Guild Wars 2

This is just an excuse for either

A) You guys are too lazy to do it
B) You guys do not have the resources to do it because of PvE nut sucking
C) You guys don’t know how to implement it ? (Unlikely)

If players being unable to control 3 extra ranger pet skills is your real concern, why not give players the OPTION of doing it. You already gave the ranger pet a “Guard” and “Stay out of combat” toggle. Give it a toggle to give extra control to the pet or a toggle to make it easier for newer players (How it is right now)

There you go ANET, easiest solution that you somehow could not think of or are just refusing to implement for whatever reason.

Could do it without even needing to add a new button.

Make it so the attack key can also be used as pet recall. Put the secondary skills on F3. Allow the F3 abilities to be set to autocast so if a player legitimately can’t handle it, they’re defaulted to always on anyway so nothing would change.

This in conjunction with making the F2 skills more responsive and pets actually able to hit moving targets would really be nice.

As a side note… updating Ranger AE to actually hit 5 targets instead of 3 would be nice.

Ranger pet having too few manageable skill is a problem?
According to whom?

It is actually true. If they made a toggle in the options which allows the ranger to decide that he wants to control one more ability of the pets it won’t harm the rangers which can’t handle more pet control. The rangers who want to increase their skill ceiling can then use the extra control about these abilities and both are happy.
So this argument is not fully valid.
If the problem is that there is no more F-key for this new ability simply don’t assign any key to it. The ranger can then decide which key he wants to choose for this ability.
That option would be really awesome. On demand blast finisher from drakes, on demand heal from the moa, on demand knockback from dogs.
It would give the ranger class more depth I guess and there would be less complaining about passive ranger gameplay.
I even think this could help the ranger alot in zerg fights. More on demand blast finishers on pets is just awesome.

showatt.9413:

Ranger pet having too few manageable skill is a problem?
According to whom?

It’s a problem because this game is already dumbed down enough as it is. Ranger pet is just 1 small problem but it is still bothersome as a ranger player.

waka.9826:

showatt.9413:

Ranger pet having too few manageable skill is a problem?
According to whom?

It’s a problem because this game is already dumbed down enough as it is. Ranger pet is just 1 small problem but it is still bothersome as a ranger player.

you do realize if you give ranger more control of their pet is just gonna make them OP right? You’re asking the ability to control when your pet blow their secondary skills. Does that mean I get to decide when my fern hound is going to heal me as well as knock people down? That my lynx will be able to maul the enemy twice?

Nah. I play ranger myself but the dev honestly have better things to work on.
Staff Elem has been waiting for a buff since the dawn of time and conditions are out of control as they are.

showatt.9413:

you do realize if you give ranger more control of their pet is just gonna make them OP right? You’re asking the ability to control when your pet blow their secondary skills. Does that mean I get to decide when my fern hound is going to heal me as well as knock people down? That my lynx will be able to maul the enemy twice?

This is likely the reason. If they did give rangers more control over pets, it would change balance no differently than a straight up buff.

They could add more control while simultaneously nerfing rangers in some other area again, but the entire ranger subforum is filled with hate posts every time nerfs happen.

This isn’t an excuse, this is what they actuall believe.

This was not the first SOTG where that question was asked and the answer has always been the same: they think it would be too intensive for the average player because the pet is a seperate entity.

It may seem like a poor excuse for not wanting to raise the skill floor of the Ranger class, but it isn’t! It’s a flat “no, we don’t want to.”.

Ranger will always rely on passive play and either be overpowered or useless because AI and RNG have no business in a PvP environment.

I think they should nerf ranger weapon damage by 50% and give them more pet control.

NevirSayDie.6235:

showatt.9413:

you do realize if you give ranger more control of their pet is just gonna make them OP right? You’re asking the ability to control when your pet blow their secondary skills. Does that mean I get to decide when my fern hound is going to heal me as well as knock people down? That my lynx will be able to maul the enemy twice?

This is likely the reason. If they did give rangers more control over pets, it would change balance no differently than a straight up buff.

They could add more control while simultaneously nerfing rangers in some other area again, but the entire ranger subforum is filled with hate posts every time nerfs happen.

GW1 gave you full control of your pet at the cost of one (or more) of your skill slots being used as a pet skill slot. Why can’t it be done here?

