Guild Wars 2

Obsidian.1328:

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.

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

Obsidian.1328:

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.

Sorry, but as a player that actually plays my ranger in dungeons I find that I have little issue in most places keeping both myself and my pets alive. Yes, with a glassy build and zero points in beastmastery. If you always insist on only a few pets and don’t switch them out, then you’ll have trouble. But if you change up your pets to the encounter, then you should have little trouble.

Now, yes, there are a few encounters in which the pet will cause lowered DPS. But those few encounters are not enough to scrap the pets when fixes to the mechanic would do just fine.

Obsidian.1328:

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.

You’re wanting a disabling of the core class mechanic. I’m sorry, but I don’t find that to be reasonable.

Now if the pet wasn’t the core class mechanic, then I’d have little issue. 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.

Nilkemia.8507:

SynfulChaot.3169:

All you seem to want is for the class’s entire core mechanic to be removed. Because instead of working with the class you insist on it being changed to what you want it to be. That’d be akin to not liking the initiative system and wanting it removed from thieves. Or not liking death shroud and wanting it removed from necromancers. Pets are the ranger’s core mechanic in GW2. If you don’t like the core mechanic, choose a class that you do like the core mechanic of.

No. Wrong. We want to not be forced to use it every time we get in a fight.

There’s a big difference between death shroud/initiative and pets. Those are actually unique, while pets are basically just summons that we have a little control over (while nearly every race/profession has access to summons of their own). Also, initiative and death shroud are actually optional to use and are much more useful than pets.

Sorry, but it is the class’s primary mechanic and we do have far more control over our pets than anyone else has over their ‘pets’. Also, I feel the need to point out that initiative is not optional to use unless the thief decides not to use their weapons. And that would make for a really, really, really horribad thief.

Nilkemia.8507:

Do I need to bring up the Champion Risen Abomination again?

Well, since I have access to other classes, I just play those instead. It’s a shame, rangers have some interesting things they can do, but their core mechanic just doesn’t work.

Yes. There are places in which the pet’s flaws are highlighted. There are only a few such places, though. If you look at all late-game content, the encounters in which rangers are thus weakened are few.

Yes, it needs work. None of us will argue that. But I think it’s far better to improve the pet then abandon it. We already have seven non-pet-bound classes. We don’t need an eighth when fixes to the pet would do just fine.

CETheLucid.3964:

Dang it, forgot to put my cynicism on. We can’t have nice things because people are people.

Some people would just intentionally play their pets badly to have the recharge on cool down as long as possible.

Maybe add a “this can only trigger so often during X amount of time”, with Anet balancing it around an average, even a baddie player at least trying to utilize and keep their pet alive.

Arrive at a decent number that most people who would intentionally kill their pets off for the bonus can’t gain any real benefit from, while those who are trying to keep their critter alive are rewarded for it if things get dicey.

Make it not worth it for the one who would intentionally sac their pet. Reward honest effort and play. Take it away, Anet.

I was about to say just that. You beat me to it.

But yeah. Not a bad idea if you add that cooldown to it to remove the incentive to just run a squish pet and suicide it.

Another thought is to lower the ‘dead pet’ recharge penalty. It’s just too long…

Obsidian.1328:

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…

Yes. You’re right. It is the main ranger complaint I’ve heard. But you know what? Those players chose to play the pet-based class. Then wanted the pet gone from it.

Now if you go in knowing (as you should if you actually paid attention) that the class relies on the pet, and then you ask for it to be removed … now that shows that you’re not really capable of reasonable discussion as that request really isn’t reasonable.

Obsidian.1328:

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.

Because I’m not going to demand that the game change a class entirely just to suit my needs. The Guild Wars 2 ranger has a pet. ArenaNet has been very clear about this from before launch. There are other classes if you don’t want a pet. Seven others, in fact.

And you cannot guarantee anything. Unless you can provide me with real statistics, which you cannot, you are doing nothing but posing conjecture as fact. Yes, some would prefer not to have a pet. Yes, some still want a pet. But you cannot prove one group is greater than the other.

