Guild Wars 2

Unholy Pillager.3791:

That doesn’t fit the archer archetype that people are going for, so stop saying that. It makes you look like an idiot, and I’m getting sick of pointing that out. Most bow rangers in GW1 didn’t use the pet. Pets are at an even greater disadvantage in GW2 because they can’t dodge roll, sidestep or attack while moving and lack the situational awareness that a player has. I don’t want pets, I want an archer. I don’t want a spellcaster who happens to use a bow. ArenaNet’s insistence that rangers be ‘the pet class’ is keeping them out of dungeons and competitive PvP. The WTS happened recently, and I noticed that, out of all eight professions, only one was not represented there. Care to guess which one? Making ranger ‘the pet class’ would be like making necromancer ‘the minion class’. Minion mastery doesn’t work in many areas of the game, and neither do pets. The difference is, necromancers are not forced to be minion masters due to a stupid design decision and the stubbornness to keep that flaw no matter the cost.

I’m sorry to disappoint but the one who risks sounding like an idiot would not be me. After such a long time – you haven’t been able to soak up the obvious statements from which ANet some confirmed.

~ You are now playing Guild Wars 2.
~ Ranger in Guild Wars 2 is not the same as in Guild Wars 1.
~ Necromancer and Ranger minions cannot be compared. Necromancer has 1 traitline devoted to minons. Every single Ranger weapon and Traitline involve pets.
~ You are contradicting yourself saying that we are not pet-class while everything we have forces us to play with a pet.
~ It’s not about “what ANet does”… It’s about what they have been doing for 3 years, godkitten it.

You can’t expect that I’m going to treat you as anything else than a child if your only counter-argument against developers and me is: I want to play and Archer in a game that is not mine, supports melee combat and I want that especially on a class that was designed around something completely different
Now I want to be a unicorn. The very same argument as yours.
You want an Archer? Play one with a pet.

I made 4 freaking threads that would solve every freaking pet problem, so far, and the only thing you are capable of is complain how your dreams do not meet reality?
Yes, I’m being arrogant (but I can afford it). Your real life isn’t going to be easier with your attitude, either.

Tragic Positive.9356:

Unholy Pillager.3791:

That doesn’t fit the archer archetype that people are going for, so stop saying that. It makes you look like an idiot, and I’m getting sick of pointing that out. Most bow rangers in GW1 didn’t use the pet. Pets are at an even greater disadvantage in GW2 because they can’t dodge roll, sidestep or attack while moving and lack the situational awareness that a player has. I don’t want pets, I want an archer. I don’t want a spellcaster who happens to use a bow. ArenaNet’s insistence that rangers be ‘the pet class’ is keeping them out of dungeons and competitive PvP. The WTS happened recently, and I noticed that, out of all eight professions, only one was not represented there. Care to guess which one? Making ranger ‘the pet class’ would be like making necromancer ‘the minion class’. Minion mastery doesn’t work in many areas of the game, and neither do pets. The difference is, necromancers are not forced to be minion masters due to a stupid design decision and the stubbornness to keep that flaw no matter the cost.

I’m sorry to disappoint but the one who risks sounding like an idiot would not be me. After such a long time – you haven’t been able to soak up the obvious statements from which ANet some confirmed.

~ You are now playing Guild Wars 2.
~ Ranger in Guild Wars 2 is not the same as in Guild Wars 1.
~ Necromancer and Ranger minions cannot be compared. Necromancer has 1 traitline devoted to minons. Every single Ranger weapon and Traitline involve pets.
~ You are contradicting yourself saying that we are not pet-class while everything we have forces us to play with a pet.
~ It’s not about “what ANet does”… It’s about what they did 3 years ago, godkitten it.

You can’t expect that I’m going to treat you as anything else than a child if your only counter-argument against developers and me is: I want to play and Archer in a game that is not mine, supports melee combat and I want that especially on a class that was designed around something completely different
Now I want to be a unicorn. The very same argument as yours.
You want an Archer? Play one with a pet.

I made 4 freaking threads that would solve every freaking pet problem, so far, and the only thing you are capable of is complain how your dreams do not meet reality?
Yes, I’m being arrogant (but I can afford it). Your real life isn’t going to be easier with your attitude, either.

