Guild Wars 2

Quarktastic.1027:

Other MMOs seem to have much better systems in place for handling these types of skill queue situations. When I commanded my pets to use a skill in say, Perfect World, they used that skill. Less complex combat system and mechanics yes, but it functioned properly.

On that note, the fern hound’s F2 is still bugged. If you attempt to cast it immediately upon swapping to the hound, it will occasionally do nothing and go on full cooldown.

Also, toxic knights can dodge roll. Why can’t our pets do this?

Thing about point-and-click games like PWI/WoW is that the pet animation is nothing more than an animation. Often times the actual skill takes place and then the animation is performed client-side as it’s sending the message to the servers to make another player notice he’s being hit by it. Due to the fact that these games don’t have real interactions and whatnot between the servers, the animation appears to be more successful and smooth. If you’ve ever seen gameplay from two sides at once, often times the positioning of players as represented in each client is slightly different for both with a delay period between both of them. Again, since there’s no hitbox/dodge scanning, the ability triggers as long as at one point the target is within range and then simply scores a guaranteed hit regardless of where the target moved to.

It boils down to technological issues at the end of the day.

For those saying to make the pets automatically land their skills/land the effect before the animation, you’re crazy. Having a guaranteed-hit blind from birds and other CC abilities is totally absurd due to the fact there’d be no visual queue. Sound isn’t so much an issue because shouts don’t have a real hitbox and would give an inherent disadvantage to those who may not have hearing or have hearing problems. Visual is kind of necessary, for one must be able to see in order to play the game and use a computer to begin with.

Only see it as “necessary” to make it such that different armor/dye combinations look better with the attacking colors.

Dunno about you, but it kinda pains me a bit to have my character looking awesome in orange but shooting purple/pink lasers :\

The main issue being that if you make the cast/animation client-side, issues like lag and server extrapolation throw a HUGE monkey wrench into the mix. Then you’d have instances in Player-versus-player content the pet would effectively hit the target potentially before the target gets the visual queue to dodge. Seeing as this game features dodges and whatnot, this is a pretty serious problem which would make people get hit out of nowhere, the pet being far away visually, and then the pet would appear way after striking the target due to server communications.

Honestly, without instantaneous computation/decision making AI-wise (impossible) and instantaneous communication between client→server→client→server→client, asking for anything but the current system will have massive problems.

Reality is the ranger needs a ground-up rework. ANet made the ranger from a mix of two failed classes, warden and beastmaster, and combined Archer elements with it because it fit thematically and archer could not be made into a class by itself due to its restrictiveness. The first two were failed because they also didn’t have enough variability and depth from ANet’s perspective to warrant individual classes. Thus, all three got combined.

Ranger simply needs tweaking to allow people to specialize these ways. Solo-archer, beastmaster, and woodsman/warden/nature magician are all cool archetypes that players want to play. Issue is, the traits and styles are two dispersed in the ranger tree to really allow anyone to play the way they want to.

The best way to fix the broken pet issues would be to reward players more for using BeastMastery-style play. Want pet effectiveness to go up? Like spirits, let the player run multiple pets at once for deep investment in Beast Mastery at a cost of weapon damage and grant the pets’ attacks AOE’s and player-stat scaling as to prevent whiffing and the likes. Two pets = more chances to hit, and with proper development, they’d have two separate movement paths to also help counteract possible whiffing.

For the warden builds, give them more utility and heals with the nature theme, like rooting nearby targets upon reaching low health with roots coming from the grounds, obviously playing more into healing springs, etc.

And for the Archer builds, run more solo-character DPS supported by the utility from both BM and Warden styles, to say have a pet (if brought out in combat) help soak aggro while utilizing natural roots to immobilize the enemy and strike from a distance (of course, applying a penalty to damage if pet is out like there currently is and allow the pet to compensate for it).

Those types of changes are what the ranger REALLY needs. AI will never improve until technology effectively breaks the laws of physics (never happening). Pets work in other games due to different dynamics which allow them to. Visual queues for dodging are essential to maintain, so the delay will always exist.

But, of course, ANet will likely keep using the busted pet mechanics because they’re too proud of their hodge-podge of failed classes actually being a class than solidifying the game and becoming a better studio at the expense of eating their words for the benefit of the players.

CETheLucid.3964:

DeceiverX.8361:

All that jazz

TL;DR
buff bow, no pet is better, srs real life example and so that is why my fantasy video games shouldn’t let us use pets in most situations.

You’re entitled to your opinion there but the fact is, pet’s aren’t going anywhere. Bow has been getting buffed every balance update, due another this next one.

Marksmanship/archery is very important to the ranger class. They’re not ignoring it. There will also be something there for pets. Maybe.

It probably won’t be your “everything about pets is perfect now” fix though. That’s very likely going to happen over time. Unless suddenly awesome.

And even when that does happen eventually, Rangers will still have pets that need to be managed to be effective.

If that’s not for you, you should move on.

Again, it’s about how much they account for our play.

I don’t see warriors requiring maximum adrenaline management. Most of the adrenaline skills are kind of underwhelming, actually.

Nor do I see thieves building entirely steal-based. Most run stealth over stealing. Stealth to thief = bow to ranger. Not the class mechanic, but DEFINITELY has a huge presence in building and defining the class.

Eles run arcane just because it’s got the best traits which work for all styles. It’s got less to do with arcane magic and attunement cooldowns and more to do with the other traits just being pointless.

I could continue. Honestly, aside from like necro, I can see viable build options for every other class that totally ignores their class feature. The class feature definitely helps define the class and makes it different, but it shouldn’t be the end-all choice of playstyle.

Because ANet strives for build diversity. That’s a fact. To model their game this way would be to totally contradict their entire design perspective.

Again, there’s no alternative to the archer ranger… or any archer at all, really. Give us just an archer build, and the complaints will fizzle. They might as well just allow for pets to be stow-able, then.

I still don’t see why people fight this suggestion. All it does is make different ranger playstyles better in some areas but keeps them the same, otherwise. Pets will never be fixed. It’s been stated by ANet that response time will never increase, and will not be changed. So if the pet fails to work in certain environments, why not just be able to not use it and be compensated for it if you don’t?

If people are worried about non-pet builds being better at certain things, then that’s their issue in failing to recognize that some builds JUST WORK BETTER for some things than other. It’s like running a build that runs no condi removal with full berserker gear while trying to melee fight Subject Alpha. Whether or not you dodge the nukes is one thing, but you still end up burning to death because your heals will be too low and you won’t kill it fast enough.

So then a build with proper regen/heals to mitigate the burning easily does better. Is this OP? Not really. They just had the better class for the occasion.

Distinction and diversity is important in class-based RPG’s if some builds just do not work conceptually for some fights. ANet has tried to avoid this, but has failed. Instead of fixing the entire game, they’d only need to address fewer smaller problems which create some necessary distinction and make everyone happy for once.

What I like most is the actual lack of gameplay.

They’re telling the community to L2P and deal with it because it apparently works, yet nowhere do they actually demonstrate the so-called potential this class has.

Effectively they’re merely saying, “We did the math and from an ideological perspective, such as using and maximizing scholar rune potential and the likes, we can determine that rangers can possibly be factors when played with lots of skill and attention, and our justification is not in actual experience but in running the numbers and hitting some mobs. Also, we’re not going to provide any real insight on how to play the class well, or unveil the secrets the community has missed. We’re just going to tell people to run 30 precision and spam F2 stealth on cats.”

I hoped this video would teach me something – even as a decade-long archer main over countless games, I was optimistic in hoping to learn something critical I might have missed. All I got out of this video was ANet proving yet again they have absolutely no idea what the Ranger is nor do they care enough to fix it.