Personally, I think Anet should replace the shouts with skills that directly influence your pet’s next attack. Like a skill called Pounce would make the next attack knockdown the target, a skill called Maul will make the next attack bleed the target or a skill called Snarl will make the pet fear targets away.

The pets could still have some of their signature moves but, direct control just puts the skill more in the player’s hands.

EDIT: OR instead of all that jazz I just mentioned, make pet selection part of skill selection. Basically, if you select a pet, some of the available skills you have for your utility bar will include skills they use. So if you have a Moa, you can put his heal on your bar or if you have a Canine, you can put his knockdown on your bar. These would replace shouts of course.

Wombat.3510:

I think they should nerf ranger weapon damage by 50% and give them more pet control.

Dirame.8521:

NevirSayDie.6235:

showatt.9413:

you do realize if you give ranger more control of their pet is just gonna make them OP right? You’re asking the ability to control when your pet blow their secondary skills. Does that mean I get to decide when my fern hound is going to heal me as well as knock people down? That my lynx will be able to maul the enemy twice?

This is likely the reason. If they did give rangers more control over pets, it would change balance no differently than a straight up buff.

They could add more control while simultaneously nerfing rangers in some other area again, but the entire ranger subforum is filled with hate posts every time nerfs happen.

GW1 gave you full control of your pet at the cost of one (or more) of your skill slots being used as a pet skill slot. Why can’t it be done here?

Different framework + modified engine. Having not played gw1 I assume you have more skills to use, and having one of your skills replaced by a pet skill slot isn’t as problematic as it would have been in gw2?

Coming from a game design background a lot of decisions dev made are based on technical reasons. Not all, of course, but a lot.

showatt.9413:

Wombat.3510:

I think they should nerf ranger weapon damage by 50% and give them more pet control.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAryFIuRxmQ

Dirame.8521:

NevirSayDie.6235:

showatt.9413:

you do realize if you give ranger more control of their pet is just gonna make them OP right? You’re asking the ability to control when your pet blow their secondary skills. Does that mean I get to decide when my fern hound is going to heal me as well as knock people down? That my lynx will be able to maul the enemy twice?

This is likely the reason. If they did give rangers more control over pets, it would change balance no differently than a straight up buff.

They could add more control while simultaneously nerfing rangers in some other area again, but the entire ranger subforum is filled with hate posts every time nerfs happen.

GW1 gave you full control of your pet at the cost of one (or more) of your skill slots being used as a pet skill slot. Why can’t it be done here?

Different framework + modified engine. Having not played gw1 I assume you have more skills to use, and having one of your skills replaced by a pet skill slot isn’t as problematic as it would have been in gw2?

Coming from a game design background a lot of decisions dev made are based on technical reasons. Not all, of course, but a lot.

It was an 8 slot skill bar. We had fewer skill slots but freeform selection.

Dirame.8521:

It was an 8 slot skill bar. We had fewer skills but freeform selection.

In that case it’s most probably a technical issue than a game design one.

showatt.9413:

Dirame.8521:

It was an 8 slot skill bar. We had fewer skills but freeform selection.

In that case it’s most probably a technical issue than a game design one.

I really don’t understand such a technical limitation. What would be limiting them to not do something like that? Especially when the pets themselves have special skills that they use when they feel like it.

I like Dirame.8521’s idea. Make pet-centric utility skills. It gets around the balance issue of adding an extra ability and makes the risk/reward component optional.

Even then, there are better things to address. A lot of abilities across all professions lack depth, particularly weapon abilities. It’s a better use of developer time to address those first.

Calling a Developer lazy because he didn’t agree with your ideas is childish.

He simply said that most players cannot handle 4 buttons, and hes right. I don’t play elementalist because I can’t handle attuning to 4 different sets of weapon skills.

It would also be a balance Nightmare.

Dirame.8521:

showatt.9413:

Dirame.8521:

It was an 8 slot skill bar. We had fewer skills but freeform selection.

In that case it’s most probably a technical issue than a game design one.

I really don’t understand such a technical limitation. What would be limiting them to not do something like that? Especially when the pets themselves have special skills that they use when they feel like it.

I am by no means a programmer, so if my attempted answer is wrong, please forgive. With that disclaimer in mind, here is the potential answer to your question:

It is probable that pet skills exist on a different system to normal utility skill and weapon skills. If you were to make the pet skill replacing the utility skills it would be trying to blend two separate system together, which – while not impossible – will certainly be difficult and time consuming.

