.
.
.
(edited by Florgknight.1589)
Robert, let tell you what I think adding a pet dodge mechanic will resolve for 90% of your Ranger player base: nothing.
Like Gutbuster has stated, “Often it’s difficult enough to know exactly when you need to dodge in order to avoid some damage, with a pet dodge you’d be required to not only keep track of your own position but also your pet’s exact position which also trying to see your pet amongst all the spell graphics surrounding bosses getting nuked, seeing red circles on the floor which may be behind the boss since that’s where your pet is, camera angles etc the list goes on a bit. In addition you’d also have to hit your own dodge key as well as an additional F key or any other key bind you have.”
I agree with him whole heartedly.
Yes, without a doubt there will be a small fraction of Ranger players that will benefit from the mechanic: the “Pro” player, if you will. These people have ridiculously quick reflexes, as well a superb RIGs and a mouse with dozens of key binds they have no problem dealing with. I’m NOT talking bad about these players; hey, god bless ’em, they are the exceptions to the general rule, and they make the most of it. These tend to be your best of the best players and are often found in sPvP/tPvP.
But for the non-PRO player, adding a dodge mechanic for the pet will be an utter waste of time in dealing with the problem of Pets dying from AOE too much in dungeons —- the difference will be insignicant for the typical Ranger player who is under heavy duress from swarms of mobs, surrounded with heavy particle effects and trying to keep himself alive and contributing to the party.
Look, I’m not talking about that bottom 5 to 10% either, the folks that really have very poor reflexes and positional awareness, and who really can’t cope with the basic pace of this game. At least not in a difficult dungeon setting anyway. No, I’m referring to that big fat mass of players in the middle: also known as: the “majority” – the “average” – the “typical”.
For this group, many of the ideas being offered here will only result in the outcome stated by Shiren, “So micromanaging and resource management are the game-play being pushed by that kind of design. A lot of us play the class for the AI companion, not a micromanaged companion. Micromanaging, while increasing the skill cap (in a certain way), isn’t going to solve the problem for a lot of rangers, and for many players it takes the class in a direction they don’t want to go in.”
In essence many of the changes being proposed would transform the Ranger into a class that does not resemble the one that many people were looking for when they rolled it. Please keep this in mind as you consider the many OTHER options that exist to address pet mechanics and survivability.
Thank you.
We’re aware of that. Again part of what that list is, is a launching point for conversation and dialogue. Part of our jobs as designers is to take feedback and try to figure out the core of what is being said, and develop plans around that. I’m not saying those things are going to happen – I wish I could, but I can’t. It’s just something I can turn into a bullet point for us to address and talk about. These things take time, but I promise you I will be bringing these things up.
EDIT:
Oh, and in regards to the Jade Maw targeting pets, I made the conscious decision to allow it to target non-players. I have the ability to change that, but I prefer not to on the grounds that there is some gameplay there. My pet has made the ultimate sacrifice quite a few times while we res’d a down party members, providing groups with a much needed window to help others up and recover. I know it can be a bit frustrating if everything is going great and you’re not having any problems, but I’d much rather the pet provide a moment of relief for those struggling. I am open to debate on the subject, but that is for threads over in the dungeon forum, not here
The issue isn`t that the thing is targetting pets, but it likes to target them while they`re downed already.
.
.
Attachments:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.