Guild Wars 2

Seriously so much beating our heads against the wall wondering why they can’t untether the dmg from the pet and Arenanet refusing the pet is a “unique mechanic to the class.” which apparently is why they won’t let rangers stow them. Can they not just make the dmg split LESS and give the pets a few more passive auras or something. Is it really this hard???

It’s been suggested that pets by default give less %overalldamage but when traited can give more than is currently available.

if they’re going to make the pet 5% i’d rather just make them passive, like has been suggested repeatably.

Was also suggested that pet does nearly no damages and just be used for real support, with some pets having damage skills.

But then you would lose all the benefits of using pets as a major source damage. If i didn’t want to be heavily reliant on a pet then i would play a different class.

Making this change to fix a problem with the way you want play would break the way I want to play.

Thats why anet needs to make pet a utility instead of the mechanic so people can choose which way they wanna play ranger

Engis can change out kits whenever they want why cant they just make a pet utility that does the same thing?

But I don’t want use my pet as an extra utility button, i want it to tear things to shreds and I be the utility. I like to run build where my pet is the majority of my damage and i focus on cc so and keeping the pet alive so it can do the job that i want it to do.

That level of passive play is disgusting tho and only about 10% of people want to play that level of passive

Casey.9687:

That level of passive play is disgusting tho and only about 10% of people want to play that level of passive

52% of all statistics are made up, i would like to know you source for the number.

How is a passive, when i need to use all 4 f keys and at least 2 of my utility, and well time use of my evades an interrupts to kill my opponent.

not every button you press has to be an attack button.

relying on AI to do all your damage is a terrible way to play a game. Like phantasm PU mesmers and turrent engis.

Casey.9687:

relying on AI to do all your damage is a terrible way to play a game. Like phantasm PU mesmers and turrent engis.

I would suggest that this is a matter of opinion. Think of other mmo that have the holy trinity an you are playing the healer of the tank, you would be relying on other people all together for damage, using this logic would this not be worst then?

Games do not have to be about pressing a few buttons and seeing big numbers flash up on the screen (i would consider this a passive style of play, but that my point of view). If this is the sort of game play that you are after you could play a worrier.

Casey.9687:

relying on AI to do all your damage is a terrible way to play a game. Like phantasm PU mesmers and turrent engis.

you still haven’t sourced your statistic. if you’re going to make fake statistics state it as an estimate

that being said, passive ai, I agree, is a bad design. however actively controlled ai (on the level of pets currently if they worked as intended or higher) requires skill to play and is a valid playstyle (IMHO)

ITheNormalPerson.9275:

Casey.9687:

relying on AI to do all your damage is a terrible way to play a game. Like phantasm PU mesmers and turrent engis.

you still haven’t sourced your statistic. if you’re going to make fake statistics state it as an estimate

that being said, passive ai, I agree, is a bad design. however actively controlled ai (on the level of pets currently if they worked as intended or higher) requires skill to play and is a valid playstyle (IMHO)

Im guessing you both are pve’rs so of course ill meet resistance on the fact that pet should be a utility. You must not know how bad pets are in a pvp stand point and the only viable thing to come from them is their CC. Their damage is easily avoided by even the mediocre players.

Casey.9687:

ITheNormalPerson.9275:

Casey.9687:

-snip-.

-snip-

-snip-

someone didn’t read my sig ;P

if i must verify my playstyle in order to have my opinion validated, I play about 70% wvw roaming (1v1, 1vX) about 25% solo queue, and about 5% PvE (world bosses sometimes and dungeons if my guildies need an extra body)

if you focus on cc-ing the enemy pets can hit somewhat reliably (I don’t run a beastmaster spec but those that do can probably give more information). regardless, that has nothing to do with what i’m debating currently. All I’m saying that AI’s can being used in a skilled manner if they’re made as such. if you summon an AI and it does everything on it’s own, it requires no skill, but currently I run what is essentially on the “requires skill”-level of an engineer toolbelt or higher (they have 4 utilities, I have 4 utilities along with the difficulty of positioning the pet, and focusing on it’s health, with the added bonus of doing a bit extra DPS)

note: I don’t actually have anything against using pets as a pure utility. I’ve actually suggested it in the past. all I’m saying is that “relying on AI” isn’t, by it’s nature, a bad thing. it “could” be bad, but it could also be good. and personally, I think if pets WORKED AS THEY WERE INTENDED (it’s fairly obvious they could use a bit more work) then that would be perfectly fine as well.