We are talking about revamping an existing system, which will need approval from the higher ups, game designers to actively troubleshoot said ideas, tooltip artist and typewriter to construct and document the changes, programmers attempting to bugproof (which won’t work flawlessly) before they make the changes, and bugfix after they’re done.

All of this will take time, resource and money, something they can’t probably afford right now with all the other changes and stuff they’ve got going on. The fact that this little change is fairly insignificant, and the effort to make this change outweigh the benefit by tenfold certainly doesn’t help.

There you have it.
Once again, I am by all means not a programmer, nor do i work for Anet, but this is probably the most probable reason I can think of coming from a game design/business point of view.

showatt.9413:

Dirame.8521:

showatt.9413:

Dirame.8521:

It was an 8 slot skill bar. We had fewer skills but freeform selection.

In that case it’s most probably a technical issue than a game design one.

I really don’t understand such a technical limitation. What would be limiting them to not do something like that? Especially when the pets themselves have special skills that they use when they feel like it.

The fact that this little change is fairly insignificant, and the effort to make this change outweigh the benefit by tenfold certainly doesn’t help.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge but as a person who loves this game I would not call improving the connection between the player and the game “fairly insignificant”.

When I first tried the Ranger, everything I did with the class felt automatic (and not the good kind). There was a major disconnect between me and the game and I absolutely loathed ranged weapons because of this. I literally had to stumble upon the “stowing/swapping trick” in order to get a better sense of when my pet will use it’s signature ability (not the ones you can activate but the other skills like the Canine knockdown or the Moa heal) so I could better control it.

Changing the system to make you take control of the actions of the pet (quite similarly to what is being done now with Ranger signets in GW2) would make me feel more in control of the action. This change may not be as important as introducing better rewards for PvP but it is definitely not insignificant and will ultimately make the Ranger a lot more involved when playing it.

Dirame.8521:

GW1 gave you full control of your pet at the cost of one (or more) of your skill slots being used as a pet skill slot. Why can’t it be done here.

1.) They were useless in anything short of B/P (which was PvE) or IWAY (which was W/R not R/X). Edit: I forgot thumpers!
2.) The control you were slotted came at the cost of your utility, which in this case, adding MORE buttons, completely circumvents. You give them more control without taking anything away. Therein, the developer is perfectly correct that adding more buttons does harm rather than good.
3.) In GW1 the actual control over the pet AI (sans abilities) is identical now as then: attack, defend, sit.

If you want, to say, add in utility skills which let you fire off #2, that’s a different matter entirely. Just adding more buttons would simply imbalance the class and just plain nerfing the ranger to counteract it would make anything but Beastmaster strictly inferior.

Vena.8436:

Dirame.8521:

GW1 gave you full control of your pet at the cost of one (or more) of your skill slots being used as a pet skill slot. Why can’t it be done here.

1.) They were useless in anything short of B/P (which was PvE) or IWAY (which was W/R not R/X).
2.) The control you were slotted came at the cost of your utility, which in this case, adding MORE buttons, completely circumvents. You give them more control without taking anything away. Therein, the developer is perfectly correct that adding more buttons does harm rather than good.
3.) In GW1 the actual control over the pet AI (sans abilities) is identical now as then: attack, defend, sit.

If you want, to say, add in utility skills which let you fire off #2, that’s a different matter entirely. Just adding more buttons would simply imbalance the class and just plain nerfing the ranger to counteract it would make anything but Beastmaster strictly inferior.

I’m not for adding more buttons (I know I didn’t clearly state that). I would rather have the option of putting one of their skills on my utility bar so I have a better sense of what the pet is going to do next.

Dirame.8521:

I’m not for adding more buttons (I know I didn’t clearly state that). I would rather have the option of putting one of their skills on my utility bar so I have a better sense of what the pet is going to do next.

That’s fine.

The SotG comment was about just adding more buttons for control (unless my memory is completely shot by my current massive caffeine high). But many people are talking about blankly incorporating more controls into the class, just look at the OP, its asking for toggles same as the standard F#-keys.

… or the posts following mine. >.>

showatt.9413:

I am by no means a programmer, so if my attempted answer is wrong, please forgive. With that disclaimer in mind, here is the potential answer to your question:

It is probable that pet skills exist on a different system to normal utility skill and weapon skills. If you were to make the pet skill replacing the utility skills it would be trying to blend two separate system together, which – while not impossible – will certainly be difficult and time consuming.

