Guild Wars 2

For the sake of the highlighting the specific purpose of the thread, I’m going to ask a question to help keep the thread constructive and maybe to enhance the understanding of what I’m trying to address.

In a game striving to be competitive, are passive mechanics, to the degree of a necessary AI controlled damage source, good or bad for high level competition?

Based off of the response to that question; are rangers in an acceptable place, able to perform multiple roles for a team, and not outperformed by anything else so that they offer a niche role for a team comp?

My opinion is that no, having passive elements in a game trying to be as competitive as possible is a very impeding element, and that because rangers, and ranger balance, is anchored around how the pet performs, instead of the pet being tailored to the player and the player controlling how they themselves can perform with or without the pet and still be effective; rangers are not in a good spot philosophy wise, as well as balance wise.

BUT, I’m curious to see what other people think, because I’m hoping to reach a consensus of some sort.

Kichwas.7152:

Wait, I thought this class was so broken it wasn’t even allowed to enter dungeons?

:p

Let alone steamroll them…

I mostly saw fiery greatswords steamrolling them myself.

I think Rampage as One is one of, if not the strongest elites any class has access to. With only certain classes being able to rip boons, versus the amount of classes that require control to get off their burst, the stability alone is the best tool that can be had in small fights/skirmishes.
On a side note, I don’t understand why its the only “Pet” skill in the game, and I wish the shouts would be reworked to be pet skills, and then the beastmastery trait line could take a heavier focus on improving them.

All of that being said, I like entangle much better if I’m solo roaming in WvW (usually with Outmanned on) as I generally am soloing supply camps and I feel like entangle can drastically reduce the amount of time it takes to get all of the guards down since I’m not running traps.

Sudden.8729:

I play ranger for WvW/PVE/PVP pretty frequently. I actually really enjoy my PVP time with the ranger. I know the pets I like using and I have adapted to the function of how the pets work. I plan on F2 not being an instant cast and I think more Rangers should do the same and stop asking Anet to make it instant. Would it be useful, sure it would, but it is not reality at the moment. Think of it as a channeling time, in compared to other class skills. If a Ranger is playing and demands that be done or the skills are no good… then change the way you play.

I don’t run a BM build, I don’t run a full berserker style build, I’m not a tank, I use SB/LB (seems like a minority there) and there have been plenty of times I walk into a 2v1 situation and win. There have also been times that I lose, but that should go without saying. It sure as heck isn’t from expecting F2 skills to be instant, but at the same time the pet plays a HUGE part in the strategy, and again I am not a BM. Knowing when you need to prolong a situation long enough to get the skill off is important to the play style in its current state. If you have no time, then that is not the skills fault, that is on the attacker and you can’t blame him/her for pressuring you.

I personally have found a build that works for me with MY play style. I do damage, I take points, I move around, I attack in RANGE and prep for the close quarters that is coming. Too many band wagoner’s jump into classes and go straight to traitting the most known builds but don’t take time to learn why they work. They have little to no personal play style invested into the build, it is just expected to work. Then we see people QQ about how the class needs so much help. Builds have give and take and that should never change. You want to be Berserk, fine, but plan on how to defend the burst. Want to tank, go for it, but know how to prolong till you get help.

That works for you and that’s great. But it would be better for your power setup if your damage coefficients on your weapon skills weren’t split between your pet, so that the berserker build would be more effective.

I’m not saying that rangers are terrible or in a bad place at all with this, I’m saying that it seems obvious that the pet mechanic is a hard thing to balance around and instead of balancing the player around the pet, maybe the pet should be balanced around the player is all.

@RonPiece; Agreed, AoE in this game is absolutely too strong, and it boils down to situations where all other things equal, you take the class with the best AoE, because of how powerful it is. An AoE nerf was mentioned back in like Decembers SoTG but nothing was ever followed up on it, but it is a feature that is centric to imbalances within the game.

Here’s the thing, the pet mechanic is holding the class back, especially from a competitive aspect (passive damage with no skill necessary to use effectively).

With every patch (except the last), the pets have always remained at “this” level, while the ranger gets adjusted up/down. However, the actual effectiveness of the class hasn’t really changed at all with each patch (except the last again).
Finally, the pets get adjusted. What I’m attempting to reiterate is that the more pets get toned down sustained damage wise (and potentially taken in a different direction), the more potential it opens up for players to create more diverse builds, or have access to more competitive builds with play/counterplay aspects.

The thing that needed to be asked is whether or not that is the direction the class is headed for, whether or not they plan on elaborating on the aforementioned potential that gets opened up, and whether or not the devs are planning on making the active playstyle of rangers more elaborate (skill based, if you will), which would also result in more effective balance changes, because it should be easier to mess with numbers and values than it is the inherent function of mechanics.

TheKillerAngel.3596:

Jamais vu.5284:

jcbroe.4329:

So well done, this is definitely something that ANet needs to bring up in a meeting, all look at together, and try to figure out what they can fix.

If you think a survey like this is a good venue for that you’ll be disappointed. Rather they should (as they already do) read the forum threads that contain actual opinions and sometimes suggestions rather than thougtless clicks.

It’s also a self-evident truth that with such surveys, the classes with the highest wide appeal:ease to master discrepancy always fare the worst. Ranger isn’t one of them, they truly don’t have a role in PVE, but thieves (rogues) and elementalists (classic mages) fit that as seen here. Though with ele it has thankfully ebbed a bit since release.

Erasculio.2914:

The archetype thieves comes from is basically the “ganker” – the dual wielding low armor high damage profession meant to use stealth to gank unsuspecting people and run away quickly if the gank doesn’t work. It’s a concept suited for open world PvP, but it does look odd everywhere else.

Well you don’t have to play that way as thief.

I would say the results actually show Elementalists, along with Guardians and Mesmers, are one of the “least worst” classes in the game.

Because they are. As a matter of fact, todays state of the game discussion (it is only a pvp discussion, but aspects of it trickle down into other parts of the game) showed the devs believing that Guardians are probably the best balanced and most well rounded class in the game in terms of the roles they can fulfill and what they can accomplish within the game.

The survey really does reflect with a decent amount of accuracy the state of the game for every profession in terms of balance versus the context of the content.

Sarision.6347:

The devs once said that “the ranger is balanced around pets.”

If you ask me, they should balance the pets around the ranger.

Exactly my point.

Empathetic Fighter.2065:

The reason why Ranger in PvP is not suceeding? He lacks of efficient AoE-Damage (Trapper is too weak compared to other classes) and he has not as much of teamsupport as other classes have. Especially since Necro stepped into the spotlight.

Of course that’s true.

But more so I was trying to address why with every patch and SoTG, the ranger receives such little love, even with a representative who mains the class. The biggest factors to that seems to be how effective the passive mechanic given to the class is, and how low the skill floor for the class remains because all of the skills are fairly simplistic, including how the pet functions (in a call of duty game, the pet mechanic would be like the player aiming the gun, and then the gun firing itself until either what you were shooting at dies or you tell it to stop).

If introducing “complexity” is something the dev team is unwilling to explore due to inherent complications with how new players respond to the class, then the other alternative is to relegate the pet into being less sustained damage, but more potential play to it by giving it an important active function. This would also alleviate issues with build diversity by allowing the devs to up the damage coefficients on power weapons to compensate for the pet being more of a burst/utility role and less of a sustained damage while the ranger dodges around surviving tool (a paraphrase of how the meta was prepatch).

