Guild Wars 2

Yoh.8469:

I believe that the core problem with pets is that they are design to be Always On.

The greatest underlying problem of the problem you’ve described is that the pet is reponsible for 30% of our damage. It has to be always on. Otherwise we would lose damage. Ofcourse, there should also be a stow option, so you don’t run into problems like we do with scarlets hologram. But the biggest problem for me is the mindset behind the current pet. It is designed as damagedealer, as huge part of our damage. This implies that the pet is always on. I think I don’t have to give examples where this becomes an issue.

If the pet would only offer additional stuff to the ranger, he wouldn’t have such a huge loss if he has to turn the pet off for a while.

kokiman.2364:

RyuDragnier.9476:

kokiman.2364:

CHIPS.6018:

So I just tried that “Kill 3 Legendary Clockworks” quest. It is nothing but a DPS test. Can we please stop having quests like these?

These quests are saying:
If you are not using berserker gear, go home.

No these “quest”, they are actually called events, are not a DPS check, they are events that encourage people to play together. The biggest problem right now is, that there are way to many “unique snowflakes” around that keep shouting “I PLAY HOW I WANT AND YOU PLAY HOW YOU WANT” which is something that just doesn’t work in a genre that is all about playing together.

He’s right though on that it’s a DPS check…a massive one. They buffed the toughness of the knights along with the 50 person cap.

But still there are 50 people attacking one mob, if everyone would come with his best geared character and at least informs himself abuot the event, uses buff food, the lions arch damage buff and skills that support group damage, the fight would go wayyy smoother than it does now.

But like I said the main problem is the “me” mentality in MMOs these days, when it used to be a “we” mentality.

Sure A.Net said a lot times “play how you want” but I am pretty sure they meant “play however you want, but try to be reasonable” and not “well yeah just don’t try at all, just press autoattack everything will be fine other people will piggyback you through this”

This may be shocking for you but I play the game to have fun, not to make you happy.

jihm.2315:

if you talked to Magnus after Scarlet encounter then you will know what im talking about.
stop trying to boost players ego as being “that thing that did it all”.
our characters should be part of the story as humble soldiers not the main characters.

stop using the “i did it” thing.

i dont know if you catch my point but i wanted to say this.

the living story is great but has there is a lot cliche in it.

You should know who you are talking to! I am a commander of the pact, Trahearne’s right hand!
…
Oh wait, you are too?

The nightmare court can’t renounce nightmare, just like every other dragonminion can’t. Now that Mordremoth is awake, he can control the nightmare.

The proof could be, that a sylvari, who is obsessed by the nighmare, is taken to the altar of the ruined city of arah (Arah explo P2) and cured with the ritual since the ritual can cure someone from the obsession of the dragons.

DarcShriek.5829:

If the Nightmare is a form of corruption, why didn’t Mordy just use Faolain. Instead, he chose someone that wasn’t part of the nightmare, wasn’t part of the dream, wasn’t soundless. Also, why a sylvari? The other races don’t have a dream protecting them, did it have to be a sylvari for Mordy to corrupt? IS he not able to corrupt non plant based life?

He was asleep. The nightmare court can’t renounce nightmare, just like every other dragonminion can’t. Now that he’s awake, he can control the nightmare.

The proof could be, that a sylvari, who is obsessed by the nighmare, is taken to the altar of the ruined city of arah (Arah explo P2) and cured with the ritual since the ritual can cure someone from the obsession of the dragons.

Fancy Fool.1743:

I have to wonder if people are serious about some of these suggestions or if it’s just an emotional reaction. You can’t suggest good design on an emotional, upset premise. You have to think about logistics and the developer’s core goal with the design. I think the problem Allie faces is that the OP didn’t draw the line solidly enough to curb posts born of bitterness and resentment instead of clear-headed design.

Having a CDR Ranger Balance thread chuck full of emotional outcries doesn’t help the Ranger profession, guys. The best way to have got results from this was to simply suggest great, REASONABLE design changes or buffs. Or playing the ball in the court they want and talking more about what you want from the pet AI instead of trying to kick it aside. There are many no-pet suggestion threads you could have gone to respectfully.

Please, this is no emotional uprise, atleast for the most part. The AI is broken and it will stay broken. There are many good suggestions about how to bypass the AI.
Fact is, that the AI will never be as potent, that the damage of the ranger will be
on a competitve level. An AI can serve many purposes. Dealing mandatory damage is none of those.

Jocksy.3415:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Addressing either how the split works or how often the pet can be on “active time” would be preferable to an option to just remove it.

I’m in favor of the first suggestion but yeah, you’re right.

The only thing about the first suggestion is it still runs along that line of “I can safely ignore the pet” other players do already. Either that or they stomp on it so it goes away since it dies so fast, problem solved.

So in the first suggestion, if we take raw damage off the pet and move it to the ranger, then there has to be something put there to replace that.

And I’d rather the uptime be improved, since that has the added effect of not making it easy to “pound on the pet til it goes away for 60”.

