Guild Wars 2

Jabronee.9465:

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.

That “option” won’t work without a complete rework of many traits and skills. And you can’t just add dps and cc and think, it is the same as having those tied to a pet (guess what would happen if the pet-less option turns out to be better than the original ranger – play meta or gtfo …).
If you want an option to perma stow the pet without any changes/benefits from doing so – ok – but everything else means basically creating a new class.
If you don’t like a pet – there are 8 other classes without one …

Option wont work? Seriously? lol have you ever noticed Druids traits got nothing to do with pets at all? Go check it out if you missed it. And choose another class? Yep we already did that. Its called The Druid. A Ranger which became a healer class. Now compare Druid & Vanilla Ranger. What druid could do that vanilla rangers cant? Heal heal heal & more heals.
My point if Anet could turn DH to Rangers, Rangers to Healers, they could jolly well introduce a new Specialisation with the ability to stow pets and gaining their buff/cc/heals which depends on the pet you stow. Again OPTION.
Fyi I’m on my DH nowadays wvwing. Read my earlier replies. No worries i had swapped when Anet introduced me to DH way before any of you kind souls suggest me ty.
I’m here cause i miss playing my ranger but i can’t anymore as i feel more Ranger running Dragon Hunter than my “Ranger” nowadays. Anyways wish you well “Rangers” lol I’m out of here tata!

Jabronee.9465:

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.

I dunno, I think it’s more hilarious that you knowingly picked a pet class and want the option to dump the pet and are getting annoyed at people who specifically picked the pet class and, shock of shocks, don’t understand why you don’t just ignore the pet or reroll to a class that is ranged and petless. Also, there is legit nothing simple about what you want.

“Stowing a pet now gives you buffs/dps/cc of the pets u choose to stow.” This sounds very much like a new class to me and I’m still trying to understand why you specifically want Ranger to be changed if you are already playing DH, a class which you claimed to have rerolled to because it gave you the ranged gameplay you wanted.

anduriell.6280:

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)

Rangers aren’t perfect but they darn sure aren’t one of the worst pet classes ever implemented either. That’s some pretty wild hyperbole there.

I want to know one thing. What is it about ranger that makes you insist on playing a ranger when you can play a different class and get the same thing? Like I know a bunch of people want to play the archer idea (which defines a ranger even less than an animal companion), but they don’t seem to want to play a DH or a warrior or a thief who all have access to bows. So what is keeping you here, instead of playing something else, if you hate pets so much?

Ranger lacks depth compared to most classes, sorry but it’s the truth. With this lack of depth comes a lack of skill ceiling in both active utility and trait line setups coupled with an AI pet. These 3 things all tied into one make the class itself either heavily reliant on passives (spirits, BM, only 2 pets with good F2’s) to succeed.

Low barrier of entry to play ranger half effectively, absolutely , we all know this with longbow and ancient seeds combo but we also know how easy this is to avoid in higher tiers of gameplay.

I’m referring to top-tier pvp , literally the only tier that matters if anybody in here is going to be arguing class balance in regards to pvp. Yes, I said it, and yes, it’s the truth.

While PvP is a joke in it’s current state, the best players are in top tier PvP still to this day. I’m not talking about the best duelers (who are also for the most part, majority in PvP), im talking about the best mechanical multi-classing players who are on a higher tier than most.

You will never balance ranger/druid around 1on1s in WvW, at the same time you will never balance it around GvG battles. This is what WvW is essentially therefore any PvP discussion regarding it is null and void. We can always talk about splits though, which I think in some cases is necessary.

With that said…

When you have a pet, that at the same time has some decent utility, it’s a bot, with very horrible AI and pathing. The reliance of this is actually more of a hindrance than it is a help.

I know people think their smoke field + blast combo is great, or their CC chain to bristleback combo is awesome. But in reality, against good players, truly good players, these combos are seen a mile away and easily avoidable.

The difference between say a class like thief or mesmer for example is the rate at which a battle can be turned is immense. The quality of ACTIVE skills for the most part are insanely good and entirely built around full player immersion and control.

I’m not entirely for removing the pet, however, you have to ask yourself is having a pet going to help you get a higher skill ceiling out of the class or effectiveness per say, or is buffing the mechanics of the ranger itself? I would go with buffing the weapon mechanics and traits of the ranger itself any time of the day.

Greatsword , fun … Shortbow? Not so much is it, because it’s heavily reliant on attack #1. Spamming is not fun , active skills are and immense utility is. This is the difference between guardian (even though traps brought that down a bit, id refer more to medi) , thief, mesmer etc are all very effective.

I know people love their pet, but it is also a major reason (not all) for it’s very very low skill ceiling and true class potential.

I’ve played ranger in top tier PvP, dueled some of the best players in NA , learned alot from other solid rangers and know an immense amount about other classes.

This will ultimately be the ranger’s issue.

Very straight forward skills and an AI pet.

Is it fun? Yes, I wouldn’t play the class for so many years otherwise but if the class were more built around character active immersion in utilization of EFFECTIVE ACTIVE skill components and not setting up a few combos to succeed that are horribly telegraphed then you’d have a lot more fun.

