Guild Wars 2

I have a compromise idea that, in my opinion, would fix the pet mechanic (make it easier to balance around, and not mandory).

First off, my idea draws directly from the way Thieves steal mechanic works, which is more important for the devs to know than the players, because it means they could inherit or copy some properties from one to the other and save at least a tad bit of time.

Without further ado, here it is:
Turn the pet into something that can be summoned in combat to aid the fight. Press F1, the pet comes in, it attacks, leave the F2 feature in but make it more utility based, and have the F3 be the same, to return to the side. F4 switching in its current state would be removed entirely, and could be replaced with a pet dodge/invulnerability on a cooldown.

It would work like this; in combat, you can summon the pet to attack a target, and the pet is available to the player until either the pet is killed, or the player leaves combat. The pet can then be controlled, so that the player can target different enemies or call it back out of harms way, to use their F2 utility, or to dodge attacks.

Upon death or leaving combat, the pet options would go on cooldown, a cooldown which could now be reduced by adding points to beastmastery.

New UI:
F1: Toggle button. Toggles between summon pet, and target enemy after the pet is summoned. Remains target enemy until the pet is no longer available to the player.
F2: Utility key: unique ability to the specific pet chosen.
F3: Return: have the pet return to the players side, and out of harms way
f4: Pet dodge: The pet either evades or gains invulnerability.

I think that for those people that want the pet removed, this would be the best way to handle the mechanic. It would allow the damage to be returned to the player for people that don’t want to be constantly using the pet, and it would allow people that want to use the pet the ability to invest points into making their pet better and more damaging. Additionally, for the people who are attached to their pets, it would allow them to use the pet in the exact same manner as they do currently, except that it wouldn’t be running around with them outside of combat.

Also, I believe it would be easier to balance around, since it would work more like a utility summon than an always on mechanic. It would be unique in the sense that it would have better survival, more control, and not take up a slot that other classes utility summons have, and it would allow players to choose whether they would like to be doing damage, or whether they want their pet to.

I dunno, just something to think about. Thoughts anybody?

I can dig it! I’d be happy with that. Extremely happy as a matter of fact.

This idea would fix the core difference between ranger and other classes. Our class mechanic is currently an essential part of our class, but for all other classes the class mechanic is an additional part for the class.

Tywele.7812:

This idea would fix the core difference between ranger and other classes. Our class mechanic is currently an essential part of our class, but for all other classes the class mechanic is an additional part for the class.

I actually really, really don’t like that idea at all. A part of why I chose the Ranger is because of the constant companion at my side. If that became reality, I would likely completely lose interest in my Ranger which is my main character.

The constant companion is something you take on when you choose Ranger — every class has one definable thing that makes them stand out. If the Ranger lost that, it would lose one of it’s biggest purposes. “Summoning” the pet would be terrible and holds the same idea as the Necromancer has for skills. That would completely nerf the Ranger I think.

I love my ranger too (800h), but it bothers me that the pet is an essential part of the ranger and not an additional part like other class mechanics.

I would also prefer to have the pet permanently out I just wanted to point out that an idea like this would fix the problem with the essential and additional part. If they could make it so that the permanently pet became only an additional part to the ranger like other classes mechanics I would love that.

this idea wont solve any problem. pets cant hit moving targets, just runing up and down… and they die within 2 seconds in most situations.

McWolfy.5924:

this idea wont solve any problem. pets cant hit moving targets, just runing up and down… and they die within 2 seconds in most situations.

No, it doesn’t solve the AI problems.

But it doesn’t solve the problem of how the damage is split between the character and the pet, and how the ranger receives a huge loss in damage whenever they are attacking something that the pet can’t.

Rangers currently are also the only class in the game with a mandatory, always on mechanic. Other classes can trait to make not using their mechanic a viable option, and don’t really lose any efficiency at killing by not utilizing their mechanic at all. So, either the ranger pet needs to be made that much stronger in order to capitalize on the fact that it is the only mechanic like this, or it needs to be changed in order to allow the flexibility that every other class in the game has.

Informality.1279:

Tywele.7812:

This idea would fix the core difference between ranger and other classes. Our class mechanic is currently an essential part of our class, but for all other classes the class mechanic is an additional part for the class.

I actually really, really don’t like that idea at all. A part of why I chose the Ranger is because of the constant companion at my side. If that became reality, I would likely completely lose interest in my Ranger which is my main character.

The constant companion is something you take on when you choose Ranger — every class has one definable thing that makes them stand out. If the Ranger lost that, it would lose one of it’s biggest purposes. “Summoning” the pet would be terrible and holds the same idea as the Necromancer has for skills. That would completely nerf the Ranger I think.

I can understand where you’re coming from.

However, what I suggested would function no differently than keeping the pet on passive currently, except that it wouldn’t be able to be target by opponents outside of combat. That is actually a huge tactical advantage in every gametype because as it stands now, the pet, with no ability to dodge, can be a huge liability in any area with a lot of AoE that it is going to die to.

It really wouldn’t change how you play the class at all, other than maybe a slight psychological difference. I’m not sure how that would ruin your gaming experience, but I believe you when you say it would, I just don’t think its a good excuse to keep the pet mechanic from being improved (I don’t mean my idea when I say improved, I just mean that it needs improvement). I’m just suggesting what I think is the simplest way to create a mechanic that can be balanced across 3 different game modes at once, since ANet seems unwilling to split balancing enough to not allow big changes to keep from negatively impacting other game types.

