Guild Wars 2

Obsidian.1328:

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 have level 80s of all classes but engy (level 60; getting there!). All are partially to fully geared. Out of all classes I still prefer the playstyle of the ranger above all others due to its far more dynamic combat. This is proven by having a large majority of my game hours on my ranger main.

And I agree that the game is now alt-unfriendly for gear acquisition. It used to be better, but with dungeon rewards now being account-bound instead of chara-bound and the time-gating of ascendeds, it has gotten pretty bad. I hope they do something to change that as they’re reducing people’s interest in running alts for any reason.

As for ideas on how to improve the pet? I’ve seen many ideas put out there and promoted left and right by many. Here’s just a few I’ve either read or come up with myself:

- More supporty pets. Perhaps even ones that give buffs and are immune, or nearly immune, to damage.
- Lowered death pet-swap cooldowns. 60s of downtime is just absurd. No other class can have so much of it’s power and utility shut down for a full minute.
- Addition of more pet modes than aggressive and passive like, say, one that has your pet only automatically attack targets that you attack, prioritizing the target you’re currently attacking.
- Addition of the pet dodging/evading attacks, whether it be automatic or manually triggered. If automatically triggered it could be so it only dodges specific attacks, mostly ‘wave’ attacks and AoEs. Or very hard-hitting boss attacks. You know, the things that generally kill your pets.
- Making the pet stay closer to you when idle. It’s idle leash range is too far away.
- Perhaps taking reduced damage when it’s retreating back to you on F3 (with a cooldown on the damage reduction of course).
- The ability for the pet to detect and get out of AoE circles.
- The ability for the pet to attack while it is moving.
- The ability to choose which of the pet’s attacks you get to manually trigger.
- The ability for Master’s Bond to retain stacks and keep them active between all pets until a pet fully dies.
- Revamp of the beastmaster major traits so that they don’t only affect particular pets but all pets.

This is, by no means a complete list. These are just a few small things that came to my mind within minutes. I’m sure I could provide you with at least 20 more.

Obsidian.1328:

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.

I have to strongly disagree with you here. A good ranger in melee with a pet can output very high damage. I believe that record CoF speed-clears have been with these rangers. And although the pet can’t currently survive everywhere, it can survive in most places outside of a few boss encounters.

Obsidian.1328:

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 is an entirely different story though, as has been pointed out.

Actually I’ve switched from running condi to power (in PvE, of course) as the other ‘condi’ classes can build and maintain better and longer conditions than a ranger, as well as doing it more effortlessly. And with proper pet swapping and management, I can maintain near full pet uptime, of which the pet remains attacking a majority of it.

Yes, control is abysmal. That badly needs updating. But it’s updating that’s needed, not necessarily removal.

Obsidian.1328:

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 for over year with the massive amount of public outcry about it? They’d have to be pretty clueless for that.

If the class is that much an injustice to the players then the players will stop playing it and ArenaNet will be forced to change it one way or the other. But evidence shows that it is still a highly played class.

And you have a major logic fail there. A flawed mechanic does not necessarily need to be removed. It needs to be fixed. That fix may require removal, and if so then that’s that. But a fix does not necessitate removal.

And again, like I’ve said waaaay too many times to count, the reason for nothing being done about it is that our pet issues are minor in the PvP meta and prior to recently they have not seemed to care at all about balance outside of PvP. Yes, people have complained. No they didn’t do anything, not because they couldn’t but because the main balance dev is also the head PvP dev, and he only seemed to care about his PvP and eSports. Now that the focus seems to be on PvE we should see some changes. If we don’t then I’ll be forced to agree with you.

Obsidian.1328:

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.

Most of those people probably didn’t want a pet in the first place, despite it being described as a pet class. I’d not hesitate to say that a majority in this thread that want pet removal are those same type of people. Remove those people from your calculation and you might find a different message. A message that rangers just want it to be fixed, whether it be with or without the pet.

I support the retention of the pet if it’s at all feasible. You’re seemingly against the retention of the pet regardless. What we can both agree on, and something that most rangers probably can as well, is that the ranger’s pet needs to be fixed one way or the other.

Obsidian.1328:

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.

I did. Let me pull that up for you:

de·fine, de·fined, de·fin·ing.
verb (used with object)
2.
to explain or identify the nature or essential qualities of; describe: to define judicial functions.

There is no other mechanic to the ranger that is that essential. You can run a good GW2 ranger without a bow. You really can’t run a good GW2 ranger without a pet. In fact, there really is no other real characteristic that defines all rangers aside from their pet. Some may be more defined by their traps, their spirits, their bows, or their bunkering. But all GW2 rangers are defined by their pets.

Remember, also, that we are the only class that has any real modicum of control over our pets. All the other ‘pets’, spirits included, are more aptly described as ‘minions’ as you have practically zero control over them.

And that DoT attrition playstyle may be true for PvP and roaming WvW, but that is not the ranger’s role in PvE.

Obsidian.1328:

“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.