Ironically, I think axe/dagger sword/torch has some of the best weapon immersion besides greatsword but i think it’s because of the active use of evasion concept of the sets , they synergize well. If only you could have a good power component with cc on top of it with a weapon set idea like that.

blitzkrieg.2451:

Ranger lacks depth compared to most classes, sorry but it’s the truth. With this lack of depth comes a lack of skill ceiling

Not feeling that.

Although Ranger is an easy class to pick up, like Necromancer and Warrior, it also has a very steep learning curve once you out-grow the idea that it’s an archer.

There are plenty of quirks to learn with the Ranger and many of them come from evade frames, pet animations and manipulating/coordinating with pet AI.

While I do agree that it’s an easy enough class to play, I very much disagree that it has a low skill ceiling. I’ve seen enough Rangers that are truly skilled with the profession to know that it has lots of potential if you’re willing to learn it. Working with your pets rather than loathing them is one of the keys to unlocking that potential.

As I’d said in an earlier comment, I fully understand why many players dislike their pets or why they want the option to permanently stow them. I don’t think these wishes are unreasonable but I do think that a lot of these players aren’t bothering to understand their pets and just want to get rid of them. If that’s the case, other posters here have already covered the options available to you and have stated that permanently stowing would require basically a whole new profession. You really can’t just go; pets are permanently stowed → get buffs across the board to compensate. You know how OP longbow would be if it got a + 30% damage buff (pets being 30% of our damage)? I can currently hit players for 4 – 5k auto attacks with my build. That means I’d probably be two shotting people doing something like 8k Long Range Shots and 30k Rapid Fires.

Say what you will but if we got the damage to compensate for our pets being permanently stowed, we’d probably be hitting like Warriors. In which case why not just play one.

I actually really like Dadnur’s Evoker elite spec idea. It could be the having your cake and eating it too espec for Rangers.

Too long to quote, so hyper link
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/ranger/Petless-Ranger-Please-Yes-this-again/first#post6405846

Pets while in Unity are projections of themselves. They cant damage and you receive a boost to damage as compensation.

F2 skills now activate from the ranger
This allows for better positioning/timing but is also easier to counter if not used right.

Some F2 Unity skills would probably be nerfed but hey, more access to on demand stealth, damage immunity, buff stacking, condition application/removal not to mention seeing the ranger perform the Fire Wyvern F2 would be amazing.

Would suggest that you not add things like pet swapping as a GM minor, it should be baseline. Ranger has had quite a few traits that should have been baseline from the beginning. (Old GM signet trait, Fortifying Bond which still is not baseline)

I’m not sure if the GM Wrathful Unity is worded right, do you mean the Ranger gets a damage increase or did I miss a part of the Unity concept?

Aside from the GM traits (I just dont think they would make it seeing as they are doing the job of other traitlines, save the vitality boost), I really like this idea. If not all of it, I would hope that parts of this concept could make its way into a ranger elite spec.

blitzkrieg.2451:

I’m referring to top-tier pvp , literally the only tier that matters if anybody in here is going to be arguing class balance in regards to pvp. Yes, I said it, and yes, it’s the truth.

While PvP is a joke in it’s current state, the best players are in top tier PvP still to this day. I’m not talking about the best duelers (who are also for the most part, majority in PvP), im talking about the best mechanical multi-classing players who are on a higher tier than most.

You will never balance ranger/druid around 1on1s in WvW, at the same time you will never balance it around GvG battles. This is what WvW is essentially therefore any PvP discussion regarding it is null and void. We can always talk about splits though, which I think in some cases is necessary.

With that said…

When you have a pet, that at the same time has some decent utility, it’s a bot, with very horrible AI and pathing. The reliance of this is actually more of a hindrance than it is a help.

I know people think their smoke field + blast combo is great, or their CC chain to bristleback combo is awesome. But in reality, against good players, truly good players, these combos are seen a mile away and easily avoidable.

The difference between say a class like thief or mesmer for example is the rate at which a battle can be turned is immense. The quality of ACTIVE skills for the most part are insanely good and entirely built around full player immersion and control.

I’m not entirely for removing the pet, however, you have to ask yourself is having a pet going to help you get a higher skill ceiling out of the class or effectiveness per say, or is buffing the mechanics of the ranger itself? I would go with buffing the weapon mechanics and traits of the ranger itself any time of the day.

Greatsword , fun … Shortbow? Not so much is it, because it’s heavily reliant on attack #1. Spamming is not fun , active skills are and immense utility is. This is the difference between guardian (even though traps brought that down a bit, id refer more to medi) , thief, mesmer etc are all very effective.

I know people love their pet, but it is also a major reason (not all) for it’s very very low skill ceiling and true class potential.

I’ve played ranger in top tier PvP, dueled some of the best players in NA , learned alot from other solid rangers and know an immense amount about other classes.

This will ultimately be the ranger’s issue.

Very straight forward skills and an AI pet.