I think the pet should be loaded with either defensive support for the ranger and party or offensive support by debuffing the enemy or CCing him.
Furthermore, pet could apply vulnerability (if traited for), so they can’t be completely ignored.
The survivability aspect has to be encountered with an AI overhaul.
The first step to do this would be in my mind to switch the control over the pet to the clients. Right now the pet functions like this: Player hits Button > Client puts a request > server calculates > server responds: “Your request is the 3rd in the actionqueue”
If the control would be on the clientside, you could override actions and the overall reaction speed would be higher.

Oooooor, you’d see lots of hacking…

Switching client-side is a bad idea…

Solution seems to be to reduce downtime, since uptime advantage has been taken off?
Or make the difference between downtime/uptime less meaningful…

Not more than you see now. Furthermore you can simply report them.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Addressing either how the split works or how often the pet can be on “active time” would be preferable to an option to just remove it.

I’m in favor of the first suggestion but yeah, you’re right.

The only thing about the first suggestion is it still runs along that line of “I can safely ignore the pet” other players do already. Either that or they stomp on it so it goes away since it dies so fast, problem solved.

So in the first suggestion, if we take raw damage off the pet and move it to the ranger, then there has to be something put there to replace that.

And I’d rather the uptime be improved, since that has the added effect of not making it easy to “pound on the pet til it goes away for 60”.

I think the pet should be loaded with either defensive support for the ranger and party or offensive support by debuffing the enemy or CCing him.
Furthermore, pet could apply vulnerability (if traited for), so they can’t be completely ignored.
The survivability aspect has to be encountered with an AI overhaul.
The first step to do this would be in my mind to switch the control over the pet to the clients. Right now the pet functions like this: Player hits Button > Client puts a request > server calculates > server responds: “Your request is the 3rd in the actionqueue”
If the control would be on the clientside, you could override actions and the overall reaction speed would be higher.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Addressing either how the split works or how often the pet can be on “active time” would be preferable to an option to just remove it.

I’m in favor of the first suggestion but yeah, you’re right.

Orpheal.8263:

Marksmanship (+ Beast Mastery = Hunter)
Skirmishing (+ Beast Mastery = Scout)
Wilderness Survival (+ Beast Mastery = Strider)
Nature Magic (+ Beast Mastery = Druid)
Beast Mastery

This looks neat. Combined with pets specialized for each playstyle, this change could turn out as good one.

Nike.2631:

I have a suggestion for Ranger Pet AI that could greatly enhance their performance in WvW and some boss fights.

Where Rangers currently have a toggle choice of Passive (pet does noting, lingers in immediate vicinity of Ranger) and Aggressive (pet changes targets to follow the target of the ranger’s attack unless commanded otherwise with f1) I would like to put a third mode into the rotation: Ward.

Ward: Pet remains at your side until you attack or you or the pet are attacked (the same trigger conditions as aggressive). It then attacks the red nameplate closest to you within a maximum range of your current weapon(s) [or a fixed value of 1,000 if this is not possible with current technology]. After each action/attack, it again checks for the closest enemy/red nampeplate to you and focuses its attack on that target. This behavior is overridden by a direct command to focus target via f1 until the focus target is dead or beyond pet leash range from the ranger.

Essentially the pet focuses on harassing and repelling enemies closest to you, working outwards, allowing you to attack enemies at range without your pet immediately launching itself deep into enemy territory. This logic would allow better pet behavior in complex multi-target boss fights and be an enormous boon to managing your pet in zerg vs. zerg encounters making the pet is more likely to join the line and switch intuitively to dedicated bodyguard action when opponents break through.

To keep up with the current blue & red color coding for passive/aggressive I would give ward a yellow or black/yellow (hazard warning colors) icon.

I would like all of your ideas so far if my suggestion towards the pet AI wouldn’t cover all suggestions made so far (and I think I’m not exaggerating).
Link
Your idea would look like this in my system:
1. <If Successfully hit><Search for nearest Target><Of your Master>
2. <If X activated><Attack closest target><Of your Master>
Something like this but my suggestion should be capable of doing so.

snow.8097:

pet qq here…pet qq there…qq people from other discussions everywhere.
any other themes then our pets? its about the ranger in general and not just the pet

If you want other things to be discussed, bring them on the table. We had a discussion about the longbow just recently.
Fact is, that the pet needs the most help and that the devs are currently unwilling to do some major overhauls.

Aidenwolf.5964:

Ashen.2907:

Aidenwolf.5964:

Add a grandmaster trait that gives us 100% of the power for our class and this issue goes away.

I don’t think that we should have to spend trait points to get to 100% of our base power.

I agree. I’d actually prefer this.

Rebalance the 70% 30% split to 95% 5% and add a minor trait in BM that allows you change back to the 70% 30% if you rely on on your pet.

Treat pets as an addition to rangers the same way spirits are. Rangers are an A la carte class, so please allow us to not order a double helping of pet.

Or just balance it to 95%-5% and make the BM Pet Attribute Bonus something like -5% ranger damage per 10 points and +10% pet damage per 10 points.

Phenn.5167:

Pets don’t work. Period. You can buff their move speed. You can jack up their HP. You can replace them with Chuck Norris.

If not not even Chuck Norris can fix the rangers, than man, shi.et must be bad.

Nike.2631:

Allie Murdock.8152:

Think of it this way: You’re building a house and a 2×4 breaks while you’re trying to screw it in to something. Do you scrap the house and completely rebuild it because that one piece broke, or do you grab a new 2×4 and use that instead? Which do you think would be more efficient?