Neko.9021:

Burnfall.9573:

Sincerely, i can’t get this truth ranger video out of my head. What sadden me the most, is when the truth speaks within the soul to my poor ranger of how she has been deceived and manipulated far too long, into thinking she would be taken care of and how much she was special.

I ranger, stand alone, with a shattered heart, broken in million of pieces.

Held in a solitary prison, designed solely for me, left abandoned by my creator.

In my prison, i am constantly being reminded, how much a failure i am, how much pain i must bear, how much suffering i must abide to.

If i scream; no one will hear me, if i cry in agony; no one will listen to me, if i pray for salvation; death comes and torments me.

Light, i don’t want to cry in anymore, i don’t want to scream anymore, i don’t want to pray anymore.

Light; I stretch my fragile arms to you, embrace me, hold me, release me, from this hurtful, this hateful world of guild wars 2.

:( Ranger

Uh, are you okay?

Yea, not sure if trying to be melodramatic and trolly or in serious need of help.

CETheLucid.3964:

Tako.7894:

Ryan.9387:

I think the simplest solution to your problem is this,

Don’t play Ranger.

I think the simplest solution to your reaction is this:

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Ranger_02_concept_art.jpg

Hold it!

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Juvenile_Hawk.jpg

Warriors have adrenaline skills. Mesmers have clones.

Rangers were always going to be a pet class. You came into the game knowing that. They’re working on our problems. There are problems.

But rangers will always have pets.

They’re not going away. We’re as likely to lose our pets as mesmers are to lose their phantasms and clones, or warriors are to lose their adrenaline mechanic.

Take it or leave it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV28ZEJOZfQ

It’s funny, because the class description implies that archery is just as important of a role as having a pet.

Quoted from the class description:

Rangers are flexible and durable—proficient with the bow, yet surgical with the sword. They rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature to slay their targets. Their loyal pets, which rangers tame and train, distract enemies while the rangers strike safely from a distance.

Also note that the book “The Making of Guild Wars 2” even explicitly states that the ranger is actually a hodge-podge of class ideas that never properly made it to the game. Stating that their current design as a dedicated beastmaster is some kind of master design is just factually incorrect. Pets became their mechanic because it was the only thing that made them stand out properly next to other classes.

Again, people are not so much anti-pet but against pet dependency and how much it inhibits people, as well as how there’s no alternative.

Pets dealing only a minimal portion of our damage would just be overpowered (it used to be this way in beta) because then the ranger shells out normal DPS with tons of extra utility and an aggro magnet.

It’s gotta be one or the other. What I don’t understand is why the ranger cannot be rewarded for not using his pet. Thematically, the damage reduction also even make sense, because when hunting with a pet, one must be more careful as to not kill his own animal. Take the pet out of consideration and one can be much more liberal with shots.

Not to mention that you only take a hunting pet when it’s necessary. I don’t know of many big-game hunters who use retrievers to help fetch or kill targets. Go moose hunting and have your dog try and kill it. Likely you’ll see your dog get gored into many small fragments spewing blood and guts everywhere. Last I checked, people who like their pets prefer not to send them on suicide missions.

jcbroe.4329:

Okay, so being on both sides of the games content, I’ve usually always stayed out of these ridiculous *SPvP versus WvW" argument because they are silly.

INSERT AMAZING POST OF TRUTH HERE
(Cut due to length, otherwise would quote entirely)

Totally and 100% agree. You, sir, are one of the few voices of reason I’ve seen weigh WvW vs PvP.

The game should not be balanced around either. Neither require more skill (I will admit a lot of commanders are HORRIBLE at WvW, especially having moved from SoR to IoJ I can see it and it saddens me how different it is). ANet needs to recognize that this is an RPG and by far NOT eSport material. It’s great that they tried, but they really need to end the gimmick and stop pretending. Classes should be evaluated based on overall effectiveness and build paths. Nobody’s forcing anyone into sPvP or WvW or PvE. Ultimately in order to achieve balance, discrepancies need to exist in certain areas within class build options and class choices. Additionally, ANet should examine how many people partake in sPvP/WvW/PvE respectively, and calculate how to balance the game based on the number of people who play in what ways. If there is an overwhelming number of people playing PvE, balancing should be made according to this, while examining the metagames of the other game modes to see how the changes would affect them. If nothing changes, then it’s a win-win.

Fluffball.8307:

It’s just called a ranger though. You can make a thief or warrior and roleplay it as though it were a lone wolf Aragorn type guy. Both of them can use a bow and duel wield melee weapons with no pet. Aragorn was a ranger in the sense of one who ranges/roams, he might as well have been the thief class or warrior class. (Eventually he became a guardian too!)

Would anyone complain if you were able to rename the profession of a warrior you rolled to “warden” and kept everything else totally identical?

Double post but whatever.

Nobody really cares what it’s called, honestly. There’s simply no alternative archer class. People say ‘Go play sb thief or LB warrior then" all the time, and almost every person who says it has not played either warrior, thief, or ranger. Reality is sb thief comes close, but it’s in no way viable as a build. It also suffers from a huge problem in that every autoattack always AOE’s, and your damage radius is shorter than most casters’. Kinda silly to play as an archer when you have no distinct range advantage.

For LB warrior, it’s a whole different ball game. You’re playing a heavy that shoots fireballs. Go ahead and try it. I think it plays more like ele than anything else. Not to mention power/precision builds simply do not work in this case, and you effectively just become a condi tank.

That’s really the critical factor, here. Rangers’ description states that the pet distracts the target while the ranger shoots the target down with devastating ranged attacks. Funny how those devastating ranged attacks are in fact not devastating, nor are they even ranged if a ranger is trying to build in any viable way.

So as mentioned above, either put LB on thief or ele (could be really cool tbh), or create a new class altogether and make ranger the dedicated pet class it rightfully should be, or simply allow for pets to be disabled.

There’s an easy fix among them that would prevent a lot of unnecessary complications, too, like people wasting efforts on a class they really didn’t want to play and being forced to reroll into another, and the likes.

That’s what this issue is really about. It’s not about rangers being upset that the class mechanic is pets, but them being upset there’s no archer alternative in the entire game worth playing.

That’s a huge shortcoming on ANet’s part, considering they basically just told a massive chunk of players under the pretense they would be able to play a viable archer (based again on flavor text and class description) to “deal with it and we’re not catering to you.” Does that sound like good management/design? Absolutely not.

Medens.4960:

Einlanzer.1627:

Ryan.9387:

I think the simplest solution to your problem is this,

Don’t play Ranger.

While I respect your frankness, the problem with this is that there are many character archetypes contained within the Ranger class that don’t fit the theming of any other class. So I want to play a rugged wilderness survivor, but I don’t want to pet. What am I left with? Nothing. I don’t really think that’s an optimal situation. Pets should always be an optional component of any class unless the entire class concept revolves around pets (like say a puppetmaster class).

If all the classes would have (an option for) pets, ranger would be more useless than it already is. In pve my pet is the key of my survivability. Without it I would die and I would be useless.

This is an L2P issue pertaining to reliance on pets, then. I have no problems soloing content without mine despite the fact I take 67% longer to kill mobs. I also run a full LB/SB pure zerker archer. Give me the damage I lose from the pet and I’ll gladly one-up anyone because I’ve been playing and maining squishy DPS archers in games for over a decade.

Medens.4960:

Warriors and guardians already have huge hits and hp and survivability. Addidng a pet to that would make them immortal in PvE.

I don’t have a problem with the pet myself, but I haven’t been in a dungeon/fractal yet, so I might change my mind.