Is it fun? Yes, I wouldn’t play the class for so many years otherwise but if the class were more built around character active immersion in utilization of EFFECTIVE ACTIVE skill components and not setting up a few combos to succeed that are horribly telegraphed then you’d have a lot more fun.

Ironically, I think axe/dagger sword/torch has some of the best weapon immersion besides greatsword but i think it’s because of the active use of evasion concept of the sets , they synergize well. If only you could have a good power component with cc on top of it with a weapon set idea like that.

I have one major takeaway from this post: Most of the desire for a petless ranger is coming from pvp players.

I can see how having a facet of your class that you don’t completely control being a problem in pvp. I have no good fix for that, because I maintain that removing the pet reduces ranger to a hippie warrior basically. But I can see why people in pvp would get more frustrated with the pet than the rest of us.

Also, happy someone else thinks skill splits is a good idea.

As far everything else said, I will absent myself from this thread is this is primarily a pvp conversation, and again ask people to put in their thread titles which gametype they are referencing. Thanks!

bearshaman.3421:

Most of the desire for a petless ranger is coming from pvp players.

I don’t think, that’s the case. This discussion seems to be more about archetypes (beastmaster vs archer vs whatever …), less about balancing issues. And only the latter is relevant for PvP, where ranger is still a good choice. Despite having pets? Or maybe even because of the pets …

UmbraNoctis.1907:

bearshaman.3421:

Most of the desire for a petless ranger is coming from pvp players.

I don’t think, that’s the case. This discussion seems to be more about archetypes (beastmaster vs archer vs whatever …), less about balancing issues. And only the latter is relevant for PvP, where ranger is still a good choice. Despite having pets? Or maybe even because of the pets …

I said most, not all. Typically most of the complaints tend to come from pvp, especially when people compare a class against another class, that’s usually a dead giveaway.

As far as the archetype discussion is concerned, as I’ve said, there is way more lore and support in novels, games, etc of animal companions being the most common feature of the nature-roaming ranger (need someone at your side, and can’t trust people lol) than not. More than ranged combat, more than having any actual magic, etc. If you want a petless ranger (an oxymoron, but whatever), play a different class. It’s that simple.

Most complaints i read about ranger pets in a PvP context come from players of other classes who have to play against rangers and their pets, so i don’t know, why you think that its mainly PvP rangers who don’t like their pets. I mean, why would you play a class in PvP which you don’t like? Ranger is good but not mandatory, so there is nothing that would hinder somebody to just play a different class in PvP.

I like my pets btw.

UmbraNoctis.1907:

Most complaints i read about ranger pets in a PvP context come from players of other classes who have to play against rangers and their pets, so i don’t know, why you think that its mainly PvP rangers who don’t like their pets. I mean, why would you play a class in PvP which you don’t like? Ranger is good but not mandatory, so there is nothing that would hinder somebody to just play a different class in PvP.

I like my pets btw.

As do I. I’m just going off of what I’m seeing here in the forums. If that assessment is off from actual reality, I wouldn’t be surprised (the forums frequently turning into an echo chamber).

Still would love to know why people play ranger knowing that they don’t like the pets.

Jabronee.9465:

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.

Wait, you want the benefits of a pet, but you don’t want pets …oh just no then.

bearshaman.3421:

UmbraNoctis.1907:

Most complaints i read about ranger pets in a PvP context come from players of other classes who have to play against rangers and their pets, so i don’t know, why you think that its mainly PvP rangers who don’t like their pets. I mean, why would you play a class in PvP which you don’t like? Ranger is good but not mandatory, so there is nothing that would hinder somebody to just play a different class in PvP.

I like my pets btw.

As do I. I’m just going off of what I’m seeing here in the forums. If that assessment is off from actual reality, I wouldn’t be surprised (the forums frequently turning into an echo chamber).

Still would love to know why people play ranger knowing that they don’t like the pets.

Gee, I don’t know, maybe because Ranger/Druid is a major fantasy archetype that incorporates a lot more than pet use and that is also not part of any other class? This is actually the source of the argument, and it amazes me that so many people don’t seem to understand it.

Einlanzer.1627:

bearshaman.3421:

UmbraNoctis.1907:

Most complaints i read about ranger pets in a PvP context come from players of other classes who have to play against rangers and their pets, so i don’t know, why you think that its mainly PvP rangers who don’t like their pets. I mean, why would you play a class in PvP which you don’t like? Ranger is good but not mandatory, so there is nothing that would hinder somebody to just play a different class in PvP.

I like my pets btw.

As do I. I’m just going off of what I’m seeing here in the forums. If that assessment is off from actual reality, I wouldn’t be surprised (the forums frequently turning into an echo chamber).

Still would love to know why people play ranger knowing that they don’t like the pets.

Gee, I don’t know, maybe because Ranger/Druid is a major fantasy archetype that incorporates a lot more than pet use and that is also not part of any other class? This is actually the source of the argument, and it amazes me that so many people don’t seem to understand it.

Well, if you want to continue to engage in a theory debate about “what constitutes a ranger”, go ahead. But arguing that won’t change that ranger in GW2 is a pet class. Period. End of story.

