Guild Wars 2

SynfulChaot

The pet’s not essential though, because it can’t survive in the game the way GW2 is designed. We’ve already been over this. And yes, you can run a good ranger without the pet…most do. The problem is a good ranger, with or without the pet, is still subpar to every other class.

Our control over our pet is modest at best and untenable at worst, you should know this. You should also know by now that given the game mechanics(heavily reliant on raw dps, dodging, and CC) the pet has no place there. That’s why condi ranger’s are better than power rangers in general PvE and sPvP…the dps is improved dramatically. End-game PvE and W3 is an entirely different story though, as has been pointed out.

I agree with your middle paragraph, that’s ANet’s fault for designing them this way for this game. Yet another reason they can’t fix it.

Who cares about the injustice to the class when said class is an injustice to the player? Really, your attachment to the pet at all costs seems to be clouding your judgement. Anything that is shown to be a flawed mechanic should be removed, it doesn’t matter what their intentions were.

The amount of faith you have in them fixing it is unreasonable. Do you really think they’ve simply not thought about it for over year with the massive amount of public outcry about it? They’d have to be pretty clueless for that.

I wanted a pet when I first started. But, had I known how bad it gimps me then I would have chosen a different class. The game is extremely un alt-friendly when it comes to gearing your 80 out in max stat gear, starting over is a bad option.

If you think there’s a way to fix them, please come up with some stellar ideas about it so we can discuss them. Otherwise, taking your word on faith alone doesn’t cut it.

I couldn’t figure this out at one time either.

Apparently they didn’t want 3 different superior runes with the same +15% boon duration bonus on the 2nd rune slot(water and monk being the other two). So the Sanctuary Rune got the short end of the stick with it, and they put in chill instead.

There’s an explanation for on the wiki I think.

Edit: which is funny, because the new Traveler Rune has it on the 2nd slot…

SynfulChaot

Then you yourself need to look up the definition of “define.” While the pet is one of the defining characteristics of GW2’s ranger, it certainly isn’t the only one. Nor the most important one, despite what ANet says. Ranger’s are a DoT attrition class designed to beat you if they can outlast you. They have decent party utility, high survivability(especially with evasion and regen), and share dps and further utility with a permanently attached AI(the pet). Every class has some sort of “pet” besides the Warrior, it’s a matter of semantics to say because the ranger’s pet is permanent makes it the defining characteristic of the class.

“It’d only get bad if they were removed as the class mechanic and replaced with something else, being instead relegated to the role of a minor aspect of the class. I would bet real money that if there became a petless ranger option that pets would become as used in late-game PvE as minions and turrets, which is practically not at all. And that would be a shame.”

This is probably your worst argument, I don’t know why you keep bringing it up. You’re basically admitting that rangers would probably be better off without the pet, yet still refusing to entertain that idea. Umm…ok.

I don’t think the devs are malicious and uncaring, I just think they both aren’t willing to admit that the pet is an unfixable issue, and yet also aren’t willing to give us an alternative because it would require too much work. You think it’s fixable, I don’t. No amount of examples or logic from my end can convince you otherwise, so I have to move on so I can keep my sanity.

The forums aren’t what I’m talking about when citing player opinions. I’m talking about what I see and hear in-game on a daily basis. I don’t know if it’s a TC thing and removing the pet would mess up the RP there or something, but everywhere else I’ve been, there are very few who feel as you do my friend.

SynfulChaot.3169:

Obsidian.1328:

No matter how much you say it, pets don’t define the ranger. It doesn’t matter if it’s the class mechanic or not, my crappy pet does not define my ranger. I do.

Sorry, but in GW2 pets do define the ranger. I can tell you that it definitely isn’t our bows. >.<

Also you might want to note how many of our traits and skills are based around our pets? If that’s not defining, then you might want to look up the definition of the word.

Obsidian.1328:

You can use phrases like class mechanic, ANet intentions, or meta all day until Sunday but it doesn’t change our valid arguments. You seem to think that once something is defined, it is impossible to change or modify. By your thinking, any core mechanic change made to a profession is just plain wrong. That’s incredibly stubborn.

The role of a game developer includes changing things that clearly don’t work. We’d like to try out a different thing with the ranger without taking away the pet, while you don’t want to entertain any change at all. And we’re being selfish?

True. It can be changed or modified. But all you’re insisting on is removal. Yes, it needs to be changed. But there are more ways of change than just removing it. How about actually modifying them so they’re more effective, hmm?

Obsidian.1328:

You talk a good talk, but in the end you’re just repeating the same tired argument over and over, and we see through it. No matter how many times we’ve tried to explain it to you, all you end up saying is “doesn’t matter, the pet = ranger so no discussion.” Wow.

Sorry, but you’re doing the same in the opposite direction. You’re just repeating the same tired, but opposite, argument as well. I’m acknowledging what you’re saying and giving my rebuttal. You’re just not acknowledging my points.