If they lose 40% of their damage for summoning a pet like the ranger does, I see no problem. So they’re tanky in PvE. Okay, cool. WvW the pets still get blasted. Major bosses the pets still get blasted. Dungeon runs and pets get blasted. Serious SPvP the pets get ignored because the ranger is running bunker spirits, anyways. If Warriors/Guards lose 40% of their damage, they can’t burst anyone down. All I see coming from this would just make them tankier in PvE at the expense of their own damage. This is the problem the ranger faces that people actively don’t like. I don’t need that gimmicky mechanic to stay alive and avoid hits. What I do need is the damage to actually kill my target so that I’m not just endlessly running away because I know I cannot kill anything else. Ranger has nothing to bring to the table for staying alive except for healing spring, so it’s not like building hyper-tank is even worthwhile just because that spot could be so much better-used by a real support/tank class running with a pet.

I don’t see why people contest the idea of stowing the pet for a damage increase. People like myself just want to play the game like they want to – as an archer – and no other class offers the experience. Either they need to give another class the longbow, like the thief (all rangers will re-roll lol), create a whole new class (near impossible), or actually fix and allow the choice of removing the pet for the damage lost.

There’s nothing to argue, here. Pets are amazing in open world PvE and allow for easy soloing of almost anything. ANet wants more build diversity, and people want to play in a way that is simply not offered. Pet AI/skill delay fixes are a literal impossibility as stated by JP in the Dec 10 thread, for client-side animations/skill use would allow for people to hack skills for damage and therefore have infinite skill spamming potential.

Nobody’s asking to remove pets. People just want to play an archer without one for both stylistic choices and because the mechanic doesn’t function in some scenarios.

Any build you want. Pets in general make it super easy to open world PvE with. I had no problems with champions running bird/zerker.

Mine die depending on situation. In the open world, unless I’m soloing champions, they never fall. I’ll agree with the OP in that they make the game easymode for such content. I also run birds. Even then, I have no issues with pets dying to champions seeing as they soak aggro and cannot dodge. They shouldn’t be that tanky.

I do not blame my deaths for my pet dying. I solo the content just the same as if it stays alive, despite the aggro on me.

People complain about pet death mostly for WvW and dungeons. It’s fairly easy for them to die there (if you’re using the less resilient pets), and the big issue is that when they’re down, you lose a huge chunk of damage. Taking 67% longer to kill something due to a mechanic you cannot avoid is kind of lame and justifies the complaints. This especially applies to WvW, where AOE’s and burst damage are the names of the game. Pet gets trapped in five circles and dies instantly unlike a player who can dodge out. Pet dies? Shame you can’t out-damage your opponent’s heals unless they’re significantly-up-scaled noobies in bad gear and missing skills.

Tyops.5894:

This, I think, more than anything else is a huge part of the problem.

You have had 1.5 years and more to pick at these low hanging fruit. You can keep doing that if you like be that will be pretty much like rearranging deck chairs on the titanic. The issues with this class more than any other class wont be fixed without some major work on all of pets, trait lines, and weapon skills.

A fairly large number of rangers have known this and asked for this for a very long time. I’m fairly certain other developers and yourself have been aware of it too. The tweaks are nice but in the end will always fall short and this is why whenever we have some nice ranger changes the prevalent attitude on the forums is “yes, but…”

On a side note I find that the repeated shortbow nerfs utterly inexplicable. The most recent range change was especially baffling. I understand some people think that flavourwise the SB shouldn’t fire as far as the long bow, but how much sense does it make for rangers to throw axes as far as they can shoot a bow?

I think a lot of the changes for this class, including the changes proposed for this patch, testify to a real lack of vision and direction for the ranger. It would be helpful if you were to restate what your vision for the class is (i.e., those lovely paragraphs that tell players what they can expect from a class when we create a new character) and refocus your balancing efforts to make sure this is true for the ranger.

The low hanging furit approach is what you’ve been doing for 1.5 years and for this class, this will not work. Please please please stop doing that, roll up your selves and and get to work on the core issues.

YUP

Re-examining this class in how it should be expected to be played is critical at this point. As I iterated earlier, the ranger is a hodge-podge of traits with no real synergy with an animal companion. Low-hanging fruit fixes are great… if the problems are simple. Simply put, the problems ranger faces are not simple, and the obvious lack of understanding as to what this class is supposed to represent and do on the battlefield is definitely inhibiting these low-hanging fruit fixes from having more of an impact or any real justification.

What is the ranger? From my experience, all I get out of it is a tree-hugger with a big sword and a pet. Sounds harsh, but that’s really all I get out of it. There’s no flavor, no synergy, blatant D&D rip-offs, and no diversity.

The other classes seem so well-refined and definitively answer the question as to what they do.

Thief is a squishy and slippery skirmisher that strikes his foe in ways the foe cannot retaliate.

Warrior is a brutish weapons-master that can do almost anything with confidence and enough strength.

Mesmers bewilder their enemies with their clones and make the battlefield for their enemies more confusing and difficult to maintain a lead.

Elementalists can adapt and change their fighting style – and element – to any situation or circumstance to get an upper hand.

Guardians utilize tactics and locking down their enemies to inhibit retaliation or support allies.

Engineers find that area control and stability make for easy victories.

Necromancers utilize unconventional – if not self-inflicting – combat styles and life force while embracing death to overbear their enemies by either out-lasting them in a damage race or crippling their foes to enter a fight weakened and dying.

Ranger… has a pet and likes nature!

See the problem?

I’m noticing that you’re following this thread pretty closely, Mr. Peters, so I’d really like for you to at least provide us with some insight pertaining to a commonly-discussed and controversial topic raised on these boards pertaining to the design and play goals of the ranger.

As it stands, the dependency on the pet is a huge turn-off for a lot of players seeking an archer-style class. Simply, the ranger isn’t viable as an archer in most formats due to the dependency on its pet. When the pet dies, the ranger loses a lot of its damage and utility due to these dependencies. Notably, it takes the ranger 67% longer to kill a target – assuming it doesn’t heal – when the pet is not in combat compared to when it is, or compared to other classes. That number is quite huge. The increases to LB damage is nice, however the difference is going to be negligible due to the fact LB damage is already so low to begin with.

The pet is definitely the class feature, but do you consider it an absolutely essential one? Build diversity is something that everyone wants more of, so do you think reworking the “stow pet” button to permanently store pets for a boon which increases damage significantly is a possibility? No ranger should want to send his pet into situations where he knows it will die, and hunting with a pet usually requires a lot of extra precautions so that the hunter doesn’t kill his own animal. The idea of the ranger being a lot less conservative without his pet nearby simply makes sense, and would appease a lot of people, even if it were a trait requiring deep investment.

Moreover, implementing a trait or something based along the lines of “vengeance” which massively increases damage dealt by the ranger when his pet dies (cancelled when a new one is brought out) could also be a possibility to keep the pet role there and keep its significance to the character intact. That said, I fear players may end up purposely trying to kill off their pets this way, then.

If you think that the ranger’s pet is something which absolutely has to stay, do you plan on allowing for players to take on the role of an archer in other ways in the future? As it stands, there really isn’t anything comparable in terms of both aesthetic style and play style, but the lack of freedom is something which really upsets a large portion of the community.

I really do hope you take the time to address some of these concerns. I among many others feel in a constant state of love/hate when playing my ranger; I love the feel of the way you designed the archer, but hate being so tied down to my pet and made useless either when it dies or when I need to keep it out of combat so that it doesn’t. At least getting some answers concept-wise to help reassure if this is the right class for me would be amazing, for if there’s hope that the archer playstyle might exist somewhere in GW2, I’d definitely like to pursue it further.

Again, or simply just allow thief or ele to get the archer/longbow ’hunter" or “sniper” style of play.

Thief gets long-distance single-target damage which they do not have as a build path. It’d allow for a mobile and more sneaky ranger. This would even be fine with applied reductions to closer targets, for thieves have viable melee alternatives as well.