Which would be a fabulous analogy if we were talking about 1 Trait, or maybe a single broken weapon . Pets aren’t a 2×4, they are the FOUNDATION of the profession. There are pet-based traits and effects wound through every single trait line. Core capabilities hinge on a working pet at every turn. And they don’t work.

Sure it looked great back when it was just a blueprint, but then the house got built and along came the rains of real gameplay. The foundation sagged and now there’s not a single square corner or level floor anywhere in the entire building. You have two options: get in, jack up the pilings, and true the frame or tear it down and build on a new foundation that won’t buckle.

We’d all rather you fixed the pilings – when we say ‘tear it down’ it’s because to date you’ve proven either unwilling or unable to do that. The abject failure of pet AI is a real problem, and it’s going to take real work to fix it. Every time we hear assurances that its not a big problem — “a mere 2×4” — we end up jaws agape that the magnitude of the issue still hasn’t sunk in yet. Please stop sending out a guy with a board, a hammer, and can of paint telling us “I’ve got this!”

Her statement left me puzzled too.
This was my reply, for anyone who cares.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

So those things should be fixed, rather than “omg pets don’t work, kill em off”. There has to be a way to fix it, and there has to be a way for it to get done without the massive upheaval they can’t really do.

Who wants to kill the pet?

ItIsFinished.9462:

If each of these classes lost the ability to use their Class mechanic, here are the estimated results:

• Class mechanic/F1-F4 not used in all aspects of the game per class(% decreased)
  • Engineer 30%
  • Gaurdian 20%
  • Warrior 35%
  • Elementalist 65%
  • Mesmer 25%
  • Thief 40%
  • Necro 20%
  • Ranger 30%

Ranger isn’t in such a bad position if their pet dies compared to some of the other classes.

This list is weird and false.

ItIsFinished.9462:

Thanks for the replies Allie. I’m not sure why the same people who keep harping on you about giving the ranger back their 100% damage arguments won’t concur. Keep in mind a few of them have admitted not stepping foot in PVP aspects of the game. Over on the Ranger forum, I can’t guarantee 90%+ of them want the pet to stay along with there mechanics, just on an improved AI level, which is what you stated a few pages back. The discussions should be about ideas on making this happen, rather than bringing up this stow pet 100% damage idea.

So you are saying just because I’ve never played PvP, I shouldn’t be heard?
Man you’re weird. Stop these disgusting attempts to proof other players not beeing as equivalent as the “elitists”.

SkiTz.4590:

I pray this is a joke and devs don’t even bother looking at this

Name of a pet has absolutely no impact on gameplay what so ever.

You honest to god believe people will use more pets if the nicknaming system was revamped? dear lord

Please, this is the Ranger CDI, regarding all aspects of the ranger.
I do agree that there are more important things to discuss but this doesn’t mean his idea is stupid or should be ignored.

Prysin.8542:

Akisame.9508:

Allie Murdock.8152:

I’m not saying this isn’t possible, but I want you to understand exactly what that suggestion means. It would mean completely rebalancing the Ranger.

The Ranger is designed to have a pet. If the pet was taken away or didn’t do damage, then it wouldn’t be a Ranger anymore. Does that make sense?

The only reason Rangers lose damage is because the AI is not currently what it ought to be. That doesn’t necessarily mean that we should completely redesign the Ranger and get rid of the pet.

Hi Allie, and thank you for your replies.

—i wrote a very long post—

You are misunderstanding the conscept of other professions; If they do not use their mechanics, they will not be able to achieve 100% potential. Saying a warrior can do 115% is absurd, because the rapid bursts is what produces those “15%”. Without bursts, a warrior’s damage is quite mediocre unless you built it to gain damage from some other mechanic, such as banner-buffs.
If you look at a warriors weapons, and the burst options, you see that certain weapons have lower base damage then you may expect, related directly to the damage that the burst can do. Axe mainhand is a good example of this. Its AA has lower damage then weapons of equal damage stats but since eviscerate does so much damage it makes up for the loss.

The point still stands: If the warrior ignores his F skills, including traits and passives, he will still turn out as good damagedealer.
If the ranger ignores his F skills, he will turn out losing 30% of his damage.
Furthermore, if the warrior utilizing his F skills, he will deal very high damage.
If the ranger wants to utilize his F skills, he is not necessarily getting his 30% damage back. there are so much things that could go wrong.
The ranger is on a disadvantage because his pet isn’t reliable.
If the warrior hits F1, he will get the effect he expected to get. If a ranger hits F1, the pet can still be kited, killed, blocked, or is simply not able to attack.

Allie Murdock.8152:

Aidenwolf.5964:

Allie Murdock.8152:

Also, you guys can’t see this due to the limitations of formatting on our forums, but a lot of these points were made by many of you guys. As such, they are much more emphasized in the email threads and discussions we have internally.

First, thank you for your summary. What I think got missed in the pile was the idea that pet damage should be rebalanced so that they no longer draw 30% of our damage from us in the first place. All other classes core mechanics add to base damage where as rangers loose almost a third of our player damage in order to have an AI run around with us. If our pets hit every time and are never dead, we just get to 100% base damage of every other class capping us at 100% a warrior hits 115% with his/her core mechanic.