No, they don’t define rangers. They only do if you choose to. Tons of rangers pick the traits that only benefit them and not the pet, I would say most do just based off of observation but that’s subjective I guess. The reasons they do have already been exhaustively listed here, and it’s irrelevant that there are a lot of pet traits if you don’t choose them. It may have been ANet’s intention for pets to define the class, but the reality is different. Besides, other classes can choose to not utilize their F2 and still be considered the same class. The F2 doesn’t define classes any more than a bow defines a ranger. If you can’t see that you are fooling yourself.

And I was talking about changing the class mechanic, not the pet itself. I don’t want to remove that mechanic just modify it to better suit the reality of the game-world. Telling yourself it will be ok, to just wait, goes against reason…especially when everything points to the contrary. Giving the pet some more hp only validates that since they do the exact same gimmicky thing to bosses as a way to make them more “interesting” fights. It’s a tiny bone they are throwing to us keep us off their backs.

We’re acknowledging your point: “give them time to make legitimate changes.” We’re just saying that’s not good enough. The majority of the ranger community(and ex-rangers for that matter) can’t all be wrong about this.

No matter how much you say it, pets don’t define the ranger. It doesn’t matter if it’s the class mechanic or not, my crappy pet does not define my ranger. I do.

You can use phrases like class mechanic, ANet intentions, or meta all day until Sunday but it doesn’t change our valid arguments. You seem to think that once something is defined, it is impossible to change or modify. By your thinking, any core mechanic change made to a profession is just plain wrong. That’s incredibly stubborn.

The role of a game developer includes changing things that clearly don’t work. We’d like to try out a different thing with the ranger without taking away the pet, while you don’t want to entertain any change at all. And we’re being selfish?

You talk a good talk, but in the end you’re just repeating the same tired argument over and over, and we see through it. No matter how many times we’ve tried to explain it to you, all you end up saying is “doesn’t matter, the pet = ranger so no discussion.” Wow.

SynfulChaot.3169:

Solid Gold.9310:

Upping the HP will probably make it live 5 seconds instead of 4 seconds.

Yes I’m impatient, I’ve waited a long time, but to be honest I don’t think they will ever fix it.

And you are all missing the word OPTIONAL.

No. I saw you say optional. But what you, and many others, seem to not realize is that by making it optional most, if not all, PvE rangers will immediately abandon the pet due to the issues. At that point anyone that continues to run a pet will be shunned by the general community like they already shun bear/bow rangers. And that shunning will persist until and unless the pets get not only fixed, but made OP.

Basically the problem isn’t that it would be an option. The problem is the meta that would result from it and make pets considered unviable.

That’s selfish on your part. 90% of rangers want to use this option, and 10% are afraid they will get thrown by the wayside if it becomes an option. So that 90% should suck it up and deal with it?

No thanks.

Dustfinger.9510:

On not letting us decide whats right or wrong, we couldn’t in GW1 either. Charr were bad, humans were good. End of story. But that has nothing to do with what I addressed.

Very good point, but there wasn’t really anything to decide with that. There was no reason to question that dynamic because it didn’t really involve the player, they were an impersonal mob much like any other we ran across. I mean, why stop there? Maybe we should give the Titans a fair shake, after all, they were duped into it by Abaddon. Poor fella’s were used. -_- With the situation in Ascalon now, it’s immensely personal because of the past lore.

For one thing, flipping the tables and saying that now the Charr are right and Ascalonians wrong does not serve it justice. It’s like the writer’s felt bad for them and are trying to make some other race pay for them being the bad guy back then. It’s crappy writing.

For another, trying to bring in some moral relativity is a good thing. But that’s not what they did here. They are very clear that you(as the player) should accept the current scenario, or you are in the wrong. If GW1 didn’t exist, none of this would matter of course. But forcing a moral stance on the player with this issue while the letting the regular “villians” swim freely in a bath of moral ambiguity is not just strange, but insulting.

I mean, Zhaitan isn’t good or evil really, but a Separatist should be dragged out of his home and killed on the street? /slapintheface

Eh…it’s really not that ambivalent.

Scientific laws rarely change. True, those laws have the potential to be proven invalid in the future. But it’s rather essential to take those laws as fact if you’re going to be doing any experimenting…or any kind of scientific endeavor really. Like most things, science needs some sort of consensual foundation to build upon. When I say consensual I mean an agreed upon premise, not just something you yourself think.

Theories, on the other hand, do, and often, change. Which is why I brought up gravity. We know that it does work, just not why it does, completely. That’s what makes it theoretical, it’s still an unknown.

/Thread Derailed is a good thing sometimes

Dustfinger.9510:

The lore is fine. USA and Great Britain have become kumbaya themselves even though much of the colonial history was founded in blood and guts. 250 years is a long time for a lot of things to happen. In fact, looking at RL history of France, England, US and Spain we see that often timkes when wars end, they just end.