Ele with a bow resolves the issues of build diversity for each attunement could change up the effects on certain skills and imbuing arrows/the bow itself, making it both graphically impressive and fitting into the attunement style while allowing players to make decisions based upon flaming/shatter/piercing/bleeding arrows mid-combat, or focus on one element to maximize efficiency. No need for new classes.

There is no better option in thief/warrior, though. That is, assuming you’re referring to playing with a bow. LB warrior plays nothing like an archer. I think it feels more like a caster tbh. It’s slow, clunky, and really fails to encapsulate the image and style of the archer. SB thief isn’t a viable build. It’s a great utility weapon that allows for some nice kiting with #3 due to cripple/leap back, and poison field is great, however the whole kit is too AOE-based. It works wonders for tagging people in WvW/zerg, however after many attempts of trying to make it work as a mainhand weapon, especially with its range distance nerfs, it simply just doesn’t.

I’d argue that the ambiguity and blurred lines between classes is what makes games better, and factually, is something ANet tried to accomplish with this game regarding the stat and trait bonuses being so different based on build patterns. There’s currently something for everyone out there… except archer players.

I disagree there, too. I believe the pet mechanic is a good one when it’s desired. I find it facilitates play quite a bit in open-world PvE, and it certainly allows for extra utility. The ranger should know before getting into combat whether or not he’ll need his pet – why would he enter a fight with a pet under the expectation that his beloved pet will die, especially if he’s attached to it and has been with it for as long as he can remember? It simply isn’t logical, and that class mechanic is what defines the ranger from the other classes. The lines would be blurred, perhaps, seeing as the ranger may roam solo, however this doesn’t make it even close to the same as another class. It’d be like stating that the ranger should then use initiative while using a shortbow because the thief does.

I have a few questions all kind of linked to one topic. I’d like to hopefully see one of these answered. I also understand that these aren’t very easy questions to answer. However, I think a lot of people would like to see some of these topics discussed.

1.) How do you feel from the design perspective the Ranger should play, such as styles or weapon paradigms? Does this match the current metagame of spirit/bunker Ranger with no bow or with a bow in the offhand just to provide fire while the target gets close?

2.) The Ranger is currently agreed upon by the community is being kind of a hodge-podge mess of traits with a very distinct dependency on their pets, keeping them totally useless in many scenarios, or absolutely required to build into Beast Mastery to help augment their pets. Are there any future plans to streamline the traits to allow players to build more in the way they want to outside of BM/spirit bunker builds?

3.) While obviously there is no distinct archer role in the game due to the desired open-ended-ness GW2 was made to encompass for its classes, do you think that the Ranger was designed to best fulfill this style of play? If yes, what efforts are being made to make this play-style viable (it currently isn’t in most situations due to the pet dependency), and if not, is it out of the question to give another class like the Thief or Elementalist the longbow to allow players to play a squishier solo-archer character due to the lack of effectiveness and real archer “feel” the longbow warrior presents?

4.) The Ranger community is very (and almost evenly) divided on the proposed idea which would allow for rangers to disable their pets altogether and be compensated for the damage lost. How do you stand on this debate? Do you believe that players should have their desired styles of play accounted for, or do you believe that the design of the ranger should supersede this choice? Is it possible to make other possibilities for this play-style with other classes, then?

Could just give ele longbow with different effects on the autoattack/1 rotation based on attunement, keeping the rest of the weapon skills the same.

Would actually be pretty cool if you ask me o.O

Traps were a large part of the bunker meta a while ago. I believe they still are a very viable build option.

But that’s the point people are trying to address: There IS no pure ranged option in GW2. Yet there are so many pure melee/spellcaster ones as are so common among other classes. Even if not running two weapon sets of the same type, the primary one is usually how people build their character (they like the playstyle), and the secondary is often used as a supplement. Bow/archer builds just don’t exist, and people genuinely want them to.

sPvP bunker/spirits doesn’t really qualify as being an archer, either. While it doesn’t qualify as a pet user, its so-called overpoweredness perhaps is a problem of its own.

Serraphin Storm.2369:

Ranger are not a ranged only class. Every class has range. The Idea that if you use anything other than drake/cats or bird then your a noob is bs. Its not all about dps.
But even when it is. Having pets that allow you to get more of you damage in is better then a pet that its only utility is damage (unless your spec heavily into BM trait line).

They are so many ways to mitigate damage to your pet. If your pet dies 90% of the time its the failing of the ranger not the mechanism.

f2 skills are not instant. Learn the time for your favorite pets (at minimum). Pet suffer from something like summoning sickness when you swap so if you use f2 (any command) too soon it wont work.

Learn when to swap out your pet. Not just to avoid its death or to use its f2 skill but to have access to its initial attack like kd’s and the like. As well as for positioning.

If your pet set off a bomb or a trap. Its the rangers fault for not having their pet attack from their side or having a direct line unobstructed line to their target.

Why do so many Rangers blame their pet. When it’s really the failing of the Ranger himself.

Not only should one love thy pet, but also learn to work with thy pet.

Your pet will die for you. I am not asking you to die for your pet. Just merely understand your pet truly.

I’m not calling the ranger underpowered nor am I blaming deaths on my pet. I’m saying there’s no playstyle for an archer. Frankly, I only blame myself for my deaths, because I often find the pet simply not necessary in combat, for through my abilities as playing an archer I have no issues with surviving mass encounters or needing to rely on an aggro soak.

Regarding the comment about “ranged” classes, I stated “archer,” not “ranged.”

And even then, aside from magic-based builds, most of those aren’t very viable.

Ariete.6509:

Now on GuildWars2 since every professions can do pretty much anything

Except be an archer.

Oh my god, the complaints actually make sense! They don’t want to just allow for pets to be removed because they don’t like the concept… these players haven’t actually had their entire play style accounted for!

It’s like the ranger would be the easiest class to reform due to the promise of it being a raged class from the getgo, and allowing it to be made into an archer rather than adding in a whole new slew of additional content seems like a logical idea, thus making everyone happy!

No way!

The numbers have been stated by ANet that the difference is 60/40 – NOT 75/25.

To state that pet manipulation takes more skill or effort than not using one is simply absurd. When my pet is alive, the game is easymode imho. It does everything for me and requires very little manipulation aside from some rhythmic pressings of the first few function keys based on situation. This is NOT what defines skilled play, nor does it even come close to taking a lot of skill.

I actually did put up birds and make them passive. And you know what? I still was able to get through the content. Why? Because I’ve been playing ranged characters as my mains in games for more than a decade. I’ve picked up on how to play properly, and I am not dependent on a pet to do the work for me.

But the issue still resides in that I take 67% more time to perform the same actions as other players/classes.

So what you’re saying is:
Trading more than half of my traits, almost all of my skills, faster healing while downed, aggro soak, CC effects, and extra utility…

…for equal but more consistent damage is not a fair trade?

Try playing without a pet and then go ahead and tell me that it’s fair lol.

Go play a game with real micromanagement and tell me it takes just as much skill to manipulate a pet.

Go and solo champions/veterans/story quests/massive encounters at-or-under level without a pet and tell me you neither wasted time nor had more trouble.

Go and tell me your 30/30/x/x/x ranger does just as much damage as a 30/30/x/x/x warrior, guardian, or thief.

Your mentality is currently “Too bad, deal with it or GTFO.” Why is this? ANet promised a game where all builds and classes should be equally viable. Thieves don’t build around stealing. Warriors don’t build around adrenaline. Shatter mesmer is only a thing because it hurts so much.

So ANet either needs to go back on its word, or do something about the state of the lack of an archer in this game.

From the class itself, I quote:

Rangers are flexible and durable—proficient with the bow, yet surgical with the sword. They rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature to slay their targets. Their loyal pets, which rangers tame and train, distract enemies while the rangers strike safely from a distance.

