Guild Wars 2

This has been said before but I’ve never said it. Ranger needs to be able to have a petless build.

I love the Ranger class, I love archer type classes. It is by far, my favorite, and the only reason I dont play it is because I absolutely loath pets. This is also the reason why I never stick with GW2 for more then a few weeks at a time since it was released. I just dont relate to any of the classes so I never main any and never get to progress in endgame.

“Its what makes Ranger class unique.”, “The Ranger would be very weak without pets.”, “I like it so everyone needs to like it.”, “Dont like it, change class.” (…)
It is possible to make this happen and I dont understand why limiting the players choices in order to make the game feel diferent always has to be the center piece with ANets prerogative.

Feel free to debate and fanboy, I dont care, its my opinion.

I think we should have the option to disable it until WE decide to turn the pet back on.. not the game decide.

Yes, it is possible. Are you missing out on the whole potential of the ranger ? Yes. Should ANet focus on fixing our CLASS MECHANIC ? Yes.

If you want to go that way, I would suggest you to see your pets as an utility slot. Keep your pet on defensive (so it will always do nothing). Use pets like Brown Bear for cleansing, Red Moa as Fury bot and Jungle Stalker as Might bot.

Then use more selfish trait line such as MM, Skirmishing and WS.

Or, go play a Warrior LB or a DH.

Krispera.5087:

Or, go play a Warrior LB or a DH.

Thematically those are closer, but I find s/d thief and s/a rev play very similar to ranger. You barely even have to learn new skills.

But ya, ranger with no pet is just a kittenty warrior.

so ignore the pet? like there is seriously zero drawback from not having a pet to not noticing you have one. Put it on passive and you got a giant mini pet. And if you like archer and standing on walls and stuff pewpewing your pet is near useless anyhow except maybe if you want to use a smokescale field for blind procs and whatnot. But once you start doing that you will realize having a pet is a boon to a ranger, not some kill stealing auto attack noob side kick.

I like the pet but their is an awful lot of overlap and repetitive pet skills not to mention a whole class of pets (Porcine) that do exactly the same thing .And alot of useless pets as well that simply won’t synergize with any realistic build . Some times I just have the pet on passive simply for the F2 (example :Red Moa or Jungle Stalker).It would be nice if there was a stability pet,stun breaking pet and another condi removal pet.And some pets need to be more beneficial to a group.This would bring more variation to the ranger and benefit to a party.
I would also like to bring up spirits. Spirits might be better off in the pet gallery .To even make any build with them remotely viable they need to be mobile .

Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I always thought Dragon Hunter was the solution to petless ranger, since we got traps and longbow.

Zeus.9840:

Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I always thought Dragon Hunter was the solution to petless ranger, since we got traps and longbow.

This. Or LB Warrior. We have a pet, that’s a part of ranger pretty much everywhere. And they have already stated that they are gonna be making further changes to the pets to improve that part of our mechanic.

If you don’t want a pet, you have options that still have a LB. or LB and traps. Enjoy.

There is literally no difference between these skill bars. I can’t tell which one is which profession.

Fluffball.8307:

There is literally no difference between these skill bars. I can’t tell which one is which profession.

Shold have compared ranger gs with Rev staff, sadface even harder ;-(

A good and quick solution would be to make the ranger pet slot a multi-mechanic slot.

This would mean you would equip pets as well as other things there. One of those things could be a “blessing”, giving you a stat boost (compensating for the pet loss) as well as some basic skills, think of guardian virtues or engineer tool belt.

The core profession would have then:

• Pets
• Blessings

If you want to go further, the same slot could be used to store the Celestial Avatar too, but I think that one is fine outside the pet slot. I wouldn’t mind seeing the druid updated to have 3 different Celestial Avatars to choose from, instead of being locked with the healer version. Still, future elite spec mechanics could use the pet slot as well (Like my swarm pet idea).

Another alternative are pets that do nothing, and instead have passive effects, so you still have a pet, but it’s like if it doesn’t exist. This one could be an even better solution. Pets that don’t attack, like wisps or spirits, that just follow you and give you buffs.

Lonami.2987:

A good and quick solution would be to make the ranger pet slot a multi-mechanic slot.

This would mean you would equip pets as well as other things there. One of those things could be a “blessing”, giving you a stat boost (compensating for the pet loss) as well as some basic skills, think of guardian virtues or engineer tool belt.

The core profession would have then:

• Pets
• Blessings

If you want to go further, the same slot could be used to store the Celestial Avatar too, but I think that one is fine outside the pet slot. I wouldn’t mind seeing the druid updated to have 3 different Celestial Avatars to choose from, instead of being locked with the healer version. Still, future elite spec mechanics could use the pet slot as well (Like my swarm pet idea).

Another alternative are pets that do nothing, and instead have passive effects, so you still have a pet, but it’s like if it doesn’t exist. This one could be an even better solution. Pets that don’t attack, like wisps or spirits, that just follow you and give you buffs.

Ya passive buffs would fly well in the pvp side of the game…

I always felt that pets being the “core mechanic” of rangers was kind of badly thought out. Pets should be a utility option. Having them operate as the core mechanic for rangers creates annoyingly shoehorning gameplay for a class that covers a much broader theme than beastmastery.