The problem (which you failed to address) is that AI based specs do not work in competitive play. Yes, necromancers only have one line devoted to minions…which means that they do not need to rely on AI based minions, which appear to be inherently inferior to other specialties, for every profession. No profession has competitive builds which rely on constant AI companions for damage. That is probably the biggest reason why the ranger has no place in competitive settings.

I would not be criticizing, at all, if rangers were actually seen in WTS, the dungeon meta, etc. They aren’t, and they haven’t been, because ArenaNet made the decision to force pets on them. If they can’t balance the ranger profession against the other professions with pets taken into account (and they obviously cannot), then pets should not be the profession mechanic.

In summary, my argument is that ranger pets are preventing rangers from being balanced, and locking them out of competitive parts of the game. They have been trying, and failing, to balance rangers for three years. At this point, again, I can’t help but conclude that the problem is the pet system, and that the class should be rebuilt from the ground up.

Unholy Pillager.3791:

Tragic Positive.9356:

Unholy Pillager.3791:

That doesn’t fit the archer archetype that people are going for, so stop saying that. It makes you look like an idiot, and I’m getting sick of pointing that out. Most bow rangers in GW1 didn’t use the pet. Pets are at an even greater disadvantage in GW2 because they can’t dodge roll, sidestep or attack while moving and lack the situational awareness that a player has. I don’t want pets, I want an archer. I don’t want a spellcaster who happens to use a bow. ArenaNet’s insistence that rangers be ‘the pet class’ is keeping them out of dungeons and competitive PvP. The WTS happened recently, and I noticed that, out of all eight professions, only one was not represented there. Care to guess which one? Making ranger ‘the pet class’ would be like making necromancer ‘the minion class’. Minion mastery doesn’t work in many areas of the game, and neither do pets. The difference is, necromancers are not forced to be minion masters due to a stupid design decision and the stubbornness to keep that flaw no matter the cost.

I’m sorry to disappoint but the one who risks sounding like an idiot would not be me. After such a long time – you haven’t been able to soak up the obvious statements from which ANet some confirmed.

~ You are now playing Guild Wars 2.
~ Ranger in Guild Wars 2 is not the same as in Guild Wars 1.
~ Necromancer and Ranger minions cannot be compared. Necromancer has 1 traitline devoted to minons. Every single Ranger weapon and Traitline involve pets.
~ You are contradicting yourself saying that we are not pet-class while everything we have forces us to play with a pet.
~ It’s not about “what ANet does”… It’s about what they did 3 years ago, godkitten it.

You can’t expect that I’m going to treat you as anything else than a child if your only counter-argument against developers and me is: I want to play and Archer in a game that is not mine, supports melee combat and I want that especially on a class that was designed around something completely different
Now I want to be a unicorn. The very same argument as yours.
You want an Archer? Play one with a pet.

I made 4 freaking threads that would solve every freaking pet problem, so far, and the only thing you are capable of is complain how your dreams do not meet reality?
Yes, I’m being arrogant (but I can afford it). Your real life isn’t going to be easier with your attitude, either.

The problem (which you failed to address) is that AI based specs do not work in competitive play. Yes, necromancers only have one line devoted to minions…which means that they do not need to rely on AI based minions, which appear to be inherently inferior to other specialties, for every profession. No profession has competitive builds which rely on constant AI companions for damage. That is probably the biggest reason why the ranger has no place in competitive settings.

I would not be criticizing, at all, if rangers were actually seen in WTS, the dungeon meta, etc. They aren’t, and they haven’t been, because ArenaNet made the decision to force pets on them. If they can’t balance the ranger profession against the other professions with pets taken into account (and they obviously cannot), then pets should not be the profession mechanic.

In summary, my argument is that ranger pets are preventing rangers from being balanced, and locking them out of competitive parts of the game. They have been trying, and failing, to balance rangers for three years. At this point, again, I can’t help but conclude that the problem is the pet system, and that the class should be rebuilt from the ground up.

unholy,
just say “ok”
and move on.
That’s all that can be done.

@Justine
Icebow #4 and Meteor Shower are also a version of AI. The only difference is that it’s reliable and effective.
That’s why plenty of amazing ideas how to “improve the pet management” and “reduce the AI factor into player-control” were held.