Knowing that, if you don’t like pets, why play it? Do you seriously think playing it and complaining about the unique class mechanic is somehow gonna get Anet to scrap ranger and start from scratch? Changing a trait or two, how a skill works, etc. sure. But the core mechanic? 0_o

My question has nothing to do with the debate on the paradigm of what is a ranger, and is looking at a far more practical issue.

bearshaman.3421:

Einlanzer.1627:

bearshaman.3421:

UmbraNoctis.1907:

Most complaints i read about ranger pets in a PvP context come from players of other classes who have to play against rangers and their pets, so i don’t know, why you think that its mainly PvP rangers who don’t like their pets. I mean, why would you play a class in PvP which you don’t like? Ranger is good but not mandatory, so there is nothing that would hinder somebody to just play a different class in PvP.

I like my pets btw.

As do I. I’m just going off of what I’m seeing here in the forums. If that assessment is off from actual reality, I wouldn’t be surprised (the forums frequently turning into an echo chamber).

Still would love to know why people play ranger knowing that they don’t like the pets.

Gee, I don’t know, maybe because Ranger/Druid is a major fantasy archetype that incorporates a lot more than pet use and that is also not part of any other class? This is actually the source of the argument, and it amazes me that so many people don’t seem to understand it.

Well, if you want to continue to engage in a theory debate about “what constitutes a ranger”, go ahead. But arguing that won’t change that ranger in GW2 is a pet class. Period. End of story.

Knowing that, if you don’t like pets, why play it? Do you seriously think playing it and complaining about the unique class mechanic is somehow gonna get Anet to scrap ranger and start from scratch? Changing a trait or two, how a skill works, etc. sure. But the core mechanic? 0_o

My question has nothing to do with the debate on the paradigm of what is a ranger, and is looking at a far more practical issue.

I’m pretty sure no one on this thread is asking for the class to be remade from the ground up. It shouldn’t be that difficult to give an alternative option to the pet, and I doubt anyone even cares much if it works as well.

How difficult or easy it might be has zero to do with whether or not Anet would introduce a replacement option to a pet.

Conceptually, they can’t remove the pet; because as they defined ranger, it has one. That’s not up for debate, or if you do, it’s completely academic … pets aren’t being removed; that’s just nonsense to even think such a thing. From what I can tell from the history and behaviour of the devs so far, the concept of the class they define is more important than what any players think can be done easily to change class concepts.

You have the option to ‘turn off’ pets so they don’t attack. It’s silly IMO, but you can. If playing a pet class bothers you, don’t play pet classes with pets you don’t like or want to play with.

I can see making stowing pet permanent, but compensation for doing so? Ehh, that’s opening a can of worms.

I like the pet aspect. Unfortunately there are some things that bother me.
The AI is, indeed, horrible. Since pets don’t have any gap closers they need to be able to move more quickly across the field during combat. In addition, their attack animations are super slow and rarely connect with anyone who is even remotely strafing. Non HoT pets, in particular are super sluggish. They’re never able to connect with heavy teleporting classes. I also find it irritating that anything and everything will tag your pet and put it into combat. Particularly annoying when you’re trying to run through a bunch of mobs in pve without being tagged. The solution to that is to put your pet on passive, simply giving the player the option to stow and unstow your pet when you want would be a better option. Or simply not have the pet put you in combat. Not being able to effectively use them in wvw is annoying, too, at that point they’re always on passive and just there for the swapping bonus. Even then if they get caught in a stray bomb they’re boned.

My two cents, anyway. I like having the pet, I’d enjoy being able to do more with it.

~ Kovu

Kovu.7560:

I also find it irritating that anything and everything will tag your pet and put it into combat. Particularly annoying when you’re trying to run through a bunch of mobs in pve without being tagged.

Hostiles hitting your pet won’t put you in combat. You’re only put into combat if the pet retaliates. If it’s on passive mode and you get into combat either you were hit or you hit something.

revkn.4071:

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 totally approve this.
The forced-pet gameplay linked to ranger class is a mmo abuse (it’s anet right to do what they want, even if it’s a bad move, imo).
Pet should be an option.
since GW2 ranger is balanced around the pet, just add a trait called ‘solo ranger’ or ‘pet free’.
- increase all stats by 15% when the player has no pet.

Ranger = must have a pet is an pure invention.
In med-fan culture, famous rangers CAN have a pet, they dont MUST have one.
Ranger is culturally about = wildnerness / stealth / nature magic / beast taming / Bow shooting / hunting / trapping / dual melee.
PET should be a choice, not the basic.

Hope this year, Santa Klaus will bring some new traits to buff / encourage my pet-less beloved ranger …

tontonUB.4687:

I totally approve this.
The forced-pet gameplay linked to ranger class is a mmo abuse (it’s anet right to do what they want, even if it’s a bad move, imo).
Pet should be an option.
since GW2 ranger is balanced around the pet, just add a trait called ‘solo ranger’ or ‘pet free’.
- increase all stats by 15% when the player has no pet.