Einlanzer.1627:

I always felt that pets being the “core mechanic” of rangers was kind of badly thought out. Pets should be a utility option. Having them operate as the core mechanic for rangers creates annoyingly shoehorning gameplay for a class that covers a much broader theme than beastmastery.

I half agree with you on principal of pets being bad, but also disagree. Ranger is a pet class no doubt. Yes there is this nature-esque theme, but the same could be said of the entire sylvari race. What defines a ranger is his pet, and I don’t even “role play” my ranger as a nature hippie. I view her as a special forces kind of scout, which is very much in line with the ranger archetype of high fantasy (i.e. Aragorn.)

Beastmaster at home in the wilderness, not even necessarily caring about the wilderness. If you’ve ever seen the show Dual Survival I view my ranger as the military guy, not the hippie. Same result, different view.

And I do realize I divulged from the pet theme there, ironically. Just ramblin’.

I’m at a loss here. Ranger was a pet-based class out of the gate and currently one of the most well done ones out of any relevant MMOs to date. It even nudges out the WoW hunter as Blizzard went through and gutted about 3/4 of all pet abilities in its current expansion, simultaneously pigeon-holing hunters into a few specific pet families unless you just want a movable DOT with a pretty skin and seriously kittening off the hunters in the process.

Whether you view the Ranger as a soldier/scout or a nature-loving survivalist, the fantasy presented by Anet always involved a pet unless you’ve decided on your own that it no longer should. That said, I just don’t see where the pet should be removed completely when you can put it on passive, use at least one of its skills on demand, and trait for more power/utility with the other lines besides Beastmastery. It is literally completely ignorable unless you feel some kind of way about having Fluffy following you.

TLDR, If you feel the pet is useless as-is then leave it on Passive, trait for more DPS coming from you directly, and your perception will become reality. The other alternative is to use one of the other classes that can run with a bow and has no pets and if you love leather armor, that’s what transmutation is for.

I’m not having high hopes if Rangers gonna have a chance to be a Pure Ranger Class BY CHOICE with all kinds of dps/ccs solely from The Rangers (Players) themselves for the next expension. But i’m still keeping my fingers crossed since 2012 lololol

Well, a few month ago I posted what you want :

Evoker

In the tragedy of the bloodstone fen a high number of pet’s soul were corrupt and kept lingering in between the mists and the world. A few ranger caring for these lost soul befriend them and start to learn new way of communing with their own pets. They now can imbue the very soul of their pet in their weapon, keeping the fleshly body in an unknow place.

Profession mechanism :

Unity : Your pet’s soul now dwell into your weapon adding 0.2x (pet power) as additionnal weapon damage to your attacks (ICD 1s) (work somehow like sigil of air but with a 100% chance on hit). These additionnal damages depend of the pet’s stats and can crit. While stored in between the mists your pet’s body still receive boons or conditions from traits and damage from specific skill (guard!).

Cool down of unity : 20 seconds.
Cool down of unity if your pet die or you are downed while in unity : 60 seconds.
Cast time of unity : 2 seconds.

Spliting soul : You return your pet’s soul to it’s fleshly body which return to the mortal world.

F2 skills : while in unity, for convenience, the ranger will need to cast the skill and :
- Melee skills will need the ranger to be in melee range and this will summon gosthly image of the pet that will strike the foe
- Ranged skills will start from the ranger
- Skills that affect specifically the pet will apply to the ranger
- Skills that have an effect around the pet will apply their effect around the ranger
- Skills only affected by pet’s stats

weapon :

The first evokers needed a Focus to clearly enter in contact with the lost souls of these pets. This weapon quickly became an iconic way to distinct them.

Focus #4 : Mending grip : remove up to 2 condition from you and your pet. For each condition removed grant 3 seconds regeneration. (CD 25 seconds)

Focus #5 : renewing memories : You and your pet selflessly evade all attack while casting this skill, by renewing your bond with your pet, the 2 of you feel strenghtens and rejuvenated. You and your pet gain quickness, might and regeneration. (CD 40 seconds)

Skill :

Heal skill :
Spirit light link : You and your pet gain some health. The next 2 attacks of your pet drain a condition from you.

Utility skill :
Splinter link : The next 3 attacks of your pet hit up to 5 additionnal targets on impact.

Shadow link : the next 3 attacks of your pet blind foes.

Vengeful link : the next 3 attacks of your pet steal life. (if under the effect of unity : the ranger is the one that benefit from the life stealing effect)

Sundering link : the next 3 attacks of your pet inflict 5 stacks of vulnerability.

Elite skill :
Wailing link : the next attack of your pet daze your foe for 2 seconds.

Trait :

Minor adept :
Soul harmony : Gain access to links. You can now use Unity that let you merge with your pet and wield a focus.

Major adept :
Steady guardian : upon switching pet you gain protection for 5 seconds.
Painful bond : grant you 3s retaliation whenever your pet receive a condition. (10 seconds ICD)
Gracefull bond : using an evade skill grant you health.

Minor master :
Soul wrath : When your unity is forcefully broken (if you are down or if your pet’s health is totally depleted) Unleash a wave of force that harm your enemies and heal your allies.