This does not take into account the loss of gear stats on the pet which is significant.

I’m not saying this isn’t possible, but I want you to understand exactly what that suggestion means. It would mean completely rebalancing the Ranger.

The Ranger is designed to have a pet. If the pet was taken away or didn’t do damage, then it wouldn’t be a Ranger anymore. Does that make sense?

The only reason Rangers lose damage is because the AI is not currently what it ought to be. That doesn’t necessarily mean that we should completely redesign the Ranger and get rid of the pet.

Think of it this way: You’re building a house and a 2×4 breaks while you’re trying to screw it in to something. Do you scrap the house and completely rebuild it because that one piece broke, or do you grab a new 2×4 and use that instead? Which do you think would be more efficient?

What I’ve been seeing a lot of is that you guys don’t necessarily dislike pets. What you dislike is how they act and how they are controlled. It seems to me that these are feelings that have been built up over time, and have culminated into “pets have to go” because you guys haven’t seen the improvements that should be made to pets to make them desirable. I certainly don’t blame you for getting to this point, but I do want to know the core of the problem before we start talking about rebalancing an entire class.

We don’t want the pet to deal no damage. We want the pet to deal additional damage. Right now the main purpose of the pet is to deal damage. The advantages an AI could offer are (nearly) completely unused. The pet is just doing what we could do better: Dealing damage. Instead the pet could help you CCing the enemy, buffing the party or dealing with a second target.

Your example isn’t really helping. You’ve tried to build a skyscraper upon a foundation meant to carry a single-family home. Your example implies that the pet is just a small part of the ranger yet you define the ranger as pet-centric class and the ranger is forced to use his pet every time.

But think of it this way: If you have a child and a robot. Do you want the robot to take care of your child while you’re cleaning your house or do you want the robot to clean your house while you’re taking care of your child?

Ofcourse, that would mean you have to change many things. But most of those things would have to be changed anyways in order to be effective.
I’m sorry if you’ve expected to just tweak some numbers but that’s not how this gonna work.

Don’t get me wrong, this game is based on a wonderful concept, but there are some parts who didn’t turn out functioning. The pet, the whole pet at its current state, is one of those things. It works, yes, but it doesn’t work well. That’s the reason why the ranger gets hindered and he will be getting hindered if you can’t get rid of the definition of the pet as damagedealer. The pet, an AI, will never be as good at dealing damage as the ranger, the player is. That’s the reason why the ranger is worse than other classes. But the pet can so much more than just dealing mandatory damage. And that’s the direction I want the pet to be evolved.

Xaylin.1860:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

4. No other classmechanic sets yourself on a disadvantage to justify itself.
5. The pet will never be a reliable damagesource. Therefore, make it additional.

I quote your post because I highly disagree.

First, people need to give up on the ‘Give me 100% damage and make the pet additional’ demand. It is not going to happen as long as the Ranger is the assigned pet class. It is a design decision ANet made if you like it or not. You will have to get over it. Repeating related demands does not contribute anything constructive and productive.

That being said, I already pointed out earlier that there are several other class mechanics which come with disadvantages if you like to admit it or not. Your fourth statement is just not true.

Especially Mesmers are in a very similar situation as Rangers are when it comes to baseline damage and pets. While their class mechanic are Shatters they are linked to Clones and Phantasms. This means that Mesmers as well have a comparibly low baseline damage when excluding the Illusions/Shatters. However, the Mesmer class also shows that an AI heavy class mechanic can work. While an AI is unlikely to reach human capabilities any time soon it still can be reliable. I therefore also disagree with your fifth statement.

I will give you 3 good reasons why you are wrong:

1. Other classes are losing damage if they decide to not use their classmechanic.
   The ranger on the other hand is the only class who still loses damage most times if he decides to play with his pet.
   As Example:
   1. Pets are useless while defending/attacking a fortress in WvW
   2. Pets are useless for the most open-world-bosses
2. Pets can’t be stowed. This is as simple as huge of a problem. Just take the Hologram encounter as example. Engi turrets, Mesmer clones, Necro minions and Ranger pets can ruin your attempt to get the achievement. Yet all classes can choose to not use their AI’s. The ranger is the only one who can’t.
3. So what has to be done, so that the pet is no more a dps loss?
   1. It has to hit the target as soon as you start hitting
   2. It has to stay ontop of the enemy all the time
   3. It mustn’t die
      If you do so, you would’ve created a unique dot. So why don’t give the ranger the damage outright?

Furthermore, I don’t think you’ve understand the meaning of additional. It doesn’t mean that you could play without your pet, I doesn’t mean that the ranger wont be the pet class anymore. It just means that the mandatory damage will be on the ranger and the pet could be focussed more around providing utility and support.

Atleast stop arguing with the mesmer please. There is a reason why only shatterbuilds are viable.
(Hint: Because the illusions are eating up too much damage)
And there are not only mesmers out there.
Warriors aren’t hurt if they don’t use their adrenaline, Engis aren’t hurt if they don’t use their additional skills, Not even Necros are hurt if they don’t use their DS. They lose additional damage, but not more. Same with Guardians. Not even Thiefs lose anythings if they don’t steal.