Eggyokeo.9705:

But I don’t want use my pet as an extra utility button, i want it to tear things to shreds and I be the utility. I like to run build where my pet is the majority of my damage and i focus on cc so and keeping the pet alive so it can do the job that i want it to do.

Heres an idea when I click stow I get my 30% dmg back. When I resummon it splits back to the pet. Problem solved doesn’t take up a utility slot. So in essence the stower is giving up the extra F2 that pet users get but I think thats a fair trade off to have total control over my dmg delivery. Problem is Anet is to lazy to put in the effort to code something like that apparently because im sure im not the first to suggest it.

I almost always play a pet class and nearly always I find myself reading similar discussion in a forum. I have seen a pet class go petless; and it works to some limited extent – mostly in some sort of second class support role. It works nonetheless.

I would say that a 70-30% dps split between a ranger and its pets sound reasonable to me; 75-25% is also acceptable. To me, however, the pets do not seem to mature well as the ranger levels up. I think some of the traits in Beastmastery should be consolidated into fewer ones. Pets’ attributes need to increase to a slight greater extent as one goes further into the trait line. Then add some new traits like: X% of power, or Y% toughness, etc., is transferred from the ranger to its pets. So for those who really want to make the most of their pets, there is an option to transfer some of the ranger’s attributes to the pets.

I would rather the pet be %40 of my damage and better ways to control them.

Pets are supposed to be like the limb of the ranger; an extension of one self. They a part of you, and more attention should be given to them.

Instead of nerfing Pet damage, they should allow us to micromanage their skills similar to heroes in GW1.

They should also add more skills which interact and take advantage of the fact Rangers can be in two places at once.

Casey.9687:

Im guessing you both are pve’rs so of course ill meet resistance on the fact that pet should be a utility. You must not know how bad pets are in a pvp stand point and the only viable thing to come from them is their CC. Their damage is easily avoided by even the mediocre players.

I find it interesting that you where able to come to this conclusion based on the information you have been presented.

psyt.9415:

Heres an idea when I click stow I get my 30% dmg back. When I resummon it splits back to the pet. Problem solved doesn’t take up a utility slot. So in essence the stower is giving up the extra F2 that pet users get but I think thats a fair trade off to have total control over my dmg delivery.

Why 30% anyway? Do you have evidence that this is that amount that the pet contributes? base on what type of build and which pet? what about deference increases as well? a lot of our pets have defensive usages as well, dogs have saved my life just as much as i have used then to kill things as well.

If we where able to stow our pet for a buff, what would be our classes identity and uniqueness, the pet is a part of the class and what makes it different form that other classes. there are other classes in this game the don’t rely on a pet maybe you would be more suited playing that.

psyt.9415:

Problem is Anet is to lazy to put in the effort to code something like that apparently because im sure im not the first to suggest it.

it not that they’re to lazy they have stated many times that they don’t want to do this.

Kain Francois.4328:

I would rather the pet be %40 of my damage and better ways to control them.

Pets are supposed to be like the limb of the ranger; an extension of one self. They a part of you, and more attention should be given to them.

Instead of nerfing Pet damage, they should allow us to micromanage their skills similar to heroes in GW1.

They should also add more skills which interact and take advantage of the fact Rangers can be in two places at once.

+1

arkealia.2713:

Was also suggested that pet does nearly no damages and just be used for real support, with some pets having damage skills.

Something I have suggested multiple times and still think is the best solution.