Yes. We would be stronger without the pet solely due to the design of the game. Also, I would like to note that the ranger as a whole seems to be designed for a different game. We’re supposedly supposed to be ‘unparalleled archers’, yet both other classes that can use a bow have greater power and utility with their bows. In addition, there really is no point to an ‘unparalleled archer’ in a game that promotes melee and punishes ranged with lower DPS. Especially as most enemies in the game have gap-closers and ranged-punishing attacks like reflect and other boss-specific ranged-only attacks like the new TA boss’s sprocket things.

I am solely against the removal of the pet as the primary mechanic as I feel it would be an injustice to the idea of the class. That being said, I am not against implementation of ‘support’ style pets that buff and are harder (or impossible) to kill or other alternative pet mechanics. I am just against outright removal of them as the primary mechanic.

Obsidian.1328:

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.

I think they aren’t yet ready to admit it as they’ve not yet really tried to yet. Maybe it is fixable. Maybe it isn’t. That is unknown. But the point is that prior to now they’ve not tried at all. Now it seems that they’re actually trying. I’m all for giving them a chance to fix the pet now that it seems to be a priority for them.

Now if a few months pass and nothing more has changed, my tune will probably change as well.

Aridia.3042:

You can’t expect pets to hit 100% because that would be working under the assumption that you’ll land your hits a 100%, which you don’t. No class does.

Not to mention balance and the the cornerstone of the pvp in this game is about dodging and mitigation (e.g. aegis/blind etc) and you’re asking for your source of DPS to go up without giving your opponents more chances to mitigate the said damage.

If you want 100% hit rate on pets, your weapons will have to become utterly worthless. To foster a healthy competitive environment, one should lower the instances of automation and chance, which pets have in spades currently. I’ve asked this repeatedly on this forum and hope a dev would actually address this:

You’re right in that expecting them to land 100% of hits is a bad idea. But their necessity to stay stationary when attacking has them landing far fewer hits than a player as the opponent can pretty easily see the tell and move. Players don’t even need to dodge or evade to avoid the damage. They can simply walk away. If they removed that fact and allowed pets to hit while moving, then the pet DPS issue … well, it wouldn’t be an issue anymore.

Ryan.9387:

You are a human in real life. Rep your race!

(Our Armor is nicer too)

Too many Humans, not enough Norn and Asura. Remember that Norn share all non-racial armors with Humans.

Obsidian.1328:

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.

Sorry, but I can’t agree with you here. Pets really do define rangers. Just because you don’t personally emphasize that aspect of the class doesn’t mean that the class is not defined by the pet. I, myself, don’t trait any into beastmastery, instead traiting for more damage.

You can run a ranger without a bow and still be highly useful. You cannot run a ranger without a pet and still be highly useful. Pets, in the current design, are integral to the class. Speaking in pure semantics, for that reason the pets define the class.

Obsidian.1328:

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.

Changing how the pets are used as the class mechanic wouldn’t be a bad thing. I honestly don’t care how the pets get fixed so long as they remain the primary class mechanic and I’ve a feeling that most rangers feel similar. 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.

Yes, the pet HP buff is a minor thing. I don’t think that’s all they’re going to be doing, though. They know the pet has deeper issues. At the very least Sharp does, and he’s the balance lead. I’m pretty sure they’ll be gathering metrics for how the class fares with that change, then they’ll make more changes with that information. Yes that’s pure conjecture, but I don’t hold them as having quite the malicious and uncaring view towards they game that they created than most of the vocal minority here seems to think they have.

Obsidian.1328:

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.

I don’t call the vocal minority that frequents forums the ‘majority’. Neither of us can claim to be the majority as we truly don’t know who the majority is.

Of those races, Norn seem to have much more an affinity for nature and the natural world than Humans and Asura.

Fjandi.2516:

SynfulChaot.3169:

pets are a common, though not always used, theme in the fantasy ranger.

They are not common at all. I made a quick forum search since I was sure someone had already explained this in depth. I can’t quote his post cos that thread got closed (lol I wonder why).

“Rangers have been a staple of RPG and CRPG gaming forever. Game design giving them pets is a direct attempt to try to parallel the Hunter class from World of Warcraft under a different name. Historically they don’t have them in RPGs.

Some notable examples in PnP and computer gaming:

Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (1978) added the ranger to fantasy gaming. No pets.
Wizardry series, 1981-. No pets.
Ultima series, starting with Ultima IV, 1985. No pets.
DIKUMUD games (many), 1990-. No pets.
Elder Scrolls series 1994-. No pets.
Everquest, 1999. No pets.”

Again I wouldn’t be against pets, if they were well implemented. So I’m not saying “the ranger class shouldn’t have pets”.

AD&D rangers, at higher levels, could gain followers, some in the form of woodland animals. In both D&D 3 and 3.5, both pre-dating WoW, rangers had animal companions starting at 4th level.

Just because some examples you picked don’t have pets doesn’t mean that it’s not a common theme. Like I said, they are a common, though not always used, theme.