McWolfy.5924:

this idea wont solve any problem. pets cant hit moving targets, just runing up and down… and they die within 2 seconds in most situations.

It is bad that the professions defining mechanic is a hindrance as often as it is a benefit. The fact that pets are still a point of contention almost a year after release leads me to believe it’s never going to be fixed to a level beyond “acceptable”.

darkace.8925:

McWolfy.5924:

this idea wont solve any problem. pets cant hit moving targets, just runing up and down… and they die within 2 seconds in most situations.

It is bad that the professions defining mechanic is a hindrance as often as it is a benefit. The fact that pets are still a point of contention almost a year after release leads me to believe it’s never going to be fixed to a level beyond “acceptable”.

Well that’s why I came up with this suggestion, as that it essentially fixes the problem as best as it could possibly be fixed within a short time span, then the devs could develop a more robust system down the line if they feel so inclined as to do so.

All I’ve done is said “look, we have already have a stow option, and an attack option for mechanics. Just change the attack key to a toggle for the stow key and allow the player to choose when to stop stowing the pet.”

Once they do that, the ranger can be balanced around the idea that the pet is an aid, instead of part of the total damage output, and allow traiting into Beastmastery to make the pet a viable damage option. For players that choose not to use or focus on the pet, they will be able to do the damage that is currently lost on the pet (~40% total), and then use the pet as a means for additional sustain, as well as access to a boon or group boons or utilities, or some sort of condition, that the ranger wouldn’t otherwise be able to do.

That way, the class mechanic can no longer hurt us, only help us.

While I agree in concept with your idea JROH, I firmly believe we need pet AI firmly fixed before any major changes occur with the pet. Otherwise, we will have some nice new pet fluff but still have sub par pet performance in combat.

Nice idea, but is it possible to combine your F3 and F4, and add a new function to F4 or scrap it entirely?

What I had in mind is that once the pet is recalled, it gains a 1s evasion while it returns to you, and this evasion comes with a 10s ICD to prevent abuse.

While pet AI and some shouts( “Sic Em” ) do need a fix what i think would be an easier approach would be to make the pet stow remain off even in combat(can only be applied out of combat) and apply a buff to all damage done by the ranger by a certain percent(~20-30%). When you die the pet comes out so u can use your #3.

Zapperx.1649:

While pet AI and some shouts( “Sic Em” ) do need a fix what i think would be an easier approach would be to make the pet stow remain off even in combat(can only be applied out of combat) and apply a buff to all damage done by the ranger by a certain percent(~20-30%). When you die the pet comes out so u can use your #3.

That’s not going to happen. The pets are the ranger’s defining mechanic. They’re not going just say “well, we couldn’t figure this out so we’re just going to sweep it under the rug.”

Guys Anet will never, NEVER, give you an option to drop the pet mechanic and just “transfer” the pet’s dps to the Ranger himself.

Because despite what the regular 30 to 40 Ranger forum posters and hardcore players would like, it would set the Ranger player base on fire. Let’s be honest here guys, 95% of the people that rolled a Ranger did so for 2 primary reasons: 1. Because according to the description, the class looked to be primarily a Ranged class, thus creating the perception of a safer class to play. 2. Because according to the description, the class would have a strong and helpful off-tank in Pets, thus creating the perception of a safer class to play. And nothing in what I just wrote is a criticism to anyone that rolled this class for those reasons. On the contrary, every single MMO I have ever played has always included at least 2 classes that fill this bill (one melee version, and one ranged version). In GW2 it’s Rangers and Guardians (obviously Guardians arrive at “safer” by a different means).

Well we only want the option to stow the pet, and transfer its abilities to the player himself, you say. Won’t wash … because it opens up a giant can of worms: such as, how much dps is transferred, is the stowed pet Ranger stronger than the beastmaster Ranger, will dungeons groups accept a pet ranger (if you think its bad now, let folks find out you don’t have to have a pet, and it will be the Ranger casuals – the 95% – that will take this hit the hardest). And guys, there is a large, and I mean large percentage of Ranger players that want a great deal of their dps/cc to come from their pets, and not themselves.

Lastly, MMOs survive long term by attracting new players, so these 2 classes, and the manner in which they are described/structured are not going to change in any drastic fashion. So any suggestions regarding pets really need to be on how to improve their ability to land attacks, and increasing their dungeon survivability.

“Turn the pet into something that can be summoned” <— non starter for me

I am neither philosophically for or against having a pet as a Ranger. What I am against is having a pet in its current state. I feel it to be incredibly unfair to have my characters overall performance so heavily tied to an NPC that is shackled by so many problems. As astutely pointed out above by another post, the pet should compliment us as players, not be the integral part of.

The other key point that is overlooked in how pets are implemented is that a good portion of our traits and skills are dedicated to further strengthening the bond between player and NPC at the expense of options to create synergy with the players we play with. It is a design decision that isolates our class from the rest of the GW community. In a game whose marching orders dictate that everyone is welcome and grouping up to accomplish great things is rewards and not penalized, that design choice seems to be at conflict with the goals of the game…

I am in favor of any change that solves the problems with the pet AI, or replaces the system with something that encourages player to player interaction moreso than player to NPC interaction.