Seeing as that bow builds aren’t viable, and pets do way more than distract (or they rely on spirits as per the current PvP meta), I’d argue that this class is inherently flawed in both design and it’s quite far from its initial design.

You’re not changing my mind, nor the many, many others regardless of what you say, until an archer – as a whole style of play – becomes a possible build.

The act of balancing shouldn’t be performed on one game mode or means of playing.

It’s ANet’s job to balance the classes properly such that all of the variables ARE taken into account. Balancing by sPvP alone (which imho I think is kind of silly considering it’s not an accurate representation of the other aspects of the game) simply isn’t enough.

One could also argue ANet is trying to do too much. They’re trying to get sPvP to become some kind of esport, while then creating tons of hype around the other aspects of the game (WvW) and creating other forms of “seasons” for these other modes as though these are to be taken just as seriously.

Atherakhia.4086:

I’m not against it. In fact I’m mostly in favor of it because I’m tired of waiting for ANet to fix a problem that has been holding this class back for a year now. My issue is HOW to remove the pet and not make this class worse than it currently is.

Simply increasing my damage by 25% isn’t going to be enough.
Giving me access to a F1 skill to choose a pet mechanic like AE Fear on a 30 second cooldown wouldn’t be enough.

Let me run through a scenario I use often on my Ranger….

I attack the target with any random weapon. Doesn’t even matter which. I send my hound it. First attack it leaps on the target. While the target is still down it howls and roots the target. As soon as they’re rooted I swap to my wolf and it immediately leaps on the target knocking them down again. As soon as it leaps I AE fear the target. That’s a HUGE chunk of time where I can shoot the target with relative ease or melee with only limited oppurtunity for the enemy to respond. And I can do this every 30 seconds.

How do you add this functionality into the Ranger class without making it overpowered? We’re not Warriors afterall! We shouldn’t be allowed to do this, only they can! God forbid I actually did real damage while doing this :/

I’d much rather they just fix pets or scale down their damage so low that they increase our damage and ANet can go back to not caring if F2 works as intended. If I can pull off the above, who cares… the ability is there and fate wouldn’t allow it.

That’s exactly it, though. The pet provides an immense amount of utility. That’s what it’s there for and what the ranger class was designed around when using the pet.

Increasing damage by 25% won’t accomplish anything, as currently, pets deal 40% of ranger/pet combined damage. So for every 100 damage dealt, the ranger itself only does 60.

Therefore a 25% increase in damage would net only an increase by 15, resulting in a total of 25% overall reduction still.

To reach the equivalent level of damage throughput, ANet would need to buff the values by 67%. That said, for the sake of assuming a pet dies, the damage increase would need to be reduced slightly, so a figure around the 40% area (making it thus 84) would be a tad bit more balanced.

Which is thus the tradeoff of the pet: It can do things and lock down targets, but it if it dies, you’re SOL.

Which is the purpose of re-defining the archer and trying to accommodate for multiple build paths while buffing the longbow. It loses out on some utility, and perhaps some performance on an idealogical level, but becomes a more stable and adaptable means of playing.

Of course, this also means that when playing a ranger without a pet, the ranger needs to learn how to properly kite and avoid damage or poor circumstances.

Mesket.5728:

What are the forums for if it is not for giving out personal opinions? If you don’t like reading personal opinions I think you are on the wrong side of the internet.

Besides, if you absolutely despite the pet and made a ranger nonetheless… I seriously recommend you change your medication.

I’m not arguing with people’s right to have an opinion (I have one as well regarding this subject). I have an objection to those who try and simply ignore or argue the validity of other peoples’ opinions by their own.

Great if some people like ranger as it is. Not asking for that to be taken away. Preventing others from progressing because they differ in their opinions is simply not constructive to anyone, though.

Fair enough. I interpreted it as you being directly opposed to any kind of alterations being made/vouching for the belief that pets should not be stow-able by stating this was “another thread.”

I’ll agree 15% crit chance is a bit high. Toning it down to like 5% might be more… fair. Perhaps crit damage is what should really become of this trait.

Traps in Wild Survival makes more sense conceptually, so I’m not so much opposed to the idea as perhaps leaning towards streamlining it a tad. I will agree with you in that ground target range on traps should be increased on the major-master level rather than master-grandmaster. Or possibly doing minor-major to reduce the necessary investment as to prevent said issues with it.

I believe Emphatic Bond doesn’t deserve to be a grand-master trait for what it currently is. Condi removal is too hard to come by without deep investment. Perhaps the healing skill Troll Unguent could be modified to cure conditions upon cast and then apply regeneration? I’m thinking something along the lines of a thief heal such that an occasional condi won’t wreck the ranger, but getting into a fight with a condi build will pretty much result in a challenge without investment in BM or nature magic.

Speaking of nature magic, I could certainly see Nature’s Wrath being the grandmaster bonus over Renewal. Makes sense to give some bonus damage to someone who invests so heavily in vitality.

ZS is interesting, though I don’t think it merits an increase in duration. It’d certainly put pet builds in a more competitive area for burst damage while not needing to invest too deeply into it.

Exactly, all of that is your personal opinion. Your basis for arguing is that just because you’re enjoying yourself, other people should be as well even if they are not and explicitly know why.

I absolutely despise the pet mechanic, and I did have a warrior main as well. Warrior bow is underwhelming to say the very least – not to mention that it doesn’t even make sense conceptually.

So I must keep iterating: Why is every pet user against the concept of allowing a ranger to not use a pet while SO MANY PEOPLE keep asking for such a change? It doesn’t change anything for those who like pets. All it does is allow options for those who don’t want them.

Not sure if I agree with that statement. Even in PvP I find bow rangers as free kills and very easy to get around.

Mesket.5728:

Working Pet > No Pet.

From your perspective, yes. From others’ no.

Mesket.5728:

You have other classes that can bow people down if bow is what you like.

No, we don’t. I have a feeling you haven’t tried these other classes. It’s not even close.

Mesket.5728:

Many (like me) chooses the ranger exclusively for the pet, and if anytime in the near future ANet make Ranger’s meta without a pet, it will be us who will be crying in the forums.

plastic spiders was a good test devs, now add our pets some dodging AI.

Nobody’s asking for a pet-less meta. People are asking for options. If a style of play is better than another due to numbers, then that’s ANet’s issue to fix. Fact of the matter is that people are upset because there’s no archer style of play in this entire game, which accounts for a huge amount of people.

Pet users would be crying because of power-related issues. Non-pet -wanters are not upset because skirmish/pet ranger is stronger than bow/solo ranger, but because bow/solo (archer) ranger play styles are not accommodated for, nor are builds which focus on archery viable in pretty much anything except trash mob 1v1’s, which all classes can easily do lol.

Chrispy.5641:

Well, atleast you didn’t suggest to make the pet optional or completely redo the class mechanic in this thread. And also I agree with this person.

Seems to me like that’s one of the intended suggestions.

One must consider this, though: Why does an opinion supporting the requirement of pets matter more than an opinion disliking the mechanic and either asking for the possibility of not playing into it, or simply an alternative?

No opinion matters more than the other. Fact of the matter is that one of the opinions’ desired style of play isn’t accounted for in any class or build in the game.

This is the ideology I never understood about people who argue with the concept of the option of perma-stowing the pet; nobody’s asking for pet nerfs, just the ability to play in different ways. The easiest way of doing that is to simply modify the ranger tree/weapon skills, rather than implement either a whole new class or weapon paradigms with another existing class which makes sense (thief, ele).

But with proper discussion, if this thread stays maintained, I could see both groups of players (archers and beastmasters) appreciating the suggested changes.