Fjandi.2516:

Ye pets are definitely part of the class in this game. Its core mechanic. But pets do not define the ranger. That’s true for our bows as well, they don’t define the ranger. A ranger without pets is NOT a warrior. It’s hard to explain, but I’m sure every player who really likes the ranger class in every fantasy game (assuming it’s well designed ofc) understands what I mean. The ranger in this game is forced to use pets cos the “hunter” in that ugly stupid game aka wow (I’m sorry wow players, the offense is desired) was forced to use pets. I heard an anet dev used to work for blizzard. This explains everything. Not only wow is a fugly game, it ruined other games (like the one we play and we are trying to enjoy) .The hunter in wow is not a ranger. It’s a different class called hunter.

Just because early concept work didn’t involve pets doesn’t mean that the GW2 ranger is not defined by the pet. Just look at the current description of the ranger, the one that has existed since well before game launch, and you’ll see what I mean.

The current ranger, as it currently stands, is the merging of two ‘ranger-ish’ types. The marksman and the beastmaster. Originally, IIRC, these were meant to be two disparate professions that were later merged into the odd amalgamation we have today. I believe that the merging was due to wanting only to have so many professions. Were they to have had both professions, which current GW2 profession would have gotten the boot, and would that have been worth it? I don’t think it would have.

And no, I don’t think that the pets are due to WoW. Pets on GW2 (and GW1) rangers are most likely due to the fact that pets are a common, though not always used, theme in the fantasy ranger.

jcbroe.4329:

— snip —

Yes. I do agree that we don’t have the options. But there are many options that could be added instead of pet removal, more passive-play style pets among them.

I think one of the real killers is the 60-second recharge when a pet dies as oftentimes it happens despite your best efforts to keep your pet alive. No other class has an entire 60-second period where their entire class mechanic, and linked 20-40% damage, is completely unusable. Doing something about this period would be a good first start.

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.

Obsidian.1328:

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.

Selfish for actually understanding that we should be rewarded for using our class mechanic rather than ignoring it? No. Selfish is demanding that the class mechanic gets stripped from the class.

Solid Gold.9310:

Wait, we are already shunned, really, seems the shunning has persisted from just after beta, and you would like that to continue I guess, when somebody could just ask “Would you mind running this without a pet”.

So what if Rangers run without pets when they want to, what’s the big deal, don’t meta me this or that.

If someone asks you a question like that you you don’t answer yes, you’re going to be kicked. Thus is the nature of the community. They want what’s easiest for them and what’s easiest for them will involve no pets, regardless of whether or not they are the one with the pets.

And if you want to run without pets, there are seven other classes. Pets are what defines the GW2 ranger. Without the pets we are just sub-par warriors.

Solid Gold.9310:

There are situations where the pet is fine and there are situations where the pet is completely unviable, why not let us choose when and where we run with a pet, then we would be welcome in any area of the game.

You’re right. There are a few situations where the pet is unviable. How about fixing the pet so it becomes viable rather than abandoning the thing, hmm?

Solid Gold.9310:

I only have a Ranger, I will only ever have a Ranger, I did storyline dungeons then had several bad experiences and haven’t been in a dungeon since, I would like to experience the whole game with my Ranger without the added worry of being booted from dungeon parties because of my pet, or having to spend hours trying to get in a party because I’m a Ranger.

If you learn to micro you pet and bring the right pets in, even if it’s untraited, then you should be able to complete all dungeon paths with minimal issues, even with PUGs. I mostly only dungeon run with my ranger and have very rarely been kicked.

Solid Gold.9310:

With the new content being added in “Dungeon” instanced format, I feel even more excluded, at least with TEQ open world content I could take part.

I don’t see why people want to enforce the pet on us “You will have a pet”, it worked fine with GW1 and I don’t see why it wouldn’t work here.

Try the new content with your ranger. You’ll find it far more accommodating to pets than previous dungeons. The difficulty is higher, though, but you should have little issue with pet survivability.

As for why people want to enforce the “you will have a pet” thing? Maybe because the GW2 ranger has, and has always, been shown as a beastmaster class.

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.

thefantasticg.3984:

Hey, just because they are suddenly “working on it” by giving them more HP doesn’t excuse the last 9 months I’ve been waiting for them to make the pets worth a kitten . Don’t care if you find it rude. Fact remains that they’ve had time to fix this. It’s not like this is a single weapon skill or a single trait that sometimes doesn’t work right. This is a core mechanic of a class that has major problems. They’ve had long enough to fix it. I don’t think they can. If they could have, they would have. That really is what it comes down to. Glad the glass is half full for you, but for most of us who main a ranger Anet emptied the glass then threw it against the wall.

Yes, they had time. No, they didn’t as they were blinded by the fact that the pet doesn’t show it’s flaws as glaringly in PvP, which is all they seemed to care about for balance.

Don’t assume I’m happy with where the pet is, either. I’m not. I do think they are capable of fixing it. I just think they didn’t due to not caring about class balance outside of PvP because of their eSports fetish.