I assume you alluded your post to mine with your wording. Using RL examples is wonderful, you can find about anything to back up your argument. Palestine alone could counter your stance, they’ve been at each other’s throats for what…2 millenia now? Often times when wars end, they just start back up again too.

The point isn’t that RL examples exist to the contrary. One big point GW2 does is it literally doesn’t let you decide for yourself what is right and wrong. It tells you what the correct moral stance is, and if you disagree you are in the wrong.

That’s really lame.

The target audience is parents and their kids.

See they figured out that when gamer parents can play a game with their kids, they will not only bond, but spend oodles more money.

HolyMolla.6582:

WOW! SOR has worked so hard for PPT and ANET just restarted the match?
hahahahahaaaaahahahahahhaaaa

Wait, wut is ppt again?

crosses fingers for Pepperoni Pizza with Tallboy

Well there’s both. :/

Newton’s Gravitational Law simply said that objects attract each other.

Why gravity works this way is still a theory. Einstein probably did the best job explaining it with Relativity, but there’s still no scientific method to prove how gravity works at a fundamental level.

The same might be said for Evolution, harder for the Big Bang. Sometimes truth can’t be absolute, and you have make an educated “leap” based on the evidence in front of you. It’s funny how scientific theory is so similar to faith in this regard. :P

Gravity is still a theory too by the way…

I still don’t see why they won’t just make stabo pulse with Well of Power. It’s so obvious a tweak. 50 second cooldown for a 5 second buff, hardly too much to ask.

Frosch.7809:

The theme of GW2 is cooperation among nations, orders and species, it won’t come to a war between the Charr and humanity.

Exactly.

Which is one of the core reasons why this game is so bland. They forced an artificial narrative onto Tyria that doesn’t jive with its history.

It’s like, if you’re not holding each other’s hands or singing kumbaya around the campfire, you’re doing it wrong.

The game-world of Tyria was founded upon the blood and guts of constant war and strife between all races.

What seems odd to me is that old trope that sometimes gets attached to rangers: jack of all trades but master of none. The GW2 ranger is like a combination of archer, druid, and especially beastmaster all rolled into one. But instead of it screaming ranger like it should, it’s just a disjointed patchwork of those three that don’t really synergize.

It’s like taking a cop, a doctor, and an animal trainer and trying to get them to work together. But they all speak a different language and nothing gets accomplished. :-(

Getefix.9150:

logical belief, apparently, (dont hold me accountable for this, i heard it off a friend) the belief of not eating pork for some religions is due to the fact that pork spoiled really quickly in those countries (before fridges) so were told it best to avoid it, this then got taken into religion over time

Yes, it became a tradition born out of practicality. Some peoples even based their rituals upon such traditions.

Ha!

SynfulChaot.3169:

Obsidian.1328:

mzt.3270:

-snip-

I pretty much agree with everything you say here.

The problem is that ANet wants the game to be played one way, and most players want to play it a different way. There’s a massive disconnect with the playerbase that isn’t being addressed. A lot of it has to do with the game itself, like the time-gating, RNG, soul-binding, trinity elimination, etc. Not saying those are good or bad right now, just that they have a large impact oh how people play the game and their expectations.

What was intended with this game by ANet is a far cry from what the reality of it is now. Yet they’ve shown time and time again they don’t want to acknowledge that disconnect.

I have to say that I agree as well. The disconnect is that players want it different than the game itself is. But the fault is not solely with ArenaNet. It also lies with the players. Yes, ArenaNet is partly at fault here. But players, as well, are at fault for demanding that the game change to their whims.

I don’t think, though, that the game is a far cry from what it’s intentions were. It has strayed a bit, yes. But it’s not as far as many think. I think the players, at least the vocal ones around here, don’t want it and would prefer the warm comfort of the knowns of traditional MMOs. And they feel the need to try to impose that on GW2 when they run into obstacles.

Actually, I would rather this game be more like GW1, but that’s not the case. GW2 is much more closer to standard MMO’s than the original game. And the decisions they’ve made post-launch are steering it even closer.

mzt.3270:

-snip-

I pretty much agree with everything you say here.

The problem is that ANet wants the game to be played one way, and most players want to play it a different way. There’s a massive disconnect with the playerbase that isn’t being addressed. A lot of it has to do with the game itself, like the time-gating, RNG, soul-binding, trinity elimination, etc. Not saying those are good or bad right now, just that they have a large impact oh how people play the game and their expectations.

What was intended with this game by ANet is a far cry from what the reality of it is now. Yet they’ve shown time and time again they don’t want to acknowledge that disconnect.

Sigh…

You still don’t have a valid option for that though. No one does. Giving the pet an on-call dodge or instant recall won’t be nearly enough. There’s no AI in the world that can replicate a human being reacting to what’s on the screen. That’s the bottom line with the issue, not tweaking it with some clever utilities.