Major master :
Deep connection : Focus skills recharge faster. Focus skill also affect nearby allies.
clever link : Link skills recharge faster. Hitting a foe with less than 5 stack of vulnerability grant your pet a sundering link charge.
Soul gift : Your endurance refill faster while under the effect of unity.

Minor Grandmaster :
Soul master : You can now swap pet while under the effect of Unity.

Major grandmaster :
Bountifull unity : while under unity ranger’s and pet’s outgoing boons last 20% longer.
Wrathfull unity : while under the effect of unity pet’s damage are increased by 15%.
Strenghtening unity : While under the effect of unity the ranger gain 5% of it’s pet’s vitality.

NB.: this is just for fun but I hope at least some of you enjoy it.

In short, Anet keep their pet as bad as they are right now but you don’t need them out and you still benefit from them.

Ranger’s core mechanice is pets.. If you dislike the core mechanic from a class then you should go and have a look at other classes. Asking for a build without pets should just be a focus where pet comes on the last spot and would probably be used as utility.

Beastmaster’s core mechanics are pets. RANGErs core mechanics are their weapons which outputs lethal damage at RANGE.
There are no Rangers in this game. We are Beastmasters.
Btw i shelved my “Ranger” when i start playing DH months ago (smiley face)

Jabronee.9465:

Beastmaster’s core mechanics are pets. RANGErs core mechanics are their weapons which outputs lethal damage at RANGE.
There are no Rangers in this game. We are Beastmasters.
Btw i shelved my “Ranger” when i start playing DH months ago (smiley face)

That is literally NOT the definition of a ranger. A ranger is someone who “ranges” or roves about. It’s specifically someone who patrols a given area – in modern times we have park rangers who are essentially forest keepers. The name “ranger” never has and never will be specifically someone who fights at range else that class would be called archer, sniper, marksman, etc.

Putting the title Ranger in quotation marks and ‘smiley facing’ because you switched classes to DH – like you made a point instead of demonstrating that you don’t know English – is pretty cringe-worthy.

So Rangers are NON archers, snipers, marksmen etc. No wonder park rangers been roaming around with polar bears, brown bears, moas, spiders, pigs, etc nowadays. Sorry my bad.

Well i switch to DH (after purchasing the expansion) cause i see a true potential to be a Bad S sniper trap class (petless) rather than being a Beastmaster class which Anet calls it Ranger.

Edit: i popped by cause i was once a Beastmaster till Anet introduced me to DH. I would love to dust off my “Ranger” but i gotta dust off the pets too lol

Irijia.6073:

Jabronee.9465:

Beastmaster’s core mechanics are pets. RANGErs core mechanics are their weapons which outputs lethal damage at RANGE.
There are no Rangers in this game. We are Beastmasters.
Btw i shelved my “Ranger” when i start playing DH months ago (smiley face)

That is literally NOT the definition of a ranger. A ranger is someone who “ranges” or roves about. It’s specifically someone who patrols a given area – in modern times we have park rangers who are essentially forest keepers. The name “ranger” never has and never will be specifically someone who fights at range else that class would be called archer, sniper, marksman, etc.

Putting the title Ranger in quotation marks and ‘smiley facing’ because you switched classes to DH – like you made a point instead of demonstrating that you don’t know English – is pretty cringe-worthy.

I used to argue thisd with my guild back in the day as well when I got crap for running melee weapons only on my ranger. Ranger =/= ranged weapons – it’s funny how people automatically assumes that.

Anyhow, yes, I would like some kind of petless option. Even in GW1 I never felt like my pet was mandatory, unlike here.

Jabronee.9465:

So Rangers are NON archers, snipers, marksmen etc. No wonder park rangers been roaming around with polar bears, brown bears, moas, spiders, pigs, etc nowadays. Sorry my bad.

Well i switch to DH (after purchasing the expansion) cause i see a true potential to be a Bad S sniper trap class (petless) rather than being a Beastmaster class which Anet calls it Ranger.

Edit: i popped by cause i was once a Beastmaster till Anet introduced me to DH. I would love to dust off my “Ranger” but i gotta dust off the pets too lol

Actually, modern park rangers will often roam about with a dog and their job often involves the preservation of local wildlife but that’s neither here or there. My point is that it is nonsensical to say that Rangers shouldn’t be called ranger because they are a pet class. Again, the name Ranger has zero to do with the weapon type a person is wielding and everything to do with them roaming about in a wide open area.

I’m not criticizing you for playing DH, you should play what you enjoy. What I am saying is that Anet’s definition of a Ranger is not incorrect and that you are annoyed at it because you wanted to apply your own interpretation to what the word means to the class and it isn’t being changed to suit you because, for some reason, you chose a pet class and no longer wanted it to be a pet class.

So you chose a pet class … and you don’t want your pet. /shakeshead. That’s why there are 8 other classes to play. If none of those work for you, time to find a new game.

Justine.6351:

Lonami.2987:

A good and quick solution would be to make the ranger pet slot a multi-mechanic slot.

This would mean you would equip pets as well as other things there. One of those things could be a “blessing”, giving you a stat boost (compensating for the pet loss) as well as some basic skills, think of guardian virtues or engineer tool belt.

