Guild Wars 2

So I had a post I was almost done with, spent about 20 minutes on it, but I had so many tabs open looking for references that when I tried to switch back to this one I pressed the “x” and lost it all. So this post is going to be much more brief and less well written. Oh well.

There have been many threads complaining about this, mostly specifically to pet mechanics and not the profession mechanic as a whole.

I have 2 points to make.

1) Why do rangers have the most invasive profession mechanic?

2) Why are rangers even pet-centric in the first place?

So, starting with point 1. Rangers are forced to use pets 100% of the time. Pets
- Force micromanagement, even in simple situations
- Often perform unwanted actions
- Will often maneuver in un-desirable ways
- Provide additional damage at the cost of ranger’s damage
- Perform actions in un-timely manners

They’re not all bad, for sure. Specced into beastmaster, you can get some great damage from pets, but I’ll talk more about that with point 2.

It is a mechanic you’re forced to use 100% of the time, whether you have any interest in it or not. The only other mechanic you’re forced to use 100% of the time are Guardian’s virtues .. and those are not invasive in the slightest. Passive buffs. They can’t mess you up, really. Mesmer comes close to being invasive.. illusions can be kind of tough to deal with at times, but overall doesn’t provoke the level of stress pets do. Even if you don’t spec into illusions, illusions are basically a free aegis and can cause confusion (actual confusion, not just the condition) in both PvE and PvP.

Point #2: Ranger does not equal Beastmaster. At least, it shouldn’t. If the profession was called Beastmaster, I would understand most/many skills and traits also giving boosts to the pet. But being a ranger in general should not mean “Pet Profession”.

It’s been a while, but I believe in Guild Wars 1 if you wanted a pet, you could put the “Charm” skill on your bar and use a pet if you wanted. Why would they get rid of that? It should be the same way here. Give us the OPTION to use pets and don’t make it the profession mechanic.

The F skills should be wilderness / nature / survival skills. Tracking and RANGING skills. Give us a utility skill to summon/charm a pet.

Pet’s are great, for sure. Beastmasters can make great use of them and even those not traited into pets can find ways to make them useful. I just don’t think they should be a requirement of the profession. Not only does it make us feel cumbersome, but it doesn’t make sense.

My thoughts for a resolution:
1) Stop pets from automatically deploying when stowed. Add a signet that gives the ranger +X% damage while the pet is stowed. This is kind of a ‘band-aid’ fix and .. overall, it’s lazy. It makes the profession un-appealing as now your main mechanic basically can be useless. Which leads me to the more appealing solution ..
2) Change pets from the F skills to be a utility skill. Take a page from Guild Wars 1. A “Charm” skill. If it’s on your bar, a pet will be available. Pressing the button swaps the pets.. or uses the pet skill, I’m not sure. The details would need to be worked out, but I think it could be done. Re-work the F buttons to be “nature” oriented skills. Some ideas are tracking, foraging and wilderness survival. The Beastmaster traits tree would also need to be re-worked. Change the tree to “Wilderness Survival” and distribute beastmaster traits throughout the entirely of the ranger traits. I think this is how rangers should have been implemented in the first place, although I doubt anything like this would ever be considered.

Ok, that’s about it. I realize there are those of you who love rangers and their pet-centric mechanics and you guys will probably just respond with “Rangers are fine, don’t change them, gtfo” and the like. But this is a discussion, not a suggestion. I just want to hear input and feedback. I doubt ANet would ever consider anything like changing an entire profession mechanic, especially when so many of you enjoy it.

Thanks for reading,
Mongo

“So, starting with point 1. Rangers are forced to use pets 100% of the time. Pets
- Force micromanagement, even in simple situations
- Often perform unwanted actions
- Will often maneuver in un-desirable ways
- Provide additional damage at the cost of ranger’s damage
- Perform actions in un-timely manners”

Please provide examples for each

“It is a mechanic you’re forced to use 100% of the time, whether you have any interest in it or not.”

How so? I am not forced to command the pet to attack. I can just ignore it and let it die each time, can’t I?

“It’s been a while, but I believe in Guild Wars 1 if you wanted a pet, you could put the “Charm” skill on your bar and use a pet if you wanted. Why would they get rid of that?”