If you think that ANet tried to balance the ranger, you should have at least went through the changes. They haven’t even tried to touch the AI factor and pet management at all – which are the concrete reasons to hold rangers down. (that I, accidentally addressed yesterday)

If you study hard enough to become a part of ANet developer teams – please feel free to make the Ranger competitive whichever way you feel like. By the time being, I’m afraid someone else will keep doing it their way.
If you do – I’d be more than glad to agree by saying “ok” to you, without having to worry that I sound like I ran out of arguments.

Tragic Positive.9356:

@Justine
Icebow #4 and Meteor Shower are also a version of AI. The only difference is that it’s reliable and effective.
That’s why plenty of amazing ideas how to “improve the pet management” and “reduce the AI factor into player-control” were held.

If you think that ANet tried to balance the ranger, you should have at least went through the changes. They haven’t even tried to touch the AI factor and pet management at all – which are the concrete reasons to hold rangers down. (that I, accidentally addressed yesterday)

If you study hard enough to become a part of ANet developer teams – please feel free to make the Ranger competitive whichever way you feel like. By the time being, I’m afraid someone else will keep doing it their way.
If you do – I’d be more than glad to agree by saying “ok” to you, without having to worry that I sound like I ran out of arguments.

Those are not AI. Meteor shower is, at best, RNG…which doesn’t get one hit killed when a champ uses a nasty AoE ability or it gets used in WvW zerging. Ice bow is giving your ally a couple of extra skills, including a five second stun. Terrible comparison. Maybe if ice bow removed the ability to dodge roll when it is wielded, you’d have something to stand on, but not as it is now.

Maybe if we had a way to make our pets dodge roll and could swap between our utilities and our pet’s skills with an f-key, and they reduced the cooldown on defeated pet swap, things would be better. Of course, even then pets would have a hard time hitting moving targets because, unlike players, they cannot move while attacking, nor can they sidestep at all to avoid attacks.

Edit: a better comparison to have made would be spirit weapons, which can actually die…do you see any of those in high level PvP tournaments, or in dungeon runs for that matter?

Unholy Pillager.3791:

Tragic Positive.9356:

Heibi.4251:

But since this thread is about “Removing the pet full time” I was sticking with the theme, not pooh-poohing ideas from people.

Play Dragon Hunter.

That doesn’t fit the archer archetype that people are going for, so stop saying that.

Dragon hunter has bow. Archer archetype uses bow.

I’m pretty sure it is a DH is a archer archetype.

runeblade.7514:

Unholy Pillager.3791:

Tragic Positive.9356:

Heibi.4251:

But since this thread is about “Removing the pet full time” I was sticking with the theme, not pooh-poohing ideas from people.

Play Dragon Hunter.

That doesn’t fit the archer archetype that people are going for, so stop saying that.

Dragon hunter has bow. Archer archetype uses bow.

I’m pretty sure it is a DH is a archer archetype.

Only so far as d/d elementalist fits in with your typical idea of a dagger-wielding melee-range combatant in the fantasy genre…which is to say, not very far.

Unholy Pillager.3791:

runeblade.7514:

Unholy Pillager.3791:

Tragic Positive.9356:

Heibi.4251:

But since this thread is about “Removing the pet full time” I was sticking with the theme, not pooh-poohing ideas from people.

Play Dragon Hunter.

That doesn’t fit the archer archetype that people are going for, so stop saying that.

Dragon hunter has bow. Archer archetype uses bow.

I’m pretty sure it is a DH is a archer archetype.

Only so far as d/d elementalist fits in with your typical idea of a dagger-wielding melee-range combatant in the fantasy genre…which is to say, not very far.

Not really comparable.

• DH shoots arrows with their bow.
• D/D Ele shoots spells.
• Archer archetype shoots arrows with their bow.
• Dagger wielding melee range combatant stab stuff.

If you replace Dagger wielding melee range combatant with Final Fantasy Ninja, Naruto Ninja, or Ninja wizards. Then it would be comparable.

Try again.

runeblade.7514:

Unholy Pillager.3791:

runeblade.7514:

Unholy Pillager.3791:

Tragic Positive.9356:

Heibi.4251:

But since this thread is about “Removing the pet full time” I was sticking with the theme, not pooh-poohing ideas from people.