All you seem to want is for the class’s entire core mechanic to be removed. Because instead of working with the class you insist on it being changed to what you want it to be. That’d be akin to not liking the initiative system and wanting it removed from thieves. Or not liking death shroud and wanting it removed from necromancers. Pets are the ranger’s core mechanic in GW2. If you don’t like the core mechanic, choose a class that you do like the core mechanic of.

Durzlla.6295:

Obsidian.1328:

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.

I bolded the area that is blatantly true, i kinda want them to add a petless option to ranger just so they can see how kittening badly pets need the help because we know how many people would drop that pet in a matter of seconds.

They know how bad the pets are. They know how badly we need fixes. I think they want to see what the health buff does before making more changes. Gradual changes so as to not change too much to fast as that would make it too hard to gather real metrics as you wouldn’t be able to tell what results were from what changes.

We’re getting a health buff for our pets. More changes should come as they continue tweaking the system.

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.

Recycle.5493:

SynfulChaot.3169:

No. We do see how it would. Some of us, like myself, just see that there would then be a problem in making pets a viable option. Something that actually gets used. Instead of something that gets permanently shelved. We have seven no-pet required classes. Why insist on an eighth?

You’re not seeing what I’m pointing out. It is an option, not forced onto everyone. And just as I said, I love my pets as the way they are. What I want is that “pet-less as an option with no stat change in ranger him/herself,” which means easier killing the crippled rangers who are dumb enough to not use pets, which means advantages for those who prefer and use pets.

Oh. An option to shelve the pet with no change to the ranger in any other way? Yes. I’d like that as well. T’would be useful in a few select situations.

But that’s not what the others are demanding.

Recycle.5493:

Honestly, I don’t care about class reputation or player criticism, if people want to cripple themselves by not having a pet, then fine, make it an option, but don’t give them stat increase when pet-less. Make them suffer for their own decisions.

I’m in complete agreement.

Recycle.5493:

I don’t know, all these “experienced players” and their “experienced comments” make me chuckle. They’re not seeing how it’s going to make their lives easier.

I for one love to see it as an option, because I love my pets and I would love to kick some no-pet-rangers’ kitten s with them.

No. We do see how it would. Some of us, like myself, just see that there would then be a problem in making pets a viable option. Something that actually gets used. Instead of something that gets permanently shelved. We have seven no-pet requred classes. Why insist on an eighth?

Obsidian.1328:

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?

There are many things they could add. Give us the ability to let the pet dodge. Allow the recall pet to have them retreat with some haste. Let the recall pull them to us, not somewhere that might be close. That’s just to start.

There are many things they could do to improve the pet. But by giving the option to not have a pet, that will cause the PvE meta to discard the pet entirely. To remove it as an option by way of inadequacy. Instead of making us find ways of being useful with the pet you’ll be taking away that incentive. It’ll kill beastmaster as a thing in PvE. And that’s a shame.

Nilkemia.8507:

Unfortunately, their vision of a Ranger has left them sub-par, forever having to give more effort to try and match some of the other classes, or still fall short of them anyway.

Try soloing the Champion Risen Abomination with a pet.

(Abomination does its charge up AoE smash)

(You dodge.)

(Abomination gains frenzy anyway because your pet doesn’t dodge with you, meaning you have to let the Abomination kill it, and leave it limping while waiting for the Abomination’s frenzy to hopefully wear off before it can hit you more.)

Meanwhile, any other class can manage that with less trouble, since they aren’t stuck with a forced summon put on them the whole time.

Yes. But we can be given tools to make the pet better. Which is preferable to just removing it.

That’s not the ‘sad state of rangers’. That’s the ‘sad state of elitists in the GW2 community’.

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.

Solid Gold.9310:

Remember this should be just an OPTION if you want to play with a pet, you can still, nobodies saying do away with pets altogether.