First off, there is already enough crying on the ranger forum, and I hope not to continue that while providing some genuine feedback in a competitive view. Battosai did extremely well considering the major topics that were addressed, but there just isn’t enough time to address everything, which is totally understandable.

My first and I think biggest point, which was addressed at the SoTG (but not mentioned in the regard that I’m going to) is how passive the ranger gameplay is, especially in regards to the pet mechanic. I think it needs to be bluntly stated that the competitive community doesn’t enjoy such a passive mechanic. Yes, this resulted in a nerf, but a nerf didn’t fix any build viability or performance issues for the class.

If anything, the pet mechanic is a much too passive (buggy too) and rewarding system for a game that succeeds on hinging so much of its competition on positioning, burst setup, and reactionary play. Having a pet running around, RNGing skills at people for a large portion of the rangers damage isn’t doing any justice.

Here’s some points:
-The pet holds way too much of the power potential for rangers who want to play a power spec. There really needs to be the option to choose (or it needs to all be forced to this) to use a purely utility pet so that the player can focus on outputting all of the damage themselves, while providing additional support (like boons) for groups through pets that are strong enough to warrant a potential focus from teams so that (theoretically) a pet can’t get off a group wide stability.

-Pets cannot be such a big part of the rangers DPS output. There are times (on ledges, for example) where that pet is useless, and the pet can represent up to 40% of the players damage (which is a problem within itself due to the pets RNG nature). Pets should really be made into almost a more burst like mechanic, where they have virtually zero sustained damage, but can be used to gain DPS in some way (think warrior burst skills or thief steal).

Basically, rangers suffer from both the skill floor being too low, and the ceiling being not much higher. Adjusting the pet to be better only leads to it being a less competitive and more passive alternative. What needs to happen is to have the class adjusted so that rangers can choose to make themselves the damage sources (by increasing damage coefficients and reducing pet damage), while utilizing the pet as additional damage on a cooldown (F2 skills are already in place).

tl;dr: There needs to be more involved play, and the passive attributes need to be adjusted (or removed) to allow for more counterplay.

Dante.1508:

jcbroe.4329:

Here’s what I’m getting though from everybody’s response:

Regardless of peoples likes and dislikes from the ideas suggested in this thread, there isn’t a single player that has responded so far that is satisfied with the pet system. People might “agree” with it, but so far nobody has argued its efficiency.

That to me indicates how necessary a pet revision is. When the entire community can look at our classes core mechanic, and regardless of enjoyment, admit that it needs improvement.

Great post totally agree.

I want the Pet gone because personally i know i can play and survive solo with my build in PvE and WvW, even with the lower DPS and less tanking abilities having no pet would add.

But i’d be happy with just perma stow or a complete pet overhaul if it meant making the Ranger class more viable in all aspects of the game, i don’t hate the pets because they are attached to rangers i hate them because they are inferior and do not work as intended on Paper…

I’ve learned to deal with the pet, but I don’t find it an enjoyable mechanic.

As a matter of fact, I think the most frustrating thing in the entire game as a ranger is to be able to attack a person, ranged or melee, over and over again doing damage, and while doing so, I have to watch my pet, hitting maybe once to every 10 or so of my hits, and really experiencing how much damage is being lost on it.

And that’s why I think pets need to be relegated to a utility role. It isn’t because I think they shouldn’t be a damage mechanic, it’s because they just don’t work as one, and the devs, with their updates, have shown that they don’t want the pet to be. So it really is only fair, for the sake of balance, to make absolutely sure that any hindrance the pet causes isn’t mechanic related.

Here’s what I’m getting though from everybody’s response:

Regardless of peoples likes and dislikes from the ideas suggested in this thread, there isn’t a single player that has responded so far that is satisfied with the pet system. People might “agree” with it, but so far nobody has argued its efficiency.

That to me indicates how necessary a pet revision is. When the entire community can look at our classes core mechanic, and regardless of enjoyment, admit that it needs improvement.

Split Solo Q from premades, and leave custom arenas as the only hotjoinable matches.

Problem solved.

ilr.9675:

Dante.1763:

that is never going to happen, the ranger will forever be stuck to using only certain builds forever in this game….

i played the ranger in guild wars 1 and i hate the ranger in guild wars 2 compared.

This is easily the most egregious nonsequitur I’ve ever heard here… Ranger in Gw1 for the most part was nothing BUT situational builds (that also got nerfed constantly)

• Winter in Hell’s Precipice
• Stance “Tank” vs. Shiro
• Spiritspam for generic farming
• Traps in ToPK & UW
• Splinter Barrage in FOW
• Glaiveway in DOA. (+winter sometimes)
• Daze spam in HM missions (any others get INSTA KICKED or told to login monk)
• Condi stacker in Fort Aspenwood
• Cripshotter in AB
• BadTouch & S Way in RA b/c RA is bads town
• Turret in GVG / HA b/c …. HAHAHAHA J/K, they only wanted Monks & Wars

Literally the ONLY thing they could just keep a balanced build in without having to change every little spec, …was Costume Brawl <—- lulz

With expansions, rangers became one of the most versatile pvp classes in the game, able to go utility, pressure, or damage, just by changing the elite, and could win an entire team fight just with a single well performed Distracting Shot.
They could also split using the same build that was so effective in team fights, making a well played ranger one of the most valuable classes you could possibly take in any form of competitive play.

I really don’t understand why people are so surprised by the results, and honestly, they are exactly what’s expected.

PvE is pretty easy for most people, so it makes sense that it had the highest balanced vote out of every category, although rangers and thieves makes sense because of how many of their weapons are single target damage (and the ones that aren’t have to have effectiveness/survival factored in).

Dungeons, of course rangers are the worst, people have been disallowing the ranger class into dungeons since the game launched, and rangers don’t bring anything to dungeons that other classes can’t.

WvW is going to have a split opinion, because half of people think zergs, in which any class with armor and a 1200 range weapon is going to be fine in, while the other half think organized and tactical, and on that front, both large scale and small scale, the best thing a ranger can do for a group is drop a healing spring. But they still suffer from lack of group support and build versatility, and BM rangers aren’t really desired in group play.

PvP, Warrior of course makes sense, and ranger definitely makes sense being in sense. The only build that was considered effective got whack-a-moled into being less effective, with no build versatility. Sure, BM rangers are still strong and can 1v1 on sidepoint just fine, but with a lack of AoE and group support, rangers bring absolutely nothing unique but their spirit elite to a team fight, and if you say traps, I’ll say nade Engi and even more than that now, staff necro.

So yes, the results actually highlight pretty closely what the state of balance the game is in. Sure people can argue bias, but at the same time, it can be argued that we’re all beta testers and this is our feedback. The larger the sample size, the less likely bias is a weighing factor, especially because everybody has a different bias (everybody has a different opinion).

So well done, this is definitely something that ANet needs to bring up in a meeting, all look at together, and try to figure out what they can fix.

Battosai.5620:

Hey there guys,

things on my list so far are :

Removing the passive/rng stuff that is going on on rangers atm to open up more viable builds, this would include pets and condition removing mainly.

- Pets and microing : As in giving the player more active control over the pet removing more rng from the class and promote a more active playstyle.

This would also increase the viability of currently underused pets.
Example : Moas, with the healing on demand they might make a longbow/valk build viable.

-Condition clearing : The ways of actively clearing conditions is really limited for rangers ( looking at you emphatic bond ), thus limiting build diversity greatly, especially in spvp forcing you down into the condi/bunker role.
We’ve got a new way of clearing conditions on ourselves though with this patch, but it’s not enough imo and more like a bandaid ( running guard/shouts with soldier runes).