Them fixing all the problems with pets and keeping their concept as it is now would also be fine, but it’s pretty clear at this point they are unwilling or even unable to put in that much effort and are just looking for quick fixes, so this will not happen.

Eggyokeo.9705:

But I don’t want use my pet as an extra utility button, i want it to tear things to shreds and I be the utility. I like to run build where my pet is the majority of my damage and i focus on cc so and keeping the pet alive so it can do the job that i want it to do.

And I want the exact opposite. I want to tear things appart while my pet sets me up for doing so. Neither of us can claim that we’re playing the ranger in the ultimate and only right way. So we have to find a balance. It has been suggested that the pet wont deal any damage until you invest points in beastmastery. If you do so the cast will change and you will be the utility while the pet is the main damage source.

HHR LostProphet.4801:

Eggyokeo.9705:

But I don’t want use my pet as an extra utility button, i want it to tear things to shreds and I be the utility. I like to run build where my pet is the majority of my damage and i focus on cc so and keeping the pet alive so it can do the job that i want it to do.

And I want the exact opposite. I want to tear things appart while my pet sets me up for doing so. Neither of us can claim that we’re playing the ranger in the ultimate and only right way. So we have to find a balance. It has been suggested that the pet wont deal any damage until you invest points in beastmastery. If you do so the cast will change and you will be the utility while the pet is the main damage source.

Or even if pets never get no auto-attack even when traiting into BM, theres nothing stopping every one of its abilities being damaging abilities. Removing the AA and just turning our F1-4 into 4 fully controllable abilities doesnt mean the pet has to be utility only, a cat could still have all 4 of those abilities being hard hitting bursts of various kinds, like 4 phantasms rolled into one fluffy pet.

All it means is the pet isnt by default a portion of ranger damage. To continue with the Mesmer analogy, just like Mesmers are not forced to use shatters for their damage. You can choose to trait as a shatter Mesmer, but if you want to completely ignore the shatters you can do so with very limited penalty.

Eggyokeo.9705:

But I don’t want use my pet as an extra utility button, i want it to tear things to shreds and I be the utility. I like to run build where my pet is the majority of my damage and i focus on cc so and keeping the pet alive so it can do the job that i want it to do.

Then you need to play Mesmer.

“Keeping it alive” by summoning a million copies of it and that bypasses the poor AI as well when you can continually dump pets on the enemy’s head.

Personally I wouldn’t mind getting our 30% damage back and having pets only as a short term extra summon that also does real damage. This way it would help bypass the AI problems if we could resummon them more often. They could be faster and higher range on the summon.

Eggyokeo.9705:

But then you would lose all the benefits of using pets as a major source damage. If i didn’t want to be heavily reliant on a pet then i would play a different class.

Making this change to fix a problem with the way you want play would break the way I want to play.

There is no class that plays the way I want. The GW1 ranger is dead. Where is the archer? Thieves have a shortbow, but it’s a short ranged, AoE weapon based on spamming poison field and blast finishers. Not exactly what I’m looking for. Warriors have longbow, but it’s meant to support their generally more effective melee options, and it also focuses on slow moving AoE options rather than precise single shots. If you want us to stop clamoring for a no-pet ranger, then convince ANet to give the longbow to thieves as a long range, single target weapon. They need a 1200 range weapon anyways, and those of us who favored a petless bow ranger in GW1 will just play thief.

My problem, however, isn’t with the pet itself. It’s with how they were implemented. They have no dodge, yet the entire combat system is based on dodging. They represent some 30% of our damage and significant utility, yet they often miss and we can’t control when they use most of their skills. Would mesmers be useful if their illusions were sometimes shattered by an AI script with no sense of timing or positioning? That’s how I feel every time my drake tries to tail swipe a moving enemy (noooo! my only blast finish!) or my spider wastes its poison field on an enemy structure (or corpse). Not only that, some of our traits and utilities seem to be geared toward getting the pet killed for no reason. Other classes get adept or master level condition removal; we get a grandmaster trait that transfers the conditions to our pet. In GW1, we had amazing condition removal. Where the hell did it go? Other classes get a quick burst of invulnerability; we get a quick burst of transferring our damage to our pet. At least when mesmers do it they don’t have to wait for a whole minute before summoning up any more illusions, and they’re not dropping their DPS by 30% in the meantime.