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.

Star Ace.5207:

(And didn’t mean to debate with you SynfulChaot, as I actually agree with your points. I can’t see the pet being optional and people actually using it over time due to meta group builds-which I don’t favor but most would.)

Oh. I know. I agree on that. That is the danger of making buffed pet removal an option. For some formats (PvE for instance) it’d practically preclude pet use. And it’d give ANet no incentive to improve pet AI, which honestly should be the focus.

Atherakhia.4086:

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.

For me, it’s because ANet has shown over the course of a year that they’re either oblivious to the problem or don’t care about the problem. Nothing has been done to realistically solve the issue. Only band-aid fixes like the rumored 71% increase in pet health we’ll be getting soon.

Before we even want to pretend pets are worth reducing Ranger damage at all… they need to at least be able to hit moving targets, survive more than 3 seconds under pressure, have F2 abilities that actually work, obtain aegis or 2 seconds of invuln every time the ranger dodges/evades, and synergize with the class through traits. None of this is true and why people often suggest just removing it in favor of boosting our damage by 25-40%.

The health increase isn’t rumored. It, at the very least, has been officially confirmed. Yes, it’s not the only fix we need. But it’s a step. Not all changes must happen at once, you know.

Yes, it’s taken a while. As I’ve said many times before, that is because prior to recently all balance has been around PvP where the pet doesn’t have such issues due to the PvP meta. Now that there seems to be a more balanced approach to … well, balance … then we should see more attention to the pet issues.

Yes, none of those things you listed are currently true. Yes, all of them could massively help us. But they could be in the pipeline. We don’t know. It is obvious that they are working on improving the ranger if you believe anything they’ve been officially saying … or if you’ve been watching the occasional ‘leaks’. They know we are in a weak spot in PvE.

Let’s see what they bring us first before demanding them to change the class away from what it has always been about.

Obsidian.1328:

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.

Give us rangers the power to make the pet dodge. A brief block/evade/invuln period for the pet on command. And a pet call function that actually pulls the pet to us. Quite possible and that simple.

Indoles.1467:

I’ve always been on the fence about this, until I played against the new Tequatl. If they are going to keep creating content where our pets are 100% useless then we need a permanent stow option. Buff or no buff, I just want the kitten thing gone in fights like that.

+1

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.

Chopps.5047:

Ranger = marksman and beastmaster hybrid by definition

^ This. The GW2 ranger has never been advertised as anything but this.

Obsidian.1328:

SynfulChaot.3169:

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.

Yes. I realize that. I’d want a perma-stow option solely, as I stated before, for maneuverability without the pet messing the group up. By giving the ranger a buff, we’d be rewarded for not using our class mechanic. That kinda goes against their design philosophy.

But I guess this is what this thread is about, right. Wanting something other than we were told the ranger was to begin with. Or maybe noone bothered to read what the ranger was about?

Obsidian.1328:

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.

I disagree. By restricting the pet as such, we’d lose the ability to be anything but a beastmaster if we did so. We’d lose the ability to provide as much support just to have the pet. The pet that all of you are so adamant in not wanting in the first place.

If your necro example is the ‘perfect’ example, then why don’t I see minion necros about, hmm?

mzt.3270:

after reading SynfulChaot.3169 posts, I have to agree. Pet option is really not a way forward. The pet has to go full stop as it is nothing better than a run of the mill NPC beast running around over Tyria. We should not have a buff over a pet (or a handicap depending how you look upon it).

Strange. I don’t seem to recall saying anything about wanting the pet to go permanently. I did say that I think we should be able to perma-stow the pet, but that’s simply for maneuverability in some sections where the pet loves trampling mines and stuff and being in the way. Not for combat or anything else.

Durzlla.6295:

SynfulChaot.3169:

Exactly. Why would anyone want a pet at all. Even an optional removal of pets would force that option to stay in the meta. There is little they could do in most cases to make the pet attractive as an option if no pet was an option. That’s the problem with removing the pet, even if it’s optional.