Play Dragon Hunter.

That doesn’t fit the archer archetype that people are going for, so stop saying that.

Dragon hunter has bow. Archer archetype uses bow.

I’m pretty sure it is a DH is a archer archetype.

Only so far as d/d elementalist fits in with your typical idea of a dagger-wielding melee-range combatant in the fantasy genre…which is to say, not very far.

Not really comparable.

• DH shoots arrows with their bow.
• D/D Ele shoots spells.
• Archer archetype shoots arrows with their bow.
• Dagger wielding melee range combatant stab stuff.

If you replace Dagger wielding melee range combatant with Final Fantasy Ninja, Naruto Ninja, or Ninja wizards. Then it would be comparable.

Try again.

DH longbow skills are spells. A better comparison would be if warrior was not part of the game, or ineffective, and you were trying to argue that guardian is pretty much the same thing. It isn’t close enough to satisfy many warrior players.

Unholy Pillager.3791:

DH longbow skills are spells. A better comparison would be if warrior was not part of the game, or ineffective, and you were trying to argue that guardian is pretty much the same thing. It isn’t close enough to satisfy many warrior players.

So the most important thing for you is the feeling, and not the efficiency or usefulness?
Aesthetics is the most important point of value?
Do I get it the right way?

Unholy Pillager.3791:

runeblade.7514:

Unholy Pillager.3791:

runeblade.7514:

Unholy Pillager.3791:

Tragic Positive.9356:

Heibi.4251:

But since this thread is about “Removing the pet full time” I was sticking with the theme, not pooh-poohing ideas from people.

Play Dragon Hunter.

That doesn’t fit the archer archetype that people are going for, so stop saying that.

Dragon hunter has bow. Archer archetype uses bow.

I’m pretty sure it is a DH is a archer archetype.

Only so far as d/d elementalist fits in with your typical idea of a dagger-wielding melee-range combatant in the fantasy genre…which is to say, not very far.

Not really comparable.

• DH shoots arrows with their bow.
• D/D Ele shoots spells.
• Archer archetype shoots arrows with their bow.
• Dagger wielding melee range combatant stab stuff.

If you replace Dagger wielding melee range combatant with Final Fantasy Ninja, Naruto Ninja, or Ninja wizards. Then it would be comparable.

Try again.

DH longbow skills are spells. A better comparison would be if warrior was not part of the game, or ineffective, and you were trying to argue that guardian is pretty much the same thing. It isn’t close enough to satisfy many warrior players.

When I was playing Bow Dragonhunter, I saw arrows shooting out of the bow. Not spells. I didn’t see a Drake’s breath. I didn’t see a lightning whip, I didn’t see a water blade, nor did I see a earth spike hitting from below.

I saw arrows.

You: This is not an archer

The DH LB skills state arrows or attacks too, nothing to do with spells.

Tragic Positive.9356:

Unholy Pillager.3791:

DH longbow skills are spells. A better comparison would be if warrior was not part of the game, or ineffective, and you were trying to argue that guardian is pretty much the same thing. It isn’t close enough to satisfy many warrior players.

So the most important thing for you is the feeling, and not the efficiency or usefulness?
Aesthetics is the most important point of value?
Do I get it the right way?

Actually, I would mostly want some mobility, plus I’m not enormously fond of guardian utilities and virtues. Besides, preferring longbow over other range weapon options (elementalist staff, for example) already is an aesthetic choice. If you really want to criticize me for making choices based on aesthetics, start there. Just be sure that you haven’t made any choices regarding favored professions for similar reasons.

For the record, though, I don’t like the way this game all but forces players to use short ranged weapons for most parts of the game. For example, sPvP and dungeons are both dominated almost exclusively by melee-range weapons.

Unholy Pillager.3791:

Actually, I would mostly want some mobility, plus I’m not enormously fond of guardian utilities and virtues. Besides, preferring longbow over other range weapon options (elementalist staff, for example) already is an aesthetic choice. If you really want to criticize me for making choices based on aesthetics, start there. Just be sure that you haven’t made any choices regarding favored professions for similar reasons.

For the record, though, I don’t like the way this game all but forces players to use short ranged weapons for most parts of the game. For example, sPvP and dungeons are both dominated almost exclusively by melee-range weapons.