You may have given up on the ranger but some of of us, those that actually understand that the ranger in GW2 is a pet class, have not yet done so. I don’t know if you’ve tried the new dungeon or not, but I noticed an … odd thing where my pet took significantly less AoE damage than usual. In fact, outside of the final boss I had far less issue with my pet than in most dungeon paths. Try it with your ranger. You might actually enjoy it.

Solid Gold.9310:

They’ve had a long time to fix it, either fix it or give us the option.

The option to use a pet or not won’t affect those that think the pet can be “micro managed”, and think the pet is worth using.

The pet to me is a game breaker.

And now that they are fixing it you’re dismissing fact that because they didn’t fix it already. Logic fail? Or impatience…

And making it an option would be disastrous for pet use outside of PvP and roaming WvW. It just wouldn’t happen. Because the pet doesn’t have the reaction times that a player does, unless having the pet would border on being OP it would not get used. And those that did choose to run a pet would not be welcome as they’d be seen as holding the others back.

Writetyper.1985:

They probably don’t micro them at all.

Even a properly micro’d pet has many issues. Slow skill activations, suicidal tendencies of standing in AoE fields, and inability to avoid AoE and wave-style attacks being among the larger ones.

If one has not seen these issues than either they don’t play a ranger, they’re lying, or they’re blind.

The second and third attacks in the chain are leap attacks. You’ll actually jump forward up to that distance towards your target. That’s the reason for the longer range.

Fjandi.2516:

SynfulChaot.3169:

I cannot agree that it’s not a matter of subjectivity. What path is the ‘right’ one to take is entirely subjective. There is no measurable, quantifiable metric for what is ‘right’.

I was not saying the “paths” suggested in this thread are the correct ones. I was simply stating that their path is clearly wrong. I’m the first one to admit I’ve no idea how to fix our broken class mechanic.

I do agree with you. The current path is wrong for real viability in PvE. I just hope, now that they seem focused on PvE/WvW balance, that they will make a real, visible attempt to fix our pets. There are tons of games that have shown how to do it right and how to do it wrong. Let’s hope they pay attention to the former group.

Fjandi.2516:

Trust me the point of no return has already been passed, the damage they made to the ranger class cannot be reversed (oh well it can tbh, maybe in a few years or so).
Another problem is the devs are stubborn, they don’t accept criticism, their idea (or philosophy, since they like this useless subject so much) is always the correct one. It doesn’t matter if 99% of the players (players like me or some of you guys who really want the ranger class to become a well designed and fun class in every game mode) don’t agree with their view. But let’s be honest here, it’s not a matter of subjectivity, their view is the wrong one and most game mechanics have already proved so.

I disagree with you on this point. The ‘damage’ they’ve done to the class can be quite easily reversed if they actually start improving our pet. And unfortunately I cannot agree that it’s not a matter of subjectivity. What path is the ‘right’ one to take is entirely subjective. There is no measurable, quantifiable metric for what is ‘right’.

That being said, the pets have massive flaws that need fixing, and badly. I think we can all agree on that.

This makes me, as a ranger, happy as kitten. Finally a place where they design with our pets in mind. ^.^

See rangers, they are looking at our class for balance in PvE now!

Fjandi.2516:

SynfulChaot.3169:

Because I’m willing to bet that if pet abandonment becomes an option then pets will cease to be a thing outside of PvP and roaming WvW.

Ofc it will, that’s crystal clear. It’s quite simple tbh, there’s no way to completely fix the pet mechanic without adding a pema-stow option, it does not work in this game. It “works” in spvp, but even there it’s clearly badly designed. It looks like jon sharp duped you with all that philosophy bullkitten. All the anet guys do is talking in a completely vague way about what they are doing “ye we know there is a problem with that bla bla bla we are working on that bla bla bla we can’t say anything more specific”.
Sorry but one year has passed, we have a lot of quaggan backpacks, but ranger pets are still kitten, it’s quite evident they don’t know how to fix the problem, or they are wasting their time philosophizing.

No. The reason we’ve not seen real improvement is all they seemed to care about before was PvP balance, where the pet was not the anchor it is in PvE. There it is at least mostly functional and mostly reliable. As they didn’t see it as a problem there they didn’t seem to care at all. Now that they’re seeming to actually look at PvE balance we should be getting some pet improvements.

No, I wasn’t duped. Don’t assume me an idiot and I won’t do the same for you, kk?

Yes, I believe they can fix the pet without a perma stow. Many other games have functional pets. We can as well. So let’s give them a short time to fix the pets before just crying for a removal and calling it done. Especially as their focus seems to be on PvE now.

Durzlla.6295:

SynfulChaot.3169:

I dunno. There is one major balance change for mesmers. Other than that, though, we gotta wait until the 15th.

Uh…. What was this change?

Mesmer clones now show nameplates.

Durzlla.6295:

TA F/U only required a spider Despawn on deaggro/wipe, or a cap on spider spawns (which there used to be). I’m absolutely furious that they removed it, she was one of my favorite villains… AND she was a ranger… RIP: only feared Ranger in GW2.