Spend a minute or less looking it up instead of ‘believing’. They got rid of it because this game is not a remake.

“Pet’s are great, for sure.”

Aren’t you arguing for the fact that pets have horrible AI?

“1) Stop pets from automatically deploying when stowed. Add a signet that gives the ranger +X% damage while the pet is stowed.”

Why not just do this with every profession? Oh right, because it wouldn’t make them unique. What makes Rangers unique are the pet. The damage difference between pure ranger (no pet) and other prof are not huge enough to think that rangers are underpowered without the pet. A ranger has methods that helps both the pet and himself.

One more thing, don’t use the guardian virtues as an example of “good mechanics” if you complain about them!

solrik.6028:

Please provide examples for each

So, starting with point 1. Rangers are forced to use pets 100% of the time. Pets
- Force micromanagement, even in simple situations
>>> Maybe “Force” wasn’t the right word, but telling your pet to back off a target you decide you’re not interested in attacking is one part. Watching your pets health and using heals to the pets beneft. These are situations you get yourself in should you actually decide to use the pet.
- Often perform unwanted actions
>>> Same as above. Press 1 on a target too far away accidentally, doesn’t matter because you’re not close enough anyways. Pet charges in, need to cancel action.
- Will often maneuver in un-desirable ways
>>> Take ineffective routes to get to locations that should have been straightforward (or never make it there at all)
- Provide additional damage at the cost of ranger’s damage
>>> I don’t really think an example is needed here, do you?
- Perform actions in un-timely manners
>>> F2 skills, although they’ve improved the response time, tend to lag behind to the point where many times they’re un-needed by the time they’re used.

solrik.6028:

How so? I am not forced to command the pet to attack. I can just ignore it and let it die each time, can’t I?

Yes. You have the option to ignore the pet 100% of the time. In doing so, there are repercussions. Your pet may attack un-wanted targets. Many bounce skills can now hit you multiple times as your pet is an additional target. If you leave your pet dead, your damage suffers.

solrik.6028:

Spend a minute or less looking it up instead of ‘believing’. They got rid of it because this game is not a remake.

Ah, it’s called “Charm Animal”, not charm. Ya got me.

solrik.6028:

Aren’t you arguing for the fact that pets have horrible AI?

Edit: Pet’s can be great. Man you really pick the most minute things to argue about ..

solrik.6028:

*Why not just do this with every profession? Oh right, because it wouldn’t make them unique. What makes Rangers unique are the pet. The damage difference between pure ranger (no pet) and other prof are not huge enough to think that rangers are underpowered without the pet. A ranger has methods that helps both the pet and himself.

One more thing, don’t use the guardian virtues as an example of “good mechanics” if you complain about them!*

You clearly came here after someone stomped your favorite turtle or something. Don’t take your rage out on me. This is a discussion. Did you even read the rest of that first suggestion? Obviously not because then your argument wouldn’t make sense. I’ll give you time to do that now. Go ahead, scroll up.

…

Good. Now, about guardians, why is it I need to either be 100% for or against the mechanics? It’s not an all or nothing situation. I maintain my stance that although they are boring, they only provide positive effects.

<Edited for readability>

Maybe “Force” wasn’t the right word, but telling your pet to back off a target you decide you’re not interested in attacking is one part. Watching your pets health and using heals to the pets beneft. These are situations you get yourself in should you actually decide to use the pet.

This is a question about skill. Pet switch is available and the player usually uses his/her healing skill within 30.
Please do not generalise “using heals to the pets benefit” because that is not true, especially when running BM. The pet only attacks a target by itself if it is set on aggressive mode.

Yes. You have the option to ignore the pet 100% of the time. In doing so, there are repercussions. Your pet may attack un-wanted targets. Many bounce skills can now hit you multiple times as your pet is an additional target. If you leave your pet dead, your damage suffers.

I have honestly never had a problem with what you said so this may be more of personal experience.

Pet’s can be great. Man you really pick the most minute things to argue about…

Did you perhaps mean something like “Pet’s can be great if the ranger’s build is BM focused” ?

You clearly came here after someone stomped your favorite turtle or something. Don’t take your rage out on me. This is a discussion. Did you even read the rest of that first suggestion? Obviously not because then your argument wouldn’t make sense. I’ll give you time to do that now. Go ahead, scroll up.

