ranger archetypes, so you can more or less focus in whatever archetype you wish, or else be a jack of all trades.

No offense, it’s OK to prefer Archers without pets, but the argument “I don’t like my pet because I love bows” has nothing to do with that preference-unless all you mean to say is that in other games Rangers must be pet-less Archers, and that’s what you wanted in this game.

I find the Ranger a much more interesting Profession with the pet-probably wouldn’t play it as much if I was forced to play a pet-less “power archer” just because so many are used to that playstyle in other games.

No worries, I do not mean to belittle you, I just am so surprised that many players just want to transplant their playing experiences from other games, while the very concept of the classic Ranger transcends such pigeon-holing.

Star Ace.5207

“probably wouldn’t play it as much if I was forced to play a pet-less “power archer”

Nope nobodies on about forcing you to play a Ranger without a pet.

We are talking about the pet being optional.

And where did the “I don’t like pets because I like bows” come from, it’s nothing at all to do with bows or any other weapon.

Solid Gold.9310:

Star Ace.5207

“probably wouldn’t play it as much if I was forced to play a pet-less “power archer”

Nope nobodies on about forcing you to play a Ranger without a pet.

We are talking about the pet being optional.

And where did the “I don’t like pets because I like bows” come from, it’s nothing at all to do with bows or any other weapon.

Ask Terkov.

Synful has already shared, however, why it isn’t practical for them to offer such option: a)core class mechanic b)no one would use the optional pet, and the few who would will most probably be ostracized for doing so (I wish I could say we have no precedent, but humans can be nasty, prejudiced beings whenever given a chance.)

“Why are you such a bad and so selfish that you dare bring your pet? It will slow us down! So self-centered!”

Yep, it’s a kittenildish, but will 100% happen.

+1

Although I don’t know how this would work. You can already put the pet on passive and skip on picking pet-focussed utilities and traits. The pet is basically not there. If it lives or dies, it doesn’t matter.

I’d rather ask for meaningful utilities that are unique to the class and affect teamplay. Like mesmer portal, thief shadow refuge, warrior invulnerable banners, mesmer time warp, ect. To name a few.

I think a big problem with the Ranger is that most of our unique abilities can be killed or destroyed: pets, spirits, entange roots. This makes our contribution very unreliable. Unreliable things are best left ignored, because the outcome is never the same.

Obsidian.1328:

SynfulChaot.3169:

Solid Gold.9310:

— snip —

Obsidian.1328:

— snip —

Then you never read even the early descriptions they gave for the ranger. Even before it launched the pet was shown as a major component of what the ranger is. The class came about as a combination of a standalone archer and a beastmaster class as they whittled down the classes to a smaller number.

Asking them to remove pets is like asking to remove a guardian’s virtues, a mesmer’s illusions/shatters, or a warrior’s adrenaline. The class is built around the pet. It is integral to the design of the class.

If you really want a petless archer, then go for a warrior. Their longbow is more damaging than ours anyhow. Or maybe even ask for a new class. But please stop asking for the (even optional) removal of our core class mechanic. Because you do realize that if they make that option pets will be unviable for many things and the players that still use them will be shunned and pushed out of many a group.

No…it’s not like asking other classes to remove their class mechanic. Just come up with something different. GW1 did it with the Expertise attribute. Granted that doesn’t work here because there’s no energy management, but that doesn’t mean they can’t find something else. Use their brains, be creative.

And if they can’t figure out how to do that then they just plain have a bad trait system. Good grief, are you serious? I don’t know anyone that likes their pet in high dmg aoe situations…which just happens to be the end-game in GW2. Why in the world would anyone like having 1/3 of their dps not controlled by them and in the hands of a kitten y ai. /facepalm

I got an idea for a Pet replacement mechanic! I have two different articles on how to replace pets for Rangers.

[First] ,

[Second]

I hope you like it.

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

After spending time this week levelling up a necro, I dawned on me just how easy Anets solution could be and that is to give it very close connections with what is available for necro and thief skills, as many could be applied to more nature magic. No pets but a lot of conditions , bursts, camouflage evades that are already available for rangers. Perhaps maybe give rangers a perm stealth tactic. Rangers already have a weak stealth but they put it on the wrong bow and with a long cooldown (facepalm).