I might have just decided to play the successor to the dervish, had they actually made one, but that’s another issue.

The reason is because it’s not as simple as that. They would have to redesign most utilities/traits/weapon skills (I hope they already are).

I’d hope that they could both find a way to make a full-trait beastmaster viable AND find a way to make Sword & Support viable, without totally screwing the other.

I like playing both.

Eggyokeo.9705:

Casey.9687:

Im guessing you both are pve’rs so of course ill meet resistance on the fact that pet should be a utility. You must not know how bad pets are in a pvp stand point and the only viable thing to come from them is their CC. Their damage is easily avoided by even the mediocre players.

I find it interesting that you where able to come to this conclusion based on the information you have been presented.

psyt.9415:

Heres an idea when I click stow I get my 30% dmg back. When I resummon it splits back to the pet. Problem solved doesn’t take up a utility slot. So in essence the stower is giving up the extra F2 that pet users get but I think thats a fair trade off to have total control over my dmg delivery.

Why 30% anyway? Do you have evidence that this is that amount that the pet contributes? base on what type of build and which pet? what about deference increases as well? a lot of our pets have defensive usages as well, dogs have saved my life just as much as i have used then to kill things as well.

If we where able to stow our pet for a buff, what would be our classes identity and uniqueness, the pet is a part of the class and what makes it different form that other classes. there are other classes in this game the don’t rely on a pet maybe you would be more suited playing that.

psyt.9415:

Problem is Anet is to lazy to put in the effort to code something like that apparently because im sure im not the first to suggest it.

it not that they’re to lazy they have stated many times that they don’t want to do this.

You have to be trolling. So your saying that the devs need to protect the “way you want to play” but my second suggestion will allow BOTH camps to play “the way they want to play” it won’t remove the class defining mechanic at all because the pet is just a stow button click away on your UI. Pet users even have the added benefit of extra cc and buffs from F2, so in a way they get a better deal and you STILL are in opposition. your either an extremely big hypocrite , fail at logic or you’re trolling there is no other explanation.

Everybody wins here but this guy still doesn’t get it lol. The only explanation is that something in the back of your mind feels a bit jealous that other users would be able to deliver the same dmg without being tied to an ai mechanic….. in other words you don’t want others to play the way they want, hypocrite.

apocalypso.4895:

The reason is because it’s not as simple as that. They would have to redesign most utilities/traits/weapon skills (I hope they already are).

Not even all they do is make a flag that says if(pet stowed)=“yes” use dmg values table 1
if(pet stowed)=“no” use dmg values table 2

Or something like that I haven’t done any programming since university but its not that hard to just make two classes with a flag based on whether the stow button is clicked or not. My guess is they feel it would add another balance issue to their precious esport aspirations which is why they haven’t done it.

psyt.9415:

apocalypso.4895:

The reason is because it’s not as simple as that. They would have to redesign most utilities/traits/weapon skills (I hope they already are).

Not even all they do is make a flag that says if(pet stowed)=“yes” use dmg values table 1
if(pet stowed)=“no” use dmg values table 2

Or something like that I haven’t done any programming since university but its not that hard to just make two classes with a flag based on whether the stow button is clicked or not. My guess is they feel it would add another balance issue to their precious esport aspirations which is why they haven’t done it.

Technically , it is really easy to add that flag in the code, I agree, but if they did that many things would just get broken.
Ok, you perma stowed your pet and got your 30% damage, what happens to the trait that rise 30% pet damage when pet crit, what happens to the the trait where boons you receive is shared with the pet, what happens to all signets, what happens to RaO, what happens to empathetic bound, what happens to axe #3, what happens to GS #5, among tons of mechanics that wasn’t balanced towards ranger having all the 100% damage.