Like now the Pet is a burden for many things.
And it forces players to use the Beastmastery, to get the ’’Balance’’ of the ranger class.
Beside that if you have lesser than 30 points in Beastmastery trait line its useless. The pet Swap Quickness and Pet HP regen are now both grandmaster traits and is the only usefull trait in that line

I’ve seen a lot of good suggestions on the forums, so I thought I’d share my favorite ideas:

1. Pet evades when you evade
Basically, when you dodge-roll, your pet is immune to damage for a certain amout of time (1.0 to 1.5 seconds). You could also make it so pets gain immunity to damage every time you evade (e.g. Serpent Strike gives your pet immunity to damage).

2. Pets take reduced damage from AoE
Our pets are dumb enough to run into every red circle they see. So let’s help them out by reducing the damage they take from AoE. That way the dev’s don’t even have to implement pets avoiding red circles.

3. Optional pet through trait lines
Personally that suggestion hit me hard and I fell in love with it. It felt so much like GW1 and i absolutely loved the predecessor.
The idea was that you can only use your pet when you’re investing points into the Beastmastery trait line. By that, pets would be additional damage because as soon as you’re investing points into the beastmastery traitline you have a pet around. Damage wise you could balance it by saying 30 points of the traitline are 100% damage potential the pet can deal. So if you invest 1 point into the traitline, you get a pet that can deal 3,33% of it’s maximum damage potential.

I dont like Jcbroes idea…

People who didn’t want a pet, knew all along that they were suppose to roll Warrior instead or Thief instead. …both of which have had better Shortbow or Longbow skills than us SINCE BETA… If you’re still here, then it’s because you WANTED a pet. Anyone who claims they don’t, is either trolling, or just too new to the game to understand what they’re expecting of this class…

Therefore the OP’s idea can’t be supported b/c it makes our fulltime companion into something that’s disabled/stowed by Default.

A proper solution (PVE-ONLY!) would simply have the pet take on a pure Support role when placed in Passive mode or recalled from F3. …similar to the way that Spirits already function, by proc’ing 2 buffs dependent on what species of pet was chosen. However that proc’ing would build over time as long as certain conditions were met on whether that pet was either taking damage or not taking damage “while at _its master’s side”:

• Birds: increasingly grant more Swiftness & Fury until they take damage
• Cats: increasingly grant more Quickness until they take damage
• Bears: increasingly proc Protection/Conjuration the more damage they take
• Canines: increasingly proc Knockdown & Regen the more damage they take
• Devourers: increasingly proc Might/Conjuration until they take damage
• Drakes: increasingly proc Condition/Protection the more damage they take
• Spiders: increasingly proc Immob & Might until they take damage
• Pigs: increasingly proc RandomTraps & KB the more damage they take
• Moas: increasingly proc Dazing & Regen the more damage they take

.

Disclaimer:

• This might need … or NOT need… I’m not sure which yet… a very slightly different mechanic for pets being dead.

Ah yeah right. I get it. I only play the ranger because I wanted the pet. You never played Guild Wars 1, did you? You do understand the pet was optional back then, right? And you do understand that the main reason people are playing a ranger is NOT the pet? It’s because rangers are connected to nature. They are mobile and great with ranged weapons. They do not run around in heavy armor with tons of weapons to smash in faces, and they surely don’t stealth themselves and attack from behind without the enemy noticing. They become one with their environment, call upon nature to aid them, and jump and evade around to stay out of harm’s way.
Get your stuff together, ilr. It’s you who’s trolling and needs to understand what people are expecting of this class.

BrandNewPanic.1398:

Ah yeah right. I get it. I only play the ranger because I wanted the pet. You never played Guild Wars 1, did you?

don’t even go there b/c I’ve got more hours than you ever did… (5000)
Anet was very clear about this design from the Start. They took their failed “Companions” mechanic they originally had planned in GW2’s earliest public info dumps, and rolled it into a single class. If you don’t want to play that class, then why are you here?

You can “expect” all you want from it. Many people tried to back before beta even launched and we actually had * SHOCKER * real conversations with the Devs on Guru about that reality when everything was still in planning stages. Ultimately, your position is forfeit now and about 3-1/2 years too late. I’m sorry you missed the boat.

Sounds like a win for me, at this point ANYTHING that removes the Pet is a win for me, I really do not want the ball and chain attached to the Rangers anymore, since playing rangers i’ve come to hate these useless Pets..

If i die because i have no pet then so be it, i’d rather die because of my fault not because of a dumb AI pet..

Also i might get added to dungeons again without it..

The thing i don’t get is why are others forcing their opinions on me, the idea is to have a choice whether to have a pet or not….at the moment there is zero choice…
I want to remove mine the same as Guildwars 1 why cant i, other who love these terrible things have the choice to use them, i have no problems with that..
Why can’t there be a choice with these people, how does me playing with no pet affect these other players….

I wish this as well, but I really doubt it will ever happened. I am too lazy to search for the source, but A-net has already stated that the pet is what differ the Ranger class from every other class, so they will NOT let you remove it permanently. Take my word for it, or call me a liar. It matters not, just informing.

-Simon

Ision.3207:

Guys Anet will never, NEVER, give you an option to drop the pet mechanic and just “transfer” the pet’s dps to the Ranger himself.