Rangers also need to be addressed in both Power scaling, what build you choose (currently all are lumped into one) and both power and conditions are nowhere near as effective compared to other classes. The skills tree also needs more synergy and to be harmonious, which I have mentioned before. The fact that glorified NCP pet is totally useless, unless it was possibly given veteran hit and life stats ( Silver in the case of WvW ) to cope with meta AOE. Even then it would not help, it just needs to go and replaced with something more useful. Be that Power, Stealth, both or something else but pets are a liability and handicapping the ranger class. I would also rather enjoy a tool bar like my engie and necro have, that offer additional offensive and healing (over a one F2 pet skill that is pretty useless once the pet has died all to quickly). The pet has to go as it is now no longer current or effective against todays meta classes.

Lastly @ Obsidian.1328
I agree it is funny but it is also very easy for those who play elitist classes to mock and grin in glee in how OP they are (for the moment) and simply say re-roll as a way forward. That’s like saying other peoples time and effort are not as important as my own, which is a very selfish thing to even think let alone say. We have to remember that karma is a returning thing, what is meta one day is nerfed the next and when that happens the complaints come out the door, saying those who are nerfed are misrepresented ones. Empathy is a good thing to have, support the other classes in what they find are the Achilles heel so there can be an even playing field for all.

Above all such posts like these can be a good tool for Anets Devs to further refine their product and not to be seen as favouring one against the other. I don’t think they do, even though they are constantly slandered for it. That being said however I do feel Anet’s R and D is really crazy and not based on actual playtime based on other comparing classes. Otherwise there would not be a mess as there is now, there would be no Meta classes to speak of either and the rest of these posts could be seen as valuable data for Anet to improve on other areas of the game, testing and creating simulations are the way forward.
If anything , the players are pretty much a free source of R and D, they should be using them and these posts to gain an insight in how best to do that. We are all here to enjoy the game and have fun, lets do that and support each other in closing the gap on the classes Anet clearly need to re-address and refine to close the meta gap.

P.S Runeblade, love those ideas – you got any that could incorporate stealth features as that would be quite awesome for rangers too .

SynfulChaot.3169:

Obsidian.1328:

No…it’s not like asking other classes to remove their class mechanic. Just come up with something different. GW1 did it with the Expertise attribute. Granted that doesn’t work here because there’s no energy management, but that doesn’t mean they can’t find something else. Use their brains, be creative.

And if they can’t figure out how to do that then they just plain have a bad trait system. Good grief, are you serious? I don’t know anyone that likes their pet in high dmg aoe situations…which just happens to be the end-game in GW2. Why in the world would anyone like having 1/3 of their dps not controlled by them and in the hands of a kitten y ai. /facepalm

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

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

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

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

mzt.3270:

P.S Runeblade, love those ideas – you got any that could incorporate stealth features as that would be quite awesome for rangers too .

Yeah!

I was thinking to add this skill to the offhand dagger replacing Stalker strike but also give Crippling Talon the ability to hit multiple foes.

Heal as one isn’t necessary anymore and a new heal skill will now give Rangers a Camouflage on heal. Actually, I was thinking Ranger’s new mechanic should be camouflage to replace pets.

Some skill ideas:

• A personal quick camouflage,
• A group camouflage
• and the trap should be given camouflage as well.

SynfulChaot.3169:

Nilkemia.8507:

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

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

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

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

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

Obsidian.1328:

SynfulChaot.3169:

Nilkemia.8507:

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

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

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

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

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

I’d personally love them to just tie the pet onto Heal As One, Rampage as One, and then introduce a slew of “Pet” utility skills that’d also tie the pet into them and taking any one of those would give you the pet.

“I know it probably won’t happen”

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

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

Chopps.5047:

“I know it probably won’t happen”

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

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

And how long should we wait for this? Clearly the answer is more than 1 year. Should we wait 2 years until we start to put forth alternatives? How long must the pet be a hindrance before players expect change?

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