I guess you would’ve responded more positively if I said:
“Anet will not and did not do this because the pets are what makes the ranger class unique. The damage difference between pure ranger (no pet) and other prof are not huge enough to think that rangers are underpowered without the pet. A ranger has methods that helps both the pet and himself.
One more thing, please use a mechanic that actually works well and you don’t have negative opinions about, like the engineer’s for example.”
——————————————————-
Please don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to start a hate-argue or anything like that. Just discuss. I am only stating what my opinions are and/or my experiences with the class.

I main a ranger, and roll a build that allows me to ignore the pet – I agree with the OP wholeheartedly. Based on how often this comes up on the forums, so do a lot of other people who’ve rolled ranger.

Pets in Guild Wars 1 were also unique to the ranger and, due to how professions in GW1 worked, any profession could secondary in ranger for an almost free body in combat. What a pet “cost” you was 1 (2 if you wanted it to not stay dead in PvP) of your 8 skills and not being a ranger. You could also further improve your pet’s effectiveness by using beastmastery skills or the sunspear skill never rampage alone and spending attribute points on beastmastery. Without any beastmastery points, your pets damage is pretty pathetic.

Rangers, like Elementalists, learned they should embrace their abilities. Elementalists used to use only one or two elements, now they switch between them on the fly. Rangers however used to choose whether to fight with their pet, now they may choose to focus on fighting with their pet.

To me, it makes perfect sense that rangers are the “pet profession”, as in GW1 if you wanted a pet you’d take a ranger secondary or primary. I’m glad the ranger has such a unique combat style and I’d hate to fight any other way.

Fair enough. In response to your last post, yea.. I’m aware ANet will never do this. That’s why I put in my first post “But this is a discussion, not a suggestion”.

I understand pets can do well in both a pet-focused build and not. If you’re not traited into pets, your pet can still add some damage, add some utility, heal yourself, pull enemies, etc. If you’re traited into pets, you’ll see a big damage increase, plus allow you to focus on bunkering yourself to prevent deaths.

I guess my first point isn’t incredibly valid… pets aren’t super intrusive and the small number of problems they have I’m sure are being worked on.

My disappointment is in the direction they decided to take the profession. It’s odd, especially if you compare it to .. thief, for example. Thief has shadowstep + skill steal. It’s a nice little skill they can use whenever it’s beneficial to them and their trait tree isn’t bombarded with traits to boost it and their skills don’t have a bunch of ways to alter and enhance it. I would say that a thief could avoid ever using their profession mechanic and be just fine. One might argue that initiative is also their mechanic, but really it’s just an alternative to cooldowns.

I will take your word that a BM ranger and a conceptual petless ranger would do marginally equal damage.

If you’re using a ranger, you can expect to use a pet. I just think they could have taken this in a different direction that would satisfy both current satisfied and disappointed rangers .. not only that, but it would fit better with the profession.

@OP: I’m not against petless options, but these suggestions are major reworks of the class that invalidate months of player practice in mastering a very difficult to master class. The trick to developing or redeveloping a class is subtlety not complexity.

Concerning the points you raise on pets they are in fact spot on accurate. Though the fixes should be directly aimed at the root cause, and not the symptoms. The root cause of the problem isn’t that the pet is invasive to the class design, but that it isn’t invasive enough. It’s far to external to the ranger and not integral to player control, hence why we can see the logic in a petless option. A mechanic that could do something as out of the ordinary as allowing you to swap AI control from pet to ranger would be an example of how heavily invasive the pet needs to be to the class in order for it to be as integral as say Mesmer clones or a Necros minions. They should represent varied tiers of pet control, where the Mesmer clone is the lowest, the necro minion is in the middle, and the Ranger pet is fully controlled. This is however not the case, and pet skills need superior AI to support that. Better yet, remove the pet controlled skills, make them all player controlled and turn that F2 skill into an “attunement”/“kit” style skill that equips modified versions of them that trigger both ranger and pet to perform them.