T’was my favorite path mechanically. I used to run all TA paths daily for a while. The boss encounter just got ruined coinciding with the AC revamp. And of the three courtier crazies that were seeking the tree I also found her to be the most amusing. It’s not every day, after all, that you get to see a crazy spider lady.

Durzlla.6295:

And yeah, with the original trait system they had traits like Dire Training: Pet damage increased by X, and things that gave boosts to swapping pets (mighty swap and QZ stayed), and then some that promoted a single type of pet, like Canine mastery where all there skills recharged 30% faster and were 50% more effective…

Granted this was WAY back when the trait system was ENTIRERLY different, but still…

PS: those numbers could totally be wrong, they were heard from a friend who attended PAX and tried ranger for me.

As a player who tried out GW2 at PAX back then, yes, the earlier pet traits were superior to the hodgepodge of mediocrity currently in our traitline. When people only go into the trait for either things not relating to the pet at all or solely for increasing the pet’s stats, then you know you did something wrong.

I dunno. There is one major balance change for mesmers. Other than that, though, we gotta wait until the 15th.

Durzlla.6295:

When i first heard of the whole pet swapping thing i was like “Oh that’s pretty cool” because they sold it as a sort of “you can swap pets but it’s better to stick with just one!” sort of thing, and now we have this….

Why is it all the really awesome things about pets were changed? Like picking their skill set (including what skill was the F2) from a pool of skills, the whole evolution system… the original training system… the original beast mastery traits…

I think another problem with pets, and it’s one I’ve noticed since launch, is that the beastmastery line and concept is fundamentally flawed.

Most of the trait line rewards running the same pets. Masters Bond makes our pets stronger the longer they stay out. All master beastmastery traits only affect specific pets. Yet the other traits reward pet swapping. The game mechanics reward both pet swapping and pet variety. It feels like they can’t decide if we’re supposed to always keep the same pet out or if we’re supposed to be constantly swapping.

There is a lot from GW1 that was better in regards to the pet. The pet ‘shouts’ were far superior. Current pet ‘shouts’ are a joke, IMHO. The pet controls were better. Current ones only allow the slightest modicum of control that we must use every last inch of. The pets were more reliable. The current ones have a tendency to die too easily and not hit their target. The ‘evolution’ system was great in that it allowed some variety in stats. You could have tankier or more damaging versions of all pets if you wanted. The current pets have no options.

There are many things they could do to improve our pets. I just want to see some of those things attempted instead of the, even optional, abandoning of our core mechanic. Because I’m willing to bet that if pet abandonment becomes an option then pets will cease to be a thing outside of PvP and roaming WvW, and those who choose to still run them will get run out of any group.

Manekk.6981:

It’s not because of rangers that don’t know how to utilize their pet this thread was made, it’s because of the ones that do and still feel they too often get punished/crippled by their own class mechanic being crap in so much content.

I disagree. The tone of most people that want it gone make it clear they never liked having it in the first place. Especially as most seem to not want fixes to it. They just want it gone. They want it to be an archer/huntsman class instead of the beastmaster/archer class that ArenaNet designed it as.

Durzlla.6295:

Well… TA path F/U has been one of the hardest paths in the game and instead of Anet actually fixing that problem it was removed… i wonder if they’re going to do that with pets now… just wave them away and be like “Rangers Class Mechanic is not having one! yeah… that’s it…”

Unfortunately that is looking decently likely. TA F/U would have been easy to fix as well… T.T

Mardermann.7468:

— snip —

No. If you think that I am happy with the current pet system then you are mistaken. I like the idea of having a pet. The current implementation is … fundamentally flawed, though. I just want to see the system _*fixed_* instead of abandoned. Because as I see it, from my understanding of player behaviour, if the option to remove pets is made then even if pets are ‘fixed’ players will not resume use of them. It will practically kill off the pets permanently.

Manekk.6981:

If a flat 27% damage reduction isn’t major to you then I’d hate to be on the recieveing end of what you would call a major nerf, when you say it’s not major enough to cause invalidation of them you speak as if there was an alternative when there really isn’t one, all 3 took a big hit in some way but drake and wolf alot more so because they got pure dps cut by almost a third while the cats probably have close to the same dps but instead lost practically all their burst capability.

I still mainly use canines and drakes. I did before the nerf and I have continued to since. Among pets I currently find them to have the best damage output while retaining survivability in PvE. Though with the incoming pet HP buff I might start trying out felines and birds as the additional health might make them viable with my current zero in beastmastery.

Yes, their DPS was cut. No, not by a third. No, not to unviability. Remember that, IIRC, they still do the highest damage to moving targets of any pet. There is a reason many rangers still run canines. Because of their damage, CC, and active F2 skills.

Yes, the nerf was unnecessary. But no, it’s not as drastic as you keep trying to make it sound.

Manekk.6981:

The funny thing to me is back when they used to deal great damage they were almost entirely ignored while people whined and complained now instead I noticed more and more players actively take out the pet (with ridiculous ease too I might add) when it’s not worth nearly as much.