SynfulChaot.3169:

thefantasticg.3984:

SynfulChaot.3169:

Let’s let that process come to it’s conclusion, good or bad, and in a reasonable timeframe before just abandoning the pets.

That time frame for me has been the last year (about 9 months of that I actually played). Done with waiting.

So now that they’re actually seeming to be actively working on it, when before they were not, you’re still to impatient and want it perfect now? How demanding … and rude …

Lol, I think you’re trolling at this point. One year is not long to wait at all for a basic class function.

SynfulChaot.3169:

Obsidian.1328:

What are they doing to pets on Oct. 15th that you seem to thinks lends them some credibility? They mentioned bear condi cleansing, and moa’s and fernhounds. None of that addresses the issue. And I swear if ANet does what they like to do, which is just throw more hp at the problem, it’s a sign they don’t know what to do about it.

Tell you what SynfulChaot, if they decide to simply increase pet hp or toughness vs AoE’s, they fail. 2 weeks…

We already know that the HP buff is coming. That has been officially confirmed. I’d not expect a lot more in that patch as far as the pet is concerned as they will need to gather metrics before making further changes. It’s the next few patches after that one that are the key ones.

Gather metrics?? What have they been doing this past year then?

SynfulChaot.3169:

Indoles.1467:

I’ll make it simple for you SynfulChaot. We want the pet gone because after a year and no real changes to how it works, we have lost hope in any real improvements and would like the option to simple put the pet away for a while when it has no purpose or is a detriment to ourselves. It should be much easier for them to add a permanent stow feature than it would be to create new mechanics for the pet. Therefore, this is an easy solution to a problem many of us share. It is an improvement for us, just not one you comprehend.

It’s not had any changes because, like I’ve said too many times to count now, all previous balance was done with only PvP in mind. And in PvP the pet isn’t the anchor it can be in other game modes. Now that we’re starting to get some PvE-based balance changes such as more pet health, I believe it’s showing that they are starting to work on the pet issues as regards to PvE.

I mean seriously. We’re just short of a pet buff and you’re crying for pet removal before we can even see how it will affect the game?

Yes, I know that that’s not all the pet needs. But it’s a first step. Now if that comes out and then there is no further change for months? Yes. I’ll agree that maybe removal is an option. But right now, when they do seem to be working on fixing our issues, I strongly don’t believe that it’s a valid request.

And I comprehend it just fine. Yes, it is an easy solution. Yes, it would be an improvement. No, I don’t believe they should contemplate it yet. I don’t believe they should throw in the towel before determining that it is unfeasible for the game to have a beastmaster class.

What are they doing to pets on Oct. 15th that you seem to thinks lends them some credibility? They mentioned bear condi cleansing, and moa’s and fernhounds. None of that addresses the issue. And I swear if ANet does what they like to do, which is just throw more hp at the problem, it’s a sign they don’t know what to do about it.

Tell you what SynfulChaot, if they decide to simply increase pet hp or toughness vs AoE’s, they fail. 2 weeks…

SynfulChaot.3169:

Obsidian.1328:

Umm…pets aren’t a valid option in W3. They never have been. Even less so with zergs. In regular PvE it wouldn’t matter, it’s easy.

Actually pets are a valid option in WvW. Not so much in the zergs, but they can be very good roamers.

Obsidian.1328:

All you are still saying is that the way they intended it to be is more important than having it be more effective and reliable. That’s not only wrong, but also offensive.

A revamped pet AI, no matter how good, can not replace a human behind the controls. At all. If you can’t see that, we can’t have a reasonable discussion.

You’re saying that a pet can never be effective or reliable, which is untrue. It can be.

And sticking to design principles is important. Changing the game to all players whims would only turn the game into yet another standard MMO clone. They’re trying something different here.

You’re right that an AI will not match a player in skill. But. The ranger is a pet class. Pet classes have … pets. Which use an AI. You just don’t want a pet.

Again, the class was advertised from the start as a pet class. Instead of working with the pet and learning how to adapt, you just want it removed. And I’m the unreasonable one?

Dude, a roamer in W3 coming across another single player is the same as an sPvP match. You know what I’m talking about here, don’t misdirect the issue.

If they can come up with a way for an AI to anticipate and react to it’s environment like we do, without having it to be told to do every little dodge, sidestep, roll, stay, sit, lie down, etc. etc. etc., then I’m all for it. But that ain’t gonna happen, you know it and I know it, so stop acting like it’s possible for them to make it happen. It’s wishful thinking based on your preferences.

I’m not trying to change the game to fit players whims, I’m trying to introduce some reason and sanity to the issue. Wanting full control over your damage output is as right as rain.

Nothing we would propose would change anything for you, the pet would still be an option, and they can still improve it. You’re worried not enough time would be devoted to improving it if this happens? Well, why should everyone else be made to suffer because it either? Heck, I’d even be for making a ranger with a pet, in the hands of a skilled beastmaster, actually better than one without in a 1v1 scenario. That’s not what we’re talking about though. We’re talking about those vast amounts of end-game content in which having a pet out means it will die quickly to all the things I’ve already mentioned.