Rym.1469:

I don’t like your trait changes. Just personal preference on current ones.
Besides, moving away pet is a bad idea. They just need some QoL fixes and more control over them by player and I think they’ll be perfectly fine. Honestly, I love having different pets. Giving them improvements and more variety/control make very unique mechanism. I’m after keeping pet with both hands, taking it away just decreases class overall skillcap which IMO even now is kind of low if you play certain builds.

I’m going to have to disagree with everything you’ve said here to be honest.
For one, your opinion supporting pets is no more significant than someone who dislikes them. Nobody’s asking for total pet removal; people are asking for the possibility to do so.

So in juxtaposition, based on those who prefer the archer style of play, the current tree and traits are underwhelming, and the playstyle is simply terrible.

I’d disagree regarding skill cap, too. Pets soak aggro and give a lot of utility. So much to the point where ANet realized that they failed to survive long enough due to them being aggro magnets, and therefore gave them more health.

This is what makes the ranger play too easily when using a bow. There’s literally no skill involved with maintaining distance or avoid getting hit/CC’ed to death, because the pet takes it all. I’d also even argue that the microing capabilities of the pet UI aren’t very substantial to call it a complex or high-skill class, either. The controls are simple, however there’s barely any control from this perspective. I genuinely suggest to people who talk about pet micro being a thing to play DoTA and try the character Meepo running maximum clones. That’s real micro, and THAT takes skill. Going in for an attack/f2, returning on low health, sending back out when you take aggro, and switching stances as to prevent you from getting into too much combat really doesn’t take any kind of microing skill.

Especially since the required pet lines are usually related to tanky builds with a lot of healing.

Hence why I suggested a penalty on ranged damage when in very close proximity. At least this requires the player to deal with the vast number of gap-closers and issues pertaining to multiple targets in the game, while effectively stacking mobility bonuses/reductions to keep kiting properly.

Aside from ele, I play every class in GW2 as 30/30/x/x/x with 10 points going somewhere else to maximize damage, running full berserker. I find myself not dying frequently and I believe I play on a level such that I don’t need a buffer of extra toughness, vitality, healing, or aggro soak to play better.

Rym.1469:

On a side note: Why the hell would you give :
Predatory Season – Deal 5% more damage when within 300 range of your target. (new trait)

To a tree based on erm… “Marksmanship”? Made for Bows mostly (or at least, with idea of it) ? You know that erm… 5% is nothing and when playing with bows, you usually want to perform “Kiting” which, to shorten it up, is all about staying at max possible range, dealing damage with your bow all the time?
I think OP is mostly a PvE 1h sword/WH dungeon fast-runner

I’m inclined to agree here. It belongs more in skirmishing.

Exactly, Dante. SB thief and LB warrior play nothing like the class, and frankly, from a kit/weapon skill design perspective, the ranger is great in how it plays. It just lacks a viable archer build due to the dependency on pets.

Either ANet needs to address these issues with the ranger and rework them, or they need to give another class the same type or similar playstyle with the Longbow.

Sorry for double post.
Although I’m not sure how to feel about Bestial Fury. Thief effectively has the same skill (Haste). With the quickness nerfs, nobody takes it due to its cooldown and real lack of benefit, however anything significantly better would put the trait being too strong.

Especially with Barrage, as each critical procs the chance to activate it. It effectively would guarantee a stack of quickness on barrage.

To see a 20% increase in damage throughput with no real changes involved in skills regarding play, and nothing really major regarding traits to help an archer build, I don’t see why increasing so heavily is an issue.

The ranger still faces from a 16% reduction in damage. While it’s great to make strides in trying to voice suggestions to help people get their point across, one must consider getting favorable opinions versus taking balance questions into account.

Now, if the trait lines and skill tree were to be significantly overhauled such that the dependency on pets for these bonuses’ effectiveness is dereased, thus allowing for bows to take such a hit to raw damage, then I’d be more in favor of sticking to lower numbers.

Going with only a 20% damage buff increase is just kind of silly, though. It makes the class more or less high-risk low-reward.

If ranged combat is the focus regarding LB, and buffs are worrysome regarding scaling due to the LB losing its damage reduction/scaling damage on range, then perhaps another possibility is to simply provide an immediate/non-scaling percentage penalty on LB damage when within close proximity (say, sword range). It therefore moves archers into their rightful place of trying to maintain a bit of distance (as the current design stands), and gives the LB archer a guaranteed weakness which must be overcome via good play, and with the number of readily-available, low-cooldown gap-closers in GW2, perhaps justifies such increased modifiers when making attacks at range.

“No” answers are likely stemming from rangers who use the longbow/bows in general.

Rangers make fine skirmishers with GS and S/D. Fact of the matter, though, is that currently the thief is a more attractive and more useful ranged character than the ranger in every way in PvP and WvW via shortbow and pistols, including zergs, 1v1, bunker, etc.

To compensate for a lack of a pet, the bow skills would need to be increased by more than 20%. Remember that pets account for about 40% of a given ranger’s damage. Therefore their overall damage would be 60 damage from weapon skills per 100 damage combined with a pet; so a 20% boost would put it to 72. That’s simply not enough considering the pet acts as an aggro soak, a healer, a form of DPS, AND has its own skills/effects.

Something like a 40% modifier is more or less necessary to compensate, especially when considering the pet HP buff, and the lack of synergy/buffs one can get from the pet/ranger interaction skills. This would put the ranger up to about 84% – a tolerable number, and one which compensates for downed pet time (as opposed to just going to the 100% area).

I honestly wouldn’t mind seeing Rapid Shot still around, but either acting as a DPS increase such as Hundred Blades, or simply having a reduced channel time with the same damage to apply stacks of vulnerability.

Immobilize duration would need to be short on Barrage. I think perhaps doing like 1s Immobilize on cast (before arrows come down to compensate for the delay), and then the standard cripple. I’d rather see a cooldown reduction on Barrage as to allow for better AOE potential, and therefore allowing Rapid Shot to be left as a skill without sacrificing the ability to more frequently tag and cripple larger groups. A long duration immobilize would simply be too strong in WvW/PvP.

Overall I support the thread and hope this gains some momentum/additional discussion.

Fine if the OP likes his pets. A very large percentage of the population doesn’t.

I don’t need my pets nor do I want them. It’s why people are asking for a ranger traitline rework such that beast-taming is still just as viable, but allow rangers to have the option of not using a pet and to be compensated for the lost bonuses.

Speaking of which, the pet accounts for 40% of the rangers’ damage, not 20%.

I find my pet totally worthless. It hits something and soaks aggro while I’m reviving someone? Cool. I could just stealth and res them, though. I shouldn’t have to rely on something soaking aggro to stay alive, banking on the fact it’ll probably die anyways due to the fact it cannot dodge etc. When my pet dies, I win in PvE anyways; I’m skilled enough in archer play to not need it – ever. All I find myself ending up with is a dead object that flutters around after a few brief moments of me soloing a champion, thus causing the fight to take 67% longer than it should need to, because the damage I lose simply makes the fight take longer and has no effect on the outcome.

Frankly, I’d much rather be rewarded by playing the game well in the style I wish to than be forced into a paradigm which I actively dislike. Not stopping people from playing with their pets. I just want to play the way I want to, just like everyone else complaining about pet dependency.

I think it would be just because of how drastically some of the traits impact pets’ statistics. Seeing as pets don’t scale, these modifiers are incredibly high just to allow for them to become further factors in assisting the ranger.

Allowing for the option to stow a pet, however, is a great idea, and if not reworked, it would be interesting to perhaps see these modifiers applied with a penalty, though.

I’d simply much rather see the ranger trait line redone such that Beast Mastery becomes a lot more pet-based/microing and really pays off for doing so, while I’d like to see the power/precision lines perhaps altered towards non-pet or archery-based play.