Carighan.6758:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

1. We get kicked out of elitist parties anyways

This would specifically be why I would not do something like it. ANet should not try to patch human stupidity. It’s not possible, anyhow.

If they could, posts like this would disappear… -.-

Ltomato.8649:

What I’m really trying to get across is how turning a longbow into a longer-range shortbow clone won’t help at all. It doesn’t prevent stacking, and if anything, makes it less useful when stacking.

It wont solve stacking and it wont turn the weapon into a speedrun-weapon. But it would help alot in WvW since every class can close the distance in splitseconds.

Flytrap.8075:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Ltomato.8649:

EDIT:
I may be alone in this, but I really enjoy the longbow kit as it is- I don’t feel that the skills need any major changes as they are. Stealth+knockback+opening strike is really fun to use, and while Rapid Fire isn’t as bursty as I’d like, it’s still pretty cool. The proposed changes turn it into some sort of long-range power-based shortbow. I disagree with those changes 100%. Should they be implemented, I’d likely quit ranger altogether, as Longbow is currently my favorite weapon and shortbow my least favorite.

As you may have noticed, the LB is dealing its(his? *) full damage only at max. range.
In WvW or PvP the ranger isn’t capable of holding his distance to utilising the LB.
In structured PvE, the meta is “stacking and zerging”, so we aren’t able to use the LB either. That’s a maldevelopment we are trying to solve. While I don’t agree with many proposals made so far, I do agree that the LB needs help.
_ * I’m not native english speaking, help me with that one_

English doesn’t assign genders to objects like other languages do; the longbow would just be an it.

You were originally correct

Thanks, in German it could be both, depends on how you set up your sentence

Ltomato.8649:

EDIT:
I may be alone in this, but I really enjoy the longbow kit as it is- I don’t feel that the skills need any major changes as they are. Stealth+knockback+opening strike is really fun to use, and while Rapid Fire isn’t as bursty as I’d like, it’s still pretty cool. The proposed changes turn it into some sort of long-range power-based shortbow. I disagree with those changes 100%. Should they be implemented, I’d likely quit ranger altogether, as Longbow is currently my favorite weapon and shortbow my least favorite.

As you may have noticed, the LB is dealing its full damage only at max. range.
In WvW or PvP the ranger isn’t capable of holding his distance to utilising the LB.
In structured PvE, the meta is “stacking and zerging”, so we aren’t able to use the LB either. That’s a maldevelopment we are trying to solve. While I don’t agree with many proposals made so far, I do agree that the LB needs help.

Flytrap.8075:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

insanemaniac.2456:

immature as in not thoroughly discussed…?

Yes, but I’ve stated also, that I would like to keep the spirits.

Why?

I’m genuinely curious. You’ve said that you haven’t played a single sPvP game, so in all fairness, you have no idea of how toxic they are in that game-mode.

Nope, but I like how they perform in PvE. Or could perform if they would be more usefull.

insanemaniac.2456:

immature as in not thoroughly discussed…?

Yes, but I’ve stated also, that I would like to keep the spirits.

Ltomato.8649:

Allie Murdock.8152:

X. Eagle Eye – Include shortbow. Provides 200 range and +5% damage on longbow and harpoon gun. (no range bonus for shortbow)

Why the change from the current 300 range to 200? Thieves can already steal as far, and engineers can throw grenades as far. This doesn’t make sense.

This must be a typo, it simply must be. Otherwise I would lose my faith in ArenaNet as a player.

Flytrap.8075:

So… you and a few others have specifically said that you love having a pet around, but at the same time, you want ANet to nerf pet damage and put more of it on to Ranger?

I mean, I’m all in favor of giving Ranger more damage, but I’m just confused why you’d want a pet in the first place if its damage is going to be even more pathetic. It’s entirely counter-intuitive.

1. If the pet dies, you just lose additional stuff rather than 1/3 of your effectiveness.
2. Investing into the Beastmastery traitline will still turn your pet into a serious enemy.
3. The pet could be more utility-oriented rather than beeing trimmed on dealing damage.
4. No other classmechanic sets yourself on a disadvantage to justify itself.
5. The pet will never be a reliable damagesource. Therefore, make it additional.

Flytrap.8075:

I just think it’s hilarious that self-proclaimed pet supporters are looking to move the pet’s damage onto the Ranger.

As I’ve said before, somewhere in this thread, I don’t want the pet to be removed; I want the damagecomponent to be removed.
An AI will never be reliable. Therefore it’s stupid to think that the pet would be able to deal our damage. It is on the other hand perfectly capable of providing additional things.
You can use your pet for support or utility (Tanking in PvE, F2 skills, shouts) but they shouldn’t be mandatory i order to succeed.

AEFA.9035:

Summary reply and revisions

Hey Allie.

I read your summary.
[…]

You sir, are ruining my day.
I haven’t played a single PvP match, so I can’t argue about the (non) OPness of these suggestions, but they sound really nice in PvE and WvW.
Regarding LB: I don’t think the conditions would be OP, since we’re losing damage when the target is closer than 1000 range. Maybe an increase of conditionduration per range would solve the problem.

McWolfy.5924:

Warriors have +15% dmg and crit trait if not using the adrenalin skill. We losing dmg because the pet…

Akisame.9508:

Ranger should be set up the same way with pets. Ranger’s should have 100% control of their damage and the pet, while alive, should be able to deal an extra 15% damage.