If anything, Durz has it right with his preparations idea. It makes perfect sense. Why kitten a class in end-game content because a minority of players would be saddened they can’t have their pal around with them to enjoy it? It doesn’t make any sense.

Umm…pets aren’t a valid option in W3. They never have been. Even less so with zergs. In regular PvE it wouldn’t matter, it’s easy.

All you are still saying is that the way they intended it to be is more important than having it be more effective and reliable. That’s not only wrong, but also offensive.

A revamped pet AI, no matter how good, can not replace a human behind the controls. At all. If you can’t see that, we can’t have a reasonable discussion.

Ashes.9586:

Obsidian.1328:

It wouldn’t exactly be immoral for the Ascalonians to fight back. After all, Ascalon is their home, not the Charr’s. The Charr homelands are on the Blazeridge Steppes are they not? Ascalonians will cease to exist if they let go of Ebonhawke.

You’re entire post is kinds made invalid by the fact that Ascalon has always been Charr land, humans took it from the Iron Legion and the Legions took it back. It’s in the Iron Legion intro vid as well as the lore timeline in the books and on the wiki. You’re talking about Blood Legion land.
Humans will not be taking Charr land again unless they want to be seen the same way the Charr were in GW1.

The Charr certainly weren’t the first there, and it was the gods who put humanity there and they named it Ascalon. If you want someone to blame for that, blame them. There weren’t any legions back then either, they made that up for GW2.

xxgrimxx.3510:

THE Blazeridge Steppes are the blood legion home land look on the map

The Blood Legion didn’t exist until GW2 was in development. In GW1 they were all just Charr. And no, the Blazeridge Steppes were the homelands of all the Charr, not just the Blood Legion. They changed that to provide more legitimacy to the Charr living in Ascalon now.

xxgrimxx.3510:

ascalon originally belonged to the charr look at time line in BE 100 http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Timeline

Originally it was the grawl, or the dwarves, or the rocks and the trees. The Charr never built any permanent settlements there, they were hunter-gatherer types. They claimed a lot of stuff as theirs back then, because up until humans came along no one had beaten them at war. Also, Humans named it Ascalon. As far as we know, the Charr never even had a name for it.

You give them way more credit than is their due.

I still don’t see why it would matter to you. After all, if you kept using your pet, nothing would change for you with a pet option. All that it would change for are the one’s who wouldn’t use it. And if more and more people go that route, why would that bother you? Who cares if they go petless, they aren’t making you do it. And who cares if more people ask for them in dungeons, etc.? Are you worried you won’t get invited in if you don’t remove your pet?

Honestly, it sounds like you’re reaching here. Citing company intentions over and over doesn’t really cut it when they’ve made so many other changes to the game over the past year. We both want to see a change, yet my change is deemed unacceptable because it’s not…what..true to a GW2 ranger? It’s not a cultural icon, it’s a video game class. They would do well to listen to their player base when 90% of them are screaming for this.

They won’t, but they should.

SynfulChaot.3169:

And that’s just bad design.

Exactly. And so is having mandatory pets in a game where 1-shot mechanics and mass AoE’s have to be actively dodged and avoided. They just don’t fit in the end-game meta. If you think they do then you are fooling yourself. The vast majority of players agree with me, yet you think none of that should matter because “it’s just the way it’s supposed to be.”

I’m sorry, but blindly accepting a broken mechanic on pure “good faith” of the devs fixing it is not only naive, but wrong. What have they done so far to remedy it besides a minor tweak here and there that ultimately didn’t change anything? Why should any of us believe they will come up with some awesome fix to it when they have not only not done anything of consequence to remedy it, but also haven’t even really recognized there’s a problem?

SynfulChaot.3169:

Yes. Yes, they did. That’s what pet classes do. Pet classes require managing your pet.

If you didn’t want to deal with a pet, then why did you roll a ranger in the first place? *scratches head*

Yes. Because you want to remove what makes a pet class a pet class because you don’t want to play a pet class … despite the GW2 ranger always being described as a pet class.

I rolled a ranger because I fell in love with the class in GW1. After all…it’s the same devs right? How different could it be?

And did they also describe to the player base that they suck in mass AoE environments? Or that you share your dmg output with them? Is there anywhere in the wiki that states that?? No, there isn’t. Us players had to find that out on our own. It’s ludicrous they don’t tell you that up front.

SynfulChaot.3169:

But that is what the ranger is built around. That is our core mechanic. I’m fine if you don’t want to run with one. But you should not be rewarded for doing so. If you don’t want the pet then you should not get that DPS back.

So…they built an entire class’s dps around an AI? What on earth were they thinking? That’s fine your pet survives well, not everyone is a micromanager. Or wants to be.