Seriously? You don’t see the benefits of having the pet outweighing NOT having the pet in most scenarios? Even IF we got damage compensation the pet would be a larger boon than not, the pet would provide us a TON of CC that we just flat out can’t have without them (almost all of our stuns, knock downs, immos, fears, etc come from pets). Not to mention if we opt out of a pet, we lost the #1 advantage that saves our buns in this current meta, CC isn’t that effective on us. Sure you can CC the ranger, but that pet is still there to kitten up your day with either damage, since they’re standing still so nicely for that little kitty to just slip into stealth and you scream “Sic’Em!” as you sit there dazed and confused. Or just interrupt their burst via a pig, dog, black/pink moa, Drake charging up their lazor (i’ve yet to see a single half decent player decide to eat that over just saying “kitten the burst”), etc etc. Not to mention in PvE you lose out on an agro bot, i know a LOT of the time my groups kitten have been saved because of a pet, hell, the ONLY reason my group managed to kick Mai Trins kitten in her time limit was because Chopps Bear and my Earth Elemental (was on my ele for the fight) were tanking her so beastly in those lightning fields and sucking up condis like kittening champions.

No. I can see the benefits of having a pet. But only in few circumstances such as PvP.

If we got damage compensation than the ranger would border on OP unless the pet was relegated purely to a support role. And all implementations of a pet would still, with the current AI failings, have troubles with survival in some instances. Mostly in PvE, that is. That survival issue is why people want the pet gone.

Now in PvP and WvW roaming, I can still see pets being used. That’s where rangers are strong right now, and that is partially due to the pets. And yes, they would save us in that meta. But again, that is the PvP meta. Not the PvE one. Outside of that the pets are a bit of a weakness and I can see practically every ranger, if given the choice, permanently abandon the pet.

Durzlla.6295:

Just because you don’t see how having a pet would be better than not in just about every situation doesn’t mean it wont be. As for those situations where pets just flat out suck? Yeah i’d love to at least have SOME way to be on part with everyone else during those encounters, and if they wont just give us flat out AoE immunity/reduction on pets than they can at least give us the option to stow it.

Hell if they don’t wanna give us a free pass to ignore our mechanic put a Grandmaster trait in the kittening BM tree Called Tigers Fury or Bestial Wrath or w/e you wanna call it that makes the ability to have no pet an option and you gain a small bonus from the pet attribute instead.

Again, I see how having a pet in some cases would be better. PvP and roaming WvW are some of those places. Outside of those, the pet would be widely abandoned and those using pets would be ostracized for ‘weakening themselves’. You and I may not believe that is true, but truth doesn’t matter to the majority. Nor does it to those wanting the pet removed.

If you don’t see how giving an option to remove the pet and give us a buff for it would cause the pet to be abandoned permanently by most players, then you may want to look again at the posts by those arguing for pet removal.

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.

Obsidian.1328:

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

Exactly. Why would anyone want a pet at all. Even an optional removal of pets would force that option to stay in the meta. There is little they could do in most cases to make the pet attractive as an option if no pet was an option. That’s the problem with removing the pet, even if it’s optional.

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.

I’m sorry, but I can’t agree that pet AI is fine. Maybe it is for PvP and roaming WvW, but in zerg-based WvW and PvE you will not have enough control over the pet to override it’s AoE death wish.

The pet AI has serious issues. Especially as more and more PvE content is gaining mechanics that require dodging/evading to survive and pets are incapable of that.

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

Atherakhia.4086:

That’s also hard to prove since the pet has never improved and the F2 functions are so horribly implemented. I’m convinced that if the pet was marginally useful the players would learn to adopt it. I’d wager people would at least try to use it if they had any kind of reassurance from ANet that the problems they’re voicing are legitimate.

Yes, F2 has it’s issues. Oftentimes slow to react, many of the support F2 skills don’t provide much support (1 stack of regen isn’t much), and many of the offensive F2 skills don’t hit. And no, the pet hasn’t gotten any real update. Yet.