The thing is you still don’t get how illogical those statements are.

You want more mobility – you said. Which Ranger doesn’t have, or has only as a melee fighter. The other thing is that you say you prefer Archers. And you are not a fan of guardian virtues… While Dragon Hunter is a specialization about Traps (And the Longbow that you seem to love so much).

Furthermore, you seem to like the Aesthetics, so much that you are willing to trade effectiveness for it. So since you are a fan of Longbow…
… How about playing the Ranger with a Longbow? Just suck up your feelings and accept the pet that is far more class-mechanic than a Longbow. Longbow is just one weapon of the many. Pet is an inseparable mechanic of the class itself.

You want Ranger (pet-class) to be pet-less because you don’t like Dragon-Hunter (pet-less Archer) specialization. Do you know how absurd that sounds?

Tragic Positive.9356:

Unholy Pillager.3791:

Actually, I would mostly want some mobility, plus I’m not enormously fond of guardian utilities and virtues. Besides, preferring longbow over other range weapon options (elementalist staff, for example) already is an aesthetic choice. If you really want to criticize me for making choices based on aesthetics, start there. Just be sure that you haven’t made any choices regarding favored professions for similar reasons.

For the record, though, I don’t like the way this game all but forces players to use short ranged weapons for most parts of the game. For example, sPvP and dungeons are both dominated almost exclusively by melee-range weapons.

The thing is you still don’t get how illogical those statements are.

You want more mobility – you said. Which Ranger doesn’t have, or has only as a melee fighter. The other thing is that you say you prefer Archers. And you are not a fan of guardian virtues… While Dragon Hunter is a specialization about Traps (And the Longbow that you seem to love so much).

Furthermore, you seem to like the Aesthetics, so much that you are willing to trade effectiveness for it. So since you are a fan of Longbow…
… How about playing the Ranger with a Longbow? Just suck up your feelings and accept the pet that is far more class-mechanic than a Longbow. Longbow is just one weapon of the many. Pet is an inseparable mechanic of the class itself.

You want Ranger (pet-class) to be pet-less because you don’t like Dragon-Hunter (pet-less Archer) specialization. Do you know how absurd that sounds?

No, I want ranger to be petless because AI-reliant setups are inherently inferior in sPvP and dungeons. The pet lowers the skill ceiling and skill floor of the class; they can’t buff rangers enough to make them competitive, because the pet does too many things for them and can ‘carry’ a poor player. I have said this before, and everyone keeps ignoring it and acting as if my only reasons are a personal dislike of pets. Every setup that relies on AI companions is pretty much useless from a high level sPvP standpoint. Turret engineers (which were really just a gimmick anyway), minion master necromancers, spirit weapon guardians, phantasm mesmers, the entire ranger profession…none of them have ever been viable without being both overpowered and stupidly simple to use. Looking at this evidence, I am forced to conclude that pets are holding rangers back in sPvP, and probably always will.

Unholy Pillager.3791:

Tragic Positive.9356:

Unholy Pillager.3791:

Actually, I would mostly want some mobility, plus I’m not enormously fond of guardian utilities and virtues. Besides, preferring longbow over other range weapon options (elementalist staff, for example) already is an aesthetic choice. If you really want to criticize me for making choices based on aesthetics, start there. Just be sure that you haven’t made any choices regarding favored professions for similar reasons.

For the record, though, I don’t like the way this game all but forces players to use short ranged weapons for most parts of the game. For example, sPvP and dungeons are both dominated almost exclusively by melee-range weapons.

The thing is you still don’t get how illogical those statements are.

You want more mobility – you said. Which Ranger doesn’t have, or has only as a melee fighter. The other thing is that you say you prefer Archers. And you are not a fan of guardian virtues… While Dragon Hunter is a specialization about Traps (And the Longbow that you seem to love so much).

Furthermore, you seem to like the Aesthetics, so much that you are willing to trade effectiveness for it. So since you are a fan of Longbow…
… How about playing the Ranger with a Longbow? Just suck up your feelings and accept the pet that is far more class-mechanic than a Longbow. Longbow is just one weapon of the many. Pet is an inseparable mechanic of the class itself.