We are talking about revamping an existing system, which will need approval from the higher ups, game designers to actively troubleshoot said ideas, tooltip artist and typewriter to construct and document the changes, programmers attempting to bugproof (which won’t work flawlessly) before they make the changes, and bugfix after they’re done.

All of this will take time, resource and money, something they can’t probably afford right now with all the other changes and stuff they’ve got going on. The fact that this little change is fairly insignificant, and the effort to make this change outweigh the benefit by tenfold certainly doesn’t help.

There you have it.
Once again, I am by all means not a programmer, nor do i work for Anet, but this is probably the most probable reason I can think of coming from a game design/business point of view.

I’ll try to use logic to get to the conclusion that giving control of pet’s skill on demand isn’t hard to implement.

We all know that the F2 skill is controlled by the player and performed by the pet. This clearly means that they already know how to do this and have the code ready to add other F2-like skills (controlled by the player, performed by the pet).
It is just a matter of copy-paste the code behind the F2 skill to make other user-controlled pet skills.

So making pet skills controlled by the player is clearly possible.

What about giving the option to let the player chose if they want to control the pet’s skills or not?
I think it is possible too.

We already know that it is both possible to let the AI control the skill performing and let the player control them.
So it is just a matter of which portion of code to execute according to a boolean value (want to control it or don’t want to control it). That’s an if clause.

The devs are just so right though. I already have 1 button that I only have to press once to make the pet attack something, 1 button to make them do a unique function, 1 button to make them return to my side that only has to be pressed once, AND a pet swap, on top of my skill bar!!!! It’s already so hard, 1 more thing to have to do and I quit.

/sarcasm

One problem is that it would be much too easy to chain CC. You can do it now, but you have to know how to get your puppy into a position where he prefers to leap rather than anything else. Make it a button press and GG everyone can do it.

Mammoth.1975:

One problem is that it would be much too easy to chain CC. You can do it now, but you have to know how to get your puppy into position to leap. Make it a button press and GG everyone can do it.

Because warriors, necros, and guardians have such a hard time chaining any CC they have….

This is sooo frustrating. We already have 100% pet control with f3 and f1 use but we have to keep track of what point in the attack chains our pets are in.

jcbroe.4329:

Mammoth.1975:

One problem is that it would be much too easy to chain CC. You can do it now, but you have to know how to get your puppy into position to leap. Make it a button press and GG everyone can do it.

Because warriors, necros, and guardians have such a hard time chaining any CC they have….

Those classes can’t do it while CC’d themselves though; but ranger has a pet that can CC WHILE cc’d, the only exception being necro elite pet; which if you take out your elite to do AND your pet cc goes on a 45 second cooldown I’d be okay with.

jcbroe.4329:

Because warriors, necros, and guardians have such a hard time chaining any CC they have….

Pretty sure none of those classes come with a free AI.

Also guardian? Most of their CCs require your opponent to be an idiot and walk into your lines repeatedly or stand still for two extremely blatantly obvious animations.

jcbroe.4329:

Mammoth.1975:

One problem is that it would be much too easy to chain CC. You can do it now, but you have to know how to get your puppy into position to leap. Make it a button press and GG everyone can do it.

Because warriors, necros, and guardians have such a hard time chaining any CC they have….

Sure, but leap>fear>leap>stun isn’t supposed to be in the ranger toolbox, and it’s actually more consecutive CC than anything except a warrior can do. Canines could potentially need a nerf.

More relevant however is the fact that good rangers can already ‘persuade’ their pets to use certain skills when they want them to, so the whole argument about lack of pet control being easier is a little bit misleading.

As a ranger, if they were going to nerf the pet damage and give the player more control, I’d be absolutely 100% for that.

@Vena; you can immobilize into Ring of Warding/Banish. Not the perfect combination obviously, but it isn’t exactly difficult to accomplish. I wasn’t talking about counterplaying the CC though, I was talking about chaining CC. For example, the ranger pet dog winds up it’s knockdown leap for like an eternity before it executes it, so really, just watching it and dodging or being out of leap distance is all that’s needed.

The point I was attempting to make is that rangers, when compared to other classes, have much less control over the same type of mechanics that those classes have more control over. If more control is given, of course any amount of balancing is needed and by me personally would be accepted, but it only makes sense that the more control is given to the player, the tighter the balance has to be.