Because despite what the regular 30 to 40 Ranger forum posters and hardcore players would like, it would set the Ranger player base on fire. Let’s be honest here guys, 95% of the people that rolled a Ranger did so for 2 primary reasons: 1. Because according to the description, the class looked to be primarily a Ranged class, thus creating the perception of a safer class to play. 2. Because according to the description, the class would have a strong and helpful off-tank in Pets, thus creating the perception of a safer class to play. And nothing in what I just wrote is a criticism to anyone that rolled this class for those reasons. On the contrary, every single MMO I have ever played has always included at least 2 classes that fill this bill (one melee version, and one ranged version). In GW2 it’s Rangers and Guardians (obviously Guardians arrive at “safer” by a different means).

Well we only want the option to stow the pet, and transfer its abilities to the player himself, you say. Won’t wash … because it opens up a giant can of worms: such as, how much dps is transferred, is the stowed pet Ranger stronger than the beastmaster Ranger, will dungeons groups accept a pet ranger (if you think its bad now, let folks find out you don’t have to have a pet, and it will be the Ranger casuals – the 95% – that will take this hit the hardest). And guys, there is a large, and I mean large percentage of Ranger players that want a great deal of their dps/cc to come from their pets, and not themselves.

Lastly, MMOs survive long term by attracting new players, so these 2 classes, and the manner in which they are described/structured are not going to change in any drastic fashion. So any suggestions regarding pets really need to be on how to improve their ability to land attacks, and increasing their dungeon survivability.

First of all, you’re pulling numbers straight out of your kitten . 95%? Based on what, exactly?

I can’t speak for the rest of the ranger community (and neither can you, no matter how vocally you make that claim), but the reasons you give for people wanting to play ranger don’t match up to mine at all. In GW1, I preferred medium armor classes (notably dervish and ranger). The dervish didn’t come back for GW2, so I’ve been trying to find a class which incorporates what I liked about the dervish and the ranger. There is, as of now, no class for either except the ranger which, excluding the pet, has some elements of both in it.

Anyways, I find your claim that 95% (or even just a majority) of the people who play ranger (or guardian for that matter) started with the class because they thought it was ‘safer’ to be ridiculous. What about the people who just like a nature aesthetic? Those who want a medium armor class built for sustained melee combat? The people who just like archery? You seem eager to deny all of them a place in this game, and apparently out of selfishness.

Next you express concern that pets would not be viable in all areas (as if they are now) and that pet rangers would be excluded from groups. So? What if someone likes minion mastery? There are many, many places in the game where minion mastery is completely useless. Is it fair to exclude minion masters from your group for that reason? That is the difference between rangers and the other professions: when an area is difficult for a certain build type, most classes can change in order to remain fully effective. Rangers, however, are forced to keep a large, unreliable aspect of their character type the same…then are punished for using it in areas where it’s weak.

As for making pets more reliable, obviously I hope that they do that. But I still want to be able to play ranger (or a ranger-like class) without being forced to incorporate that into my build else lose out on effectiveness. Besides, they’ve been trying to make the kitten things reliable for around 3 years now, and have thus far failed utterly.

ilr.9675:

People who didn’t want a pet, knew all along that they were suppose to roll Warrior instead or Thief instead. …both of which have had better Shortbow or Longbow skills than us SINCE BETA…

No we didn’t , i did not follow GW2 like a devoted fan, i just expected my ranger to work exactly how it did in the first installment of Guildwars, if that’s how Arena net works then no wonder players are dropping this game, we came here expecting choices not to be forced into 3 and a half year old bad decisions…

If i wanted to roll a Warrior or thief i would have, i wanted a ranger, like my Guildwars rangers sorry if that clashes with your totalitarian views..

Guys I understand why people don’t like the idea, I really do. But the fact is, its a compromise for a reason.

The single biggest reason why the ranger class is having such issues with every patch right now is because the pet mechanic is a hard mechanic to balance around, especially when its balanced around the idea that the pet is always out. That means that players wanting to play the class where the damage comes from the player while using the pet as utility will never have that option.

The single biggest reason why rangers are the least desired class for group play is because players need to be able to use the pet efficiently to be a productive member of the group, and the pet system is not efficient.

People can argue all day up and down about how the pet needs better AI, and pathing, and the ability to hit moving foes. But with this most recent patch in which they nerfed pets to keep them from being so much of the rangers damage output, on the grounds that it was too easy and too effective, doesn’t that tell everybody that ANet has no desire to make the pets any better at damage output than they currently are? It seems like a pretty big indicator to me.

You don’t have to like my specific idea, I was just trying to get an idea out there that allows people who do like the pet system and the people who don’t to be able to compromise and agree on a system that would be the best of both worlds. Also, my idea was to try to encompass the feeling of choice and range of options rangers could play around with in guild wars 1 that was lost in the transition to guild wars 2, and I felt it was a good idea for those veterans out there, who can remember efficiently playing the class in guild wars 1 without having dopey the bear running around.

Regardless, it’s impossible to argue against rangers needing either a more efficient pet, or a more robust pet mechanic.

(just as a side note, and honestly not meant as an insult at all, but when the pet mechanic starts getting discussed on the forums, it becomes extremely obvious how many people are PvE only players and who they are, versus how many truly PvP and understand the aspects associated with making a PvP game mode competitive)

BrandNewPanic.1398:

1. Pet evades when you evade
Basically, when you dodge-roll, your pet is immune to damage for a certain amout of time (1.0 to 1.5 seconds). You could also make it so pets gain immunity to damage every time you evade (e.g. Serpent Strike gives your pet immunity to damage).