Ranger = must have a pet is an pure invention.
In med-fan culture, famous rangers CAN have a pet, they dont MUST have one.
Ranger is culturally about = wildnerness / stealth / nature magic / beast taming / Bow shooting / hunting / trapping / dual melee.
PET should be a choice, not the basic.

Hope this year, Santa Klaus will bring some new traits to buff / encourage my pet-less beloved ranger …

Gonna say it again. Instead of trying to turn the Ranger into a WoW Marksman Hunter, the easiest solution of all, for both you and Anet, is to reroll into one of the three other classes that give you the range without the pet – Thieves, Warriors, or Dragon Hunters. At the end of the day, you simply don’t want to level another class and want to alter the pet class to suit your own personal fantasy because you disagree with Anet’s original vision and want to apply the fantasy from completely unrelated games and media to this game.

You picked the pet class. You knew it was a pet class when you picked it. Own your choice and do something with the options you have because, at this moment, the petless option isn’t coming any time soon and this game is insanely easy to level up in.

Irijia.6073:

tontonUB.4687:

I totally approve this.
The forced-pet gameplay linked to ranger class is a mmo abuse (it’s anet right to do what they want, even if it’s a bad move, imo).
Pet should be an option.
since GW2 ranger is balanced around the pet, just add a trait called ‘solo ranger’ or ‘pet free’.
- increase all stats by 15% when the player has no pet.

Ranger = must have a pet is an pure invention.
In med-fan culture, famous rangers CAN have a pet, they dont MUST have one.
Ranger is culturally about = wildnerness / stealth / nature magic / beast taming / Bow shooting / hunting / trapping / dual melee.
PET should be a choice, not the basic.

Hope this year, Santa Klaus will bring some new traits to buff / encourage my pet-less beloved ranger …

Gonna say it again. Instead of trying to turn the Ranger into a WoW Marksman Hunter, the easiest solution of all, for both you and Anet, is to reroll into one of the three other classes that give you the range without the pet – Thieves, Warriors, or Dragon Hunters. At the end of the day, you simply don’t want to level another class and want to alter the pet class to suit your own personal fantasy because you disagree with Anet’s original vision and want to apply the fantasy from completely unrelated games and media to this game.

You picked the pet class. You knew it was a pet class when you picked it. Own your choice and do something with the options you have because, at this moment, the petless option isn’t coming any time soon and this game is insanely easy to level up in.

Pretty much what I’ve been saying.

Irijia.6073:

tontonUB.4687:

I totally approve this.
The forced-pet gameplay linked to ranger class is a mmo abuse (it’s anet right to do what they want, even if it’s a bad move, imo).
Pet should be an option.
since GW2 ranger is balanced around the pet, just add a trait called ‘solo ranger’ or ‘pet free’.
- increase all stats by 15% when the player has no pet.

Ranger = must have a pet is an pure invention.
In med-fan culture, famous rangers CAN have a pet, they dont MUST have one.
Ranger is culturally about = wildnerness / stealth / nature magic / beast taming / Bow shooting / hunting / trapping / dual melee.
PET should be a choice, not the basic.

Hope this year, Santa Klaus will bring some new traits to buff / encourage my pet-less beloved ranger …

Gonna say it again. Instead of trying to turn the Ranger into a WoW Marksman Hunter, the easiest solution of all, for both you and Anet, is to reroll into one of the three other classes that give you the range without the pet – Thieves, Warriors, or Dragon Hunters. At the end of the day, you simply don’t want to level another class and want to alter the pet class to suit your own personal fantasy because you disagree with Anet’s original vision and want to apply the fantasy from completely unrelated games and media to this game.

You picked the pet class. You knew it was a pet class when you picked it. Own your choice and do something with the options you have because, at this moment, the petless option isn’t coming any time soon and this game is insanely easy to level up in.

Some people just really have no ability to actually hear other people. To some people, the Ranger represents more than a pet class, and playing another class is a poor substitute. I really don’t see how this is such a hard concept to grasp.

I can understand that there are people who want to play the Ranger without pet, but those people have also to understand that there are just as many, if not more, players who want the pet to stay.

ANet could just make it so that the pet wont come out when you hide it, but it wont help you, since the pet still accounts for damage, which you would lose, and neither would it help inexperienced players, who hide the pet and then wonder why they do less damage.

So why don’t you, instead wanting to remove the pet, come on over and help me improving the pet?

Einlanzer.1627:

Some people just really have no ability to actually hear other people. To some people, the Ranger represents more than a pet class, and playing another class is a poor substitute. I really don’t see how this is such a hard concept to grasp.

Oh, we hear you just fine. You want Anet to spend time and money on altering their concept of the Ranger to fit your personal fantasy because you regret your choice of the pet class and apparently never agreed with it from the beginning but played it anyways. You are attached to the name “Ranger” because you feel it’s supposed to be something else based on other fantasy archetypes but this is Guild Wars 2, not any of those other games or LOTR, or any other media.

For some reason too, you have convinced yourselves that it’s just a simple fix that won’t require a massive rework of talents and balancing as evidenced by statements along the lines of: ‘all they have to do is…’ or ’it’s simple to…’ or (my favorite) ‘if I can come up with XYZ then why can’t Anet do it’.