The core profession would have then:

• Pets
• Blessings

If you want to go further, the same slot could be used to store the Celestial Avatar too, but I think that one is fine outside the pet slot. I wouldn’t mind seeing the druid updated to have 3 different Celestial Avatars to choose from, instead of being locked with the healer version. Still, future elite spec mechanics could use the pet slot as well (Like my swarm pet idea).

Another alternative are pets that do nothing, and instead have passive effects, so you still have a pet, but it’s like if it doesn’t exist. This one could be an even better solution. Pets that don’t attack, like wisps or spirits, that just follow you and give you buffs.

Ya passive buffs would fly well in the pvp side of the game…

Just rework the mechanic and AI and give the stat boost depending on pet.

Jabronee.9465:

Beastmaster’s core mechanics are pets. RANGErs core mechanics are their weapons which outputs lethal damage at RANGE.
There are no Rangers in this game. We are Beastmasters.
Btw i shelved my “Ranger” when i start playing DH months ago (smiley face)

How is it that there is anyone left who still thinks that’s what the name Ranger means? Both LotR and D&D have iconic rangers who are primarily melee fighters. I think it’s mostly WoW’s handling of the hunter class that created this perception. Thankfully they converted Survival back into a melee tree.

“Ranger” has nothing to do with “ranged weapons”, lol, it refers to roaming ranges of land.

Obtena.7952:

So you chose a pet class … and you don’t want your pet. /shakeshead. That’s why there are 8 other classes to play. If none of those work for you, time to find a new game.

I really don’t get why people don’t understand that there’s more to the Ranger than just the pet. If the class was called “Beastmaster” and all of its abilities were about its pet, your argument would make sense.

However, there are many ways to conceptualize the ranger class that don’t involve using a pet. The fact that the game gives the player no room to bear out those concepts is not the players’ fault. Asking for a petless rangers is not an unreasonable request.

You’re right, that is Anet’s fault, and like I said, if there is no class available for someone to enjoy the game, it’s time to find a new game; Anet can’t cater to every single peculiarity to satisfy everyone. I mean, the concept of the Ranger includes a pet … asking for a petless Ranger is not really … sensible.

Personally, I think it’s ridiculous that someone can’t find a satisfying game play experience from any one of the 9 classes available. Even some of the elites give a whole new flavour to the classes as well. If players are so picky, I wish them luck in finding an MMO to play … I don’t know of any game devs that can cater to exacting players like this. /shrug

Einlanzer.1627:

.I think it’s mostly WoW’s handling of the hunter class that created this perception. Thankfully they converted Survival back into a melee tree.

I have to point this out because it’s a fantastic example of what Anet should absolutely NOT emulate. The hunter community is currently having a meltdown over changing Survival to melee and the spec is ignored and outright derided by a fair number of folks both in and outside of the Hunter class. It doesn’t help that Blizzard is now in the position of ignoring the other two specs and the mechanics they broke with the change to try and get more people to play melee Survival because it’s so unpopular in general.

It’s a testament to just how unwise it is to change a class’s gameplay by attempting to remove a core mechanic that said class is balanced around and doubly so when you are talking about a game that has a few years and an established fanbase under its belt.

Obtena.7952:

So you chose a pet class … and you don’t want your pet. /shakeshead. That’s why there are 8 other classes to play. If none of those work for you, time to find a new game.

This. If you don’t like pets, why are you here?

Irijia.6073:

Jabronee.9465:

So Rangers are NON archers, snipers, marksmen etc. No wonder park rangers been roaming around with polar bears, brown bears, moas, spiders, pigs, etc nowadays. Sorry my bad.

Well i switch to DH (after purchasing the expansion) cause i see a true potential to be a Bad S sniper trap class (petless) rather than being a Beastmaster class which Anet calls it Ranger.

Edit: i popped by cause i was once a Beastmaster till Anet introduced me to DH. I would love to dust off my “Ranger” but i gotta dust off the pets too lol

Actually, modern park rangers will often roam about with a dog and their job often involves the preservation of local wildlife but that’s neither here or there. My point is that it is nonsensical to say that Rangers shouldn’t be called ranger because they are a pet class. Again, the name Ranger has zero to do with the weapon type a person is wielding and everything to do with them roaming about in a wide open area.

I’m not criticizing you for playing DH, you should play what you enjoy. What I am saying is that Anet’s definition of a Ranger is not incorrect and that you are annoyed at it because you wanted to apply your own interpretation to what the word means to the class and it isn’t being changed to suit you because, for some reason, you chose a pet class and no longer wanted it to be a pet class.

Agreed on all points. Also..

The vast majority of rangers depicted in games have a animal companion of some kind as a inherent feature of the class. Even more so than ranged combat. This is also accurate of fantasy and historical fiction novels and books. You may argue that Aragorn didn’t have an animal companion, but he didn’t use a ranged weapon either (that was legolas’ shtick).

Now I will 100% agree that the pet mechanic needs work, and several very solid suggestions on how to do that have been put forth. Hopefully some of those will get used. But remove it entirely, and you might as well play a warrior or a guardian or a thief. This is what rangers are. If you don’t like it, you have 8 other class options.