Pretty much this. Remove the Minor Trait Instinctual Bond and replace it with

Survival Instincts.
Pet gains 1 second of Invulnerability whenever the Ranger activates an Evade.

Works with all evades. New ranger by the way, I love traps.

Aristio.2784:

Pretty much this. Remove the Minor Trait Instinctual Bond and replace it with:
Survival Instincts – Pet gains 1 second of Invulnerability whenever the Ranger activates an Evade.
Works with all evades. New ranger by the way, I love traps.

Personally I am not even sure why it should be made a trait. Maybe others can spot the flaws but I can only see positives by giving pets their own PvE endurance bar and with it an additional hot-key to activate a short duration pet evasion to all damage.

Furthermore, I have to question how difficult is it to program pet AI that ‘cheats’ the system by allowing it to automatically register the occurrence and response to AoE DoTs while establishing a ‘safe path’ back into combat or simply await for said ‘safe path’ to recommit. A response which can be over-written by the player via the ‘F1’ pet command.

gw1 pet system was much better. if u want the pet. u must to equick a skill. no forcing to do that! btw nearly nobody did that in serious games. only one good build used that, the bunny thumper (ranger with hammer! whohaaa! i want a hammer!)

My only concern is that the pet takes so much attribute points before it really means something for a ranger.
You need 30 points for the pet to let it really function as a part of the ranger and that is a problem at the same time.

McWolfy.5924:

gw1 pet system was much better. if u want the pet. u must to equick a skill. no forcing to do that! btw nearly nobody did that in serious games. only one good build used that, the bunny thumper (ranger with hammer! whohaaa! i want a hammer!)

The Ranger Spear build with perma rampage as one was my favorite pet build:p.

Bakabaka.6185:

My only concern is that the pet takes so much attribute points before it really means something for a ranger.
You need 30 points for the pet to let it really function as a part of the ranger and that is a problem at the same time.

Exactly! It’s a problem on both ends of the spectrum. There’s no in between for rangers. Rangers that don’t want to build for pets are forced to use pets as part of their damage with no investment, and players that want to build for pets have to invest a lot of their trait points into that line in order to be successful, which pigeonholes their build options.

Hidden within my OP and responses, I’m also trying to suggest that Beastmastery doesn’t do enough for pets. A simple static increase to stats and hardly any access to traits within beastmastery that truly improve the pets performance is just a hindrance to the class.

jcbroe.4329:

Bakabaka.6185:

My only concern is that the pet takes so much attribute points before it really means something for a ranger.
You need 30 points for the pet to let it really function as a part of the ranger and that is a problem at the same time.

Exactly! It’s a problem on both ends of the spectrum. There’s no in between for rangers. Rangers that don’t want to build for pets are forced to use pets as part of their damage with no investment, and players that want to build for pets have to invest a lot of their trait points into that line in order to be successful, which pigeonholes their build options.

Hidden within my OP and responses, I’m also trying to suggest that Beastmastery doesn’t do enough for pets. A simple static increase to stats and hardly any access to traits within beastmastery that truly improve the pets performance is just a hindrance to the class.

What it makes it even worser is that Pet traits is spread out over other trait lines. Which narrows the scale and options of other protential traits which do not deal with the pet.
In Marksmanship are 3 Pet traits.
Skirmishing are 4 Pet traits.
Wilderness Survival are 2 pet traits.
Nature Magic are 3 pet traits.
In Beastmastery all traits.

Every class have in total 75 traits minior included.
49 traits concerns the PET!!!!. 75-49= 26 traits that are for the ranger self………

More than 50% of the ranger Traits are for the PET, which is rediculous.
Not mentioned how many Pet traits are trash….
I cannot imagine what traits we could get instead of the 49 pet traits.

Bakabaka.6185:

jcbroe.4329:

Bakabaka.6185:

My only concern is that the pet takes so much attribute points before it really means something for a ranger.
You need 30 points for the pet to let it really function as a part of the ranger and that is a problem at the same time.

Exactly! It’s a problem on both ends of the spectrum. There’s no in between for rangers. Rangers that don’t want to build for pets are forced to use pets as part of their damage with no investment, and players that want to build for pets have to invest a lot of their trait points into that line in order to be successful, which pigeonholes their build options.

Hidden within my OP and responses, I’m also trying to suggest that Beastmastery doesn’t do enough for pets. A simple static increase to stats and hardly any access to traits within beastmastery that truly improve the pets performance is just a hindrance to the class.

What it makes it even worser is that Pet traits is spread out over other trait lines. Which narrows the scale and options of other protential traits which do not deal with the pet.
In Marksmanship are 3 Pet traits.
Skirmishing are 4 Pet traits.
Wilderness Survival are 2 pet traits.
Nature Magic are 3 pet traits.
In Beastmastery all traits.

Every class have in total 75 traits minior included.
49 traits concerns the PET!!!!. 75-49= 26 traits that are for the ranger self………

More than 50% of the ranger Traits are for the PET, which is rediculous.
Not mentioned how many Pet traits are trash….
I cannot imagine what traits we could get instead of the 49 pet traits.

I think these ideas are probably the best class rework we could ask for without changing the class: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/ranger/Ranger-Dream-Traits-One-can-always-dream/first#post2320170

He has some very good ideas on what can be done, while keeping a lot of the options similar or the same. It’s worth checking out though.