What we’re saying is not that it will never happen, since none of us can predict the future, but that you need to be making lemonade out of these lemons while you wait for your desired gameplay to maybe be implemented because Anet has already said no, no and no again.

I have to be honest, it shocks me that people think this kind of change would actually be simplistic and straightforward. if all you want is to permanently stow your pet and not see it at all, sure, but if you’re asking for a buff to compensate for that loss it’s a new can of worms that, if I’m being honest, doesn’t seem like something Anet would he inclined to spend time balancing, especially with bigger fish to fry for Rangers (like actually FIXING the pets in the first place).

It just won’t be as simple as “you do X more damage while your pet is gone” :/

Maybe there’ll be an elite spec that lets you fuse with your pet and you wont have to worry about it anymore+ be a tiger-neko.
.-.

FireAway.2056:

I have to be honest, it shocks me that people think this kind of change would actually be simplistic and straightforward. if all you want is to permanently stow your pet and not see it at all, sure, but if you’re asking for a buff to compensate for that loss it’s a new can of worms that, if I’m being honest, doesn’t seem like something Anet would he inclined to spend time balancing, especially with bigger fish to fry for Rangers (like actually FIXING the pets in the first place).

It just won’t be as simple as “you do X more damage while your pet is gone” :/

The easiest way to put this to bed is to make the Avoid Combat option make the pet invisible. Anyone that thinks Anet is going to give some option to change pet out for some other effect is delusional. There is no reason for it to happen and little value in implementing it.

Why would you ever get rid of pets? Once you learn to play with a build, and really get the timings right, pets can be very effective. Yes, pets are laggy and there’s a huge delay for their F2; it’s annoying as hell to use. BUT you can learn to play with the pets’ problems. That’s what makes a good ranger. We are the only class that has an NPC CONSISTENLY fighting along with us, and we can control that NPC. Learn to control it and you’ll hardly ever lose to a 1v1. Should Anet fix pets? Yes. Remove them? Hell no. I don’t wanna be another DH.

Irijia.6073:

Einlanzer.1627:

Some people just really have no ability to actually hear other people. To some people, the Ranger represents more than a pet class, and playing another class is a poor substitute. I really don’t see how this is such a hard concept to grasp.

Oh, we hear you just fine.

They could change things, sure.

Anet making changes is akin to a genie granting a wish.
Rangers would be better off before the wish was made.

Sultane.9150:

Why would you ever get rid of pets? Once you learn to play with a build, and really get the timings right, pets can be very effective. Yes, pets are laggy and there’s a huge delay for their F2; it’s annoying as hell to use. BUT you can learn to play with the pets’ problems. That’s what makes a good ranger. We are the only class that has an NPC CONSISTENLY fighting along with us, and we can control that NPC. Learn to control it and you’ll hardly ever lose to a 1v1. Should Anet fix pets? Yes. Remove them? Hell no. I don’t wanna be another DH.

Exactly!! Hell I just view the pet as an extra skill. It goes a loooong way when you understand pet behavior, for example canines first attack will usually be a knockdown, and I’ve seen it hit for 3k on light classes. Smokescales first attack will always be the rev sword 3 skill. So when you enter combat or swap pets boom free skill

Irijia.6073:

Einlanzer.1627:

Some people just really have no ability to actually hear other people. To some people, the Ranger represents more than a pet class, and playing another class is a poor substitute. I really don’t see how this is such a hard concept to grasp.

Oh, we hear you just fine. You want Anet to spend time and money on altering their concept of the Ranger to fit your personal fantasy because you regret your choice of the pet class and apparently never agreed with it from the beginning but played it anyways. You are attached to the name “Ranger” because you feel it’s supposed to be something else based on other fantasy archetypes but this is Guild Wars 2, not any of those other games or LOTR, or any other media.

For some reason too, you have convinced yourselves that it’s just a simple fix that won’t require a massive rework of talents and balancing as evidenced by statements along the lines of: ‘all they have to do is…’ or ’it’s simple to…’ or (my favorite) ‘if I can come up with XYZ then why can’t Anet do it’.

What we’re saying is not that it will never happen, since none of us can predict the future, but that you need to be making lemonade out of these lemons while you wait for your desired gameplay to maybe be implemented because Anet has already said no, no and no again.

I don’t even main a ranger, so I have little emotional investment in this conversation. Therefore, your assumptions are incorrect. Instead, I’m speaking from a high-level concept and game design perspective. Hogtying a profession to a pet when that profession represents more than just pets is silly.

Einlanzer.1627:

Irijia.6073:

Einlanzer.1627:

Some people just really have no ability to actually hear other people. To some people, the Ranger represents more than a pet class, and playing another class is a poor substitute. I really don’t see how this is such a hard concept to grasp.

Oh, we hear you just fine. You want Anet to spend time and money on altering their concept of the Ranger to fit your personal fantasy because you regret your choice of the pet class and apparently never agreed with it from the beginning but played it anyways. You are attached to the name “Ranger” because you feel it’s supposed to be something else based on other fantasy archetypes but this is Guild Wars 2, not any of those other games or LOTR, or any other media.