Irijia.6073:

Einlanzer.1627:

.I think it’s mostly WoW’s handling of the hunter class that created this perception. Thankfully they converted Survival back into a melee tree.

I have to point this out because it’s a fantastic example of what Anet should absolutely NOT emulate. The hunter community is currently having a meltdown over changing Survival to melee and the spec is ignored and outright derided by a fair number of folks both in and outside of the Hunter class. It doesn’t help that Blizzard is now in the position of ignoring the other two specs and the mechanics they broke with the change to try and get more people to play melee Survival because it’s so unpopular in general.

It’s a testament to just how unwise it is to change a class’s gameplay by attempting to remove a core mechanic that said class is balanced around and doubly so when you are talking about a game that has a few years and an established fanbase under its belt.

Personally I hope they don’t emulate anything Blizzard has done. There’s a reason I play GW2 and not WoW. Hate that game…. solid franchise ruined….

Irijia.6073:

Einlanzer.1627:

.I think it’s mostly WoW’s handling of the hunter class that created this perception. Thankfully they converted Survival back into a melee tree.

I have to point this out because it’s a fantastic example of what Anet should absolutely NOT emulate. The hunter community is currently having a meltdown over changing Survival to melee and the spec is ignored and outright derided by a fair number of folks both in and outside of the Hunter class. It doesn’t help that Blizzard is now in the position of ignoring the other two specs and the mechanics they broke with the change to try and get more people to play melee Survival because it’s so unpopular in general.

It’s a testament to just how unwise it is to change a class’s gameplay by attempting to remove a core mechanic that said class is balanced around and doubly so when you are talking about a game that has a few years and an established fanbase under its belt.

Yeah, I play WoW, and this isn’t true. Sometimes change is good.

Einlanzer.1627:

Yeah, I play WoW, and this isn’t true. Sometimes change is good.

Even though I stepped away from WoW, I do keep up with what is going on with the game, including class changes and I’ve never seen Hunters as kittened as they are now or changes that just make so little sense from a balance standpoint. I have friends who have played the game since the beginning that have left because Blizzard is so incompetent. I get that you got something you wanted but change for change’s sake is never a good thing and I’m telling you that, from a human nature and monetary standpoint, what Blizzard did in Legion with the Hunter class on a game as old as WoW was a very foolish thing.

That said, we’re getting off topic. I still think Ranger is one of the better implementations of a pet class that I’ve seen in any MMO and still disagree on the concept of removing a core mechanic from a class to please a minority group that has other options available to them. I’d rather Anet work on improving older pets and making them execute their skills a bit faster versus removing them completely just for the sake of people who are fully capable of putting the pet on passive and ignoring it entirely while traiting for more DPS/utility from the Ranger himself.

Irijia.6073:

Einlanzer.1627:

Yeah, I play WoW, and this isn’t true. Sometimes change is good.

Even though I stepped away from WoW, I do keep up with what is going on with the game, including class changes and I’ve never seen hunters as kittened as they are now or changes that just make so little sense from a balance standpoint. I have friends who have played the game since the beginning that have left because Blizzard is so incompetent. I get that you got something you wanted but change for change’s sake is never a good thing and I’m telling you that, from a human nature and monetary standpoint, what Blizzard did in Legion with the hunter class on a game as old as WoW was a very foolish thing.

Most people like the new survival tree. It wasn’t change for change’s sake. It was stupid that the hunter had three talent trees that basically all played the exact same way. Furthermore, hunters were originally kinda decent at melee combat and it kept getting more and more watered down from expansion to expansion until it was basically removed completely. This change represented a return to the class’s roots.

But, I didn’t mean to derail the conversation. Back to the idea of petless Rangers – the simple fact is that the class is called “Ranger”, not “Beastmaster”. I maintain that pets should have been designed as a utilitarian option rather than being the profession’s core mechanic, because it’s too specific and pigeonholes the class’s gameplay too much. But, that’s crying over spilled milk. All they need now is simply a talent that lets you stow your pet permanently for some minor damage bonuses.

Rangers in general term are people who wander in nature to do a specific job, generally to protect certain place or to hunt certain species. Archetype of ranger in modern fantastikittenerature is Aragorn from LOTR, who wanders alone in the wilderness and hunts/protects specific locations. Ithilien Rangers are a great example for archer archetype rangers.

Beastmaster on the other hand is someone that tames/communicates and takes advantage of beasts. In the old days there were kennel-masters who were responsible from the war dogs.

I can argue about these words-archetypes-origins all day. But it would be in vain. This is a game. This game has developers. So they can make rangers as mesmers, and mesmers as warriors and none of us can say a fuggin thing.

Rangers should be able to do well without pets. In this game they are totally chained to their pets, which is no more clever than a wet rock. And I do not understand why all this fuss? Give the bloody option for a petless ranger (make it balanced) and if someone wants a bloody pet, she can choose it. If someone dislikes having a pet, well ta-daaa, she can not choose it. In my opinion more options are needed for this game, both for f skills and utility skills.

alain.1659:

RGive the bloody option for a petless ranger (make it balanced) and if someone wants a bloody pet, she can choose it.