And you think we should be ok with just running around without a pet but no compensation? I don’t know how to respond to that. Sounds like you want to punish people who want control over their dmg output. That’s just insane.

SynfulChaot.3169:

We already have seven non-pet-bound classes.

What does it matter? Is there something that says there has to be a pet class? And even so, we’re not asking for removal, we’re asking for an option. You keep saying that it was ANet’s intention to have it be this way, but who gives a hoot? Are you against change and progress? ANet has already changed plenty of things with this game they said they wouldn’t originally.

An idealized class philosophy doesn’t come close to cutting it for a reason to keep a class mechanic if it doesn’t work when it matters. And I don’t know what end-game you are playing, but most dungeons, fractals, and W3 wipe the floor with pets. Putting them on passive just negates your dmg ouput. And this game is all about two things: dps and CC/dodging.

Bottom line is, most of us want an option to have both, and you only want the pet. I’d say we’re being way more reasonable in that department.

Synful Chaot

If you really think most rangers don’t want the pet removal option, then we can’t have a reasonable discussion.

It is hands down the #1 complaint since launch…

SynfulChaot.3169:

Fjandi.2516:

SynfulChaot.3169:

That kinda goes against their design philosophy.

I don’t give a kitten about their class philosophy. Philosophy is useless anyway…not only that, but their philosophy is clearly plain stupid.

It’s obvious that you don’t like the class’s design. So why insist on it changing to suit you instead of going for a class whose design philosophy you do like.

By your own words, why do you insist on keeping to suit your needs? Just because that’s the way it is now? That’s not good enough. Just because a game developer wants something one way, doesn’t mean we can’t question it. It’s our job as players to be critical of their decisions, not simply accept it blindly. And we’re beyond being constructive with that criticism, because they won’t engage a serious debate about it.

I gaurantee you the vast majority of rangers, if you include the thousands that have been shelved over the past year, would prefer the option to go pet-less if they want. Citing that it wasn’t ANet’s initial philosophy with the class to do that isn’t good enough, for all the reasons we’ve already stated.

Also, if doing this would make the “beastmaster” vastly less popular, then that’s a testament to the flaws inherent in it right now, not a reason to keep it.

SynfulChaot.3169:

Solid Gold.9310:

SynfulChaot.3169:

Unfortunately, if the pet has a buffed removal option then the meta will move away from using a pet in PvE, and those that choose to remain with the pet will most likely be comparatively underpowered. That is the risk of doing so. And it’d do the ranger a disservice.

Don’t agree, many people’s vision of a Ranger is no a Ranger with a pet, that’s a Beastmaster.

I don’t see what your worried about, with the correct balance you can still play your pet/Ranger and be equal to a Ranger without a pet, more options are better.

And they will never in a millions years as Obsidian.1328 has said, get the pet right in all the situations in this game.

We would like the option to not have a pet, but, you want to force us to keep the pet ?

It doesn’t matter what player’s vision of a ranger is. What matters is what ArenaNet’s vision of a ranger is. The vision that has been shown since before launch. This wasn’t a bait-and-switch. They’ve always been very clear that ranger == pet. Asking them to change their vision to match yours does the designers and the game a disservice.

No, the pet will never be as good as a player. That is true. But as that is true, if the pet has a buffed removal option … then what benefit would the ranger have to bring the pet? Outside of a few niche places (PvP, anyone?) the pet would be that useless option that noone uses. Like necro minions. Like engy turrets. Like mesmer mantras.

In order to get people to use mechanics you need to give them reasons to use them, not reasons to avoid them. Otherwise you’re removing a mechanic as a valid option.

Yes, you want the option to not have a pet. There is that option. There are other classes. But in GW2, ranger == pet.

You just highlighted why pets are a liability. Minions, turrets, and mantras are not used much for a reason. They die instantly to crowded AoE scenarios. Everyone knows this, that’s why their not used in those scenarios. And you’re asking us to deny that reality??

If you or anyone else can find a way to make that not be the case, I’m all for it. The reality is it’s most likely impossible to do so. And if it’s impossible to do so, why in the world should we be forced to deal with it?

How in the world can an AI anticipate all the various forms of attacks coming our way, hmm? The kd’s, the stuns, the immobilizes, the AoE condition bombs…

You really think they can come up with a pet AI that works fairly in SPvP, PvE, and W3 all at the same time?? That programmer is a god if he can do that.

There just is no substitute for human intuition…

Nilkemia

Well, if they did it the way I proposed, the F2 wouldn’t be pet related. Only the utility slots would. They’d find something else for the F2 mechanic which would only benefit the ranger.

SynfulChaot

I don’t think it’s possible. How can an AI dodge at the right time? The whole game is based around dodges and CC’s.

Chopps.5047:

“I know it probably won’t happen”

Sometimes the first thing said is the most accurate thing said.