I think I read somewhere an idea for making the pet function more like a mesmers shatter clones. I.E. F1 is some leap attack direct damage F2 some condi F3 CC and F4 utility. Each skill has a cooldown before it can be used again. In the mean time the pet stays by the rangers side as a prop of sorts. It doesn’t attack, has no aggro, soaks no damage, tanks no enemies, etc. This seems like the easiest way to deal with the pet. It cant deduct from the ranger’s effectiveness by being dead and just becomes a tool for spiking, evading etc.

Of course it will never happen so why even discuss it.

Mr Pin.6728:

I think I read somewhere an idea for making the pet function more like a mesmers shatter clones. I.E. F1 is some leap attack direct damage F2 some condi F3 CC and F4 utility. Each skill has a cooldown before it can be used again. In the mean time the pet stays by the rangers side as a prop of sorts. It doesn’t attack, has no aggro, soaks no damage, tanks no enemies, etc. This seems like the easiest way to deal with the pet. It cant deduct from the ranger’s effectiveness by being dead and just becomes a tool for spiking, evading etc.

Of course it will never happen so why even discuss it.

I’ve actually suggested that before as well, but people hated it because they thought it essentially would be just like having a less customizable toolkit, and apparently, people really seem to like the pet dynamic with its ability to draw aggro from them.

I’m not sure where all these people came from, because the majority of them surely can’t be the rangers from guild wars 1, where the most viable builds were the ones without pets.

Dante.1508:

ilr.9675:

People who didn’t want a pet, knew all along that they were suppose to roll Warrior instead or Thief instead. …both of which have had better Shortbow or Longbow skills than us SINCE BETA…

No we didn’t , i did not follow GW2 like a devoted fan, i just expected my ranger to work exactly how it did in the first installment of Guildwars, if that’s how Arena net works then no wonder players are dropping this game, we came here expecting choices not to be forced into 3 and a half year old bad decisions…

If i wanted to roll a Warrior or thief i would have, i wanted a ranger, like my Guildwars rangers sorry if that clashes with your totalitarian views..

It’s not * MY * view… that… is —> Anet’s “vision” for it. (not mine!) …which they made very clear from the beginning. The only thing I’m arguing is that exact sentence: that they made it clear from the beginning. People who playtested 40+ levels of Ranger in Beta … me included … were given a perfect view into how broken and unforgiving the “companion” system was. That’s why people like me who had been watching all this unfolding for years, rolled a guardian or warrior as our first “main” instead and only had a ranger as a side project to be supported by our benevolent Heavy Armor overlord.

I understand your frustration and that’s not me intentionally patronizing you. Your frustration and everyone else’s is very palpable here and maybe even with good reason. But there’s something to keep in mind here when referencing GW1. It wasn’t the Bow attacks themselves or even the damage on Bows that made them good in GW1 (crit build daggers & scythes completely left bows AND hammers in the dust on DPS), or even the fact you didn’t have to carry a pet everywhere. It was the Ranger’s primary trait that made them EASY TO BUILD GIMMICKS OUT OF b/c Gw1’s balance of power was crutching super hard _on energy management which isn’t a “thing” here in this game. If it was, then Rangers & Necro’s would be seen in every dungeon run to date (especially Arahs) and warriors would still be relegated to Manly-Spike only.

…

…and yes… this is an absolute irrefutable fact and made up the BULK of our conversations for years on end during GW2’s development cycles. So many things hinged on these mechanics that it’s not even funny but again; it’s very understandable that a lot of people could have missed these facts and came into this a bit unprepared by Anet’s platitudes on what a revolutionary and inviting (+ relaxed grouping reqs) game this was to be.

I’ve posted this before but here goes again, it’s as simple as it can get it terms of a fix:

Pets should give a passive aura buff and increases the ranger’s DPS, like Aura of the Hunt or something if the pet is on passive mode and not attacking so the potential missing DPS is folded into the ranger. The reason is that it’s a pet class, and it’ll actually give a reason for people to target pets which is an indirect boost to the class, and it encourages active management of pets and at the same time gives the ranger their missing damage back when pets usage is not feasible.

The moment the pet starts attacking or dies, you lose the damage aura buff.

I actually like having the option to send a pet out to attack. Very useful when you have siege wars in open field to send a drake out to F2 cata/ac. F1 should become a toggle for attack/retreat. F2 stays as is being a utility. F3 goes into toggle for active/passive mode. F4 would be a dodge.

Aridia.3042:

I’ve posted this before but here goes again, it’s as simple as it can get it terms of a fix:

Pets should give a passive aura buff and increases the ranger’s DPS, like Aura of the Hunt or something if the pet is on passive mode and not attacking so the potential missing DPS is folded into the ranger. The reason is that it’s a pet class, and it’ll actually give a reason for people to target pets which is an indirect boost to the class, and it encourages active management of pets and at the same time gives the ranger their missing damage back when pets usage is not feasible.

The moment the pet starts attacking or dies, you lose the damage aura buff.

I actually like having the option to send a pet out to attack. Very useful when you have siege wars in open field to send a drake out to F2 cata/ac. F1 should become a toggle for attack/retreat. F2 stays as is being a utility. F3 goes into toggle for active/passive mode. F4 would be a dodge.

I do not argree with that, it should be the other way around.
I prefer a dps Buff for rangers, like other classes and add a debuff on the pet. Which will lower your dps to compensate with the pet that is on the field.
This methode will be also alot easier for Anet to execute.