That’s why it’s never going to happen. I’d estimate off the top of my head that 2/3rds or all traits and skills concern the pet in some way. It would be a complete profession rework, way more than even an elite spec.

Honestly the best thing Anet could do at this point is rename the profession to “beastmater” so people would stop harping on this silliness.

bearshaman.3421:

The vast majority of rangers depicted in games have a animal companion of some kind as a inherent feature of the class.

Most of these are not built around said animal companion though, and that is key.

This is also accurate of fantasy and historical fiction novels and books. You may argue that Aragorn didn’t have an animal companion, but he didn’t use a ranged weapon either (that was legolas’ shtick).

Well, Aragon also fits the proper “ranger” archetype: one who ranges about, protecting and guarding, unlike the GW1 ranger, which is really a beastmaster. And while Aragorn is never mentioned explicitly to carry a bow in the books, he does so in the movie, but it is inferred that all Rangers of the North carry more weaponry than only swords (in the books):

A little apart the Rangers sat, silent, in an ordered company, armed with spear and bow and sword.

[/quote]Now I will 100% agree that the pet mechanic needs work, and several very solid suggestions on how to do that have been put forth. Hopefully some of those will get used. But remove it entirely, and you might as well play a warrior or a guardian or a thief. This is what rangers are. If you don’t like it, you have 8 other class options. [/quote]

GW1 handled it well. Why can’t GW2?

Justine.6351:

so ignore the pet? like there is seriously zero drawback from not having a pet to not noticing you have one. Put it on passive and you got a giant mini pet. And if you like archer and standing on walls and stuff pewpewing your pet is near useless anyhow except maybe if you want to use a smokescale field for blind procs and whatnot. But once you start doing that you will realize having a pet is a boon to a ranger, not some kill stealing auto attack noob side kick.

^

I love my pets. I understand why a lot of players dislike them but besides their bad AI, they’re strong companions that can provide you with a lot of benefits if you take the time to learn them. Yes a percentage of our damage comes from our pet but that doesn’t mean we’re weak. It means we need to put our targets in a position that allows our pets to reliably attack – hence why we have so many immobilizes, to keep our targets in place. If you’re on a Warrior, do you just start doing Hundred Blades in the middle of a fight and hope every swing hits? No… You CC first. You should do the same for pets with long F2 cast times. You don’t just cast Salamander Drakes F2 which has a 2second (?) cast time and hope it all hits. You lock your target down first.

You can also manipulate pets attack chains by properly managing their active and passive states. I keep mine on passive so that I have on demand CC for example. Wolf always starts with a knockdown at a certain range and same with Smokescale. I keep my Smokescale idle beside me for a period of time so I can send it in for it’s Smoke Assault when it’s most beneficial.

Again, though I absolutely understand why a lot of players dislike their pets, people gotta stop neglecting them. If more people took the time to learn them they might start to love them. My pets have saved my life countless times and although they can misbehave at times, I miss them when I’m on another class.

EDIT: The most recent time my pet saved me was a couple days ago during a duel. Had a really close fight with a Warrior, was forced in to melee range, had 2k health left and him about the same. Literally in the middle of his Arc Divider he got knocked down by my Wolf and downed from the damage. That fight was so close for both of us but my Wolf decided the fight.

SpellOfIniquity.1780

I love my pets. I understand why a lot of players dislike them but besides their bad AI, they’re strong companions that can provide you with a lot of benefits if you take the time to learn them. Yes a percentage of our damage comes from our pet but that doesn’t mean we’re weak. It means we need to put our targets in a position that allows our pets to reliably attack – hence why we have so many immobilizes, to keep our targets in place. If you’re on a Warrior, do you just start doing Hundred Blades in the middle of a fight and hope every swing hits? No… You CC first. You should do the same for pets with long F2 cast times. You don’t just cast Salamander Drakes F2 which has a 2second (?) cast time and hope it all hits. You lock your target down first.

You can also manipulate pets attack chains by properly managing their active and passive states. I keep mine on passive so that I have on demand CC for example. Wolf always starts with a knockdown at a certain range and same with Smokescale. I keep my Smokescale idle beside me for a period of time so I can send it in for it’s Smoke Assault when it’s most beneficial.

Again, though I absolutely understand why a lot of players dislike their pets, people gotta stop neglecting them. If more people took the time to learn them they might start to love them. My pets have saved my life countless times and although they can misbehave at times, I miss them when I’m on another class.

EDIT: The most recent time my pet saved me was a couple days ago during a duel. Had a really close fight with a Warrior, was forced in to melee range, had 2k health left and him about the same. Literally in the middle of his Arc Divider he got knocked down by my Wolf and downed from the damage. That fight was so close for both of us but my Wolf decided the fight.

This echoes my sentiments exactly. While I don’t think the pets are perfect they are incredibly useful. I love combo-ing off of my pet’s fields. And I often use Beastly Warden when PvE roaming to taunt mobs into a single area with my pet where they can go to town and I can use Barrage to do damage, cripple them, and then either pick them off with my bow or weapon swap to my axe and torch to inflict burns. There is an incredible amount of synergy to be had with pets if you are willing to work with the skills you have.