Totally agree with the OP. It’s been something I’ve been suggesting for a very long time, and it’s something the community wants to make happen.

I’m glad the community is beginning to voice its opinion on this matter, though. I made this thread (don’t bump it due to necroing) a LONG time ago to try and get some support for the idea, but apparently people simply don’t want build diversity.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/suggestions/How-to-fix-the-LB-Ranger/first#post1500700

I’ve been keeping up with this, though, and I found some solid discussion occurring in this thread:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/ranger/Why-is-this-class-so-terrible/first

I don’t see why people argue against this type of suggestion. Nowhere is anyone stating that pets need to be removed. People are asking for alternative means of play and build diversity. ANet promised all builds of all classes being both fun and viable. Fact of the matter is that the ranger needs some help, and as it stands, there is no archer in this game.

And people want there to be one.

I have no objections against ally/pet mechanics in games, however I do have objections regarding the absolute neglect of a largely-desired playstyle. The ranger tree is disorganized and really not optimized, and resolving this issue by allowing for the player to remove their pet while transforming the trait lines for the class is the best way to go about it.

Nobody’s really asking to make one method of play better than the other – simply just that desired methods of play should be allowed.

So either thief needs a longbow, or ranger needs a change to make the archer archetype come to fruition. I don’t see any reason to object the latter, just because it “detracts” from the class feature. I mean stealing on thieves and adrenaline on warriors are their class features, yet arguably those two mechanics have almost no place in what defines the majority of thief/warrior play styles, nor are they the source of complaints regarding their effectiveness in combat.

I gave up on my ranger a long time ago just because it’s simply not fun, despite the fact that in every game I’ve ever played, I’ve mained an archer if I’ve had the option. GW2’s ranger, from this perspective, simply isn’t fun, just because the kit lacks synergy and is simply underwhelming.

So new patch does nothing to address the inherent problem with bows.
All I got out of the patch was making the ranger even MORE dependent on its pet.

I left my ranger in stasis, and started playing it again in anticipation for “upcoming changes to ranger weapons.” Yea, none of that.

Busted class is busted, and will seemingly continue to be busted.
The archer playstyle won’t exist for another six months or so, now (which is unlikely to think of considering the clear lack of involvement regarding this playstyle).

I’ll be deleting my archer I think and making a gs Mesmer. At least that can function at range.

Because change!

As I keep iterating: Let people be allowed to play the way they want to. ANet took a big stance on this during their marketing campaign/hype-generation period, and promised to make the change where there were no healer/dps/tank roles as to promote change and diversity in the gaming environment.

Fact of the matter is that they’re neglecting to consider other playstyles and in order to abide by their claims, they need to take action to accommodate for different ways of play. As it stands we have a clear meta and some classes are clearly lackluster or uninviting. Change is great, but forcible change, especially when stripping away what people liked, is only detrimental.

Someone on another thread was trying to tell me how allowing for the option to disable pets for a buff to ranged damage to compensate would make ranged combat overpowered. The number of gap closers on other classes and reduction on longbow only justifies my argument further, though.

ANet really does need to look into the bow problem. It’s one thing to be different, but totally another to completely prevent people from playing in certain, tried and true, and often-desired ways.

Solandri.9640:

If you want to play a ranger only because you want to play an archer type class, I’d suggest just

^quitting the game or changing your desired playstyle.

There is no archer class in GW2. They’re so incredibly bad they’re not even worth considering. Anything with a bow is strictly not viable, unless you’re 1v1’ing champions in PvE, which is super easy and gets really boring after like the first ten.

I main archers in every game I’ve ever played, including D&D (I play a scout there as to avoid the pet because the kit is not designed so much for ranged combat). I’m deeply disappointed in GW2’s lack of consideration for ranged classes/builds.

Thief if you plan on doing any larger-scale PvP.

Ranger is okay with 1v1 combat and PvE; however, in the WvW environment, they are easily arguable as not being good for anything at all. Anything they can do, another class can do better.

If you’re looking to play an archer, don’t bother. GW2 has no viable archer/ranged build aside from casters. And to be totally honest, by thief does a WAY better job with a sword and bow than my ranger does.

Amlin.6041:

Because Anet for all their talk about being different decided to follow the well-worn path of the fantasy archer trope. They always have to have some beast companion, well that’s great and all all but it’s always a pain in videogames.

Babysitting an AI is never fun, don’t like escorts? Well here’s a class who’s entire mechanic is based around it. I like how more recent mmos figured it out that AI pet classes can be a pain for some so they always offered specs without one. Going full Marksman/Sniper/Gunner, instead of a forest loving beastmaster.

Ranger was my main class in GW1, I enjoyed it because I didn’t need a pet at all. Now here in GW2 I would’ve been ok with the change to the fundamental direction to rangers, but there was no replacement for it.

There was no where for a marksman/sniper player to go to fulfill that desire. Thieves with Pistols come close with the guntoting, engineers as well to an extent, even warriors, though you’d be just gimping yourself. There’s no real class that can full out that hole that was made when rangers were changed.

Exactly, and why I love the ranger class from R:BF so much. It’s high-mobility with no CC removal with no hard CC and no close-range alternative. You let your opponent get close, and you die. Period. Fail to position yourself properly, or fail to recognize AOE radii (there are no circles) you are dead in one or two hits – before one stun even finishes. Your mobility and range is your defense.

It takes the typical “ranger” ideology and completely turns it on its head. And it’s a blast to play.

But they can pump huge damage due to their insane skill cap. It’s a game-changing class that can shred tanks to pieces and completely annihilate squishier targets.

Even other games like PWI demonstrate a good understanding of the range archer by punishing close-quarters combat. It’s this dynamic that’s really, really, fun to play, and something a LOT of users want to see more of.

Simply put, I have no objections to a beastmaster class, but there needs to be a real ranged class. Rifle engi/bow warrior are not alternatives. Those play totally differently.

ANet keeps pushing WvW, but is balancing their classes for SPvP. Yea, the sword/axe ranger is fine, but there’s no alternative of the whole playstyle in WvW, and for those that come close, they’re also wildly underpowered and just as useless. ANet simply needs to recognize the fact that bow ranger is inadequate as a build. This thread isn’t so much about ranger but BOW RANGER. Bow rangers are simply bad. And that’s something ANet needs to realize and make changes for.

I’d really disagree with you there regarding 100% management. When I can actively control my pet and dodge with it, scout an area without going there on my main character, then people can boast 100% control. And the people who are capable of switching perspectives/kits and dodging with both during the same aoe circle due to quick switching and understanding invulnerability frames are going to be rewarded for good microing. That’s what good microing is. The pet strictly speaking is a terrible example of microing and imho doesn’t pay off for such skilled play.

You’re speaking in 1v1’s/skirmishes. Rangers are on the upper echelon for roamers in WvW. Everyone knows that. I’m talking about WvW zerg and AOE circles/multiple targets. There’s nothing in the ranger’s kit that supports being able to effectively deal with this type of play.

But I don’t know how to word it any better. I’m not complaining about the ranger being underpowered. I’ve said this multiple times. I’m complaining about the following:

1.) Dependency on pets/the unresolved issue that there is no archer in this game.

2.) ANet seems to have no idea what they want the ranger to be. Is it an archer or a beastmaster? As it stands, it’s neither and both.

3.) The fact that defending the current ranger is simply illogical. People en masse are complaining about this class not being viable for certain styles of play no matter the build. Nobody’s asking for buffs or nerfs, but people are asking for alternatives.

4.) Those defending the ranger’s position are doing so with the view that the class is balanced in circumstances x and y. Yes they are. However for circumstances a and b they are underwhelming.