You want Ranger (pet-class) to be pet-less because you don’t like Dragon-Hunter (pet-less Archer) specialization. Do you know how absurd that sounds?

No, I want ranger to be petless because AI-reliant setups are inherently inferior in sPvP and dungeons. The pet lowers the skill ceiling and skill floor of the class; they can’t buff rangers enough to make them competitive, because the pet does too many things for them and can ‘carry’ a poor player. I have said this before, and everyone keeps ignoring it and acting as if my only reasons are a personal dislike of pets. Every setup that relies on AI companions is pretty much useless from a high level sPvP standpoint. Turret engineers (which were really just a gimmick anyway), minion master necromancers, spirit weapon guardians, phantasm mesmers, the entire ranger profession…none of them have ever been viable without being both overpowered and stupidly simple to use. Looking at this evidence, I am forced to conclude that pets are holding rangers back in sPvP, and probably always will.

So. You just want to nerf rangers?

runeblade.7514:

Unholy Pillager.3791:

Tragic Positive.9356:

Unholy Pillager.3791:

Actually, I would mostly want some mobility, plus I’m not enormously fond of guardian utilities and virtues. Besides, preferring longbow over other range weapon options (elementalist staff, for example) already is an aesthetic choice. If you really want to criticize me for making choices based on aesthetics, start there. Just be sure that you haven’t made any choices regarding favored professions for similar reasons.

For the record, though, I don’t like the way this game all but forces players to use short ranged weapons for most parts of the game. For example, sPvP and dungeons are both dominated almost exclusively by melee-range weapons.

The thing is you still don’t get how illogical those statements are.

You want more mobility – you said. Which Ranger doesn’t have, or has only as a melee fighter. The other thing is that you say you prefer Archers. And you are not a fan of guardian virtues… While Dragon Hunter is a specialization about Traps (And the Longbow that you seem to love so much).

Furthermore, you seem to like the Aesthetics, so much that you are willing to trade effectiveness for it. So since you are a fan of Longbow…
… How about playing the Ranger with a Longbow? Just suck up your feelings and accept the pet that is far more class-mechanic than a Longbow. Longbow is just one weapon of the many. Pet is an inseparable mechanic of the class itself.

You want Ranger (pet-class) to be pet-less because you don’t like Dragon-Hunter (pet-less Archer) specialization. Do you know how absurd that sounds?

No, I want ranger to be petless because AI-reliant setups are inherently inferior in sPvP and dungeons. The pet lowers the skill ceiling and skill floor of the class; they can’t buff rangers enough to make them competitive, because the pet does too many things for them and can ‘carry’ a poor player. I have said this before, and everyone keeps ignoring it and acting as if my only reasons are a personal dislike of pets. Every setup that relies on AI companions is pretty much useless from a high level sPvP standpoint. Turret engineers (which were really just a gimmick anyway), minion master necromancers, spirit weapon guardians, phantasm mesmers, the entire ranger profession…none of them have ever been viable without being both overpowered and stupidly simple to use. Looking at this evidence, I am forced to conclude that pets are holding rangers back in sPvP, and probably always will.

So. You just want to nerf rangers?

Where the hell did you get that idea? I want them to change pets to an optional, change the mechanic to preparations, and buff rangers so that they are competitive in sPvP. If they keep pets as permanent, not optional, they can’t make rangers competitive. This is because AI setups are not, and cannot be, balanced in this game. We see this with spirit weapons and we see it with minions. As long as rangers are forced to use pets, they cannot be balanced either.

Unholy Pillager.3791:

Where the hell did you get that idea? I want them to change pets to an optional, change the mechanic to preparations, and buff rangers so that they are competitive in sPvP. If they keep pets as permanent, not optional, they can’t make rangers competitive. This is because AI setups are not, and cannot be, balanced in this game. We see this with spirit weapons and we see it with minions. As long as rangers are forced to use pets, they cannot be balanced either.

I already provided (hopefully) reasonable solutions to all our pet ranger problems.

If my proposed changes get implemented – AI would not be a problem since pet would become 90% controllable in terms of survivability, positioning, skill management and trait activation positioning.
It would also raise Ranger Skill-Cap but also improve their performance by a huge margin.