They may be useful but people have the right to dislike them no matter how useful they are. And in my opinion anet should have given the petless option from the very beginning of this game.

alain.1659:

They may be useful but people have the right to dislike them no matter how useful they are. And in my opinion anet should have given the petless option from the very beginning of this game.

Yes, it might have been wise for Anet to have given the option from the beginning…but they didn’t and demanding a petless option now when it’s been a thing for four years is silly. Yes, people have the right to dislike the pets but that doesn’t make them any less unreasonable for asking for them to be removed now at this late date.

It also makes little sense to argue the semantics over whether the class should be called a Ranger or a Beastmaster. Meanings based on other fantasy series are mostly irrelevant because it’s…well, fantasy. Not everyone has the same imagination and not everyone is going to be happy with a particular chosen direction. Frankly, the safest course for Anet is what they have already done which is to give people options for a variety of playstyles across their classes and a fantastically easy leveling up experience. They haven’t locked bows to the pet class alone and you can literally make your character look like whatever you want them to via transmog.

Mikhail.4961:

GW1 handled it well. Why can’t GW2?

GW1 didn’t handle pets well, is the thing.

Irijia.6073:

alain.1659:

They may be useful but people have the right to dislike them no matter how useful they are. And in my opinion anet should have given the petless option from the very beginning of this game.

Yes, it might have been wise for Anet to have given the option from the beginning…but they didn’t and demanding a petless option now when it’s been a thing for four years is silly. Yes, people have the right to dislike the pets but that doesn’t make them any less unreasonable for asking for them to be removed now at this late date.

It also makes little sense to argue the semantics over whether the class should be called a Ranger or a Beastmaster. Meanings based on other fantasy series are mostly irrelevant because it’s…well, fantasy. Not everyone has the same imagination and not everyone is going to be happy with a particular chosen direction. Frankly, the safest course for Anet is what they have already done which is to give people options for a variety of playstyles across their classes and a fantastically easy leveling up experience. They haven’t locked bows to the pet class alone and you can literally make your character look like whatever you want them to via transmog.

Except nobody is asking for them to be removed. They’re asking for the option of not using them, and have been for the four years since the game launched. I’m sorry, but opposing options is irrational.

Einlanzer.1627:

Except nobody is asking for them to be removed. They’re asking for the option of not using them, and have been for the four years since the game launched. I’m sorry, but opposing options is irrational.

Please don’t deliberately misunderstand me. I’m talking about giving people the option to remove pets permanently. As Fluffball stated up above this would still require there to be balancing changes made to please those people, or are you content with removing pets completely and not adding new traits or reworking any of the existing traits that require a pet in the process?

Which is more irrational? Asking for the option to get rid of a core mechanic of a class that it was stated out of the gate was a permanent fixture? Or not addressing the statement that has been said time and time again in this thread that a person has other class options if they want to go bow only.

I’m sorry but no matter how many times I read the reasons why people believe pets should be permanently stowed, I keep hearing. “I don’t feel I should have to reroll another class to get the game play I personally want even though Ranger has been the same from the game’s inception and it’s been said ad infinitum that a petless option isn’t going to happen.”

Ignoring the oft confirmed design of the class and demanding the option even though options already exist is pretty darn irrational if you ask me. You and others simply don’t like the other options and I’m sorry, but that is a personal problem.

P.S. Just to be clear, I agree that the option to go petless should have been available from the beginning but since it wasn’t, this is a “let sleeping dogs lie” situation that is destined to go nowhere because the class is too well established.

I am sorry but your argument is wrong in my opinion. So because anet skipped giving any options till now, we should stop asking? Like the pet names that cannot stay for 3 years and just fixed few months ago? It might be late but players can demand it. We are customers, and we have every right to ask for it. They might not accept it, true, but asking should never be forbidden, or given up.

I can give you options to balance the petless ranger easily with minor changes. If I can do it, a team of devs can do it without breaking a sweat.

Another point is the “design”. I would only ask you to look at elite specs for this part. All professions can do things they were not meant to do. So again it is easily possible for anet to adjust few traits (not even that necessary) and give another f skill ( leaving it empty to choose another utility skill would be enough for many of us).

I understand that you think it is late in game, but with enough demand, a company would supply. We demanded pet names change, it is done. As long as it is not irrational, we should ask for it.

ps: Personaly I gave up playing ranger long time ago. I thought " well this game’s ranger is bound to her pet, so if I dislike it, I should switch to another profession". Although it was a bumpy road for me to find another profession that my heart settles (I always play archer/ranger in frp, rpg, mmo’s…etc) it is done. So we should keep demanding but we should not get our hopes up. I do not think that anet is able to do such a change when there are millions of dire fixes.

alain.1659:

I am sorry but your argument is wrong in my opinion. So because anet skipped giving any options till now, we should stop asking? Like the pet names that cannot stay for 3 years and just fixed few months ago? It might be late but players can demand it. We are customers, and we have every right to ask for it. They might not accept it, true, but asking should never be forbidden, or given up.

I can give you options to balance the petless ranger easily with minor changes. If I can do it, a team of devs can do it without breaking a sweat.