By adressing these things it would make it more rewarding to play a ranger while increasing the skillfloor and -cap of the class at the same time; this is on the expense of newer players having a harder time to get into the class.

-Marksmanship

the minor traits in this traitline seem lackluster, compared to other traitlines ( again wilderness survival is one of the best examples here as it is our strongest one )
adding an internal cooldown ( 20 secondish? ) on top of it + making it reset on kill might make it worth to go for it.

Eagle eye affecting the shortbow as well and bringing it back to 1200 range

Regarding spirits and their viability in the 3 different parts of the game – spvp,wvw and pve.

While i think that spirits currently are in a good position in spvp, they seem lackluster in pve and wvw as their survival is an issue.
Making them immune to damage/taking reduced damage ( aoe for the most part) in dungeons and pve encounters seems like the right way to go and would increase the rangers ability of supporting his party, thus making him more attractive to bring to a dungeon party.
Changes like this would be too strong for spvp though imo, so there definately needs to be more seperated changes in between the 3 parts of the game.
Another way of adressing this issue might be to add a toggle for the spirits to either move and follow you and a stay command to have them stay behind out of harms way.

That’s just a quick overview guys, i have more on my list including:
pet survivability/damage – which is more of an issue in wvw/pve
trait overhauls/merges
pet responsiveness to player commands
future plans for the ranger – might ask about new pets/weapons and plans down the road and their view on the ranger as well
weapon and weapon role diversity
ability to dodge during swords animations on autoattack
To be honest i am happy if i can only fit half of the things i just wrote in there and explain them well enough for people that are not familiar with the ranger to understand the issues as well.
Again sorry in advance to you guys, if i can’t cover all of the good suggestions and questions you brought into this thread.
Also bear with my poor formatting skills.

Awesome, I can’t wait to see this tomorrow. Especially because there are no Team Paradigm members on the show (it isn’t that they aren’t good, but aside from Teldo and maybe Xeph, I find them to have extremely overpowering bias towards certain classes that prevents any issues from getting addressed about them).

Manekk.6981:

jcbroe.4329:

I have a request for the OP, though I’m sure of the answer. But any chance in the future you’ll do signet of the hunt tests along side agility training?

It would be very interesting to see how important/unimportant that 5% speed difference is.

Drake…35,5/33,3
Wolf…..29,3/27,2
Jaguar…26,7/21,9
Raven…30,8/31,7

This test I did before the patch but it’s with signet of the hunt and 30 in bm first then with 30 bm plus swiftness/fury on the second, the diffrence should be about the same now, that is to say very small, perhaps speed would be worth a little bit more after the patch though seeing most pets would take slightly longer to kill the golem.

Ahh, okay, that makes alot of sense. I was guestimating a difference of about 2-4s. I’ve been debating running something other than my typical 0/0/30/10/30 or 0/0/30/20/20 but I still don’t see where else I would put the points when running with a shamans build (apothecary/settlers mix in WvW). I don’t have enough crit to take advantage of the trait for stacking might on the pet :/

I have a request for the OP, though I’m sure of the answer. But any chance in the future you’ll do signet of the hunt tests along side agility training?

It would be very interesting to see how important/unimportant that 5% speed difference is.

Durzlla.6295:

jcbroe.4329:

Durzlla.6295:

jcbroe.4329:

Durzlla.6295:

jcbroe.4329:

Aridia.3042:

Go back to the root of the problem.

Ask them why they’re insistent in using a node cap as the basis for the game’s meta. The moment you don’t have a node cap, BM and trap builds are suddenly not as effective. Ditto for something like RTL which was only nerfed because ellies could move between points quicker than other classes.

Why not just have pvp be, you know, about killing people? Throw them in a map and let them fight.

Oh, Oh, I know this one! Because if the game was about killing people, 99% of the games balance wouldn’t make sense lol.

Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

Actually it’d end up like Arenas in Smite, people playing EXTREMELY passively until CDs came back up and then whosever team has the better CD synergy wipes the other

Lol I was just making a joke.

Speaking of which though, isn’t that what guild wars 2 basically is? I just watched ESL, and in a general sense, everybody plays passively with attrition in mind, until either somebody screws up and gets downed, or a team throws enough bodies at the teamfight to overwhelm the other team. I mean, its much more fast paced than that, but to me it just looks like a bunch of people built defensively, or with high defensive capabilities in offense specs (mesmer) just throwing stuff at each other until somebody calls a target and people burn cooldowns, then go back to playing passive if it doesn’t work.

I blame bunker meta though.

Depends on the team, If you take my old team we’d bait people into going offensive (pop all their CDs) and then run away making them waste most of their stuff so we could take other points, then you also have teams like the one I fought earlier this week who would all leap in and just go balls out from the start and slaughter everything (or try) through heavy amounts of CC and 3 glass cannons.

ATM though the meta by and large is as you described, however that’s just what the mindless idiots are flocking too, a lot more is viable than that, especially now.

Those are both good tactics and strategies though, and thats how you evolve/counter a meta

I might have a slight bias, but I find it alarming that the guardian is such an irreplaceable aspect of most teams. To me, when every single top tier team in these streamed tournaments is running with basically the same class with the build, it really screams how strong it is, and the fact that it is an integral part of those teams strategies is much too meta defining, and the class itself is much too efficient (or not countered well enough) at what it does.

I mean, maybe guardian does require a bit of skill to accomplish team support while performing their role at holding points, but I really fail to see any complexity to it.

Sorry, to everybody else, ignore our conversation and don’t let it derail the thread please, because Battosai is one of my favorite top tier players, and I’ve wanted a ranger on the SoTGs forever now, so I want him to go in fully armed and ready to get some info for the community.

Lol our Mesmer in the disengage team was built around destroying any guardian or ele or engi bunker (or anyone else who was super boon dependent), they were a hybrid of condi and raw damage and they did work xD.

I feel it went without saying that the disengage team had no guardian, we ran with a ranger (me), a thief, a Mesmer (no portal), an engi (I think he was a tools build I know he used a wrench 85% of the time, didn’t like to share his build), and an ele(d/d burst build) we were all about mobility/ map control + shock and awe fighting tactics, most of it was forcing them to pop CDs and retreating, collapsing one a point to blow them up, and intercepting people as they went point to point (oh net turret and trip wire, how I loved you…)

And I’m not disagreeing that it’s awesome! But unfortunately the loud majority/popular teams (Team Paradigm sighs and in NA, idk, Absolute Legends? Supcuties team I guess) define what the meta is.

Though that doesn’t mean there aren’t better strategies than the meta. I’m just griping because Guardians can hold points for exorbitant amounts of time while providing crazy group support, but the bunker build that was targeted for nerfs was the ranger, because THAT’S too strong in comparison lol.

jubskie.3152:

jcbroe.4329:

jubskie.3152:

Nice thread! Thanks for gathering all that info. Minor request: can you update the pdf to show which test the corresponding number is? That would make the document more readable without alt-tabbing to look at this thread.

Some observations:

1. Putting points in BM significantly improves all pet’s kill time. (Except for cats. wut?)
2. Felines are still the best DPS pet.
3. Moa, Pig, Spider and Drake have relatively close DPS on stationary targets.
4. Why does the bear with agility training increase his kill time? o_O

I hope ANet looks at this info and improves all of the pet’s ability to hit moving targets that don’t dodge out of the way. I’m ok with lowered pet DPS if they can consistently hit mobile targets without swiftness or cripple/slow them to shake them off.