Belzebu.3912:

psyt.9415:

apocalypso.4895:

The reason is because it’s not as simple as that. They would have to redesign most utilities/traits/weapon skills (I hope they already are).

Not even all they do is make a flag that says if(pet stowed)=“yes” use dmg values table 1
if(pet stowed)=“no” use dmg values table 2

Or something like that I haven’t done any programming since university but its not that hard to just make two classes with a flag based on whether the stow button is clicked or not. My guess is they feel it would add another balance issue to their precious esport aspirations which is why they haven’t done it.

Technically , it is really easy to add that flag in the code, I agree, but if they did that many things would just get broken.
Ok, you perma stowed your pet and got your 30% damage, what happens to the trait that rise 30% pet damage when pet crit, what happens to the the trait where boons you receive is shared with the pet, what happens to all signets, what happens to RaO, what happens to empathetic bound, what happens to axe #3, what happens to GS #5, among tons of mechanics that wasn’t balanced towards ranger having all the 100% damage.

They would have to make it flip to another line in the other dmg table. Its like how when necro goes into lich form or deathshroud the skills bar flips to totally different skills, traits would need a dual purpose triggered by the stow flag as well.

psyt.9415:

They would have to make it flip to another line in the other dmg table. Its like how when necro goes into lich form or deathshroud the skills bar flips to totally different skills, traits would need a dual purpose triggered by the stow flag as well.

Exactly, it wouldn’t be just a flag in the code, they would need to create a new mechanic and balance that mechanic when the stow is triggered, and THAT is the problem, it isn’t as easy as you are thinking.

Belzebu.3912:

psyt.9415:

They would have to make it flip to another line in the other dmg table. Its like how when necro goes into lich form or deathshroud the skills bar flips to totally different skills, traits would need a dual purpose triggered by the stow flag as well.

Exactly, it wouldn’t be just a flag in the code, they would need to create a new mechanic and balance that mechanic when the stow is triggered, and THAT is the problem, it isn’t as easy as you are thinking.

Doubt it is that difficult to tune a couple traits when they recently came up with 40 new ones a few months back. They definitely are capable.

Do they care though is the big issue do they see any economic gain or players coming back if they spend the man power on this… I don’t know

Yes, it is really hard to tune any trait, those 40 new traits (5 per class) was new traits that works “alone”, change existing traits to work in a new system and still be balanced in both system (stowed and not stowed) and also both systems be balance in the 3 game modes would be an herculean effort if even possible.

EDIT: Why do you think that they take about 6 months between each balance update, even the small ones?

Belzebu.3912:

Yes, it is really hard to tune any trait, those 40 new traits (5 per class) was new traits that works “alone”, change existing traits to work in a new system and still be balanced in both system (stowed and not stowed) and also both systems be balance in the 3 game modes would be an herculean effort if even possible.

EDIT: Why do you think that they take about 6 months between each balance update, even the small ones?

What if they just locked out the pet required traits and when the player un-stow’s the pet, the player re-slots those traits. Then just create totally new stand alone traits for the ones that are N/A when stowed? so they dont have to worry about dual balance just lock it out and reslot. With free trait refunds in game it wouldn’t be that big of a pain in the kitten and would only require a few seconds out of combat to re trait.

Turn around time wouldn’t be that long its only a handful of traits that would need to be made up to replace the pet only ones. I think its worth it for the good will it would foster in the community personally.

Yes it would be less hard, but then rangers would be the class with more traits than any other, and with the new way of unlocking traits the devs would need to create new “quests” to unlock them.

I’m not really saying that your idea is bad, I would particularly like it, but you need to see that such change isn’t as viable as you imagined.

Not really. You simply just don’t get the benefit of those abilities. It’s that simple. Don’t run RoA and pet-dependent abilities when you’re not using a pet.