SkiTz.4590:

Give rangers 100% of the damage, not this useless 70:30 split with our pet

wolfyrik.2017:

If ANET decided againsts Aspects/stow ultimately, I’d like to see this approach instead. I fail to see how a pet that can barely hit would be overpowered when wielded by a charater with 100% of it’s damage out put intact.

RoyalPredator.9163:

I would like to say;
100% Ranger DMG, X% Pet dmg ABOVE it. Control it well for effectiveness!

Gotejjeken.1267:

Not seeing a damage rebalance between pet and ranger is a bit worrying. I don’t want my pet doing more damage, or scaling with me. I want my pet to be a pretty utility skill. Give me 80% of the damage and a super responsive F2 from my pet, should solve every AI issue you have.

Tryxtr.6295:

1. The damage split is supposedly 70% / 30% between ranger and pet. Change that to 85% / 15%

Aidenwolf.5964:

What I think got missed in the pile was the idea that pet damage should be rebalanced so that they no longer draw 30% of our damage from us in the first place.

Much needed, often requested. Please ArenaNet, many want it and you could even keep your pets.

Serbaayuu.3051:

Allie Murdock.8152:

1. General QoL changes.
   1. When the pet is stowed, the Ranger should gain “aspect of the <pet name>” effect which provides unique buffs based on the pet family and specific pet.

Please don’t do this. When I make my build and play the game, I want to select a pet and work alongside it to succeed. I don’t want to select a static buff that’s just going to sit there.

And no, it will not be “optional”. I foresee a future where rangers who use pets instead of the Aspect Of the _ will get auto-kicked from most elitist parties.

Despite this isn’t the perfect way to go in my opinion too, there are some things to keep in mind.

1. If this aspect will be better or worse than the pet depends on the balancing
2. We get kicked out of elitist parties anyways

Allie Murdock.8152:

1. Remove spirits. They clutter up the map and provide less strategic value with target changes.
   1. Instead, apply an aura to the pet that does the same thing spirits currently do.
      1. Obviously, this would be a huge rework and would require changes to spirit traits.

This point only applies to PvP in my opinion. I personally love to run around with my own little “army”. If they just would be more usefull in PvE…
Alos, the idea of giving the pet the buffs to share them is immature. What if your pet dies, get switched or runs out of your range?

Daishi.6027:

Just some ideas, PvX

Pets should be part of the ranger, and the ranger apart of the pet. Perhaps shared damage, as well as shared buffs?

Something along the lines of "Ranger take 25%-30% of all pet damage, Pet’s take 25-30% of the ranger damage with shared tankiness from the ranger’s stats. However both recicves the same condition stacks from the other, and any boon on the ranger or pet is also shared in kind. Along with this give activate-able class mechanic skills, and further control of the pet. (tho have ranger pets break aggro on steath.) While having the stats of the ranger determine the abilities/damage/bonus stats of the pet.

This will make the class mechanic more defined and ahve the pet be part of the ranger, and less like a tanky sidekick who’s a mild annoyance in PvE, and a unstopable target tracker in PvP

Sorry, I don’t want to offend you, but this is the worst suggestion I’ve read so far. Not only we get punished for having a pet (losing damage) but also beeing punished if our pet gets hit? I would immediately uninstall GW2.

Akisame.9508:

Thank you for the summary post, however, I did not see anything in there pertaining to WvWvW. We still have the problem of them dieing way to fast in zerg vs zerg. And we also have the large issue of us loosing 30% of our damage when defending or taking a keep/fort because pet’s will not scale up or down the walls. This includes the birds which will not fly up or down the wall to attack the targets. The only way I can see to combat this would be to have pets like all over class mechanics, an addition to our damage, not taking away from our damage. For instance, warriors get to do 100% of their damage and if they have full adrenaline they do an extra 15% damage. Ranger should be set up the same way with pets. Ranger’s should have 100% control of their damage and the pet, while alive, should be able to deal an extra 15% damage. If the pet is dead then it deals no extra damage like warriors with no adrenaline will deal no extra damage. We will still have the problem of the pets not being able to hit a moving target but at least the ranger will no longer have this handicap on them.

+1 #15characters

Nike.2631:

Allie Murdock.8152:

Also, you guys can’t see this due to the limitations of formatting on our forums, but a lot of these points were made by many of you guys. As such, they are much more emphasized in the email threads and discussions we have internally.

And apparently the forum doesn’t help you recognize when an idea comes from only one person but gets 200 up votes .

There are obvious fixes and there are clever ones. Counting the number of echoes only helps you identify the former…

Since noone would see my upvote, +1 to this…

Also, Sword #2 shouldn’t be reverted, both jumps should be going forward.
Sword #1: Even if we’re able to dodge while jumping, we still couldn’t move while doing so. This does hurt the flow of attacks. You can’t attack anything without targeting it because you would just launch past your enemy everytime.
Just remove the jumps on AA chain and rework Sword #2 to 2-3 jumps forward.
“Eagle Eye” should also apply to the shortbow giving him 1200 range and +5% damage.
“Piercing Arrows” should also increase the chance of physical projectile combo finisher to 40% (or higher).
Furthermore, I’m not in favor of you changing nothing at the damagespread (Ranger 70%, Pet 30%), but yeah, you could’ve guessed that anyways.