BUT, Dogs with speed training have the fastest kill time on moving targets with Speed Training, and are only outkilled by felines (without Speed Training lol) by 2s, and Dogs have better survival and control options.

I just find that insane, sorry lol.

It is. They’re the only pets with built-in cripple. The knockdown also helps immensely as it gives them free hits and almost always guarantees the cripple will hit.

You could argue that pigs have a 3 second arc-AoE knockdown, but it’s charge up is slow, and it’s really easy to just sidestep it as it isn’t homing.

Pigs are in need of a total rework though, unfortunately :/

You know what I really want to see? The useless Master Trait for dogs and spiders to be switched from cripple to torment lol. It would be so strong.

jubskie.3152:

Nice thread! Thanks for gathering all that info. Minor request: can you update the pdf to show which test the corresponding number is? That would make the document more readable without alt-tabbing to look at this thread.

Some observations:

1. Putting points in BM significantly improves all pet’s kill time. (Except for cats. wut?)
2. Felines are still the best DPS pet.
3. Moa, Pig, Spider and Drake have relatively close DPS on stationary targets.
4. Why does the bear with agility training increase his kill time? o_O

I hope ANet looks at this info and improves all of the pet’s ability to hit moving targets that don’t dodge out of the way. I’m ok with lowered pet DPS if they can consistently hit mobile targets without swiftness or cripple/slow them to shake them off.

BUT, Dogs with speed training have the fastest kill time on moving targets with Speed Training, and are only outkilled by felines (without Speed Training lol) by 2s, and Dogs have better survival and control options.

I just find that insane, sorry lol.

Durzlla.6295:

jcbroe.4329:

Durzlla.6295:

jcbroe.4329:

Aridia.3042:

Go back to the root of the problem.

Ask them why they’re insistent in using a node cap as the basis for the game’s meta. The moment you don’t have a node cap, BM and trap builds are suddenly not as effective. Ditto for something like RTL which was only nerfed because ellies could move between points quicker than other classes.

Why not just have pvp be, you know, about killing people? Throw them in a map and let them fight.

Oh, Oh, I know this one! Because if the game was about killing people, 99% of the games balance wouldn’t make sense lol.

Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

Actually it’d end up like Arenas in Smite, people playing EXTREMELY passively until CDs came back up and then whosever team has the better CD synergy wipes the other

Lol I was just making a joke.

Speaking of which though, isn’t that what guild wars 2 basically is? I just watched ESL, and in a general sense, everybody plays passively with attrition in mind, until either somebody screws up and gets downed, or a team throws enough bodies at the teamfight to overwhelm the other team. I mean, its much more fast paced than that, but to me it just looks like a bunch of people built defensively, or with high defensive capabilities in offense specs (mesmer) just throwing stuff at each other until somebody calls a target and people burn cooldowns, then go back to playing passive if it doesn’t work.

I blame bunker meta though.

Depends on the team, If you take my old team we’d bait people into going offensive (pop all their CDs) and then run away making them waste most of their stuff so we could take other points, then you also have teams like the one I fought earlier this week who would all leap in and just go balls out from the start and slaughter everything (or try) through heavy amounts of CC and 3 glass cannons.

ATM though the meta by and large is as you described, however that’s just what the mindless idiots are flocking too, a lot more is viable than that, especially now.

Those are both good tactics and strategies though, and thats how you evolve/counter a meta

I might have a slight bias, but I find it alarming that the guardian is such an irreplaceable aspect of most teams. To me, when every single top tier team in these streamed tournaments is running with basically the same class with the build, it really screams how strong it is, and the fact that it is an integral part of those teams strategies is much too meta defining, and the class itself is much too efficient (or not countered well enough) at what it does.

I mean, maybe guardian does require a bit of skill to accomplish team support while performing their role at holding points, but I really fail to see any complexity to it.

Sorry, to everybody else, ignore our conversation and don’t let it derail the thread please, because Battosai is one of my favorite top tier players, and I’ve wanted a ranger on the SoTGs forever now, so I want him to go in fully armed and ready to get some info for the community.

I knew there was a reason why I’ve always run dual canines haha

Taushullu.6180:

Awesome to see more feedback appearing! I really appreciate it. And keep those suggestions rolling.

jcbroe.4329:

I like all of them, and in the context of the perceived power creep of the game, I don’t really think any of them are over the top except one:

Symbiosis.

Your effect is fine but that cooldown is much, much too short for its effect. It would essentially make Guardian shout builds obsolete if it wasn’t for the RNG nature, but every 5s for you AND allies is too much imo. It should be more like 15-20s, as to not break the game entirely. I agree that condis are strong, but passive mitigation on a large scale level isn’t the answer because damage and survival shouldn’t stalemate each other, damage has to eventually be able to win, so that people wanting to go full defensive still have to worry about killing other players or they will eventually lose the fight.

I totally see your points and I totally agree on them. I originally wanted Symbiosis to be something equally powerful compared to Emphatic Bond since so many of the current ranger builds rely heavily on it’s condition removal. Now in this “dream setup” Emphatic Bond is “nerfed” to remove only 2 conditions from you and your pet (why?!, because rangers should love their pets, not hate and torture them) thus making the Symbiosis strong in comparison. Especially strong considering the new suggested boonsharing mechanism. This could at least create some almost OP 0/0/30/30/0 bunkers (as no ranger could possibly be OP).

So maybe the ICD should go up or maybe the effect could be tied to “when using a heal skill” and increasing the amount of conditions converted to 2-3 making it something less rng based but still viable. This would make the first tick of Healing Spring act as a some sort of condition cleansing wave (from yourself) and maybe even Heal as One would become something more frequently used due it’s shorter cooldown. Making it work with proposed Circle of Life -trait, ressing might just become a pleasant experience. Or maybe it’s still, after all these complains and reasonings, perfectly fine as it is. You decide… with your feedback.

Well the biggest issue, besides being better than Guardians and even outclassing their shout build a little (I like meta change ups though, so I wouldn’t really complain. I hate the guardian meta), is how much potential cleansing you can have.

In a build with 0/0/30/30/0, I could trait Symbiotic Bond, Oakheart Salve, Empathic Bond, Nature’s Bounty, Evasive Purity, Symbiosis

Then I could take Signet of Renewal and Healing Spring, and if I wanted to go overboard, 6x Runes of Melandru.

Conditions literally would not be able to stick to that build long enough to do anything but tickle the ranger, and in a healing spec, rangers with the right weapon set (axe/dagger sword/torch and in pvp, shamans amulet) would also be able to take on burst specs with ease too.

It would make rangers easily the best bunker in the game, and the defense against conditions would just be too much, virtually eliminating any threat from a person running a condition build against you.

Just my thoughts on it though. Symbiosis was the only thing that was really taking it over the top, and only because of the ICD. If it was within a 10s time frame, you could still cleanse extremely well, but it would allow condition users to actually stick some conditions on the ranger and do enough damage over time to be able to win the fight by outplaying them.

Just my opinion though lol. And I really do love all the other ideas, and with the power creep that I perceive within the next few months, I find everything else to be within reason.

Durzlla.6295:

jcbroe.4329:

Aridia.3042:

Go back to the root of the problem.