Another point is the “design”. I would only ask you to look at elite specs for this part. All professions can do things they were not meant to do. So again it is easily possible for anet to adjust few traits (not even that necessary) and give another f skill ( leaving it empty to choose another utility skill would be enough for many of us).

I understand that you think it is late in game, but with enough demand, a company would supply. We demanded pet names change, it is done. As long as it is not irrational, we should ask for it.

ps: Personaly I gave up playing ranger long time ago. I thought " well this game’s ranger is bound to her pet, so if I dislike it, I should switch to another profession". Although it was a bumpy road for me to find another profession that my heart settles (I always play archer/ranger in frp, rpg, mmo’s…etc) it is done. So we should keep demanding but we should not get our hopes up. I do not think that anet is able to do such a change when there are millions of dire fixes.

It is absolutely your prerogative to keep asking and at least you are realistic enough to know that it most likely will not happen. I’ll not criticize you for having hope. The only problem I have is with the statement: “I can give you options to balance the petless ranger easily with minor changes. If I can do it, a team of devs can do it without breaking a sweat.”

When you are talking about coding an MMO, there is no such thing as “minor changes”. Making name changes stick was a much requested feature that would hardly break gameplay which I suspect is why Anet finally made it so.

Again, you have to take into consideration how the class will be balanced in the game as a whole and while Elite specs do bring lots of new things to each class, you also notice how they synergize with the already existing traits (such as Druid working well with Nature Magic). Considering how many traits include the pet, I’m not inclined to believe that it would be nearly as simple to change as you are implying.

Now, I’m not going to say what Anet might choose to do in the future, they might very well prove me wrong and give you what you want and, if so, that’s great. It might be good or blow up in their face if it winds up drastically altering the gameplay of people who chose Ranger as a pet class. I just don’t want Anet to become the next Blizzard. =/

Einlanzer.1627:

Irijia.6073:

alain.1659:

They may be useful but people have the right to dislike them no matter how useful they are. And in my opinion anet should have given the petless option from the very beginning of this game.

Yes, it might have been wise for Anet to have given the option from the beginning…but they didn’t and demanding a petless option now when it’s been a thing for four years is silly. Yes, people have the right to dislike the pets but that doesn’t make them any less unreasonable for asking for them to be removed now at this late date.

It also makes little sense to argue the semantics over whether the class should be called a Ranger or a Beastmaster. Meanings based on other fantasy series are mostly irrelevant because it’s…well, fantasy. Not everyone has the same imagination and not everyone is going to be happy with a particular chosen direction. Frankly, the safest course for Anet is what they have already done which is to give people options for a variety of playstyles across their classes and a fantastically easy leveling up experience. They haven’t locked bows to the pet class alone and you can literally make your character look like whatever you want them to via transmog.

Except nobody is asking for them to be removed. They’re asking for the option of not using them, and have been for the four years since the game launched. I’m sorry, but opposing options is irrational.

Well, this whole thread makes no sense then, because there is a button available for that … right beside the F3 button. You can toggle your pet from Guard to Avoid Combat. They do nothing when you do that.

I mean, if that’s all you want, you have it …

If you want a new class you should probably ask in a different forum, not in the ranger forum. Beause a petless ranger which is balanced arround not having pets as class mechanic is nothing but a new class that won’t have much in common with the current ranger.

It’s hilarious to see you pet lovers are so terrified if Rangers had an option to be a petless class. Read: OPTION which simply means you could use pets as you always does OR stow it completely. But unlike Avoid Combat, Stowing a pet now gives you buffs/dps/cc of the pets u choose to stow. No one suggested to completely removed your fluffies lol.

ok guys from my point of view:
The problem it is not the pet but how bad it is implemented in thengame and even worst HOW ANET NEGLECTED TO FIX IT

We all have chosen the ranger because deeply we want the pet, but we want the pet to work and more importantly to be awesome. If ranger loses the pet we all will stop using this class as every other class in game can do what the ranger does but better.

We veterans with the ranger just gave up and that’s why we ask for a frikin petless ranger and get the dps up as we are tired of this ridiculous situation were even the class it’s at the bottom of the damage, support and sustain of all the game.

Personally i’d like to keep the pets, but the vanilla class to work with them. This is the most broken mechanic in game, or they are frikin OP or they are useless.

And i dont want a power creep ranger hunter whatever in the next expansion: i want the core class to be balanced, so we actually have some mirage of a choice between the druid and the ranger.

Anet must do whatever it takes: make the pets passive buffs, make them to work better with the ranger making combos and more flashing effects, make them whatever but just fix it.
If the devs from anet are out of ideas there are many mmos now in the market that go it right. So just grab and adjust so you can make actually a balanced class that is fun to play and not a frikin borefest were you are locked into just one set of everything and never be able to frikin change.

For the love of God, this class is supposed to be all about roam and positioning and actually is the slowest and clunkiest class in all games in the word. I have never found a class that has the forced pet system so badly implemented and lack of flash.

Anet needs brilliant devs to take over this, because this game without the variety that brings minions in game is a sad boring isometric e sport that nobody could enjoy watching or playing (not a fps to play solo with the action camera, not a real mmo with variety of choices were you can build your player in a completely unexpected way that actually can work)