Also, if you read through my post history, I think you might understand just exactly how much I hate AI in a competitive environment. Of course, you can just take my word for it lol.

Darnis.4056:

jcbroe.4329:

Mammoth.1975:

One problem is that it would be much too easy to chain CC. You can do it now, but you have to know how to get your puppy into position to leap. Make it a button press and GG everyone can do it.

Because warriors, necros, and guardians have such a hard time chaining any CC they have….

Those classes can’t do it while CC’d themselves though; but ranger has a pet that can CC WHILE cc’d, the only exception being necro elite pet; which if you take out your elite to do AND your pet cc goes on a 45 second cooldown I’d be okay with.

Just like a Mesmer Phantasm can do damage whilst the Mesmer is CCed? Or a Necro could blow up his minions? or a Guardian can knock you down with his Spirit Hammer (activated skill which is instant cast)?

And really, isn’t that exactly why a Ranger has a pet? To support them when they are being pummeled? The only thing that changes when the skill is put into the players hands is the timing of when the skill is applied, it’s no longer guess work, it’s now planned. Isn’t that a good thing?

jcbroe.4329:

The point I was attempting to make is that rangers, when compared to other classes, have much less control over the same type of mechanics that those classes have more control over. If more control is given, of course any amount of balancing is needed and by me personally would be accepted, but it only makes sense that the more control is given to the player, the tighter the balance has to be.

I know your point, but you’re missing the finer detail (mammoth elaborated better than I). As I said before, just adding more free functionality is broken. Adding it at opportunity cost in utilities is fine. If you just blankly add more functionality then the beastmaster specs become better than everything else because they not only give you a bunch of rather powerful chain CC skills (at your disposal for free, effectively) and a potent pet but also freedom of utility. You can’t have it both ways.

Dirame.8521:

Just like a Mesmer Phantasm can do damage whilst the Mesmer is CCed? Or a Necro could blow up his minions? or a Guardian can knock you down with his Spirit Hammer (activated skill which is instant cast)?

Those not only require utility sacrifices, they require speccing into some of the lines to make the “allies” even remotely viable. Are you really going to use a Hammer of Wisdom without even a single trait investment (for example)?

The answer is obviously no.

Mammoth.1975:

jcbroe.4329:

Mammoth.1975:

One problem is that it would be much too easy to chain CC. You can do it now, but you have to know how to get your puppy into position to leap. Make it a button press and GG everyone can do it.

Because warriors, necros, and guardians have such a hard time chaining any CC they have….

Sure, but leap>fear>leap>stun isn’t supposed to be in the ranger toolbox, and it’s actually more consecutive CC than anything except a warrior can do. Canines could potentially need a nerf.

How is this not supposed to be in the Ranger toolbox when it is already in the Ranger toolbox?

Yes people can already persuade their pets to do that exact combo but wouldn’t giving them a sure fire way of doing it actually be a nice gesture? And even make it more predictable at that?

Yeah I’m not actually disagreeing with the premise Jroh, just pointing out some problems that could arise, and a problem with the line of reasoning.

There is also the argument that reacting to passives, that much laughed at comment, does actually take skill. Even if you can’t get your pet to knockdown, or he does it early, you can take advantage of that by chaining other CC into it.

Dirame.8521:

Darnis.4056:

jcbroe.4329:

Mammoth.1975:

One problem is that it would be much too easy to chain CC. You can do it now, but you have to know how to get your puppy into position to leap. Make it a button press and GG everyone can do it.

Because warriors, necros, and guardians have such a hard time chaining any CC they have….

Those classes can’t do it while CC’d themselves though; but ranger has a pet that can CC WHILE cc’d, the only exception being necro elite pet; which if you take out your elite to do AND your pet cc goes on a 45 second cooldown I’d be okay with.

Just like a Mesmer Phantasm can do damage whilst the Mesmer is CCed? Or a Necro could blow up his minions? or a Guardian can knock you down with his Spirit Hammer (activated skill which is instant cast)?

And really, isn’t that exactly why a Ranger has a pet? To support them when they are being pummeled? The only thing that changes when the skill is put into the players hands is the timing of when the skill is applied, it’s no longer guess work, it’s now planned. Isn’t that a good thing?