People have whined about pets since launch. Rangers complained as they noted the pet’s downsides even then. Other classes complained at the damage they do as they always seem to conveniently forget that our damage output is scaled down so we’re reliant on our pet for that additional damage to even draw close to what other classes deal directly.

Most of the rangers that complained then, and even still do now, do so because they either don’t want to the pet at all in the first place, or they’re unwilling to learn to utilize the pet properly. It is our mechanic, after all. Guardians that don’t learn to utilize their virtues don’t do as well. Elementalists that don’t learn to swap attunements don’t do as well. Why should rangers that don’t learn to utilize the pet do as well?

Manekk.6981:

I never spoke of 50% dps nerf I just said it was a major nerf to pet damage wich is was drakes and canines got a 20% nerf on their main attack not only the F2 like you said, that is definetly significant same thing was for the devourers who already did kitten damage on land, so no I don’t think comparatively it was a minor nerf, it should be said some few pets got some buffs too only it was the useless/near useless ones that wheren’t worth using before or after anyway.

edit: it was a 27% damage reduction for wolves and drakes.

It was noted, but it was not large enough for me to call it ‘major’. I firmly believe that the nerf was entirely unnecessary and was done due to to bad PvP players that couldn’t learn to adapt. That nerf affecting us worse in PvE and WvW where bunkering really isn’t a valid strategy. But it was not so major as to cause invalidation of the affected pets. I believe canines still remain the highest damage dealing pets to moving targets. Drakes are still highly used for their AoE attacks. And felines are still the spike damagers.

Yes, it was unnecessary. Yes, it was large enough to be noted. No, it was not what I would consider ‘major’.

Manekk.6981:

I don’t know what you’ve been smoking, it was a very major nerf to practically all pets aside from cats who only got their major burst attack reduced by 50% wich isn’t minor in pvp, especially considering the quickness on petswap was removed at the same time.

I wasn’t overstating anything, you completely forgot how big the nerf was.

People did the math. Yes, it did affect our DPS. But it wasn’t the 50% that everyone loves claiming it was. Not even close. I believe it was under 10% IIRC. Now yes, some of the burst damage went down by a large margin, but their overall damage output was affected far less than is constantly claimed.

Now I’m not saying that the nerf was needed. I strongly felt then, and still feel now, that it was an unnecessary nerf due to other classes in PvP refusing to attack our pets then complaining that we did too much damage when they were ignoring the heavy damage dealer. All I’m saying is that, comparatively speaking, it was a minor nerf.

Obsidian.1328:

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. :-(

Hmm…

I think it’s less that we don’t synergize and more that we don’t do anything truly well. We can be a decent archer/beastmaster. Or decent beastmaster/druid. But we can’t just be a good beastmaster. Or a good archer. We can only, at best, be ‘decent’ at any of them.

Bredin.5368:

For PVE, which I rarely do, I can see why this would be an unnecessary annoyance.

Not just unnecessary, but very dangerous and frequently fatal. WvW and PvP just doesn’t have the insane damage spikes that PvE dishes out.

Manekk.6981:

SynfulChaot.3169:

Why is it that you all want the pets removed instead of improved? Because you don’t think it’s possible or because you don’t want them in the first place.

If it’s the latter, then you chose the wrong profession.

Maybe because after over a year playing this class pets don’t seem to improve much in the areas they have the most problems, survivability in some cases and attacking mobile targets to name the big ones and aside from cats they now also deal kitten poor damage from what they did initially.

Again, it’s because the previous focus of class balance was PvP only. Now that we’re seeing more PvE focused changes, things should be coming to our pets soon.

As for pet DPS? Canines and drakes also do good damage, for pets, at least. And don’t overstate the pet damage nerf. It only affected the F2 skill and had far less of an impact than everyone makes it out to be. It wasn’t a major nerf. It was a minor one.

Indoles.1467:

I don’t see how you think they are actively working on it. Maybe you are more connected than any of us and know some information that we don’t, but we’ve all seen the pet health buff before. You know what it changes? Nothing. It’s a band-aid fix so that we think our pets are more useful. Our pets lack the mechanics that determine success in this game and that is evading damage and proper skill usage.

Anet has said themselves that they don’t want to give the ranger more control over his/her pets because it would be too confusing for new players (but I think there are more hidden reasons they won’t say). They also have said that giving the pet an evade on ranger evade was a bit op (but never specified if it was actually tested or theory crafted and threw in our face). So, we already know nothing is coming except some crappy hp buff (again) and maybe some skill changes. What most of us want is more control and better response out of the pet, not more health. Giving something more health doesn’t give me the impression that they are actively working on it as those are simply some values that can be changed rapidly on the spot.

Now I will mention there was a time when us rangers had hope. The pet patches way back that decreased f2 cast times and improved pet ai so melee pets hit more often. But it has been a long time since then and I feel that their focus is elsewhere (pushing the meta away from condi is pretty big on their list). I want to see improvements too, but in the meantime, perma stow please.