Basically what I’m getting at is a purely petless ranger will never happen as the developers have stood stubbornly in opposition to the concept, yet also neglect to improve the existing synergy failings of the class. Thus the only feasible solution is MORE integration of the currently “just happens be there” mechanics. Every Ranger skill should have a pet kicker attached to it, and control of that pets behavior should be a seamless aspect of the class.

I think that as an extreme generalization, a point that this thread is making is that in guild wars 2, there are a multitude of ways to play and spec, but in particular, when rangers decide to go with speccing in ways to benefit themselves (and not buff the pet at all), there is a lot of investment into those stats that doesn’t add up to its full potential because of how the implementation of the pet mechanic works, and investing into pets is a pigeonholed design but a must if a person wants to get the full use out of every stat/trait point they invest.

There are also good points to be made here, like why 5/8 of the classes need to utilize their mechanic to be as effective as classes that really would never have to use it otherwise (mechanic centric: Warrior, mesmer, ranger, necromancer, elementalist versus: guardian, thief, engineer). The latter professions, particularly the guardian, do gain things by activating their mechanics, but barely lose any effectiveness in battle by not activating them (guardians is also a passive buff), unless traited for, where as the other professions mentioned absolutely need to utilize their mechanic in order to reach full potential in a fight, even when not traiting for them.

The best solution to pets (there has been a huge dislike for the mechanic snowballing from the pvp community) would be to normalize their damage (no crits), make them only hit for ~300, and then make them much more utility based (and harder to kill as well because with the damage scaled down, their would be no fear of them destroying all the games content anymore. Also, the damage potential lost on the pet would be added back to the player). Putting points into Beastmastery would then increase their damage directly by a static amount (max hits now ~600), and offer traits that increases their utility by leaps and bounds (lets say for the sake of the idea that a pet has a swiftness utility, well now a trait lets you half the cooldown or double the duration, or gain additional boons alongside the original function).

This is a rough idea, and a compromise between many different ideas. The biggest ones being that a large portion of people would rather the damage be on the ranger, and that includes the pvp community because then the damage becomes more dependent on player skill and the mechanic of counter play becomes more valuable (instead of just the player and pet being virtually unkillable while the pet does all of the work and the player just sits on the node and keeps it from being capped).

@Obscure One: Makes sense. I don’t like it, but it makes sense. I guess it feels like rangers are given the option to not be pet focused, but they’re .. really not. So it drives people to the profession that normally wouldn’t like pets (ie: me) and then leads them to be disappointed at the level of involvement.

So? If you’re rolling a ranger, you’re agreeing with the fact that you’ll have a pet. It’s that simple.

Mongo.2490:

@Obscure One: Makes sense. I don’t like it, but it makes sense. I guess it feels like rangers are given the option to not be pet focused, but they’re .. really not. So it drives people to the profession that normally wouldn’t like pets (ie: me) and then leads them to be disappointed at the level of involvement.

You should have the ability to choose where the majority of your damage comes from, while choosing how you want to use the pet your given (utility or damage).

There is no reason to not be disappointed when you find out that you’ve been pigeonholed into playing a way you don’t necessarily want to.

jcbroe.4329:

Mongo.2490:

@Obscure One: Makes sense. I don’t like it, but it makes sense. I guess it feels like rangers are given the option to not be pet focused, but they’re .. really not. So it drives people to the profession that normally wouldn’t like pets (ie: me) and then leads them to be disappointed at the level of involvement.

You should have the ability to choose where the majority of your damage comes from, while choosing how you want to use the pet your given (utility or damage).

There is no reason to not be disappointed when you find out that you’ve been pigeonholed into playing a way you don’t necessarily want to.

That is a very good idea.

Pets should have stances;
Protective: Always positions itself between the ranger and targeted enemy (pet starts doing this when said enemy hits the ranger for the first time). Pet gets reduced power & precision, increased toughness & vitality. Only attacks if the enemy is crippled, immobilized, stunned or is unable to move.
Balanced: Current
Aggressive: Pet gains extra precision & power and has drastically reduced toughness & vitality. Increased attack speed (like quickness but less than 50% speed increase) Effects only apply when ranger has initiated combat, to avoid abuses like jaguar stealth attack.
Supportive: Pet does more damage with it’s skills (basic attack excluded), reduced damage with basic attack.

The pets have the effects of “Balanced” stance on those stances that has not yet been activated by the ranger initiating combat.