-1 because I want to see ANET make the profession a beastmaster-type that everyone loves

Huh?? I hope that’s sarcasm, I don’t know very many people that like beastmaster.

SynfulChaot.3169:

Nilkemia.8507:

So you just call my argument a strawdog and leave it at that? Weak.

You’ve got a better idea? Better pet AI? When’s that going to happen? It hasn’t so far, and I’m not holding my breath for it. So, like I said, either fix it, let us stow it when we want, or get rid of it for something else.

I do agree that we should be able to stow the pet and not have it automatically pop out if we so choose. I strongly don’t think that we should gain any buff for it.

So…given equal stats, you want to do less base damage then every other class? You do realize rangers share their total damage output with their pet right? Having the pet limp around kitten ily waiting for the swap CD to wear off just means you are doing less damage than everyone else. And putting it on passive means the same thing.

Necro’s are a perfect example of using a “pet” in combat. They lose a utility slot per minion out, which limits them on what they can do to offset the extra dps. They have the option to do that, which is how it should be. Why not have the ranger pet just be a more powerful version of minions? The pet could use up the 3 utility slots with selectable pet-only abilities. That way, the extra dps would force the ranger to give up non-pet related utilities. Makes perfect sense. Pet lovers get their pets, and everyone else can play how they want to.

SynfulChaot.3169:

Solid Gold.9310:

— snip —

Obsidian.1328:

— snip —

Then you never read even the early descriptions they gave for the ranger. Even before it launched the pet was shown as a major component of what the ranger is. The class came about as a combination of a standalone archer and a beastmaster class as they whittled down the classes to a smaller number.

Asking them to remove pets is like asking to remove a guardian’s virtues, a mesmer’s illusions/shatters, or a warrior’s adrenaline. The class is built around the pet. It is integral to the design of the class.

If you really want a petless archer, then go for a warrior. Their longbow is more damaging than ours anyhow. Or maybe even ask for a new class. But please stop asking for the (even optional) removal of our core class mechanic. Because you do realize that if they make that option pets will be unviable for many things and the players that still use them will be shunned and pushed out of many a group.

No…it’s not like asking other classes to remove their class mechanic. Just come up with something different. GW1 did it with the Expertise attribute. Granted that doesn’t work here because there’s no energy management, but that doesn’t mean they can’t find something else. Use their brains, be creative.

And if they can’t figure out how to do that then they just plain have a bad trait system. Good grief, are you serious? I don’t know anyone that likes their pet in high dmg aoe situations…which just happens to be the end-game in GW2. Why in the world would anyone like having 1/3 of their dps not controlled by them and in the hands of a kitten y ai. /facepalm

Also…they reeeeeeeally need to state it somewhere, in BIG BOLD LETTERS, that rangers share damage output with their pets. And state specifically how much that ratio is…i.e. 80/20, 60/40, etc.

It’s insane that you don’t know that when creating a ranger for the first time if you just bought the game. And the PvE until Orr is way too easy to notice it, you should be informed of that from the start.

SynfulChaot.3169:

Ranger was advertised as a pet-based class from the start. If people don’t want a pet it is not unreasonable to point to other classes as there was no bait-and-switch here. We were given, from the start, knowledge that the pet is an integral part of the class.

Let’s, instead of asking or petitioning for pet removal, request pet improvement.

As far as your petition, though. You shame the community by asking for a class to change it’s primary mechanic and make us all look bad. -1

I followed this game for a year before it launched and still had no idea the pet was mandatory. Heck, I even leveled up to 40 before realizing it. Having a “strong” pet class and a “mandatory” pet class are two different things. Shame the community my kitten . It’s a broken mechanic that defies logic in dungeons and zergs.

If anything I’m guilty of not only expecting the Ranger to perform like its GW1 predecessor, but also of expecting them to perform like 99% of all video game rangers ever.

mzt.3270:

runeblade.7514:

We already have a Pet Removal option.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Warrior

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Thief

I little bit of me dies each time when somewhere, some kitten puts an unhelpful reroll answer to a question instead of actually being helpful.

Lol, yeah…but you have to admit it was pretty funny.

Kenny G.

With some Hanson thrown in when I’m feelin’ really wild.

CETheLucid.3964:

Doesn’t make any sense for the queen to randomly wage war on the charr for no reason.

They’d have to give us a really, really good reason. If they didn’t, the charr would be justified in their efforts to defend their land.

Given what we know now about one and other, it would be the epitome of immoral and stupid on our part. Humans would unquestionably be the aggressors.

What can be said of the past is lost to time.

In this age, to borrow a RL example, to do that would be a lot like Britain today waging war on the US because of what happened in 1775.

Doesn’t excuse the fact that the charr held a grudge to begin with that cost them their land, their history, and their freedom under flame legion rule…

But they’ve more then paid for that.

It’s arguable if fate isn’t still exacting a toll for it all, when you consider Ascalon is a very haunted land… and the visage is human.