5.) People defending rangers not being changed do not realize this isn’t about buffs or nerfs to make the class stronger, but to solidify the class as a whole and allow for people to play as they want to. ANet’s main purpose in creating GW2 was to get rid of the healer/tank/dps trinity and let everyone be good at whatever they want to be good at or play in whatever way they want to. As it stands, there is no archer. People want one. Why not fix a currently scattered/commonly-low-tier class into something better while also creating the archer type so many people wish to play as? Would this not make everyone happy?

As I mentioned earlier, how many Steal-based thieves are there? Not many. Most of them do d/p, p/d, or d/d backstab builds for either the utility the blinds give, or the raw damage backstab provides. If people want the gap-close build, they don’t build into steal, either. They build s/d for shadow step and the utility that brings. Arguably the actual effects granted by stealing are rather underwhelming, and most thieves are associated with stealth more than stealing. Just because stealing is the class mechanic doesn’t imply everyone should be building solely around it.

So to argue that just because the ranger gets a pet means it’s required for basic functionality isn’t really that valid to be honest. Yeah, it’s unique, and much like stealing, or adrenaline, or any of the other class mechanics, it’s handy, but it definitely doesn’t and shouldn’t be the centerpiece for all players playing that class just because it’s unique.

At the end of the day it’s all about preference. Like I said in my original post (and many others have said), give an alternative to bow ranger for the playstyle, and I will gladly delete my character and start a new one of that class. But ANet doing so still leaves the problem of the identity of the ranger unresolved, and only makes progression as a ranger more linear and less inviting.

SynfulChaot.3169:

Sorry. My feeling on the ranger is that it should stay true to ArenaNet’s vision of the ranger, which is a combination of a beastmaster and a marksman. Not to what everyone in the community thinks the ranger should be. The ranger has too many potential archetypes to be easily described by all as the same thing.

Which is why rangers should come together and discuss the issues to come up with a proper resolution rather than bickering about who’s in the right to interpret what.

It should be a mix, but people should be allowed to delve into each one based on preference. You like the pet system, and I do not. If ANet read this thread and immediately agreed that bows need to become the big appeal of the ranger rather than the pet, and therefore totally removed all pet mechanics, would you be okay with that? Likely not, which is exactly how the archer players feel about saying such a comment or stating we have to play the way we are now despite being upset with it.

So why not work something that divides the traits better to cater to everyone (per ANet’s vision of gameplay for every class), rather than restricting people? I understand you want to defend your pets because you like them, and nowhere am I asking for nerfs. It’d just be cool to get people to rally behind the idea of actually fixing the class entirely than just trying to dismiss a large portion of the playerbase.

Catch my drift here?

SynfulChaot.3169:

DeceiverX.8361:

Buff the bows and you end up with bow warriors/shortbow thieves getting quite a hefty boost. As it stands, bow warrior is already a pretty solid build, too, and poison seeing increased damage would be nuts.

I’m talking of reversing that melee>range paradigm for rangers only. We are supposed to be ‘unparalled archers’, no?

DeceiverX.8361:

Again, pop reflect and the bow archer is nothing, as you mentioned. The beastmaster or skirmisher is still functioning fairly well, as the bow archer would have no feats in pets and the BM would.

Yes. That is true. It would be a counter to us. As would forcing us into melee. But right now there is no reason for us to not be in melee as melee does far more damage than our bows do.

Exactly why in order to appeal to everyone, a whole rework is in fact necessary. Put pet stuff into the BM line and allow the power/precision lines to buff direct bow damage further while also allowing players to store their pets for further bonuses such that they can achieve significantly more ranged damage. When you’re at range and doing it right, there’s no need to have a pet charge into battle.

Melee shouldn’t be penalized, for if they wish to avoid the penalties, then they’d be fighting without an aggro magnet in close quarters – no easy task – but it carries a high-risk high-reward style of play to it.

Nike.2631:

Star Ace.5207:

DeceiverX.8361:

The ranged weapon makes the ranger.

That makes YOUR idea of the Ranger, though the original Ranger was equally adept with melee weapons. You like Archers, which may be a sub-class/“kit” of a Ranger, but not representative of all Rangers-at least not traditionally at all. The word Ranger, kitten many have already established many times over, has nothing to do with the range on ranged weapons.

You can still play as an “Archer” if you’d like anyway, though by your post I assume you believe it’s not viable to do so. But you can go that route if you really only like bows on Rangers.

And all of that misses the POINT (or perhaps inadvertently reinforces it): that pets are not the defining trait of rangers and should not be mandatory in this game.

I’ve said for a while now having a pet should be the 5 point benefit of the beastmaster line.

I think this is probably why nothing has been done regarding the whole ordeal.

The community is actually split regarding what the ranger is actually supposed to signify. Some state it’s all about pets, others about archery.

Unifying the ranger community on this issue and actually working towards a solution that appeals to both sides is probably the way to progress here instead of arguing about whether or not an interpretation is more valid than another.

Which is why I am suggesting such measures. ANet’s philosophy is to cater to everyone in how they choose to want to build/play their characters. Kind of silly to have people arguing over ANet’s content that one philosophy of play or interpretation is inherently wrong or misaligned.

And omygosh typos. Should not be writing at 2:30 in the morning.

SynfulChaot.3169:

DeceiverX.8361:

— snip —

The problem here, as I see it, is that if they had a ‘petless’ option, then they’d need to return our damage coefficient back to 100% otherwise we’d be patently weaker than all other classes. As a result if that became an option, why would you run a pet at all? Why would you again weaken yourself and lower your own damage output to re-link a percentage of your damage to a not-fully-controllable AI that cannot avoid many of the game’s damage sources? That is unless running a pet would have our overall damage between you and your pet to over 100%. And then we’d be accused, and rightly so, of being OP as we’d be capable of more damage output than any other class.

Now to make rangers feel more archery oriented I had a novel thought. Make our damage work backwards from the other classes. Make our bows deal more damage than our melee weapons. Then we’d want to stay at range.

Again, aggro-soak and bonus effects. That utility can be huge when done right as [so (chat filter says no to as + so haha)] many people argue (and when f2 finally works/doesn’t miss is really good).

Buff the bows and you end up with bow warriors/shortbow thieves getting quite a hefty boost. As it stands, bow warrior is already a pretty solid build, too, and poison seeing increased damage would be nuts.

Again, pop reflect and the bow archer is nothing, as you mentioned. The beastmaster or skirmisher is still functioning fairly well, as the bow archer would have no feats in pets and the BM would.

So perhaps an inverse relation between BM progression and ranger (as the single entity) damage? That way if the BM releases the pet he’s fighting uphill, and a bow-based ranger has issues regarding keeping his pet alive and well should he need to summon it? It’d also allow for the possibility of buffing pets/doing something about the interface/responsiveness and the lack of proper AI/response to rings/WvW.

So basically, because you can’t learn the class you reroll to the most broken class ingame currently running one of the easiest and arguably OP builds in game. Also has Anet EVER confirmed this 40% of damage is the pet, or are you just saying it because you saw the number somewhere?
It takes a keen eye to spot what we can do to support a zerg, but if you won’t put in the effort then it’s probably best you don’t represent a ranger, enjoy you perma-stun warrior though, I know it requires skill for that

[/quote]

Yea they can be useful, but they’re kind of the jack of all trades in WvW. Spring is great for rams, they have good skirmish potential (albeit that thieves do this a bit better imho), and have medicore resourcefulness in the zergfights (I’d argue moreso than thieves aside from wire/poison, but that’s really insignificant in the zerg tbh being an ex-Rallian (switched servers to join friends earlier today)). Nonetheless, this isn’t about other classes being OP or whether or not rangers are good or bad as a class; it’s about choice, QoL, and the overarching pet issue.