Those issues don’t affect PvP quite as much as PvE/WvW, so the focus on fixing them was not there. But again, and like I said before, as they are seeming to start working on balancing around PvE then we will see some of these improvements come to our pet.

The health buff is the first step. I believe I have read, as well, of future improvements to support F2 skills. And I have personally spoken to Sharp at PAX on the issue of the pet so I can understand where some of their issues with fixing the pets come from. You can choose to believe me or not, but the pet isn’t useless now and it will only get better from here.

As for ANet acknowledging the pet issue? They have. But most of the vocal people here just want the pet gone and don’t/won’t accept any potential fixes. To those players, I might recommend trying the warrior. But in GW2, rangers have pets.

jcbroe.4329:

— snip —

I know what you mean. I got my achievements. All of them. Achieved seven wins so far. Yay TC!

But as for doing it more? Time spent and reliance on such great numbers to all be perfectly coordinated with little room for error on anyone’s parts. And for such little reward.

I love the fight. I love the concept. Good strategies. One of the most dynamic fights in the game, if not the most dynamic. But it’s tuned just too far for most to find it reasonable. Or has too little reward. Either way, as much as I kinda enjoy it … I don’t enjoy it that much.

But we gotta wait and see how little it gets completed in the future. Until the numbers are found to be as dire as many of us predict, I don’t think ANet will change anything. But if they are, they most likely will.

Atherakhia.4086:

— snip —

No. People have been wanting pets gone since they first started rolling rangers. From day one. Which is not the Guild Wars 2 ranger. It may have been option in GW1, but this is not GW1.

Yes, there has been little visible effort on fixing the pet. I feel that a great deal of that stems from the fact that up until recently it has seemed that all game balance was done around PvP and PvP only. And in PvP, the pet AI is not the hinderance that it is in WvW and PvE.

Now that it seems that some care is actually being made to balance the game outside of PvP, we should start seeing more changes and improvements. Especially to the pet.

Stooperdale.3560:

“But what is even more important for me is that so far I’m yet to see any suggestion that would actually acknowledge that introducing perma-stow is not a simple case of solving all the problems by adding one button to the game.”

Whoa! Perma stow isn’t good because it doesn’t solve every problem in the game? Perma stow solves a number of problems even if rangers have ineffective traits and utilities, even if rangers have no extra bonuses while the pet is stowed.

Actually perma-stow with no benefits attached to it only really benefits you in JPs. Outside of that, it doesn’t really help you anywhere if your pet is set to passive. A dead pet is no different than a stowed pet when it comes to combat. Both are equally ineffective.

Stooperdale.3560:

Has anyone tried with a bird pet to see if they can’t jump the wave either? I think we know what the answer will be.

Still gets hit. Flying pets mean nothing special. The wings are just for show.

Stooperdale.3560:

Healing spring – yeah bad, bad, bad change if it has less duration. I had a lot of fun dodging around Mai Lin in my healing spring and that’s exactly the sort of fight where I want extended condition cures. Less finishers of all types in a shorter duration spring as well. If I wanted a bigger heal up front I’d use one of the other heals, end of argument.

Don’t forget that even if it’s duration is shortened, it will still be the longest water field in the game. Ranger will even remain the class that can maintain water fields the longest. Still longer than a staff ele.

Yes, it is a nerf. Yes, it will affect us in PvE. I’ve kinda been expecting it for a while, though. Healing Spring really is that powerful and has been, IMHO, the most powerful group heal in the game. The good thing is that it’s raw healing and condi clearing capability is unhindered. All we’re losing is 5 seconds of water field. Well, and a lot of vigor if traited. That is the real nerf.

ilr.9675:

What would be the point of stowing the Pet??

It’s already permanently out of combat the instant it dies

Because some people still want rangers without pets. They must not have read the ranger description before choosing the class or something.

thefantasticg.3984:

You strongly believe they can fix it? I have a bridge in brooklyn to sell you!