Ask them why they’re insistent in using a node cap as the basis for the game’s meta. The moment you don’t have a node cap, BM and trap builds are suddenly not as effective. Ditto for something like RTL which was only nerfed because ellies could move between points quicker than other classes.

Why not just have pvp be, you know, about killing people? Throw them in a map and let them fight.

Oh, Oh, I know this one! Because if the game was about killing people, 99% of the games balance wouldn’t make sense lol.

Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

Actually it’d end up like Arenas in Smite, people playing EXTREMELY passively until CDs came back up and then whosever team has the better CD synergy wipes the other

Lol I was just making a joke.

Speaking of which though, isn’t that what guild wars 2 basically is? I just watched ESL, and in a general sense, everybody plays passively with attrition in mind, until either somebody screws up and gets downed, or a team throws enough bodies at the teamfight to overwhelm the other team. I mean, its much more fast paced than that, but to me it just looks like a bunch of people built defensively, or with high defensive capabilities in offense specs (mesmer) just throwing stuff at each other until somebody calls a target and people burn cooldowns, then go back to playing passive if it doesn’t work.

I blame bunker meta though.

ilr.9675:

Holland.9351:

They have to reduce pet damage as much as required so Rangers can have the full effect of power on their skills. Then they can keep the current system as-is.

This is the second time I’ve heard this rumor about gear/trikets affecting pets.
Where is this coming from?? I just want to make sure someone’s not spreading it around in game just to troll people… (like they often do when they claim there’s a secret Epic boss/chest at the end of some Event that everyones already done 100x)

I don’t know the exacts and I lost the thread (it might be on jubskies compilation page). I know Puandro knows a lot about this type of stuff, so he’s the guy to ask, but rangers have low damage coefficients on their weapons to compensate for “always having a pet” for the other part of the damage.

Personally, on a side note, without misdirecting the thread too much, I think that the biggest thing ranger lacks in is access to AoE damage beyond traps. From a pvp perspective, ranger has kitten ons and less group support than other classes, which turns them into a damage class on a team comp. With barely any AoE access, rangers can barely add anything to teamfights, which relegates them to only being able to play sidepoints, something that other classes can do while being able to support their team at mid better than ranger.
That or that AoE nerf mentioned back in december needs to actually happen…

ilr.9675:

jcbroe.4329:

Regardless of whether we saw it coming or not, its still an infinitely disappointing thing to discuss.

Well I’ll agree with you there.

I just don’t see ANY evidence in their history on this scale of them ever completely repurposing any class from its original design or intended downsides. Elementalist is as close as it gets where it eventually (and unintentionally) became the weakest DPS’er due to Hardmode Armor Values, and then Stumme (b/c it was his main class and he was honest about that) kind of turned it into a Team-Buffing class with several team Utility changes that were unlike anything it had in the past. But that came so late in the game’s life that it shouldn’t even count. (plus it was obviously meant to support their Mercenaries cash shop deal).

I do think some major about-face is required here for PvE. But I also think there’s better ways to isolate this problem that won’t just turn Ranger into another Warrior clone. If your positional awareness of what your pet is doing, and what control and how successful your control is… timing wise… isn’t good, then you shouldn’t just be getting a free ride here on that DPS that’s missing otherwise. Every other class is also supposed to have situational THINGS that limit their DPS when they don’t play to their full potential. And your ideas I’m sorry to say…. just remove that entire skill-check from the game and make the class just an Ele/Warrior clone. That’s why I keep saying… if you want THAT playstyle, then roll one of those classes please.

Stop trying to make this one into just another Mage that summons a critter in place of a meteor shower or hundred blade storm, and then suffers no consequences for the care and positioning of that critter.

I don’t want that playstyle at all. I actually enjoy the pet system. I was just suggesting a band aid fix that could be updated in conjunction with traits to allow for a more robust system to be developed in the future that doesn’t drastically change the effectiveness of the class acrossed game modes. More so, in a general sense, I just find the ranger class mechanic to be a logically hard concept to balance without being able to split mechanics across gametypes; something that either ANet is unwilling to do, or something their current system is incapable of.

I’m just saying SOMETHING needs to be done, because the current system isn’t working, and I was trying to brainstorm an idea that people like as a whole, to incorporate multiple playstyles. Realistically, all that needs to be done is an implementation that allows viable build variety for condition specs, power specs, survival and glass.

I’m always going to be happy with my ranger because I find lots of success with the playstyle in general, and I find that ranger still has the ability to build for high survival while still outputting good damage with a fluent playstyle better than any other class I play except for maybe ele.

But to answer the question about an entire rework, didn’t guild wars 1 do that with the dervish? When they changed Mysticism to function like Expertise? (granted it was a PvE change) Also, flash enchantments, etc. I mean, they weren’t farfetched, but were massive quality of life improvements for the classes they affected.
I thought they also had to overhaul the pet system in guild wars 1 too.

ChillyChinaman.6057:

I like the basis of the OP idea and here’s my take on it:

In my mind, pet should function similarly to a combination between Elementalist attunements, Engineer toolbelt skills, and Guardian spirits, Elementals, or Minions. F1-F4 become the pet summon/selection skills that the ranger can slot like Engineers. Activating a pet puts the pet on cooldown, which starts after pet death/swap. Active pets have their summon icon replaced with an activated ability, the current F2 skill.

I think this will address this will address a few of the problems. Having access to 4 pets in combat gives the ranger some diversity as well as emphasizing that the ranger is a BEASTmaster not a PETmaster. In addition to diversity, it will help improve pet uptime by a factor of 2. Assuming that each pet will only survive 10s, with a 30s cooldown, with 4 pets you’ll have always have a pet out and contributing.

Well this is my take on the pet dilemma, what does the community think about it?

I like it just as much, if not more!

Its just an issue of how hard it is to turn the current system into the suggested system. Though I’ve said numerous times I would program anything I suggest for ANet as a volunteer lol.

While I understand your guys pain, you invested into the dreamer and should have known full well that the game is in its adolescence in terms of balance.

Was it a foreseeable change? Absolutely not. But just as this patch made it worse, the volatility of the updates could dictate that it gets made even better in the future.

So… Deal with it, and you might get rewarded. Choose not to, and you might be either rewarded or disappointed. It would be drastic decision to go messing with your legendary though, so if you do and you miss out in the future, all I can say is its your own fault. And if it doesn’t get improved, you can say to me “I told you so.” Seems fair.

Aridia.3042:

Go back to the root of the problem.

Ask them why they’re insistent in using a node cap as the basis for the game’s meta. The moment you don’t have a node cap, BM and trap builds are suddenly not as effective. Ditto for something like RTL which was only nerfed because ellies could move between points quicker than other classes.

Why not just have pvp be, you know, about killing people? Throw them in a map and let them fight.

Oh, Oh, I know this one! Because if the game was about killing people, 99% of the games balance wouldn’t make sense lol.

Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

@Aridia;

I actually like the concept behind your idea a lot. It not only allows the pet to retain its importance to the class, but allows players to use the pet in a different way other than just an additional source of damage to put on a target.

Regardless, the current pet system does not get the job done, and the only reason my suggestion is what it is comes from how much easier it would be to change a few existing functions (we already have a near useless stow function other than for taking screenshots and maybe dungeons or jump puzzles) and retool a few of the buttons than it is to massively upgrade mechanics, or AI, or even traits, as people are all suggesting.