All what you are trying to say is redundant since your idea would destroy 80% of weapons, traits and utility skills.
In reality, the whole problem now is that you are blinded by your “feelings” while ignoring the most logical and realistic suggestions already given.

Tragic Positive.9356:

Unholy Pillager.3791:

Where the hell did you get that idea? I want them to change pets to an optional, change the mechanic to preparations, and buff rangers so that they are competitive in sPvP. If they keep pets as permanent, not optional, they can’t make rangers competitive. This is because AI setups are not, and cannot be, balanced in this game. We see this with spirit weapons and we see it with minions. As long as rangers are forced to use pets, they cannot be balanced either.

I already provided (hopefully) reasonable solutions to all our pet ranger problems.

If my proposed changes get implemented – AI would not be a problem since pet would become 90% controllable in terms of survivability, positioning, skill management and trait activation positioning.
It would also raise Ranger Skill-Cap but also improve their performance by a huge margin.

All what you are trying to say is redundant since your idea would destroy 80% of weapons, traits and utility skills.
In reality, the whole problem now is that you are blinded by your “feelings” while ignoring the most logical and realistic suggestions already given.

80% is hyperbolic, but I see your point. Let me explain mine. I have seen them try to rework pets into something globally useful starting long before GW2 arrived, and they have had severely limited success doing so. The hurdles that pets face in this game are much steeper than those faced in the original game, and I doubt that they would be willing to make the fundamental changes that are necessary. I agree that if they could implement the ideas for complete pet overhaul that have been floating around, it might be enough to put rangers where they need to be. I just don’t want to risk another halfway rework; I know that they can make an effective petless ranger, but I have no more confidence left in their pet design.

@Unholy Pillager
I agree on most of your points and I completely understand your point of view.
… The problem is, I’m not sure if they really can make pets useful. We have to take their limited personal into account, their lack if interest and lack of community-intel-trade…

And their beliefs that completely deny maths and logic.
For example, having a Pet Class is fine by me. Making it unreliable and uncontrollable, clunky and what not is not fine by me (thus the ideas I came up with, considering their interest in this class – thus no big but all useful changes)
Having a healing GM trait is fine by me. Being it far useless, uncontrollable, clunky and what not is not (invigorating bond).
Having the Pet sharing boons by it’s personal duration metric is fine by me. Having Weapons and Traits adjusted to ignore Ranger usefulness and promote the pet duration metric is absurd in my opinion.

And the stuff could go on.
The problem is that I know that Arena-Net has little interest in Ranger and promotes Elementalists and Warriors. I don’t see them implementing the drastic (but godly) changes.
Saying that they can do it is true. But after all – all of us could do it in their place if they hired us right? But we know it’s not gonna happen. Neither of those.

I agree with you there. At this point, ANet just wants to make small changes in order to rebalance things…the problem with that philosophy is that GW2 ranger never was balanced in the first place, and probably can’t be balanced even with large changes to numbers and traits. At this point, something needs to be torn completely down and rebuilt, foundation and all. That something needs to be either the pet mechanic, or the profession in its entirety. Scrapping the pet mechanic would force them not to cut corners with the rebuild, which is what has caused their previous pet rehabilitation efforts to fail (in both games).

Unholy Pillager.3791:

runeblade.7514:

Unholy Pillager.3791:

Tragic Positive.9356:

Unholy Pillager.3791:

Actually, I would mostly want some mobility, plus I’m not enormously fond of guardian utilities and virtues. Besides, preferring longbow over other range weapon options (elementalist staff, for example) already is an aesthetic choice. If you really want to criticize me for making choices based on aesthetics, start there. Just be sure that you haven’t made any choices regarding favored professions for similar reasons.

For the record, though, I don’t like the way this game all but forces players to use short ranged weapons for most parts of the game. For example, sPvP and dungeons are both dominated almost exclusively by melee-range weapons.

The thing is you still don’t get how illogical those statements are.

You want more mobility – you said. Which Ranger doesn’t have, or has only as a melee fighter. The other thing is that you say you prefer Archers. And you are not a fan of guardian virtues… While Dragon Hunter is a specialization about Traps (And the Longbow that you seem to love so much).