It’s done… CDI closed.
I hope we get a second round after they’ve discussed a bit.

While we wait for response, we could give a short summary about our suggestions, so we can pick the ones we like the most.

Something like this:

So my first suggestions deals with the weapons. Link
I tried to keep the current playstyle of each weapon but also increasing their effectiveness. All suggestions I’ve made should outline the direction I want the weapons to be changed*.
* Exept the sword suggestions, I really like those. Detailed Suggestion

My next suggestion deals with the shouts. Link
The current shouts are pretty weak compared to the shouts of other classes.
I’ve suggested reworks to Guard and Protect, Buffs to Sic ’Em and Search and Rescue and turning HaO and RaO into shouts.

Furthermore I’ve shared some opinions about the spirits. Link
The current spirits are weaker warrior banners and I would want to evolve them to a more ranger-centric utility.

Later on, I’ve suggested a maverick change to the pet AI. Link
I don’t know if this suggestion would turn out healthy but it would indeed be a cool addition to the game.

Last but not least, I’ve depicted the general direction I want the ranger to be involved.
Link
Therein I claim that the pet has to be additional and not mandatory.

I would be happy to see your summary of suggestions you’ve made or liked the most.

whyme.3281:

GameMode
Overall, weapon suggestion

Proposal Overview
change Longbow to AoE-control ranged weapon
introduce rifle as ranged single-target weapon
change axe (mainhand) to melee (or <=600 range) condition weapon

Your proposal would give the LB a niche he could fill but I don’t like direction you’re going. The warrior LB is also a AoE-control weapon. Yet I want to use the ranger LB to kill people, not to CC the to death. I don’t want a counterpart to the warrior LB.

Nike.2631:

Since I rather enjoyed the team being turned into Charr or Asura in certain fractals, lets take it up a notch – fractals where the team is turned into once race AND assigned a specific racial elite for the duration of the fractal – with the bosses of the fractal having specific vulnerabilities to that elite.

I would like to see a Sylvari fractal, where you help the firstborn.

phys.7689:

i think it would be bad if rangers could fight people who cant ever hit them. that said, if the 1 skill was a charge skill(increase dmg on release) that alone could make rng more entertaining, and make LB more interesting

But it’s also bad if we can’t maintain our distance, which we can’t right now. LB is only effective if we hit the target at 1000+ range. And as said 100 times before, we can’t maintain 1000+ range, not for a second. Furthermore the arrowspeed is a hit-n-miss gamble at long ranges.

Since the last patch I suffer from lagspikes every 1-2 minutes. Those lags aren’t caused on my side since I’m not experiencing lags anywhere else than in GW2.

Flytrap.8075:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Flytrap.8075:

I feel that other professions pull this way better than Ranger currently does.

A lot of the weapon sets available to Ranger are either awkward/clunky or don’t have a clearly established niche.

I don’t even think that weapons have to fill a niche, they just have to serve a clear purpose. If the LB was designed to deal high, long-range damage, I would say yes, the LB is capable of doing so but he is highly unreliable since his damage falls of if the target comes closer. At the same time the LB has no real countermeasures to prevent an enemy to come closer. Furthermore the arrows are a hit-n-miss gamble at long range.

“Fitting a niche” and “serving a clear purpose” are the same thing in my eyes.

The problem with “Fitting a niche” vs. “serving a clear purpose” is that the niche implies that the gameplay feels totally different from other weapons, beeing unique. I don’t have a problem with the MH axe serving the same purpose as the SB does, just both weapons have to excel at one point. SB as example should be the always kiting, persistent damage dealing weapon while the MH axe could be somewhat more bursty but less kiting.

Flytrap.8075:

I also think that some weapons don’t have a clearly established niche available to them (Shortbow vs. MH-Axe, Sword vs. Greatsword, etc.). When you look at other classes and their weapon sets, it is obvious that each weapon was designed with a specific role in mind. I believe that this is a result of Ranger being designed as a jack-of-all-trades class; we’re essentially suffering from an identity crisis right now.

The ones are onehanded, the others are twohanded.

Flytrap.8075:

I feel that other professions pull this way better than Ranger currently does.

A lot of the weapon sets available to Ranger are either awkward/clunky or don’t have a clearly established niche.

I don’t even think that weapons have to fill a niche, they just have to serve a clear purpose. If the LB was designed to deal high, long-range damage, I would say yes, the LB is capable of doing so but he is highly unreliable since his damage falls of if the target comes closer. At the same time the LB has no real countermeasures to prevent an enemy to come closer. Furthermore the arrows are a hit-n-miss gamble at long range.

Flytrap.8075:

Jocksy.3415:

urdriel.8496:

misterdevious.6482:

When people simply say “the pet,” I wonder how much was invested in that pet.

The default pets have 0 traits, 0 bonus stats, 0 condition damage, 0 movement speed buff, 0 regen, 0 pet utility skills, and 0 support from the ranger or the ranger’s gear.