There can be 2 stances choosen (like pets) and those 2 can be switched every 5-10 seconds in combat (no idea how balancing works out)

Imagine the protective stance with bear! Ranger would be able to troll so much!

Well, this topic got away from me. My gripe is the concept of a ranger doesn’t have to be pet-centric.. but it’s ANet’s call how they implement it and they’re not gonna change that. So.. whatever.

I would have to say that the issues I see with that ranger with the pet is the design that at one time presents the idea of Ranger and pet working in tandem, but and the same time bases a lot of the condition removal on ‘sorry faithful friend, take one for your master’ minotaur-butter.

With the overall performance of the pet being needed and the design of the PvE content (often high damage dodge or die attacks/don’t stand there mechanics) that seems to not have the a permanent companion in mind in terms of design. In summary (PvE opinion) with the presences of lower skill cap level professions existing compounds this issue where a ‘good/skilled’ ranger pushes their limit to reach a fraction of the potential the lower skill cap profession.

I hate that we have no option but to roll a BM based build – it can’t be escaped. 40% of our damage is attached to our pets. No other class in game has a handicap wherein if they don’t trait into their mechanic, they’re 40% less effective than anyone else.

stale.9785:

I hate that we have no option but to roll a BM based build – it can’t be escaped. 40% of our damage is attached to our pets. No other class in game has a handicap wherein if they don’t trait into their mechanic, they’re 40% less effective than anyone else.

That’s exactly the point I feel like I was trying to make, but much more concise and clear lol.
+1

Mongo.2490:

Well, this topic got away from me. My gripe is the concept of a ranger doesn’t have to be pet-centric.. but it’s ANet’s call how they implement it and they’re not gonna change that. So.. whatever.

Simply because an argument is stubbornly resisted doesn’t make it any less valid. That being said the developers have committed themselves to the pet mechanic and if they are to succeed in its application there are obvious elements that must be addressed, elements you yourself are speaking of. It is therefore more constructive dialog to remedy the class woes within the parameters of a pet mechanic than it is to suggest doing away with it. My thoughts on the matter lean in a direction of establishing pets as integral to the play style and not an ignorable liability. A Mesmer cannot ignore its clones any more than an elementalist can neglect its attunements, yet a Ranger is uniquely forced to decide between augmenting itself or augmenting its pet when there should never be such a division. This division is at the heart of the argument, and it’s akin to a scenario in which the Warrior burst skill is, hypothetically, only good if the Warrior built for it and your suggestion to fix it is to remove it and buff the classes other skills to compensate. Insert Ranger and pets to the above statement and its an identical argument skirting the actual problem; the effectiveness of a core mechanic. In the current state of the game, Warrior burst skills are solid, and if built for they are amazing, but for Rangers pets, most are barely viable without being built for, yet when they are built for holy $%&# are they insanely powerful (cats can be straight gross). There’s little room for a middle ground in the meta so a Ranger is forced into one or the other when it only ever should be both at the same time.

Essentially what Virtues are to a Guardian, what Lifeforce is it a Necromancer, what a Toolbelt is to an Engineer so too should a Pet be to a Ranger…and it is the fact that it is not that inspires these threads from a place of logical deduction in an attempt to fix a foolish design choice.

They have a stow mechanic yet they patch the game so that our pets can run through a group of enemies and not pull them. Kinda makes stow obsolete.

The solution is actually simple…

Switch +healing with boon duration on the trait lines and cause stow to give the ranger an appropriate bonus to the ranger’s attributes to compensate for the pet not being there.

That wouldn’t be an overhaul of the profession. We’d be getting better trait options and an improvement on an existing feature that would cause the profession to be more appealing to a wider range of players.

Oh, and I don’t give a rat’s kitten about anyones obsessive need for exclusitivity. That’s their insecurity and not mine.

stale.9785:

I hate that we have no option but to roll a BM based build – it can’t be escaped. 40% of our damage is attached to our pets. No other class in game has a handicap wherein if they don’t trait into their mechanic, they’re 40% less effective than anyone else.