Just wrong

Eurantien.4632:

This is sooo frustrating. We already have 100% pet control with f3 and f1 use but we have to keep track of what point in the attack chains our pets are in.

The using of F1 F3 keeps the pet going back and forth,its kinda stupid to watch,its like we are trolling em..“Go”,“come”,“Go”,“Co…GO”…U mad bro?

But then you can just remove some of the CC effects if necessary for balance lol. I’m not asking for both, I’m asking for the balance necessary to occur for the pets to be made more controllable.

Whoever made the point about the pet being able to CC still while the ranger player is CC’d though, that’s a huge point. So I’m guessing it would have to be possible to make the CC effects disable the pet control mechanics?

It would have to be balanced, absolutely, and like, fine tooth comb balanced. But that doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea, even though it was shut down again by the devs in an SoTG now, so we’re discussing it for almost no reason lol.

The Ranger wouldn’t become overpowered with this change. Even novice Rangers pick up how these skills work. You leave your pet on passive and if the skill is not on cooldown, the first attack made will always be the secondary skill.

Has no one seen a Ranger do the typical knockdown >> fear >> knockdown >> root chain? We already have semi-control over the secondary skills. It’s just too clunky (just like how the current F2 skills are all absolute trash because of how difficult they are to use) outside of the opening of an engagement.

The pet is currently more of a hindrance to the class than an asset because the pets are so easily killed, so difficult to control, can’t hit moving targets, and rely on guesswork once they’ve engaged in combat to use.

More control is needed.

showatt.9413:

Dirame.8521:

showatt.9413:

Dirame.8521:

It was an 8 slot skill bar. We had fewer skills but freeform selection.

In that case it’s most probably a technical issue than a game design one.

I really don’t understand such a technical limitation. What would be limiting them to not do something like that? Especially when the pets themselves have special skills that they use when they feel like it.

I am by no means a programmer, so if my attempted answer is wrong, please forgive. With that disclaimer in mind, here is the potential answer to your question:

It is probable that pet skills exist on a different system to normal utility skill and weapon skills. If you were to make the pet skill replacing the utility skills it would be trying to blend two separate system together, which – while not impossible – will certainly be difficult and time consuming.

We are talking about revamping an existing system, which will need approval from the higher ups, game designers to actively troubleshoot said ideas, tooltip artist and typewriter to construct and document the changes, programmers attempting to bugproof (which won’t work flawlessly) before they make the changes, and bugfix after they’re done.

All of this will take time, resource and money, something they can’t probably afford right now with all the other changes and stuff they’ve got going on. The fact that this little change is fairly insignificant, and the effort to make this change outweigh the benefit by tenfold certainly doesn’t help.

There you have it.
Once again, I am by all means not a programmer, nor do i work for Anet, but this is probably the most probable reason I can think of coming from a game design/business point of view.

This analysis………………………..

If you have no expertise to make a conclusion.. you then have no right to even attempt to discuss that platform.. however, you didn’t just discuss it, you declared it the probable answer.

I AM a programmer.. It depends entirely on how they implemented their abstract for skills. If they’re half intelligent, it would be a pretty easy fix. All a skill should do is “Activate” and the events, despite whatever they may be, will follow from that command. All it would need is for activating the button to call the class that handles the animal AI and tell it to chomp.

This is of course assuming they are even the slightest tiniest bit intelligent.

However, I will claim that making such an adjustment alters the dynamic that I think they were going for. The valid point you did bring up at the very least is that such an adjustment is a huge adjustment, abstractly speaking. Not so much code-wise, just in the way a player perceives the dynamic between pet and player. They are going for a quasi relationship not direct control.

(Don’t think that means I agree btw, for a matter of fact in my opinion I think Anet ruined the ranger in GW2.. but I am biased having played ranger for 6 years in GW1)

Dardamaniac.1295:

Dirame.8521:

Darnis.4056:

jcbroe.4329:

Mammoth.1975:

One problem is that it would be much too easy to chain CC. You can do it now, but you have to know how to get your puppy into position to leap. Make it a button press and GG everyone can do it.

Because warriors, necros, and guardians have such a hard time chaining any CC they have….

Those classes can’t do it while CC’d themselves though; but ranger has a pet that can CC WHILE cc’d, the only exception being necro elite pet; which if you take out your elite to do AND your pet cc goes on a 45 second cooldown I’d be okay with.