However, ANet has publicly stated they have zero intention whatsoever to implement a permastow option for damage compensation. The class will forever remain broken until that attitude changes, which, based on their design and balance ideology for the past two years, implies that such attitude will never change out of sheer stubbornness and obliviousness to the GW2 community.

I support the notion of simply giving the longbow to another class. It could honestly be anything else. I want an archer. I was the best one in the game I used to play. I still firmly believe I am an extremely good archer ranger player even now. The simple fact of the matter, however, is that this class is inadequate and will always remain inadequate do to sloppy design and total ignorance by ANet for as long as it is dependent on any sort of AI.

Egg, you talk about the class design as though the pet is supposed to be their focal point. I’d like to point out to you the first sentence of the official class description, created before GW2 was released, which has yet to be changed or modified. I personally bought the game on the pretense that I would be playing an archer. I know many, many others also have:

Rangers rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature itself. Unparalleled archers, rangers are capable of bringing down foes from a distance with their bows.

The following sentence afterwards describes the ranger’s versatility through its class options, NOT by describing any forced playstyle techniques. The pet as the class mechanic was actually added AFTER this was written:

With traps, nature spirits, and a stable of loyal pets at their command, rangers can adapt to any situation.

The bottom line is that solo/DPS archer is a demanded play style and it is not offered through any means in the game, despite the obvious marketing of making the ranger precisely that class.

This option simply has to be provided. I don’t care whether or not people like the system as it is. I don’t even care if people want to play an exclusive beastmaster. That’s fine, and those options should be provided for as well. Fact of the matter, though, is that as it stands, this class does neither a beastmaster nor an archer while trying to do both at once, and it simply requires an overhaul or more classes need to be made to compensate.

Belzebu.3912:

Yes it would be less hard, but then rangers would be the class with more traits than any other, and with the new way of unlocking traits the devs would need to create new “quests” to unlock them.

I’m not really saying that your idea is bad, I would particularly like it, but you need to see that such change isn’t as viable as you imagined.

Im okay with that. If it makes everyone happy they should at least consider a round table and hammer an idea like this out. They could have a boss that drops the stowed and unstowed trait variant etc. The amount of traits is balanced by the fact not all are usable depending on stow. Its still very plausible. If they can do 40 traits and hammer out which boss will drop what….. they can do it again with 5-10 imo……But like I said do they actually care enough… doesn’t look like it. Even if it takes 3-6 months I guarantee tears of joy from a good chunk of the ranger population.

Just make pets a utility like engis kits and give ranger a whole new class mechanic so then it makes up for the used ultility slot. Then we can still have our pets and a class mechanic that doesnt suck. Then all the little rangers who want a pet doing all the work for them can have it and the ones who like using their own skill to kill people can have it their way also. Its a win win.

Just yesterday i was rank 29 in solo q’s so if you dont think i know what im talkin about when it comes to how worthless pets are then theres your proof. I run a celestial trapper and could care less about my pets damage. My wolf and hound run around half the time chasing somthing their not suppose to or missing because…you know good players know how to watch pets also. The only use i ever get out of pets is their CC. For these wannabe beast master extremist they can have their PvE pet as a utility where it can actually hit somthing, but for us actual pvpers give us a better class mechanic that we can work with.

In Guild Wars 2, Rangers ARE ‘unparalleled’ archers though. No other profession can u"s"e both shortbow and longbow, nor can they trait/modify their bows to the extent that a Ranger can. “Rangers are unparalleled archers” does not equal “Rangers can do 100 Blades from 1500 range”. It’s not just a Ranger. It is the Ranger/Pet, a duality that must be played as such to be most effective. That’s not going to change and it shouldn’t IMO. This “give us back our 30% damage” demand is completely ridiculous. Anet NEVER ‘took away’ any damage from the Ranger; the damage split has been like that since launch so idk why anyone (2 years later) would be acting surprised/upset like this just happened last week. Yes, the AI could be improved quite a bit, like pet skill usage or being able to attack while moving, but demanding the devs completely overhaul their game just seems crazy to me.