After all the patches I’ve seen come and go it’s been nothing but band-aid low-resource-absorbing measures that don’t fix the core mechanic. Nor have they hinted at anything other than that. I do not believe they are capable of fixing the pet AI nor that Areanet as a company wants to devote the resources neccessary to rewrite the entire AI code for the pets.

I do, however, belive that eventually logical reasoning will shine through and they will eventually give us the ability to perma-stow despite saying otherwise given the low-cost in doing so versus rewritting the AI. Yes, perma-stow will solve the majority of the Ranger problems because the majority of the Ranger problems lay within the pet that they cannot or will not fix.

They’ll patch the AI long before they’ll let us remove our pets. They are very stalwart about rangers being about the pet. I don’t think they’ll ever give us a perma-stow option that will return any damage to us. In GW2, ranger == pet. They have been very clear about this from launch.

If we do get perma-stow, it’s only use will be when running or platforming without our pet getting in the way. Nothing more.

Aberrant.6749:

SynfulChaot.3169:

— snip —

You left out how it still can take a long time even with spamming join in…

No I didn’t. I’ve never not gotten in to TC proper within half-an-hour if I truly was spamming the button as often as I could.

Julie Yann.5379:

And if you are going to go AFK. Don’t do it near the kittenING TURRETS!!! YOu scake up the event, you die cause you are AFK while you are dying people are trying to rez you cause they dont know you were AFK, your dead body keeps scaling up the event. If you are going to go AFK, the are plenty of safe waypoints and vistas all over the maps. I climb up on the roof of that structure north of Teq when I do. Like that if I am late to the party, I haven’t been making harder for the people there while I was gone.

This. Please. I understand going AFK while waiting. But if you are going to, move back from the event so you don’t scale it up for those doing it. This tends to always make the south turret defense far, far harder than it should be.

Honestly, I think the map should pulse a single 60 second AFK kick warning about five minutes prior to the event starting. That way it would clear out the people not active and do it with enough time for people in overflow to get in and ready.

Silent Avenger.6928:

I’d like to see if they removed guesting for a week how many times each server could kill teq.

Probably about the same for all. The PvE-heavy servers (Blackgate, TC, etc…) will continue to down Teq multiple times a day and the lower-pop servers will likely continue to struggle.

Mardermann.7468:

SynfulChaot.3169:

Yeah. I think it’s just a start. Something to tide us over until the true pet fixes get found and implemented.

You really, really think so?
the AI is complete garbage, you really think they do something like rewrite it?

Yes. Yes, I do think that they will. It’s necessary for the ranger to remain viable long-term and I don’t believe that ANet is so short-sighted as to not fix what is visibly broken.

Yes, it’s not been fixed yet. Rewriting an AI is no small feat, after all. But I strongly believe that they are working on it.

Mardermann.7468:

I dont believe it one bit… I think thats it… we get some halfdone hitpoint raise and thats it…
We already got the “if the pet has no aggro it goes behind the mob” thing (losing damage watching the pet reposition itself with the kitten pathfinding it got is actually quite funny sometimes) – I think I dont want any more “fixes”, thanks you

You see that it’s broken and you don’t want it fixed? I’m sorry that you’re so jaded.

The rest of us will keep the torch burning for you, though. Don’t worry. ^.^

Probably not. I’ve been seeing a lot of ANet guys around during attempts, so I’m pretty sure they’re watching to see if our successes and failures are lining up with their intentions.

Remember, everyone, that there are thousands on a server and a single map cannot hold but a small fraction of that. Everyone on your own server is fighting you for those same positions.