The most powerful pets benefit from most of the ranger’s traits, up to 4100 bonus stats (Beastmastery 300×4, Master’s Bond 200×4, Might 875×2, Trait 350×1), up to 1225 condition damage, +50% condition duration, 25-40% movement speed buff, massive regen, 3 pet-related utility skills, and full support from the ranger, and the ranger’s healing, precision, and boon duration gear. (Giving the pet 25 stacks of might can be done with a single key using the right build.)

I can keep pets alive in 30v30 zerg fights (map-blob vs map-blob is another story), but it requires building specifically for that purpose (a bit different from the most lethal pet) and making a compromise with my own safety. With the upcoming change to F2 activation, I may play this way more often.

• Should there be less difference between the min and max pets?
• Should it be easier to spec for a good pet?
• Should pets have more utility by default that isn’t heavily dependent on their stats?

Thieves and mesmer will laugh hard at your pet , all other classes will kite it until the end of the fight

phys.7689:

urdriel.8496:

Aioros.4862:

Now we are skirmishers, not archers. I think it’s a “Go melee or get out” thingy.

Yes, common sense, we will give you Shortbow and Longbow but you must go melee…….

they also gave you daggers swords greatswords and axes.

this game isnt designed where one of a professions weaponsets is supposed to better than others, each set is supposed to serve different needs.
ranger is meant to be able to go in and out of range, and have good options from any range. They actually did that fairly decently, my main beef is LB/SB is boring. I wouldnt mind aimed shots and charged attacks, but i dont know if thats what yall want

Oh yes, without traits, max LB range 1200 SB 900, gap closers have 600-1200 range, you hit 1 time and in 1 second your enemy is at melee distance, it is really stupid, on the other side a warrior can hit like a truck and run like the roadrunner ( WITH HEAVY ARMOR…)

LB/SB are boring because the best dps is always the AutoAttack, this is a DESIGN FLAW.

SB is supposed to be a condition weapon.

And LB is supposed to be a Power weapon, but DOESNT HAVE a real burst skill.

Not a design flaw…
This is what I like about ranger, that secondary attacks are situational (except for gs#2)
It’s not a “I spam all my attacks in a certain order, then wait for CD”, it’s a “I AA until the situation calls for another attack”.
I do agree power weapons should have burst skills, but I think they should also keep the situational attacks of our weapons…

I have to disagree on this one.

Compared to the other professions’ weapon sets, the ones available to Ranger feel incredibly more spammy. In my opinion, this is because a lot of the Ranger’s weapons are incredibly clunky/awkward; Sword, Greatsword, and Longbow stand out to me.

The “clunkyness” of the weapons have to be/have been also addressed in this thread.

Jocksy.3415:

Not a design flaw…
This is what I like about ranger, that secondary attacks are situational (except for gs#2)
It’s not a “I spam all my attacks in a certain order, then wait for CD”, it’s a “I AA until the situation calls for another attack”.
I do agree power weapons should have burst skills, but I think they should also keep the situational attacks of our weapons…

That’s true but I would like to see the secondary skills beeing as good as the AA.
For example: If Sword #3 is a damageloss compared to the AA, you would want to not use it, even if it would be necessary. That would only promote the “stacking and #1 mashing” tactic.

phys.7689:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Wethospu.6437:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Wethospu.6437:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

I can’t get behind the instability system. It’s still the same lame dungeon which you want to complete as fast as possible to get the loot (Yes, that’s grind and GW2 turned into a grindy game) and the instabilities just slow you down. There is not even an explanation for those instabilities storywise.

How are instabilities making that worse? Even without them people ran only same levels for daily.
Why is getting slowed down a bad thing if you find fast clears lame?

Because slow clears are even more lame.
Look, I’ve played this game for over 3k hours now, most times in PvE, I’ve done all dungeons too often to find them entertaining. It bores me. I’m doing those things to get the reward.

Queensdale champion train sounds like a right place for you.

Anthony asks for opinions, I give him my opinion. You have a problem with that?
Instead of adding crude mechanics they should work on the grind so I don’t have to run 100 fractals just to get one ascended backpiece.

they got other options for ascended backpiece now. you can get the blades one, probably for less resources/time. No offense, but i dont think its a good idea to design fractals around people getting items super easily.

I don’t want them to be easier. But I don’t like the instabilities, partly because they don’t make the content any more satisfying, partly because they just got implemented without any reason or need. Furthermore I have to say that the grind is too huge to enjoy the fractals at a certain amount. Therefore I want them to work on new content istead of new instabilities.

Wethospu.6437:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Wethospu.6437:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

I can’t get behind the instability system. It’s still the same lame dungeon which you want to complete as fast as possible to get the loot (Yes, that’s grind and GW2 turned into a grindy game) and the instabilities just slow you down. There is not even an explanation for those instabilities storywise.

How are instabilities making that worse? Even without them people ran only same levels for daily.
Why is getting slowed down a bad thing if you find fast clears lame?

Because slow clears are even more lame.
Look, I’ve played this game for over 3k hours now, most times in PvE, I’ve done all dungeons too often to find them entertaining. It bores me. I’m doing those things to get the reward.

Queensdale champion train sounds like a right place for you.

Anthony asks for opinions, I give him my opinion. You have a problem with that?
Instead of adding crude mechanics they should work on the grind so I don’t have to run 100 fractals just to get one ascended backpiece.