Tman.6349:

In Guild Wars 2, Rangers ARE ‘unparalleled’ archers though. No other profession ckittene both shortbow and longbow, nor can they trait/modify their bows to the extent that a Ranger can. “Rangers are unparalleled archers” does not equal “Rangers can do 100 Blades from 1500 range”. It’s not just a Ranger. It is the Ranger/Pet, a duality that must be played as such to be most effective. That’s not going to change and it shouldn’t IMO. This “give us back our 30% damage” demand is completely ridiculous. Anet NEVER ‘took away’ any damage from the Ranger; the damage split has been like that since launch so idk why anyone (2 years later) would be acting surprised/upset like this just happened last week. Yes, the AI could be improved quite a bit, like pet skill usage or being able to attack while moving, but demanding the devs completely overhaul their game just seems crazy to me.

I agree with everything in this post.

Tman.6349:

In Guild Wars 2, Rangers ARE ‘unparalleled’ archers though. No other profession can u"s"e both shortbow and longbow, nor can they trait/modify their bows to the extent that a Ranger can. “Rangers are unparalleled archers” does not equal “Rangers can do 100 Blades from 1500 range”. It’s not just a Ranger. It is the Ranger/Pet, a duality that must be played as such to be most effective. That’s not going to change and it shouldn’t IMO. This “give us back our 30% damage” demand is completely ridiculous. Anet NEVER ‘took away’ any damage from the Ranger; the damage split has been like that since launch so idk why anyone (2 years later) would be acting surprised/upset like this just happened last week. Yes, the AI could be improved quite a bit, like pet skill usage or being able to attack while moving, but demanding the devs completely overhaul their game just seems crazy to me.

The problem, then, is that archery (and ranged options in general) are poorly implemented compared to melee. When your opponent can dodge forward then swoop/shadow step 1000+ range instantly, ranged needs better damage to compensate. They already lack most of the defensive/control options available on melee weapons, and the only reason ranged weapons traditionally do less damage is because they’re supposed to be safer. Given how much mobility and projectile reflect/destroy/evade are available, ranged damage is far too low. Range is only an advantage if you can keep your enemy away from you.

Of course, this assumes that rangers’ bows are as powerful as the ranged weapons of other classes. I don’t know if they are, but if not then this needs to be addressed. I know that rangers have far more limiting trait options than other classes, though, and that their condition removal is nothing short of pathetic.

Unholy Pillager.3791:

Tman.6349:

In Guild Wars 2, Rangers ARE ‘unparalleled’ archers though. No other profession can u"s"e both shortbow and longbow, nor can they trait/modify their bows to the extent that a Ranger can. “Rangers are unparalleled archers” does not equal “Rangers can do 100 Blades from 1500 range”. It’s not just a Ranger. It is the Ranger/Pet, a duality that must be played as such to be most effective. That’s not going to change and it shouldn’t IMO. This “give us back our 30% damage” demand is completely ridiculous. Anet NEVER ‘took away’ any damage from the Ranger; the damage split has been like that since launch so idk why anyone (2 years later) would be acting surprised/upset like this just happened last week. Yes, the AI could be improved quite a bit, like pet skill usage or being able to attack while moving, but demanding the devs completely overhaul their game just seems crazy to me.

The problem, then, is that archery (and ranged options in general) are poorly implemented compared to melee. When your opponent can dodge forward then swoop/shadow step 1000+ range instantly, ranged needs better damage to compensate. They already lack most of the defensive/control options available on melee weapons, and the only reason ranged weapons traditionally do less damage is because they’re supposed to be safer. Given how much mobility and projectile reflect/destroy/evade are available, ranged damage is far too low. Range is only an advantage if you can keep your enemy away from you.

Of course, this assumes that rangers’ bows are as powerful as the ranged weapons of other classes. I don’t know if they are, but if not then this needs to be addressed. I know that rangers have far more limiting trait options than other classes, though, and that their condition removal is nothing short of pathetic.