If you’re a native and really want it then you should join your server’s voice chat and see if there is someone in the non-overflow that you can join in party and try to join their instance. You’ll need to try repeatedly, but you should be able to get in within half-an-hour or so if you just keep spamming it. I know it works this way on TC (that’s how I always get in) and I can only assume it’d work just as well on Blackgate or any other server that uses voice comms.

jcbroe.4329:

I’m honestly not even going back to teq until I see some proof that a server can reliably beat it over and over again, aka, not a last ditch struggle from the most populated servers to complete it once just for bragging rights without being able to actually confidently complete the event every time it pops.

So I’m not even going to worry about it lol. It seems like just a colossal waste of time to me, and it’s even more depressing to have to manage the hell out of my pet or just let it die over and over again, only to watch a boss lose 10-15% of its health and fly away.

Both Tarnished Coast and Blackgate have decent successes of at least two times a day, if not more. Don’t go in expecting a win the first time, though. As people cycle through, there are occasional gaffes and people learning the encounter that cause failures. But nearly all of the failures are near wins. Unfortunately, near wins are still losses.

ilr.9675:

alright I gave the Tequilla a shot, and it killed my pet instantly somehow.
Incredibly easy to avoid Waves…. it’s like JUMPROPE…. you like jumprope Stewy??

But Way too advanced for our Pets apparently. We’ll never teach them to jump… They can bring someone back from deaths door like a Doctor, but jumping is FOREVER BEYOND THEM. So Instead of DPS’ing at full capacity, I spend the whole fight watching my dead Pet’s switching-bar count down from 45 or whatever it is so it can help me clear these turrets of Vets & champs & junk.

I don’t have this problem against Giganticus Lupicus or other insane damage Bosses by the way. I can keep all but a Stalker alive versus everything from Alphard & Alpha to the SpiderQueen & Wraith Champs.

Yeah. Those waves are pet and spirit killers. Kind of like the shock-walls in Aetherblade Retreat. Yet more content that was obviously not designed with pets in mind. Or maybe pets were not designed with complex encounters in mind.

Either way, rangers are a liability in the main zerg. They are better utilized on turrets or on turret defense. In the zerg itself you’ll just have to put up with lower DPS than any other class can output due to your pet spending a majority of the battle kissing the floor.

Honestly if I want to partake in the main zerg I take my ele or guardian. I hate not taking my main, but unfortunately I know that we, as rangers, are just too much of a liability there atm…

mistsim.2748:

yea this is huge. will basically fix pet survivability issues in wvw and pve. if f2’s are buffed and more responsive, we might be in a pretty good shape. id prefer it if pets also received a flat 30% aoe damage reduction.

Fix? No. It’ll help immensely, but it won’t outright fix the issue. Pets will still stand in the middle of AoE circles. Pets will still die to insta-death mechanics that require dodging or positioning. Those issues will need to be addressed before most of us will consider pet survivability in PvE to truly be fixed.

And then there are the pet offense issues…

Don’t get me wrong. It’s a great first step. But it’s only that. A first step. There are more that are needed. Keep ’em coming, ANet!

I agree that it isn’t a final solution, but that extra health will make some pets more viable and others quite tanky. Yes, the AI is still problematic. Yes, AoE will still be a problem. But that extra health buffer should allow you to swap and keep pets alive in all but a few instances.

And as someone who has fought and beat Tequatl four times now (All on my home server. Go TC!), Tequatl does not insta-kill pets, even if you’re not traited. Well, at least he doesn’t insta-kill canines and drakes. It takes both shockwaves to down an untraited canine/drake (same vitality and toughness). With this extra health and how often those shockwaves hit, you might be able to keep full pet uptime against Tequatl after that patch hits. Spirits will still probably die, though. I’ll need to test after the patch goes live.

Firefly.5982:

Grats TC on your third win! Time to work on “Flawless Defense”… <3

We’ll get it next time.

As it is right now it takes an insane amount of coordination. I suggest you either try to rally your server or guest to a server that is succeeding.

Lucky.9421:

A dps check for a 150 people :\

Tequatl is the new Simin.