Actually, this isn’t 100% accurate. I went from a Power/precision/crit build to a BM build because everyone is talking about having to go BM if you want to play the class correctly. When I jumped into WvW, the first thing I run across is a zerg, pet died before I had the chance to turn and run the other way. Then I joined a zerg and went to raid a fort…pet just sat there under the area effect and died, wouldn’t attack the targets I was attacking because they where up on the wall. Not even the birds will fly up to the wall to attack, talk about ridiculous! And since they nerfed guard, you can’t send your pet up the wall anymore to attack people, so as it stands now, BM is useless in WvW and Ranger’s will always be doing 40% less damage in WvW. Because of this I switched back to my lame glass watergun. Even when your roaming and you do come across one player and not a zerg or party, because the pet can’t hit a moving target and everyone that PvP’s/WvW knows never to stop moving, the only time the pet is useful is when you down the player. The pet will help you keep him down so you can finish him off…that is of course if the pet survives that long.

Plain and simple, in WvW, playing with an AI that is responsible for 40% of your damage is playing with a 40% handicap…in your opponents favor. There are many, MANY people that can make it work, and they do this by going melee. I’m sorry, but if I wanted to go melee, I would have rolled a warrior, guardian or thief. I don’t like melee combat, I like range combat. I’m not big into priest classes so I went ranger, you know, master of the bow (what a let down on that one right guys). Best thing ANet can do is remove the damage from pets, make them utility based (or make the pets the new and improved ‘spirits’ that no one uses), and give ranger’s their 40% damage back.

I am not sure why everyone says that 40% of the damage for a ranger comes from the pet, but I am kinda new to the class. Does damage scale differently with attack power for rangers? Rangers can get some really good armor and power, or spec for conditions relatively well, works great as a bunker with high healing, has great mobility, and has a lot of interesting ways to build other than focusing on pets. Are these stats that I have been playing around with in the build editor scale differently than other classes?

If you don’t like the pet attacking, can’t you just pick pets that buff you, soak conditions, or remove conditions to be your support in the background (and not trait into Beastmaster at all)? If that is the case, its not big deal if they die, you just get fewer boons, but can keep playing regardless. Also, in WvW, can’t you use one of the devourers to attack people on a wall with their ranged attacks, or is the range too low?

Dreamham, Akisame, I’m in agreement with you guys. And Dreamham, you’ve not said anything that I didn’t. Pet’s are 40% of our potential DPS. The only way to utilise it is to roll BM. This is wrong, and should be fixed.

BlackBeard.2873:

I am not sure why everyone says that 40% of the damage for a ranger comes from the pet, but I am kinda new to the class. Does damage scale differently with attack power for rangers? Rangers can get some really good armor and power, or spec for conditions relatively well, works great as a bunker with high healing, has great mobility, and has a lot of interesting ways to build other than focusing on pets. Are these stats that I have been playing around with in the build editor scale differently than other classes?

If you don’t like the pet attacking, can’t you just pick pets that buff you, soak conditions, or remove conditions to be your support in the background (and not trait into Beastmaster at all)? If that is the case, its not big deal if they die, you just get fewer boons, but can keep playing regardless. Also, in WvW, can’t you use one of the devourers to attack people on a wall with their ranged attacks, or is the range too low?

You can reach the same overall stats, but the skill coefficients on our weapons are lower, presumably because we have the pet supplementing our damage. That means our attacks do less damage per point of power.

Mongo.2490:

Well, this topic got away from me. My gripe is the concept of a ranger doesn’t have to be pet-centric.. but it’s ANet’s call how they implement it and they’re not gonna change that. So.. whatever.

You can hardly say it was sneaked up. They constantly made out how the pet was a Very Big Thing with the ranger, and that it’s the F-keys alone should have tipped you off.

I feel I should point out that ranger isn’t the only class constrained by working with AI controlled pets and having no other option but to build their class around them.

Mesmer’s likewise rely upon AI controlled clones and phantasms for their core mechanic, which also suffer from kitten behaviour and pathfinding issues, except unlike rangers mesmer’s cannot directly control their clones so if they do something undesirable they can’t tell them to “heel” or “change target”

Ryuujin.8236:

I feel I should point out that ranger isn’t the only class constrained by working with AI controlled pets and having no other option but to build their class around them.