My OP was just the most immediate change that could possibly be made that would allow a big change up in how effective the ranger has the potential to be.

ilr.9675:

Dante.1508:

ilr.9675:

People who didn’t want a pet, knew all along that they were suppose to roll Warrior instead or Thief instead. …both of which have had better Shortbow or Longbow skills than us SINCE BETA…

No we didn’t , i did not follow GW2 like a devoted fan, i just expected my ranger to work exactly how it did in the first installment of Guildwars, if that’s how Arena net works then no wonder players are dropping this game, we came here expecting choices not to be forced into 3 and a half year old bad decisions…

If i wanted to roll a Warrior or thief i would have, i wanted a ranger, like my Guildwars rangers sorry if that clashes with your totalitarian views..

It’s not * MY * view… that… is —> Anet’s “vision” for it. (not mine!) …which they made very clear from the beginning. The only thing I’m arguing is that exact sentence: that they made it clear from the beginning. People who playtested 40+ levels of Ranger in Beta … me included … were given a perfect view into how broken and unforgiving the “companion” system was. That’s why people like me who had been watching all this unfolding for years, rolled a guardian or warrior as our first “main” instead and only had a ranger as a side project to be supported by our benevolent Heavy Armor overlord.

I understand your frustration and that’s not me intentionally patronizing you. Your frustration and everyone else’s is very palpable here and maybe even with good reason. But there’s something to keep in mind here when referencing GW1. It wasn’t the Bow attacks themselves or even the damage on Bows that made them good in GW1 (crit build daggers & scythes completely left bows AND hammers in the dust on DPS), or even the fact you didn’t have to carry a pet everywhere. It was the Ranger’s primary trait that made them EASY TO BUILD GIMMICKS OUT OF b/c Gw1’s balance of power was crutching super hard _on energy management which isn’t a “thing” here in this game. If it was, then Rangers & Necro’s would be seen in every dungeon run to date (especially Arahs) and warriors would still be relegated to Manly-Spike only.

…

…and yes… this is an absolute irrefutable fact and made up the BULK of our conversations for years on end during GW2’s development cycles. So many things hinged on these mechanics that it’s not even funny but again; it’s very understandable that a lot of people could have missed these facts and came into this a bit unprepared by Anet’s platitudes on what a revolutionary and inviting (+ relaxed grouping reqs) game this was to be.

Mostly, yes, expertise was insanely good. But Rangers from a PvP standpoint also had an extremely important niche role of being a highly survivable utility role, capable of splitting on demand while providing full team pressure due to preparations, and interrupting crucial skills on the other team that could literally turn the tide of team fights.

The removal of those utility roles just utterly destroyed any semblance of what the ranger once was competitively. Mesmers had a similar role, but they transitioned into a trickery based DPS class almost flawlessly, while rangers…. yeah. So much of what made them good got lost somewhere along the way, and ANet decided to reinstate the WORST aspect of the guild wars 1 class; pets, and make it mandatory and out all of the time.

Regardless of whether we saw it coming or not, its still an infinitely disappointing thing to discuss.

Mr Pin.6728:

I think I read somewhere an idea for making the pet function more like a mesmers shatter clones. I.E. F1 is some leap attack direct damage F2 some condi F3 CC and F4 utility. Each skill has a cooldown before it can be used again. In the mean time the pet stays by the rangers side as a prop of sorts. It doesn’t attack, has no aggro, soaks no damage, tanks no enemies, etc. This seems like the easiest way to deal with the pet. It cant deduct from the ranger’s effectiveness by being dead and just becomes a tool for spiking, evading etc.

Of course it will never happen so why even discuss it.

I’ve actually suggested that before as well, but people hated it because they thought it essentially would be just like having a less customizable toolkit, and apparently, people really seem to like the pet dynamic with its ability to draw aggro from them.

I’m not sure where all these people came from, because the majority of them surely can’t be the rangers from guild wars 1, where the most viable builds were the ones without pets.

Bakabaka.6185:

jcbroe.4329:

Bakabaka.6185:

My only concern is that the pet takes so much attribute points before it really means something for a ranger.
You need 30 points for the pet to let it really function as a part of the ranger and that is a problem at the same time.

Exactly! It’s a problem on both ends of the spectrum. There’s no in between for rangers. Rangers that don’t want to build for pets are forced to use pets as part of their damage with no investment, and players that want to build for pets have to invest a lot of their trait points into that line in order to be successful, which pigeonholes their build options.

Hidden within my OP and responses, I’m also trying to suggest that Beastmastery doesn’t do enough for pets. A simple static increase to stats and hardly any access to traits within beastmastery that truly improve the pets performance is just a hindrance to the class.

What it makes it even worser is that Pet traits is spread out over other trait lines. Which narrows the scale and options of other protential traits which do not deal with the pet.
In Marksmanship are 3 Pet traits.
Skirmishing are 4 Pet traits.
Wilderness Survival are 2 pet traits.
Nature Magic are 3 pet traits.
In Beastmastery all traits.

Every class have in total 75 traits minior included.
49 traits concerns the PET!!!!. 75-49= 26 traits that are for the ranger self………

More than 50% of the ranger Traits are for the PET, which is rediculous.
Not mentioned how many Pet traits are trash….
I cannot imagine what traits we could get instead of the 49 pet traits.

I think these ideas are probably the best class rework we could ask for without changing the class: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/ranger/Ranger-Dream-Traits-One-can-always-dream/first#post2320170

He has some very good ideas on what can be done, while keeping a lot of the options similar or the same. It’s worth checking out though.

Bakabaka.6185:

My only concern is that the pet takes so much attribute points before it really means something for a ranger.
You need 30 points for the pet to let it really function as a part of the ranger and that is a problem at the same time.

Exactly! It’s a problem on both ends of the spectrum. There’s no in between for rangers. Rangers that don’t want to build for pets are forced to use pets as part of their damage with no investment, and players that want to build for pets have to invest a lot of their trait points into that line in order to be successful, which pigeonholes their build options.

Hidden within my OP and responses, I’m also trying to suggest that Beastmastery doesn’t do enough for pets. A simple static increase to stats and hardly any access to traits within beastmastery that truly improve the pets performance is just a hindrance to the class.

Honestly?

Necromancer for days. I mean, if ranger got placed in god tier prenerf (which it did), then compared to that, necro takes god tier and then goes over 9000 with it.

I like all of them, and in the context of the perceived power creep of the game, I don’t really think any of them are over the top except one:

Symbiosis.

Your effect is fine but that cooldown is much, much too short for its effect. It would essentially make Guardian shout builds obsolete if it wasn’t for the RNG nature, but every 5s for you AND allies is too much imo. It should be more like 15-20s, as to not break the game entirely. I agree that condis are strong, but passive mitigation on a large scale level isn’t the answer because damage and survival shouldn’t stalemate each other, damage has to eventually be able to win, so that people wanting to go full defensive still have to worry about killing other players or they will eventually lose the fight.

Just an opinion though.

I love everything else, especially the throwback to guild wars 1 names. Hopefully the ranger focused trait rebalance comes in the next months, since we’ve been relegated to bottom tier in tpvp.

Lopez.7369:

It still surprises me how much people overlook mesmers. Obviously necromancers are the most overpowered class right now, but mesmers are in nearly every organized team. Why does that get a free pass?

Maybe it’s because the problem is almost entirely Portal. I still don’t know why that mechanic hasn’t been given to another class in need. Engineer would be a good choice that would fit with the class’s theme. Ranger and warrior are good options too if ArenaNet just wants to ham-fist the mechanic without much thought about class themes.