TehPwnerer.7215:

Honestly, it’s inevitable for longevity and to ensure the event is even attempted weeks after this event, but the worst part about all of this is the elitism it will bring. The few servers who did down it before it eventually gets nerfed are going to just gloat and talk so much crap to everyone else it’s not even gonna be funny.

Nah. Only the elitists in those servers will be doing that. There are plenty of us that have completed it that won’t be gloating or talking down to others.

TehPwnerer.7215:

This. I also have no sympathy considering just about every server’s population is trying to guest to Blackgate. I know it’s not your guys’ fault that people would rather take the easy way instead of working and exerting effort for their success, but the fact remains.

Not every server. Now that TC has beat Teq as well, we have a lot of guesters to us now as well.

WyldKat.4712:

In reference to the ERP implication: Not that kind of cheeks. Totally no tongue in anything. Really we’re not unskilled at love either. We love everybody! Just not like that. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Don’t put the dolyak in assume either.

*facepalm*

Celestina.2894:

As a TC player……pretty sure the RP jab is a light hearted joke and I suggest you get your knickers untwisted post-haste.

Yeah. More of a tongue-in-cheek statement of us RPers proving that we’re not as … unskilled as many love to assume.

Gabby.3205:

Inb4 Teq is nerfed and BG goes from “first” to “only server to beat Teq when it was actually hard”.

Or before it was insanely hard.

Why do people have trouble differentiating different levels of difficulty? Why do the speak as if there is only ‘faceroll’ and ‘hard’? *sigh*

darkace.8925:

SynfulChaot.3169:

I predict that few others will as people flock to just a few servers to be able to complete this hard-nosed DPS check fight. Most servers will never complete this fight as it is. People who are interested will almost definitely guest to a server that has a chance instead of continued futile attempts.

That’s just my prediction, though. I could be wrong. I doubt it, though.

ftfy

No, you didn’t. Please don’t assume I mean anything other that what I say and I won’t assume that you don’t know what your talking about. Kay?

GekoHayate.2451:

SynfulChaot.3169:

Why should non-Blackgate players be disallowed from trying to join in on a server with a much higher chance than their own server may have?

I didn’t say he wasn’t allowed, I said “please don’t”. I was asking, as it makes Blackgate players incapable of getting into their own server’s instance.

You’re arguing semantics. By saying that they shouldn’t, you’re saying that you don’t want them there. You’re saying that they should stick to servers that aren’t yours, despite the fact that your server is the only one with decent success.

Knote.2904:

No, it’s not just because of guild missions already existing, my main point is that the instanced fight would be an exact copy of the original fight, no one is missing out on the content at all.

I’m not against having instanced versions for everyone, but that’s not as likely to be implemented by Anet.

And funnily enough I tend to either go solo or play in small guilds, so I do know. Guild missions aren’t anything special, and neither would an exact copy of the fight in an instanced version.

If they can make in instanced version, then there is no reason they should have to make it guild-only. Dungeons don’t require guilds. Larger content in GW1 (Urgoz’s Warren and The Deep) didn’t either. Neither should most larger-group content.

GekoHayate.2451:

zaxziakohl.5243:

Or do what I’m doing. Guest on Black gate, stay in Sparkfly and wait for travel

Please don’t, it makes it impossible for players in Blackgate (you know, people actually from that server) to get into the main instance.

Why should non-Blackgate players be disallowed from trying to join in on a server with a much higher chance than their own server may have?

Christos de Soufre.3802:

Zero.5034:

I have to admit I’m disappointed in you BG. You used TS to coordinate the teq fight. All the other servers are pugging it like how it was ment to be played. BG may have been the first to beat him, but having the coordination over TS is an unfair advantage over other servers who can’t get so many people in a voice chat. Beat the event with pugs like how all the other servers are playing it and how it was designed to be played and then I’d consider it the actual world first.

Can’t tell if serious.

I understand the sentiment. If the content cannot be beat by a team without voice comms and without requiring consumable buffs, then I think it’s too difficult for an open-world encounter IMHO.