I see the pet health buff as a preliminary step so they can see how that affects our pets before they go further. And yes, some of what I’m looking forward to is based on a conversation I had with Sharp at PAX. I know that they’re aware of the pet issues. I know that they have been working on, or at least seriously discussing, how to fix some of them. And once they gather a few weeks worth of metrics from the pet health buff I’ll be looking forward to see what they’ve come up with as solutions to the issues.

Now I realize that most, if not nearly all, rangers have given up hope. Many have even went on to maining another class due to the issues endemic with our class. But I feel that allowing a buffed perma-stow before they work more on the pet will only permanently make the pet a never-used option.

Obsidian.1328:

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.

Again, I agree.

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.

Lorelei.3918:

“I want progress, yes. Improvement of the pet. Removing the pet isn’t progress. It’s avoiding progress.”

What if I told you…

That Anet’s programmers are not capable of improving the pet?

Then you’d not necessarily be speaking the truth. You don’t and can’t know that. Therefore I’d have to dismiss your claim as unsubstantiatable.

Obsidian.1328:

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.

No. There isn’t. And again, that is one of the drawbacks to a pet class. A pet class you chose to play. Noone forced you to play a ranger. At least I don’t think anyone did. And if somehow they did, then you have bigger issues than ranger balance. :P

You can, however, improve their AI to avoid AoE and potentially dodge or take reduced damage from the attacks you must dodge. You could also give the ranger the ability to make the pet dodge. Yes, it makes the ranger require micro-managing the pet. But again, that is one of the drawbacks to a pet class.

Basically you’re arguing that there is nothing they can do and that the pet should be scrapped regardless, without any evidence proving that your statement is correct.

Again, right now if you want a petless class, then there are seven more classes to choose from.

Obsidian.1328:

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

No. I’m really not. And if you read any of what I’ve been saying you’d already know that.

I want to see the ranger in a good place as much as you do. Probably more than you do. I just want to see it done right. Not hastily. If that happens to be with the pet? Good. If it happens to be without? Also good. But I don’t yet think it is time to abandon the pet. Not with active work now being done on the issue.

Now if another few months come and go and the pet is still having severe issues with seemingly no attention being payed to it then maybe it will be time for the pet to go. But right now they are seeming to be working on the pet issues. It’s not that hard to wait a short while to see what comes of the changes.

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 …

Obsidian.1328:

SynfulChaot.3169:

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?

Gather metrics on how the change, the buff to pet health, affects the ranger. Theorycrafting is fine and all, but it needs to be tested in the field to see how to tweak it. That’s what metrics they need to gather.

Think about it. If they made … let’s say five changes to the pet simultaneously and then found that they went to far and overbuffed it. How would they be able to tell which one of the five was responsible for it going too far? That is the reason for making more gradual changes. So you can implement one at a time and gather metrics for the effect of each.

Now again, as I stated before, if there are no further changes in the couple months after the health buff and the ranger pet is still in a bad place then I will hesitantly agree that maybe the pet needs to go. But right now we’re on the start of what could be the progress we need to make the pet come into it’s own. Let’s let that process come to it’s conclusion, good or bad, and in a reasonable timeframe before just abandoning the pets.

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.

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.

mzt.3270:

Indeed I agree but the issue is that because of the constant complaints of PVP players which then go to affecting our classes ( regardless if we set foot in PVP or not) is grossly unfair and yet another example of Anet’s constant failures to investigate the mechanics of all classes in ALL aspects of the game before setting down a nerf or buff.

For example who on earth had the stupidity to place a nerf on the shortbow from 1200 to 900? In WvW that distance would close the gap in catching up those classes such as elementals ( who IMO already have more than ample combat viability to survive) also have speed signets and also have the opportunity to boost speed with Rune of the Berserk Emu or some other daft idea Anet like to place.

I agree here. The balance focus on PvP and PvP alone did real damage to balance elsewhere. It made warriors practically gods in PvE and lowered rangers to the point where many dislike having us around. And the SB range nerf was completely unnecessary and was lazy design. It was made solely to force LB use instead of making the LB more attractive to use in it’s own right.

But with the latest patch announcements (and leaks) for October 15th, it does seem like ArenaNet is finally starting to look at the state of the PvE game. We can only hope they will continue to do so.

mzt.3270:

What I am saying is yes maybe the Pet is ok in PVE and PvP, but in WvW its not and its about time Anet should be addressing the majority of people who do represent their server in WvW other than in PVP. In WvW we have engies who cant even lob a grenade over a keep wall, they have to actually stand on a ledge to do it, yet a Mesmer can haul some poor sod off a wall without being near the lip. What is fair about that?

More like good in PvP and roaming WvW, barely acceptable in PvE, and useless in zerg WvW.

mzt.3270:

If its not the botters its the cheaters, if its not the cheaters its the people finding loopholes in game mechanics to get the upperhand. So of course there are ways to deal with the mechanics or rangers but they will never be addressed fully unless any changes are looked on in an all encompassed view and that is clearly not happening. Don’t get me wrong I love my Pet, in PVE its great to have but WvW I could do far more and I would like to have the opportunity to have better camouflage, some stun options and stability that’s not part of a poor elite skill. If it saves people crying O.P because we get that and a pet, well I would rather just not have the pet.