Bakabaka.6185:

Aridia.3042:

I’ve posted this before but here goes again, it’s as simple as it can get it terms of a fix:

Pets should give a passive aura buff and increases the ranger’s DPS, like Aura of the Hunt or something if the pet is on passive mode and not attacking so the potential missing DPS is folded into the ranger. The reason is that it’s a pet class, and it’ll actually give a reason for people to target pets which is an indirect boost to the class, and it encourages active management of pets and at the same time gives the ranger their missing damage back when pets usage is not feasible.

The moment the pet starts attacking or dies, you lose the damage aura buff.

I actually like having the option to send a pet out to attack. Very useful when you have siege wars in open field to send a drake out to F2 cata/ac. F1 should become a toggle for attack/retreat. F2 stays as is being a utility. F3 goes into toggle for active/passive mode. F4 would be a dodge.

I do not argree with that, it should be the other way around.
I prefer a dps Buff for rangers, like other classes and add a debuff on the pet. Which will lower your dps to compensate with the pet that is active.

I think you’ve misunderstood me. It is a buff for the ranger.

What we have currently is a percentage of damage that’s allocated to the pet and because of that, weapon damages were capped. So if you put the pet on passive, you’re actually losing a part of the dps. What I suggested was that missing dps should be folded back into the ranger when pet is on passive mode.

I don’t mind the pet being out permanently, but it needs the survivability to do so. This worked in WoW, but that can be attributed to the pet having it’s own talent tree. At least we could spec the thing to make it nearly indestructible.

I love the idea the OP is suggesting, but I think a lot of the pet’s problems can be solved by giving it it’s own trait line or restructuring Beastmastery to directly affect the pet (and not the ranger).

I would like to see the Beastmastery trait line be able to turn the pet into either a Dps powerhouse (glass cannon), a nearly indestructible tank (at the cost of damage), or a balance between the 2. In doing so, the basic abilities of the trait line could be either damage reduction, damage increase, miss % of incoming attacks. Stacking these will turn your pet into something particular. Additional abilities could be detect stealth, reduce incoming AoE damage, cleave, regeneration, sacrifice (kills oneself to give the ranger additional stats.

I also think this would be a good alternative.

DeadlySynz.3471:

I don’t mind the pet being out permanently, but it needs the survivability to do so. This worked in WoW, but that can be attributed to the pet having it’s own talent tree. At least we could spec the thing to make it nearly indestructible.

I love the idea the OP is suggesting, but I think a lot of the pet’s problems can be solved by giving it it’s own trait line or restructuring Beastmastery to directly affect the pet (and not the ranger).

I would like to see the Beastmastery trait line be able to turn the pet into either a Dps powerhouse (glass cannon), a nearly indestructible tank (at the cost of damage), or a balance between the 2. In doing so, the basic abilities of the trait line could be either damage reduction, damage increase, miss % of incoming attacks. Stacking these will turn your pet into something particular. Additional abilities could be detect stealth, reduce incoming AoE damage, cleave, regeneration, sacrifice (kills oneself to give the ranger additional stats.

I also think this would be a good alternative.

I like it too, but I do not think that is realistic. Because it will take to much effort.
It will take alot of time: All pets needs to be considered, The current stats of the pets, balance between the pets, pet AI, Pet balance in pvp, pve and wvw.
They have to remove all the pet traits in our trait sets which is about 49 traits, that means that Anet have to replace all 49 traits and creat a hole new set for the pet.
If they make a small mistake in any of those aspect, it can screw the pet up and the class.

ilr.9675:

Dante.1508:

ilr.9675:

People who didn’t want a pet, knew all along that they were suppose to roll Warrior instead or Thief instead. …both of which have had better Shortbow or Longbow skills than us SINCE BETA…

No we didn’t , i did not follow GW2 like a devoted fan, i just expected my ranger to work exactly how it did in the first installment of Guildwars, if that’s how Arena net works then no wonder players are dropping this game, we came here expecting choices not to be forced into 3 and a half year old bad decisions…

If i wanted to roll a Warrior or thief i would have, i wanted a ranger, like my Guildwars rangers sorry if that clashes with your totalitarian views..

It’s not * MY * view… that… is —> Anet’s “vision” for it. (not mine!) …which they made very clear from the beginning. The only thing I’m arguing is that exact sentence: that they made it clear from the beginning. People who playtested 40+ levels of Ranger in Beta … me included … were given a perfect view into how broken and unforgiving the “companion” system was. That’s why people like me who had been watching all this unfolding for years, rolled a guardian or warrior as our first “main” instead and only had a ranger as a side project to be supported by our benevolent Heavy Armor overlord.

I understand your frustration and that’s not me intentionally patronizing you. Your frustration and everyone else’s is very palpable here and maybe even with good reason. But there’s something to keep in mind here when referencing GW1. It wasn’t the Bow attacks themselves or even the damage on Bows that made them good in GW1 (crit build daggers & scythes completely left bows AND hammers in the dust on DPS), or even the fact you didn’t have to carry a pet everywhere. It was the Ranger’s primary trait that made them EASY TO BUILD GIMMICKS OUT OF b/c Gw1’s balance of power was crutching super hard _on energy management which isn’t a “thing” here in this game. If it was, then Rangers & Necro’s would be seen in every dungeon run to date (especially Arahs) and warriors would still be relegated to Manly-Spike only.