You have a point, for the most part its Guardian, Elementalist, Mesmer on every pro/top tier team.

Guardian fulfills a niche and really doesn’t have to compete with any class for a slot on the team.

Elementalist can do a little bit of everything, but their access to and output capabilities of AoE are just unparalleled to really any other class as far as direct damage goes.

Mesmers have lots of avoidance and have a very “tricky” mechanic, and while they are pigeonholed into direct damage, the access to team support capabilities while being able to output strong damage on hold their own in a fight is a necessity on most every team.

And now, with the most recent patch, necros. Not only did engis receive more nerfs to their defensive options, but necros AoE condi output and rotations can literally melt people. It would be crazy to not take necros right now, because the access to condition damage, especially unblockable staff marks, is a huge boon when combined with a Dhuumfire fear build for any team, and deals massive damage.

So my updated list after playing the classes:

S tier:
-Necro

A tier:
+Guardian
=Elementalist
=Mesmer

B Tier:
=Thief
-Engineer
-Ranger

C Tier:
+Warrior

Edit: I can’t believe people placed ranger in god tier prepatch as compared to the new necro. The necro literally takes the rangers god tier and then goes over 9000 with it. If rangers were the standard for the S tier prepatch, then necros currently need a tier beyond S tier.

Einlanzer.1627:

Melee is stronger than ranged for all professions because of risk vs. reward. The thing is that in prolonged or difficult fights you won’t have as much uptime with your greatsword as you will with your longbow, meaning the latter will be stronger. Plus, Ranger Longbow is now substantially better than before and probably out damages most if not all other long-range weapons in the game.

This is the way it should be.

I actually think the mesmer greatsword is probably a stronger 1200 range weapon. Not arguing, just adding to the list.

PerfectOctave.5172:

If I was a dev I would hate rangers because of this forum.

First off, I can agree with this.

For my own response, the devs that balance the game “hate” rangers because the competitive PvP community (the gametype that the game is balanced around currently) hates rangers. The PvP community hates the ranger pet mechanic, they hate the simplistic nature of the skillsets available to rangers, and they hate how spam capable the weaponsets can be.

There are barely any rotations, especially ones that can be completed without the RNG of most pets (and they just nerfed the birds F2 spike that could be set up). Rangers also completely lack in burst and burst setup for the most part, except maybe greatsword 5 into maul, which is a key component of what idealistically makes PvP good for most people (aka having big setups for big damage, and needing to avoid them and land your own).

In most people minds, when they hear ranger in pvp, they immediately thing autoattack spamming and dodge spamming while the pet does all of the heavy work and the player doesn’t have to have a high skillset to be effective.

I’m not saying I agree or any of it is true, but it does seem to be the general consensus from the “loud majority” of the PvP community, in which the game is balanced primarily around PvP.

Guys I understand why people don’t like the idea, I really do. But the fact is, its a compromise for a reason.

The single biggest reason why the ranger class is having such issues with every patch right now is because the pet mechanic is a hard mechanic to balance around, especially when its balanced around the idea that the pet is always out. That means that players wanting to play the class where the damage comes from the player while using the pet as utility will never have that option.

The single biggest reason why rangers are the least desired class for group play is because players need to be able to use the pet efficiently to be a productive member of the group, and the pet system is not efficient.

People can argue all day up and down about how the pet needs better AI, and pathing, and the ability to hit moving foes. But with this most recent patch in which they nerfed pets to keep them from being so much of the rangers damage output, on the grounds that it was too easy and too effective, doesn’t that tell everybody that ANet has no desire to make the pets any better at damage output than they currently are? It seems like a pretty big indicator to me.

You don’t have to like my specific idea, I was just trying to get an idea out there that allows people who do like the pet system and the people who don’t to be able to compromise and agree on a system that would be the best of both worlds. Also, my idea was to try to encompass the feeling of choice and range of options rangers could play around with in guild wars 1 that was lost in the transition to guild wars 2, and I felt it was a good idea for those veterans out there, who can remember efficiently playing the class in guild wars 1 without having dopey the bear running around.

Regardless, it’s impossible to argue against rangers needing either a more efficient pet, or a more robust pet mechanic.

(just as a side note, and honestly not meant as an insult at all, but when the pet mechanic starts getting discussed on the forums, it becomes extremely obvious how many people are PvE only players and who they are, versus how many truly PvP and understand the aspects associated with making a PvP game mode competitive)

darkace.8925:

McWolfy.5924:

this idea wont solve any problem. pets cant hit moving targets, just runing up and down… and they die within 2 seconds in most situations.

It is bad that the professions defining mechanic is a hindrance as often as it is a benefit. The fact that pets are still a point of contention almost a year after release leads me to believe it’s never going to be fixed to a level beyond “acceptable”.

Well that’s why I came up with this suggestion, as that it essentially fixes the problem as best as it could possibly be fixed within a short time span, then the devs could develop a more robust system down the line if they feel so inclined as to do so.

All I’ve done is said “look, we have already have a stow option, and an attack option for mechanics. Just change the attack key to a toggle for the stow key and allow the player to choose when to stop stowing the pet.”

Once they do that, the ranger can be balanced around the idea that the pet is an aid, instead of part of the total damage output, and allow traiting into Beastmastery to make the pet a viable damage option. For players that choose not to use or focus on the pet, they will be able to do the damage that is currently lost on the pet (~40% total), and then use the pet as a means for additional sustain, as well as access to a boon or group boons or utilities, or some sort of condition, that the ranger wouldn’t otherwise be able to do.

That way, the class mechanic can no longer hurt us, only help us.

Informality.1279:

Tywele.7812:

This idea would fix the core difference between ranger and other classes. Our class mechanic is currently an essential part of our class, but for all other classes the class mechanic is an additional part for the class.

I actually really, really don’t like that idea at all. A part of why I chose the Ranger is because of the constant companion at my side. If that became reality, I would likely completely lose interest in my Ranger which is my main character.

The constant companion is something you take on when you choose Ranger — every class has one definable thing that makes them stand out. If the Ranger lost that, it would lose one of it’s biggest purposes. “Summoning” the pet would be terrible and holds the same idea as the Necromancer has for skills. That would completely nerf the Ranger I think.

I can understand where you’re coming from.

However, what I suggested would function no differently than keeping the pet on passive currently, except that it wouldn’t be able to be target by opponents outside of combat. That is actually a huge tactical advantage in every gametype because as it stands now, the pet, with no ability to dodge, can be a huge liability in any area with a lot of AoE that it is going to die to.

It really wouldn’t change how you play the class at all, other than maybe a slight psychological difference. I’m not sure how that would ruin your gaming experience, but I believe you when you say it would, I just don’t think its a good excuse to keep the pet mechanic from being improved (I don’t mean my idea when I say improved, I just mean that it needs improvement). I’m just suggesting what I think is the simplest way to create a mechanic that can be balanced across 3 different game modes at once, since ANet seems unwilling to split balancing enough to not allow big changes to keep from negatively impacting other game types.

McWolfy.5924:

this idea wont solve any problem. pets cant hit moving targets, just runing up and down… and they die within 2 seconds in most situations.

No, it doesn’t solve the AI problems.

But it doesn’t solve the problem of how the damage is split between the character and the pet, and how the ranger receives a huge loss in damage whenever they are attacking something that the pet can’t.