Just like a Mesmer Phantasm can do damage whilst the Mesmer is CCed? Or a Necro could blow up his minions? or a Guardian can knock you down with his Spirit Hammer (activated skill which is instant cast)?

And really, isn’t that exactly why a Ranger has a pet? To support them when they are being pummeled? The only thing that changes when the skill is put into the players hands is the timing of when the skill is applied, it’s no longer guess work, it’s now planned. Isn’t that a good thing?

Just wrong

How?

Some people hate the idea of a game being just about keybind management. So no, this should never happen. If you want to just play a game where you manage your key binds there are plenty out there. GW is not based on this, it is based on fewer keys.

Dirame.8521:

Dardamaniac.1295:

Dirame.8521:

Darnis.4056:

jcbroe.4329:

Mammoth.1975:

One problem is that it would be much too easy to chain CC. You can do it now, but you have to know how to get your puppy into position to leap. Make it a button press and GG everyone can do it.

Because warriors, necros, and guardians have such a hard time chaining any CC they have….

Those classes can’t do it while CC’d themselves though; but ranger has a pet that can CC WHILE cc’d, the only exception being necro elite pet; which if you take out your elite to do AND your pet cc goes on a 45 second cooldown I’d be okay with.

Just like a Mesmer Phantasm can do damage whilst the Mesmer is CCed? Or a Necro could blow up his minions? or a Guardian can knock you down with his Spirit Hammer (activated skill which is instant cast)?

And really, isn’t that exactly why a Ranger has a pet? To support them when they are being pummeled? The only thing that changes when the skill is put into the players hands is the timing of when the skill is applied, it’s no longer guess work, it’s now planned. Isn’t that a good thing?

Just wrong

How?

I main Ranger in pvp and its not fun to put autopilot and spam 11111111…Rangers are too passive,its not just about the Pet control.Its everything,we dont have combos,we dont have Power builds…Traps were fine at some point,but then came BM…….I heal,dodge AI does everything for me…Now Spirits………You probably dont know that most Rangers hate this Spirit build,the most Spirit Rangers you see are not main,are disapointed Ele-Mesmers that want to play a easy build and win some matches

Lordrosicky.5813:

Some people hate the idea of a game being just about keybind management. So no, this should never happen. If you want to just play a game where you manage your key binds there are plenty out there. GW is not based on this, it is based on fewer keys.

Lordrosicky we are noobs,go to Pro mode forums..

Dardamaniac.1295:

Lordrosicky.5813:

Some people hate the idea of a game being just about keybind management. So no, this should never happen. If you want to just play a game where you manage your key binds there are plenty out there. GW is not based on this, it is based on fewer keys.

Lordrosicky we are noobs,go to Pro mode forums..

You think you know better than someone who does this for a living and has probably got factual info to show people dont like the ranger key binds? Anyone who thinks this really needs to get over themselves

Dardamaniac.1295:

Dirame.8521:

Dardamaniac.1295:

Dirame.8521:

Darnis.4056:

jcbroe.4329:

Mammoth.1975:

One problem is that it would be much too easy to chain CC. You can do it now, but you have to know how to get your puppy into position to leap. Make it a button press and GG everyone can do it.

Because warriors, necros, and guardians have such a hard time chaining any CC they have….

Those classes can’t do it while CC’d themselves though; but ranger has a pet that can CC WHILE cc’d, the only exception being necro elite pet; which if you take out your elite to do AND your pet cc goes on a 45 second cooldown I’d be okay with.

Just like a Mesmer Phantasm can do damage whilst the Mesmer is CCed? Or a Necro could blow up his minions? or a Guardian can knock you down with his Spirit Hammer (activated skill which is instant cast)?

And really, isn’t that exactly why a Ranger has a pet? To support them when they are being pummeled? The only thing that changes when the skill is put into the players hands is the timing of when the skill is applied, it’s no longer guess work, it’s now planned. Isn’t that a good thing?

Just wrong

How?

I main Ranger in pvp and its not fun to put autopilot and spam 11111111…Rangers are too passive,its not just about the Pet control.Its everything,we dont have combos,we dont have Power builds…Traps were fine at some point,but then came BM…….I heal,dodge AI does everything for me…Now Spirits………You probably dont know that most Rangers hate this Spirit build,the most Spirit Rangers you see are not main,are disapointed Ele-Mesmers that want to play a easy build and win some matches

All my comments in this thread support what you are saying right now. Put more control into the player’s hands. Let them decide how passive or active they want to be.