I agree with everything in this post as well. The problem is that some professions/weapon combinations have no gap closers, meaning that the if the longbow were balanced only to compensate for the combos that have gap closers, it would send the Longbow far over the top and unbalance everything as a result. I’m not saying the current state of Ranged weapons are Balanced, but neither are most alternatives.

As a beastmaster i DON’t like that suggestion….. Ther should be options tho for Those who dont want to run beastmaster style.

Tman.6349:

In Guild Wars 2, Rangers ARE ‘unparalleled’ archers though. No other profession can u"s"e both shortbow and longbow, nor can they trait/modify their bows to the extent that a Ranger can. “Rangers are unparalleled archers” does not equal “Rangers can do 100 Blades from 1500 range”. It’s not just a Ranger. It is the Ranger/Pet, a duality that must be played as such to be most effective. That’s not going to change and it shouldn’t IMO. This “give us back our 30% damage” demand is completely ridiculous. Anet NEVER ‘took away’ any damage from the Ranger; the damage split has been like that since launch so idk why anyone (2 years later) would be acting surprised/upset like this just happened last week. Yes, the AI could be improved quite a bit, like pet skill usage or being able to attack while moving, but demanding the devs completely overhaul their game just seems crazy to me.

By your logic, because I can hold a rifle AND a sword (and whatever weapon in history I can access) I am now a better soldier than Alexander the Great? I mean he couldn’t have held a rifle because he was never around to hold one, therefore making him a worse soldier than me since we associate soldiers today with firearms and modern weaponry and the definition of unparalleled is totally based on resources and not a measure of any kind of skill or effectiveness, right? This argument literally makes no sense whatsoever.

And no, there is no such thing as making the pet “effective” in various scenarios no matter how good you are or how much you invest in it. The fact of the matter is that this class sucks and will always suck unless ANet allows for removing pets as combat entities and diverging and buffing beastmaster style or archer/skirmisher styles of play exclusively from each other.

That is the grounds for demanding system-level changes. I was recently told to leave my guild from a high rank or to never play my ranger again in WvW because the class is just THAT BAD, despite me being most effective on it of all of my twelve charactes to the point where I’ve proven myself as being the best in my guild at the class and one of the best duelists in the guild of 270 people. The class is just simply too weak in too many environments because of its mechanic and it will never improve unless damage is increased for those who want it/need it and builds are streamlined and more potent in what they are trying to do. The pet as the class skill in its current implementation both ruins possible BM builds as well as anyone interested in a DPS archer/evasive skirmisher. The whole fusion thing needs to get thrown out the window for the sake of the class, or simply, other classes need to get access to the archer style of play so that a massive portion of the ranger community can just happily delete their characters and move to something strictly better and more useful.

JonPeters has publicly announced in the past that the pet AI will never be improved and/or ANet has no intentions on improving it in the near or distant future. Begging for AI is more pointless than begging for the option for a style of play not offered anywhere else in the game that has an absolutely massive demographic appeal to it, even if it requires class overhauls. I can guarantee. Guarantee. Not guessing, making things up, or any of that; GUARANTEE that there are more players interested in the archer role than the beastmaster playing MMO’s regardless of whether or not their game offers either of them. GW2’s vision was to appeal to all players. Simply ignoring this demographic is totally against their vision which made their game and studio successful to begin with, and frankly, is costing them money. And any successful business knows that making its consumers happier and creating mass appeal always leads to more recognition and profits, especially in video games.

This is something that strictly speaking, ANet needs to look into. It’s not even about the ranger, it’s about an entire play style being neglected. People have been asking for compensation on other classes by moving the longbow to thief (as it’s already down one weaponset from the classes which do not feature extra movesets in their class mechanics) and other options for a long time now, and would happily move to such a class or even a new class in order to get what they want. But those implementations would take just as much, if not more effort, and would leave the ranger class way worse than it already is to the point where they would be so worthless and undesirable that nobody would ever use them or accept them except for RP’ing.