For some reason too, you have convinced yourselves that it’s just a simple fix that won’t require a massive rework of talents and balancing as evidenced by statements along the lines of: ‘all they have to do is…’ or ’it’s simple to…’ or (my favorite) ‘if I can come up with XYZ then why can’t Anet do it’.

What we’re saying is not that it will never happen, since none of us can predict the future, but that you need to be making lemonade out of these lemons while you wait for your desired gameplay to maybe be implemented because Anet has already said no, no and no again.

I don’t even main a ranger, so I have little emotional investment in this conversation. Therefore, your assumptions are incorrect. Instead, I’m speaking from a high-level concept and game design perspective. Hogtying a profession to a pet when that profession represents more than just pets is silly.

Professions are much more than any single concept that you want to choose. That doesn’t make them hogtied to that single element. I mean, my Guardian is ‘hogtied’ to Virtues … and I don’t even get the option to turn them off like Rangers can with pets. Your statement makes no sense. No profession can just turn off conceptual elements they don’t like. That’s why you get to choose professions.

Obtena.7952:

Professions are much more than any single concept that you want to choose. That doesn’t make them hogtied to that single element. I mean, my Guardian is ‘hogtied’ to Virtues … and I don’t even get the option to turn them off like Rangers can with pets. Your statement makes no sense. No profession can just turn off conceptual elements they don’t like. That’s why you get to choose professions.

Well put! On a side note, I’m not sure why he’s advocating for such a huge change if he doesn’t even really main Ranger. If you’re going to trot out the “game design perspective” argument then I imagine the person making the argument would understand just how massive a re-work to the class it would be since it’s a removal of a core mechanic.

Also, regardless of whether someone agrees with the choice to nail Ranger down as a pet spec or not, there should be a point at which that person realizes that different classes are different and that the gameplay being advocated for would best be served by another profession. Otherwise, in all MMOs there would only ever be one class available to play because screw variety and that would make for a boring and short-lived game.

Acting like Virtues and Pets are comparable is rather silly. The former has much less aesthetic impact than the latter, and this is true across all other professions.

Actually, it’s not silly at all. Even for the aesthetic impact, Virtue of Courage imparts a visual that other people find as unpleasing as people think pets do. I think there are in fact, more similar than they are different. This isn’t unique either. Lots of professions have visual effects associated with the class that you can’t turn off. It’s part of the concept.

I’m still really waiting to see someone present an argument other than “I don’t like it” for why this should be changed. The work need to justify the end results here people.

Einlanzer.1627:

Acting like Virtues and Pets are comparable is rather silly. The former has much less aesthetic impact than the latter, and this is true across all other professions.

Aesthetic impact? What does that even mean?

Pets, Virtues, Burst, Initiative, etc. are all unique class mechanics. All of them augment the class in some way. The range of pets makes ours one of the most customizable in the game, but people still complain about it. Just like they complain about all the other class mechanics. So I don’t find his statement silly at all, but pretty much on point.

I actually have an even bigger problem with this ‘aesthetic impact’ argument because if you really don’t care about what pet you use, you can still exercise choice to minimize the visual impact of your pet by choosing a bird; a very reasonable compromise IMO. Of course, most people are stubborn and unreasonable and think an MMO caters to every players whim, so for them, no pet is the only option here.

I think it has to do more with they don’t know how to use the pets correctly, so they get frustrated and qq about it. I think 40% of being a above average ranger is knowing what your pets do for your, when they should do it for you, and how it should it for you. like one of those youtuber peeps (i summon thee donnee) should make a basic video on some basic pet behavior and some tips and tricks Im always suppriesd when helping a fellow ranger they’re all mind blown, example smokescale does rev sword 3 right out of the gate, so basically you know when you go into combat or swap to the pet boom your now an honorary rev. Wolf and hound do a knockdown out of the gate. This is important stuff to know, pets can make rangers very very strong 1v1ers, even if you just use them for utility

(granted there are alot of pets that should get reworks and yes the ai can be quite annyoing at times but its really not as bad as people make it out to be)

Eleazar.9478:

I think it has to do more with they don’t know how to use the pets correctly, so they get frustrated and qq about it. I think 40% of being a above average ranger is knowing what your pets do for your, when they should do it for you, and how it should it for you. like one of those youtuber peeps (i summon thee donnee) should make a basic video on some basic pet behavior and some tips and tricks Im always suppriesd when helping a fellow ranger they’re all mind blown, example smokescale does rev sword 3 right out of the gate, so basically you know when you go into combat or swap to the pet boom your now an honorary rev. Wolf and hound do a knockdown out of the gate. This is important stuff to know, pets can make rangers very very strong 1v1ers, even if you just use them for utility

(granted there are alot of pets that should get reworks and yes the ai can be quite annyoing at times but its really not as bad as people make it out to be)

You might be onto something. I wonder if people truly understand that the pet isn’t just a permanent DOT but an actual companion with useful utility and damage that does help us in the long run. I still believe that GW2 has one of the best implementations of pets in an MMO that I’ve seen by virtue of the fact that many of them have abilities that actually do combo nicely with the Ranger and there are some truly useful traits you can use to enhance the pet gameplay. Trying to nail the pet down as a matter of aesthetics is bewildering as the pet is more than just a look and feel, it actually does contribute to the Ranger’s gameplay.