…

…and yes… this is an absolute irrefutable fact and made up the BULK of our conversations for years on end during GW2’s development cycles. So many things hinged on these mechanics that it’s not even funny but again; it’s very understandable that a lot of people could have missed these facts and came into this a bit unprepared by Anet’s platitudes on what a revolutionary and inviting (+ relaxed grouping reqs) game this was to be.

Mostly, yes, expertise was insanely good. But Rangers from a PvP standpoint also had an extremely important niche role of being a highly survivable utility role, capable of splitting on demand while providing full team pressure due to preparations, and interrupting crucial skills on the other team that could literally turn the tide of team fights.

The removal of those utility roles just utterly destroyed any semblance of what the ranger once was competitively. Mesmers had a similar role, but they transitioned into a trickery based DPS class almost flawlessly, while rangers…. yeah. So much of what made them good got lost somewhere along the way, and ANet decided to reinstate the WORST aspect of the guild wars 1 class; pets, and make it mandatory and out all of the time.

Regardless of whether we saw it coming or not, its still an infinitely disappointing thing to discuss.

@Aridia;

I actually like the concept behind your idea a lot. It not only allows the pet to retain its importance to the class, but allows players to use the pet in a different way other than just an additional source of damage to put on a target.

Regardless, the current pet system does not get the job done, and the only reason my suggestion is what it is comes from how much easier it would be to change a few existing functions (we already have a near useless stow function other than for taking screenshots and maybe dungeons or jump puzzles) and retool a few of the buttons than it is to massively upgrade mechanics, or AI, or even traits, as people are all suggesting.

My OP was just the most immediate change that could possibly be made that would allow a big change up in how effective the ranger has the potential to be.

I like the basis of the OP idea and here’s my take on it:

In my mind, pet should function similarly to a combination between Elementalist attunements, Engineer toolbelt skills, and Guardian spirits, Elementals, or Minions. F1-F4 become the pet summon/selection skills that the ranger can slot like Engineers. Activating a pet puts the pet on cooldown, which starts after pet death/swap. Active pets have their summon icon replaced with an activated ability, the current F2 skill.

I think this will address this will address a few of the problems. Having access to 4 pets in combat gives the ranger some diversity as well as emphasizing that the ranger is a BEASTmaster not a PETmaster. In addition to diversity, it will help improve pet uptime by a factor of 2. Assuming that each pet will only survive 10s, with a 30s cooldown, with 4 pets you’ll have always have a pet out and contributing.

Well this is my take on the pet dilemma, what does the community think about it?

ChillyChinaman.6057:

I like the basis of the OP idea and here’s my take on it:

In my mind, pet should function similarly to a combination between Elementalist attunements, Engineer toolbelt skills, and Guardian spirits, Elementals, or Minions. F1-F4 become the pet summon/selection skills that the ranger can slot like Engineers. Activating a pet puts the pet on cooldown, which starts after pet death/swap. Active pets have their summon icon replaced with an activated ability, the current F2 skill.

I think this will address this will address a few of the problems. Having access to 4 pets in combat gives the ranger some diversity as well as emphasizing that the ranger is a BEASTmaster not a PETmaster. In addition to diversity, it will help improve pet uptime by a factor of 2. Assuming that each pet will only survive 10s, with a 30s cooldown, with 4 pets you’ll have always have a pet out and contributing.

Well this is my take on the pet dilemma, what does the community think about it?

I like it just as much, if not more!

Its just an issue of how hard it is to turn the current system into the suggested system. Though I’ve said numerous times I would program anything I suggest for ANet as a volunteer lol.

The biggest problem with pets is that they can’t connect their attacks on moving targets.

Now I remember one of the devs saying they’ll be nerfing pet attack power because one afk ranger’s pet was attacking another afk player and killing him, this alone leads me to believe the devs are on crack.

jcbroe.4329:

Regardless of whether we saw it coming or not, its still an infinitely disappointing thing to discuss.

Well I’ll agree with you there.

I just don’t see ANY evidence in their history on this scale of them ever completely repurposing any class from its original design or intended downsides. Elementalist is as close as it gets where it eventually (and unintentionally) became the weakest DPS’er due to Hardmode Armor Values, and then Stumme (b/c it was his main class and he was honest about that) kind of turned it into a Team-Buffing class with several team Utility changes that were unlike anything it had in the past. But that came so late in the game’s life that it shouldn’t even count. (plus it was obviously meant to support their Mercenaries cash shop deal).

I do think some major about-face is required here for PvE. But I also think there’s better ways to isolate this problem that won’t just turn Ranger into another Warrior clone. If your positional awareness of what your pet is doing, and what control and how successful your control is… timing wise… isn’t good, then you shouldn’t just be getting a free ride here on that DPS that’s missing otherwise. Every other class is also supposed to have situational THINGS that limit their DPS when they don’t play to their full potential. And your ideas I’m sorry to say…. just remove that entire skill-check from the game and make the class just an Ele/Warrior clone. That’s why I keep saying… if you want THAT playstyle, then roll one of those classes please.

Stop trying to make this one into just another Mage that summons a critter in place of a meteor shower or hundred blade storm, and then suffers no consequences for the care and positioning of that critter.

They have to reduce pet damage as much as required so Rangers can have the full effect of power on their skills. Then they can keep the current system as-is.