However, the problem I see with the ideas I’ve suggested about putting pet skills on your utility bar is the fact that Rangers have two pets. How is Anet going to allow you to swap pets and swap utility skills at the same time? Especially when the F1 was probably built to fix that problem.

I guess this is where having a generic skill that allows you to do a particular thing with a pet, regardless of which pet, would be better suited.

Lordrosicky.5813:

Dardamaniac.1295:

Lordrosicky.5813:

Some people hate the idea of a game being just about keybind management. So no, this should never happen. If you want to just play a game where you manage your key binds there are plenty out there. GW is not based on this, it is based on fewer keys.

Lordrosicky we are noobs,go to Pro mode forums..

You think you know better than someone who does this for a living and has probably got factual info to show people dont like the ranger key binds? Anyone who thinks this really needs to get over themselves

That was just sarcasm cause i read in every comment you make how people dont know what they are talking about and they are noobs and how guys like you should be heard etc..

Dardamaniac.1295:

Lordrosicky.5813:

Dardamaniac.1295:

Lordrosicky.5813:

Some people hate the idea of a game being just about keybind management. So no, this should never happen. If you want to just play a game where you manage your key binds there are plenty out there. GW is not based on this, it is based on fewer keys.

Lordrosicky we are noobs,go to Pro mode forums..

You think you know better than someone who does this for a living and has probably got factual info to show people dont like the ranger key binds? Anyone who thinks this really needs to get over themselves

That was just sarcasm cause i read in every comment you make how people dont know what they are talking about and they are noobs and how guys like you should be heard etc..

I never said I should be heard. And I said once or twice maybe that they shouldnt listen to the forums that much because people dont have a clue. Any more lies or exaggerations or have you done humiliating yourself?

No offense, but Jon needs to actually PLAY as a Ranger in sPvP for a few weeks, level it up from 1 to 80 for PvE, run every dungeon and instance, and play for a month or two in WvW as one before he can make such commentary. He doesn’t know jack kitten about the Ranger until he does that, at which point THEN he’ll know what we do and do not need. Until then, he’s ignorant and will only come across as foolish whenever he states what the Ranger class needs.

bump. been talking about this for a long time.

now, Jon speaks of PvE Elementalists who do not swap attunements as a rebuttal to why this change would not be practical for lower skilled play. but what is happening by using this justification, is that the skill ceiling, or skill potential, is being restricted due to players who only operate at the skill floor.

to continue with the Ele example:

sure, a PvE Elementalist might just want to sit in Fire. but this doesn’t stop a PvP Elementalist from utilizing all his attunements to the best of his ability ( without impacting the enjoyment of the player who just stays in fire ).

A PvP Ranger does not have this luxury.

this change would also beneficially affect build diversity ( useless pets would all of a sudden have niche specs. eg. Moa in a support build ).

sorrow.2364:

I’ll try to use logic to get to the conclusion that giving control of pet’s skill on demand isn’t hard to implement.

We all know that the F2 skill is controlled by the player and performed by the pet. This clearly means that they already know how to do this and have the code ready to add other F2-like skills (controlled by the player, performed by the pet).
It is just a matter of copy-paste the code behind the F2 skill to make other user-controlled pet skills.

So making pet skills controlled by the player is clearly possible.

What about giving the option to let the player chose if they want to control the pet’s skills or not?
I think it is possible too.

We already know that it is both possible to let the AI control the skill performing and let the player control them.
So it is just a matter of which portion of code to execute according to a boolean value (want to control it or don’t want to control it). That’s an if clause.

If you would actually read the post I was responding to, you’d understand that I wasn’t trying to explain why “adding another pet skill” won’t work. I was actually talking about how ‘making pet skill replace an exist utility might take a lot of time than you’d think’, as the person I was responding to was talking about gw1.

As for the notion that ranger should be able to command pet to use their secondary skill, my stance on that matter is fairly clear. While it is certainly technically possible and would not take nearly as much time as replacing utility skill with pet skill, the effect sounds to me very overpowering.

I have already explained this in a previous response, and if you’re having a tough time convincing me, who is a ranger and plays only ranger, that it’d be a good idea to implement such change, I think you’ll have even less a chance to convince the actual developers to follow through.