Quite frankly, I’m in the mindset of the OP as well. I almost always main the archer/marksman style in games, because it’s typically highly-mobile with lots of damage and very risk-reward-oriented.

Most of the ranger unfortunately doesn’t realize this, and most of the builds that have the aesthetic lack the mechanics to back up this style of play, or otherwise the aesthetic of the archer/marksman etc. for said style of play is lost. Unfortunately, I don’t think the pet will ever properly be decoupled from the ranger, because especially now, it’s more important than ever for a lot of functionality. Such a change would need to cause profession-level re-designs which, quite frankly, ANet has proven repeated unwillingness to do for even individual weapon skills/utilities/traits which are just poorly-designed as a whole.

Primarily why I proposed the Deadeye ._.
Or why I think longbow non-stealth build options on the thief would be a welcome and rather excellent addition game-wide.

DeceiverX.8361:

Quite frankly, I’m in the mindset of the OP as well. I almost always main the archer/marksman style in games, because it’s typically highly-mobile with lots of damage and very risk-reward-oriented.

Most of the ranger unfortunately doesn’t realize this, and most of the builds that have the aesthetic lack the mechanics to back up this style of play, or otherwise the aesthetic of the archer/marksman etc. for said style of play is lost. Unfortunately, I don’t think the pet will ever properly be decoupled from the ranger, because especially now, it’s more important than ever for a lot of functionality. Such a change would need to cause profession-level re-designs which, quite frankly, ANet has proven repeated unwillingness to do for even individual weapon skills/utilities/traits which are just poorly-designed as a whole.

Primarily why I proposed the Deadeye ._.
Or why I think longbow non-stealth build options on the thief would be a welcome and rather excellent addition game-wide.

Ok but that doesn’t explain why you don’t play a LB warrior or SB rogue… or the now available DH.

Ranger, again, isn’t defined by being a marksman. They are defined by a connection to nature, which is typified by having a pet. If you want to play a marksman, the ranger is but one of now 4 options.

Hate to bump an old thread but I’m just coming back to the game.

I was a dedicated Ranger in GW1 – the game allowed a Ranger to play with or without a Pet; and both were effective.
GW2 forces Rangers to use a pet, and honestly, this is a letdown.
I think the option should be available, I love working with a pet a lot of the time, however, there’s also many occasions I want a build without a pet.
Maybe the next Elite Spec could work towards making this an option, “Hunter or Wanderer”
Pets need a rework, they just have a mind of their own.
The Beastmastery trait line should be dedicated to pets, all pet traits here, none anywhere else.

Pet should be a help, but it is a huge weakness in this game. A target that cannot dodge makes you think about bouncing attacks, epidemics, condi bombs, etc.

Renn.8241:

Pets need a rework, they just have a mind of their own.
The Beastmastery trait line should be dedicated to pets, all pet traits here, none anywhere else.

I agree that pets need improvement and more control over being stowed but what is it with people trying to confine all traits pertaining to our central class mechanic to one specialization? Do you realize that there are approximately 17 traits outside of Beastmastery that influence our pets. It would be like a Mesmer complaining that other specializations besides the Illusion line can influence their clones.

I can’t speak to the GW1 Ranger because I never played it but in this incarnation of Guild Wars, it is very much a pet class and I don’t see trying to confine everything pet-related to the Beastmastery line as anything but a train wreck waiting to happen.

GW’s ranger was a great profession. It does have a lot of support, was an unparalleled puller, great at interrupting foes and had great offensive options. To own a pet, the ranger had to sacrifice one of their few skills slots which is why there was some complaint about pets not being accessible enough in the game. (though, gw’s pet had an higher impact in the game than gw2’s)

The choice to chose the pet as the ranger’s mechanism in gw2 was a logical follow up of the previous statements. How it have been introduced in the game and so poorly done is another question.

There is room for semi-petless e-specs, it shouldn’t be hard for anet to bend a bit the mechanism. There is also room for a lot of improvement for the core ranger pet. And, at the same time, there is also room for another profession’s e-spec to fill this spot of the petless ranger that a lot of players want to see. (I guess that dragonhunter somewhat already start to fill this spot even if the result is kinda disapointing. Especially the bow…)

What ranger needs next is the shapeshifter spec that would help her to fill multiple roles when needed. The game already has shapeshift skills (norn racials). Making them kit-like (limiting them) would be a perfect opportunity. Instead of having a pet, ranger now can shapeshift into an animal.

You can already have a petless Ranger. Put the pet on Avoid Combat mode and never look at it again. Make sure to change it into a Brown Bear so you at least have a chance to get some condi removal and to trigger all the bearbow meme people.