Mesmer’s likewise rely upon AI controlled clones and phantasms for their core mechanic, which also suffer from kitten behaviour and pathfinding issues, except unlike rangers mesmer’s cannot directly control their clones so if they do something undesirable they can’t tell them to “heel” or “change target”

I’m not trolling you at all, but let me know when I can shatter my pet for damage or invincibility and make a new one.

I’m not saying that mesmer clones/phantasms don’t suffer from buggy AI, but mesmers do have the option to build around shattering or letting the clones do damage, both of which can have competitive damage with the other.

If a ranger pet dies or isn’t used, the DPS isn’t made up anywhere. There is no other option, there is no “put all damage on the ranger and have the pet be pure utility.” It’s just dead (or not doing anything), and the damage is lost entirely.

I have little problems controlling my pets. L2P (learn to pet)?

As has been said before, the pet mechanic is too intrusive for the class design.

The mesmer illusions for example are not intrusive, if you don’t care about them in the slightest they will still deal damage or apply buffs and conditions. They really are fire and forget, as well as a great way to mitigate damage. On the other hand you can use a build that properly enhances them so your entire gameplay revolves around them.

With the ranger it is different. Your pet is there, like the illusions, but fire and forget does not work. If you keep it in its aggressive stance, it will most likely die pretty quick and be totally useless (or in worse cases: pull even more mobs, especially in dungeons).
If you keep it passive this means you will lose a portion of your damage.

Now you might argue that other professions might not use their F-Skills as well if they don’t like them and would by doing so also lose damage, but that is highely improbable. The sole reason most rangers dislike their pet is because it requires and constant amount of your attention. You have to micromanage it. Always.

Other class mechanics like the thiefs steal, necros deathshroud, guardians virtues, warriors adrenaline are all fire and forget, like mesmers illusions. Use them if they are ready (or not if its passive virtues) and proceed as usual. You can of course make them a substantial part of your build, but you don’t have to.

The ranger then again has to micromanage his pet, if it’s a part of his build or not, or else he will lose damage. And worse, if it is not a part of his build, his class mechanic is highely likely to die and be useless altogether.

to OP…

as much as i agree with you in almost all aspects and i hate the pets (in GW2) with a strong passion… you are unfortunately beating a dead horse…

Anet stated in various occasions, that they will never rid of the pet, and they are quite satisfied with the pet/ranger relation (granted that they acknowledge that pets have minor (???) issues)….

So basically yes, despite the definition in the site, Anet’s envision of the ranger is actually a beastmaster…

Anyone reported that as a bug yet? The beastmaster profession is misleadingly named as a ranger.

Mongo.2490:

1) Why do rangers have the most invasive profession mechanic?

I’d argue the thief has the most invasive. You have to work with the initiative system, followed by the engineer and elementalist: you don’t have to use those kits and shift elements but you’re even more limited than a ranger ignoring the pet if you don’t.

Bm are not the only viable builds. To play a ranger you dont need to be a BM. You do however need to learn to manage your pet. Ranger are a pet centric class. You are not require to use your pet but dont complain if your proformance is lackluster becuase of it. As an Ele you can stay in water attunement all day but dont kitten when you cant kill anything. So it is with Rangers.

On another note Ele are force to have only one weapon with 20 skills to choose from my may think its not a big deal but being stuck with only a ranged or melee is a big deal in a game like gw2.

Also ranger is guildwars 1 had to carry 2 skills just to have a pet one to have the pet and another to heal/res

In WvW Ranger need a bit help I think that adding range pets with 1200 range or a trait that could increase range would go a long way in helping. Ranger who melee dont have as much of a problem as Rangers who go pure range. Doesnt really make sense that you would try to stay at range and then run a melee pet. Fluffy cant tank a zerg no matter how good your pet management.

Those of you that have picked the ranger and wish you could go petless have simply picked the wrong class.

As to why a pet centric class: Why not.

Boomstin.3460:

Anyone reported that as a bug yet? The beastmaster profession is misleadingly named as a ranger.

That’s actually an entertaining idea. If every last one of us did that, think Anet might finally accept something is wrong?

there should be quick keys to control max range pet goes from you like “stay withing 600m” “stay within 1200m” etc. “keep switching to my current target” “keep attacking your current target” “return to me if hp under 25%” etc. etc.