I digress. Like it or not, the old war is dead. The charr rightfully won the greater part of Ascalon.

I wouldn’t support a random war against the charr for no reason at all other then LOL landgrab. That’s stupid.

At any rate, it’s not like the charr are xenophobic. Ascalon isn’t shut off to humanity. As long as you respect you’re in a charr nation you shouldn’t have any problems.

Or if that’s just not going to fly, we do certainly own a swath of the land to the south.

I agree it doesn’t make sense in this place and time, but I think you oversimplify the issue.

It wouldn’t exactly be immoral for the Ascalonians to fight back. After all, Ascalon is their home, not the Charr’s. The Charr homelands are on the Blazeridge Steppes are they not? Ascalonians will cease to exist if they let go of Ebonhawke.

Also, your RL example doesn’t fit. Most Americans at the time of the Revolutionary War were former English, or at least British. The Charr/Human dynamic is very different from that. I can’t think of an apt RL comparison honestly, partially because it’s just hard to find one that fits well, but mostly because the Charr were never intended to play the role of a peer to humanity. That’s just not how they were originally written. Granted, these writers went to great lengths to establish their credibility, but that doesn’t change the way in which they were historically portrayed.

That biased disconnect is the real heart of the matter here, not so much the current situation in Ascalon. That bias is not necessarily a bad thing, or a wrong thing. It’s simply the result of playing the game(GW1) the way it was intended to be played, and accepting the heroes and villains for who they were at face value. Immersion into the storyline of that game wouldn’t make sense if we questioned the relative sovereignty and rights of every enemy mob we came across. And the Charr were the A-list bad guys of that game. There was no question about that until the GW2 team came along and produced EotN as a prequel to this game.

GW2 isn’t like that. Moral ambiguity is the currency of the story. The dragons aren’t really evil, just doing their jobs as magic sponges. The Svanir aren’t really evil, just misguided. The Risen aren’t evil, they don’t even have their own minds anymore. Etc, etc, etc to infinity. In GW1 this wasn’t the case. The Titans were evil. Khilbron was evil. And the Charr…were evil. Is that boring and simple? A little, yes. But that’s just how it was. It would have been nice to introduce a little moral ambiguity into this game, but instead they went whole hog on it and there is almost nothing that is considered a “hands-down bad-guy” in GW2. It’s relativity on crack.

I understand they wanted to introduce more playable races to the game, which is fine. There are plenty of ways to do that, even for a main antagonist like the Charr. But the method in which they did it is why so many have a problem with them. Not only did they destroy an existing culture’s heritage in the process(Ascalonians), but they actually managed to completely reverse an established paradigm and make the Ascalonians out to be the bad guys. Umm…wut? And the only reason they did that, the only reason, was to give each race in GW2 an equal piece of the Tyrian pie. Nothing more.

To me that reads: Promoting a new playable race is not only more important than preserving the cultural integrity of older one, but also more important than the core narrative of the old game itself. And that is unacceptable.

Simply put, there was no good reason to kill Ascalon just to give birth to the Charr nation. Trying to reclaim it now, with the way the current setting plays out, would be silly.

Happyfool.8951:

i think the issue here is that when certain players are presented with a challenge, they refuse to evaluate their build/utilities and make proper adjustments. they prefer to just blame the mob/ai/skill/etc

That would make sense if it was feasible to do so. Granted, skills are easily changed. But traits and armor both require coin and npc’s. Are you saying players should procure a set of gear just for getting through mobs?

This, along with the combat speed nerf, is just plain annoying. Forcing players to literally crawl through certain areas, all because they don’t want you to be able to bypass anything, is silly.

A real solution would be to provide a few key, narrow corridors with which to travel through areas. Or at least give the mobs some real patrol paths to get around instead of the equidistant honeycomb pattern they seem to enjoy. It feels like the Battleship Gameboard with every single peg in except 1 or 2 for outposts.

I would have preferred a more realistic ending to Ascalon other than: Yet another Charr horde miraculously spawns and wipes out everything but Ascalon City(seriously, how many spare hordes did they have up there?). A good king goes bonkers and does a giant “eff you” to all things living, apparently because he can’t get over his son dying. And the Charr all of a sudden claim justice as their “homeland” is finally being returned to them…

Sigh…I don’t think fighting to reclaim Ascalon is even the remotest of possibilities in GW2 Tryia. Even if they tried to write it in somehow, it wouldn’t make any sense. Too much was changed and altered for that.

If, however, I were given the opportunity right after Adelbern defeats the Titans at the end of Proph, I would whole-heartedly try to reclaim the north.

It would make sense back then. It doesn’t make any sense now really.

Why don’t they make stabo reapply every second with Well of Power? I get that a fear would turn it into stabo, but if there’s no necro you are fighting, 1 second of stabo is insignificant. I mean, at best with no conversion, you’d get like 6 secs of stabo on a 42 sec CD. /shrug