Rangers currently are also the only class in the game with a mandatory, always on mechanic. Other classes can trait to make not using their mechanic a viable option, and don’t really lose any efficiency at killing by not utilizing their mechanic at all. So, either the ranger pet needs to be made that much stronger in order to capitalize on the fact that it is the only mechanic like this, or it needs to be changed in order to allow the flexibility that every other class in the game has.

I have a compromise idea that, in my opinion, would fix the pet mechanic (make it easier to balance around, and not mandory).

First off, my idea draws directly from the way Thieves steal mechanic works, which is more important for the devs to know than the players, because it means they could inherit or copy some properties from one to the other and save at least a tad bit of time.

Without further ado, here it is:
Turn the pet into something that can be summoned in combat to aid the fight. Press F1, the pet comes in, it attacks, leave the F2 feature in but make it more utility based, and have the F3 be the same, to return to the side. F4 switching in its current state would be removed entirely, and could be replaced with a pet dodge/invulnerability on a cooldown.

It would work like this; in combat, you can summon the pet to attack a target, and the pet is available to the player until either the pet is killed, or the player leaves combat. The pet can then be controlled, so that the player can target different enemies or call it back out of harms way, to use their F2 utility, or to dodge attacks.

Upon death or leaving combat, the pet options would go on cooldown, a cooldown which could now be reduced by adding points to beastmastery.

New UI:
F1: Toggle button. Toggles between summon pet, and target enemy after the pet is summoned. Remains target enemy until the pet is no longer available to the player.
F2: Utility key: unique ability to the specific pet chosen.
F3: Return: have the pet return to the players side, and out of harms way
f4: Pet dodge: The pet either evades or gains invulnerability.

I think that for those people that want the pet removed, this would be the best way to handle the mechanic. It would allow the damage to be returned to the player for people that don’t want to be constantly using the pet, and it would allow people that want to use the pet the ability to invest points into making their pet better and more damaging. Additionally, for the people who are attached to their pets, it would allow them to use the pet in the exact same manner as they do currently, except that it wouldn’t be running around with them outside of combat.

Also, I believe it would be easier to balance around, since it would work more like a utility summon than an always on mechanic. It would be unique in the sense that it would have better survival, more control, and not take up a slot that other classes utility summons have, and it would allow players to choose whether they would like to be doing damage, or whether they want their pet to.

I dunno, just something to think about. Thoughts anybody?

Honestly I think the ranger got it the worst. At least they tried to give the other classes more specs to play around with, but rangers really only received a nerf surrounded by a few aftercast delays, mostly on the weakest competitive weapon currently available to them.

I mean, you can’t nerf the entire pet mechanic (which makes up ~40% of the damage output), take an autoattack and make it shoot a quarter second faster (while nerfing the other ranged weapons range) and call it a good balance for that class.

Really, the most competitive thing that could be done at this point is removing the “always on” feature of the pet entirely, then having the ranger use their F1 to summon them into battle with a cooldown if they get killed, or if the ranger leaves combat. Obviously damages and stuff need to be adjusted, but whoever thought implementing an always on AI controlled RNG pet that does almost half of a classes damage while the player can just build defensively and evade stuff is out of their minds.

Besides that, Engis got it pretty rough with this last patch too, and simple changes really did leave them less viable than before by taking away some of the best features of their strongest defensive utilities, and removing a lot of the synergy of their slot options.

First of all, congratulations Battosai, very excited to see you in the SoTGs.

Seeing as how you are a similar minded player, I have no doubt that you already have in mind the same questions I do, but to add my own things I’d like to see focused on:

-Rangers really aren’t accomplishing anything unique anymore. Boon access is lackluster, power damage is fairly unimpressive, access to AoE damage is extremely poor, team support options are almost nonexistentm and the pet mechanic after being nerfed is fairly lacking in function outside of DPS. Are there any plans on improving the ranger in any of these categories to give it some sort of competitive edge?

-Viable ranger builds since launch have only really consisted of traps and BM builds. Are there any potential changes coming in the next patch that will help increase the amount of playable builds?

-Lastly, hopefully try to get an ultimatum from the devs. Where do they think rangers are currently, and what direction do they want to take them?

Those are my big ones, but I foresee you covering everything I want to know about. I think the ranger community is at an extremely vulnerable and critical spot since this last patch, and the entire attitude of the community is going to ultimately be determined by the state of the game. Many of the ranger players are (rightly) outraged at how much was taken from builds versus how little was given as compensation, so it is important to make sure that the difference in effectiveness is made up somewhere down the line.

A:
+Necromancer
=Guardian
=Elementalist
=Mesmer

B:
=Thief
-Engineer

C:
+Ranger
=Warrior

-Necros received lots of updates, but as good as they are, I don’t think they push the S tier
-Guardians, Elementalists, and Mesmers have remained pretty top tier for awhile now, even if they are pigeonholed into options, because those options are strong options
-Engineers had their defensive abilities reduced without really gaining anything in return
-Rangers never really had that many options to begin with and were playing a niche build, and that build received a pretty huge nerf
-Warriors have yet to excel anywhere that other classes can’t excel, and it seems that warriors have to work a lot harder to get similar results than other classes do.

People are just so angry all the time. It’s okay Puandro, I know you didn’t say it like this so I will;

Half of the ranger community comes off as inept crying babies, and the good players have to feed them with builds to shut them up between patches.

That statement works for every single profession in the game too.
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Moving on, completely agreed they gave rangers the elementalist treatment. Personally I would run 0/15/30/10/15 but I also have been running primarily conditions for awhile so I think it would make more sense for me. I wouldn’t know about power builds as much unfortunately.

sorrow.2364:

I don’t really think that the 10k damage from fear is the damage which killed you.
I think that the 40k damage from bleeds is the issue you should look at.

Necro isn’t capable to stack and keep a lot of bleeds on the target as engis or rangers can.
You probably did not cleansed it at all during the whole fight, eating all the bleeds you took.

I’m playing a ranger, it isn’t as though I have much on demand condi removal outside of my heal and Signet of Renewal,

So yes, while I agree that the bleeds contributed to my death, losing control of my character for 10s back to back probably didn’t help when I was trying to use my heals and weapon evades.

Mammoth.1975:

If you didn’t run into spectral wall twice and there were no other necros around, you were probably doomed twice.
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Doom

The only other way I can think off the top of my head to fear someone for 10 seconds without using any abilities twice is reaper’s protection.
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Reaper%27s_Protection

Well if they had runes that proc’d, Staff 5, DS 4, and they feared me through the new spectral wall, that’s about 8s right there I’m assuming. And yes, I think Reaper’s Protection put me to 10 then, from my wolfs leap. That makes sense.

Lol I don’t get how you can balance a game before its out. The idea of balance is arbitrary to begin with because there is always going to be a spec that performs more optimally than something at a different spec. So in a sense, the game will never be truly balanced.

Should the traits with all of the useless ones and bugged ones have existed when the game was released? Never.

But to ask for balance before player get their chance to poor all of the time in their lives into the game trying to optimize builds and weapons is really just impossible, because its extremely hard to test how everything interacts with each other, due to different ways of playing, differing ways of thinking, and bugs or not well thought-out ideas that are pushed through.

Even first person shooters on consoles aren’t balanced when they come out and require future updates. It’s just a matter of patience with guild wars 1.

However, I do believe things would go better if ANet would have a more open dialogue with the community prior to the patches so that we can get an idea of how they think the class is operating, and they can gauge how we feel about that, and provide some insight as to the direction they plan on taking the class.

This whole shooting at each other in the dark thing has to stop.