Furthermore, you seem to like the Aesthetics, so much that you are willing to trade effectiveness for it. So since you are a fan of Longbow…
… How about playing the Ranger with a Longbow? Just suck up your feelings and accept the pet that is far more class-mechanic than a Longbow. Longbow is just one weapon of the many. Pet is an inseparable mechanic of the class itself.

You want Ranger (pet-class) to be pet-less because you don’t like Dragon-Hunter (pet-less Archer) specialization. Do you know how absurd that sounds?

No, I want ranger to be petless because AI-reliant setups are inherently inferior in sPvP and dungeons. The pet lowers the skill ceiling and skill floor of the class; they can’t buff rangers enough to make them competitive, because the pet does too many things for them and can ‘carry’ a poor player. I have said this before, and everyone keeps ignoring it and acting as if my only reasons are a personal dislike of pets. Every setup that relies on AI companions is pretty much useless from a high level sPvP standpoint. Turret engineers (which were really just a gimmick anyway), minion master necromancers, spirit weapon guardians, phantasm mesmers, the entire ranger profession…none of them have ever been viable without being both overpowered and stupidly simple to use. Looking at this evidence, I am forced to conclude that pets are holding rangers back in sPvP, and probably always will.

So. You just want to nerf rangers?

Where the hell did you get that idea? I want them to change pets to an optional, change the mechanic to preparations, and buff rangers so that they are competitive in sPvP. If they keep pets as permanent, not optional, they can’t make rangers competitive. This is because AI setups are not, and cannot be, balanced in this game. We see this with spirit weapons and we see it with minions. As long as rangers are forced to use pets, they cannot be balanced either.

From reading your post.

runeblade.7514:

Unholy Pillager.3791:

runeblade.7514:

Unholy Pillager.3791:

Tragic Positive.9356:

Unholy Pillager.3791:

Actually, I would mostly want some mobility, plus I’m not enormously fond of guardian utilities and virtues. Besides, preferring longbow over other range weapon options (elementalist staff, for example) already is an aesthetic choice. If you really want to criticize me for making choices based on aesthetics, start there. Just be sure that you haven’t made any choices regarding favored professions for similar reasons.

For the record, though, I don’t like the way this game all but forces players to use short ranged weapons for most parts of the game. For example, sPvP and dungeons are both dominated almost exclusively by melee-range weapons.

The thing is you still don’t get how illogical those statements are.

You want more mobility – you said. Which Ranger doesn’t have, or has only as a melee fighter. The other thing is that you say you prefer Archers. And you are not a fan of guardian virtues… While Dragon Hunter is a specialization about Traps (And the Longbow that you seem to love so much).

Furthermore, you seem to like the Aesthetics, so much that you are willing to trade effectiveness for it. So since you are a fan of Longbow…
… How about playing the Ranger with a Longbow? Just suck up your feelings and accept the pet that is far more class-mechanic than a Longbow. Longbow is just one weapon of the many. Pet is an inseparable mechanic of the class itself.

You want Ranger (pet-class) to be pet-less because you don’t like Dragon-Hunter (pet-less Archer) specialization. Do you know how absurd that sounds?

No, I want ranger to be petless because AI-reliant setups are inherently inferior in sPvP and dungeons. The pet lowers the skill ceiling and skill floor of the class; they can’t buff rangers enough to make them competitive, because the pet does too many things for them and can ‘carry’ a poor player. I have said this before, and everyone keeps ignoring it and acting as if my only reasons are a personal dislike of pets. Every setup that relies on AI companions is pretty much useless from a high level sPvP standpoint. Turret engineers (which were really just a gimmick anyway), minion master necromancers, spirit weapon guardians, phantasm mesmers, the entire ranger profession…none of them have ever been viable without being both overpowered and stupidly simple to use. Looking at this evidence, I am forced to conclude that pets are holding rangers back in sPvP, and probably always will.

So. You just want to nerf rangers?

Where the hell did you get that idea? I want them to change pets to an optional, change the mechanic to preparations, and buff rangers so that they are competitive in sPvP. If they keep pets as permanent, not optional, they can’t make rangers competitive. This is because AI setups are not, and cannot be, balanced in this game. We see this with spirit weapons and we see it with minions. As long as rangers are forced to use pets, they cannot be balanced either.

From reading your post.

Nowhere in my post did I say or imply that rangers are too strong in their current state. Try reading it more carefully.