Let them cry OP. Their arguments have no weight if they’re not based in fact. The complaints of the ignorant should not have any effect on the balance of the game.

Now as you stated you like your pet, would you prefer removal of the pet or improvement of the pet so it no longer feels like it’s dead weight hindering you?

mzt.3270:

Because there is nothing enjoyable from a dead pet and a dead you, all because your pet could never escape the insane aoe stun and damage spam that infects all of WvW. If your damage is only 60% of an adversary you will lose. I am not saying that 1v1 the pet is not viable , it is but in a WvW Zerg scenario its just useless and I am sure the majority of rangers would happily give up a pet it meant more offense/ defense skills to them and also more boon / retaliation/ stun to a zerg . Some of us are not PVPers, We do PvE but some of us do WvW quite a bit and its in this situation that rangers need our power/ defense and boons to keep us alive out there.

We may be good healers but nobody thanks the rangers for keeping people alive at the doors of an AC barraged keep, plenty thanks to retaliation and buff generators though. If pets are to be kept fine… but Anet either need to nerf the stun/ damage aoe ( which is easy to do) or buff the pets to the point it would be OP or give them an intelligent AI ( far harder and never will happen). Therefore if the majority of the players would rather have the majority of the damage to them and less to the critter, then it would make far better sense and easier software programming to cut the pet and develop another way of replacing that missing 40% damage. That is to either combine a new set of skills from various classes that already share similar mechanics to rangers (Necro would be nearest) and buff up the class or what they can do is nerf everyone else. Which is the most easier?

Here’s the thing, though. There are many things they could do to improve the pet in the situations in which they are weak, such as under heavy AoE spam as is prevalent in zerg WvW and certain PvE encounters. You even listed a few of them yourself. Why then, should we petition for removal of the mechanic instead of improvement of the mechanic?

Removal is the easy way out for those that didn’t want a pet in the first place. Improvement is for those that want the GW2 ranger to remain the GW2 ranger.

Obsidian.1328:

—snip—

*sigh*

Continuing this conversation with you is like talking to a brick wall. I’ve made my points very clear, yet they are continually ignored/dismissed automatically. All the while you refuse to see how adding that ‘option’ would remove pets as a valid option to the community.

To everyone else, try stepping back and looking at what impact to the game removing the pet would do. Yes, it would make things easier for you. Unfortunately it would also put pets by the wayside as things that are not used, like necromancer minions and engineer turrets.

Please look at what’s best for the game, not just what’s best for you.

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?

Obsidian.1328:

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.

Either that or you give them less credit.

And yes. I am concerned that if buffed removal became an option that it would force the meta, in PvE and zerg WvW at least, away from pets as a valid option. Adding an option is one thing. But adding an option that changes the entire class and how it plays while invalidating the old way of playing is something else entirely. As much as you don’t want to see it, adding buffed pet removal would be the latter. It would basically remove pets as a valid option.

I honestly think they should stick to their vision of the classes and where they want the classes to be. Not acceding to the demands of people that didn’t want the pet in the first place.

Obsidian.1328:

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?

There are other ways of fixing the issues than removing the pet. That is what I am saying. I propose getting the mechanic fixed rather than abandoned.

You’re right. We haven’t had much in the way of fixes in the past. I feel that most of that was due to practically all previous class balance revolving around only PvP. In PvP, the pet doesn’t have the survival issues it does in PvE as there isn’t the insta-death mechanics or the insane AoE spam.

With this next patch on the 15th, though, it seems more focus is being put on PvE class balance. And it’s going to start with the pet health increase. That, I believe, is the first step to improving the pet. It won’t be enough on it’s own. But once they gather metrics on how it will improve things they can determine how next to remedy our pet issues.

I’ll agree that most players don’t like the current pet implementation as it does have some glaring flaws. But I don’t think removing the pets should be the first step. Removing, or minimizing/mitigating the flaws should be. And that is what it seems that ArenaNet is going to do.

I expect more pet fixes to the pet to trickle out as they gather more metrics.

Obsidian.1328:

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.

The classes aren’t all the same as they were in GW1. The ele doesn’t specialize. The mesmer hardly interrupts. The assassin … I mean thief doesn’t have attack chains.

GW2 isn’t GW1. It is a very different game set in the same world. The gameplay is vastly different. Why should it not follow that the classes would be as well.

Also, I should point out that they released info on the classes, including the fact that the ranger is bound to the pet, long before launch. It even shows them as being a pet class on the profession selection screen.

As for sharing damage output … just think about it. If you gave full damage from the ranger on top of what the pet does then the ranger would be massively OP. Now maybe too much damage is on the pet. That may be true. Scaling some of the damage back to the ranger wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. But having full power on both gives the ranger the power of more than one player. And that’s just bad design.

Obsidian.1328:

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.

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*

Obsidian.1328:

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.

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.