Petition for a pet-less ranger option [Archive]

BrettM

25-03-2011, 13:10

I'm not quite as down on GW1 pets as you seem to be, so my beastmaster ranger would probably not pass your "noob filter". However, the fact that I enjoy using my pet in GW1 does not mean I think forcing pets in GW2 is a good idea unless there are some major fixes to the system. Especially since GW2 doesn't let you work around some of the problems by going full beastmaster, but forces you into a weapon/pet split.

So far I haven't seen any sign of any major fixes. Study the Barrage skill video on the official page and there are still signs of that awful pet hesitation before the first strike (artfully covered by camera transitions). You can see the hesitation and slow attack rate in action on some of the PAX demo videos. (In the rare cases where pets are actually alive and attacking.)

It also appeared to me that the GW2 enemy AI is still prone to ignoring pets in favor of attacking players. Pets in GW1 are usually the last things left standing because of this, so it doesn't much matter if they can't dodge and don't have any extra regen built in. Most pet damage seems to come from being caught in AoE aimed at the players, and the extra AoE in GW2 may be responsible for all the pet corpses lying around. Putting pets on heel might not be the solution here, since it will ensure they get tagged by any AoE aimed at you.

I don't see how healing incidental damage by themselves is all pets need to be useful. That just replaces what the healer heroes are doing in GW1, and that healing of incidental damage doesn't seem sufficient to make GW1 pets meet your standards of utility. All it does is relieve the ranger of the extra stress of playing monk to his pet while it chases foes all over the battlefield without being able to attack them because they aren't interested in fighting pets.

I would also like to know to what extent cross-profession buffs will affect pets. Very few of them do in GW1. Will pets get any benefit from AoE boons supplied by warrior banners, guardian virtues, etc.? If they do, that will also go a long way towards increasing their utility.

MaximumSquid

25-03-2011, 14:21

Just judging from the Skills (http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/List_of_ranger_skills) so far it looks like the Ranger is in charge of AoE, Utility Skills (like healing/evasion/buffs/etc.), and Combos where the pet applying all the direct damage (http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Pet_skill). . .

This could easily change though as more skills and skills of pets get revealed
(keeping in mind that none of the Hall of Monument Pets have been shown in game yet or skills for Ranger Greatsword)

Alaris

25-03-2011, 15:13

The WoW warlock is interesting point of comparison here. You can summon a different pet depending on your needs...

One is melee, one is ranged, one is rogue-ish, etc...

shadowhand

25-03-2011, 18:02

...I like ranger pets just fine. I wouldn't have gone to a gazillion and one zoo crew meetings if I didn't...

So I would have no problem with always bringing a pet on a ranger :)

In fact, I would probably not want to play a pet-less ranger at all.

Zayren

25-03-2011, 18:29

You could just not bring any pet skills and put traits into bow attacks? That way you still do lots of damage but don't rely on your pet as much as people who have pet skills and pet traits??????

Why not just have your pet along doing it's pet thing and you don't manage it at all, by, once again, relying on bow skills instead of pet skills????????

Even hunters in WoW who use Marks/Survival talents still have their pets for the mediocre damage, even though the vast majority of the dps is from the bow. (oh **** did I just mention WoW oh noooooooo)

The WoW warlock is interesting point of comparison here. You can summon a different pet depending on your needs...

Hunters have three types of pets too... It's not that big of a deal though... And not really relevant to removing pets, no...?

GrimShade

25-03-2011, 18:40

I do agree I prefer running round without the pet and while the occasional petition thread is fun for a bit, I think we already have the option to go pet-less.

Hunters Call, Spread Shot and Whirling Def don’t have pets in their videos’
http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/professions/ranger/

So I’m pretty sure it’s done, but I’ll sign

Grim

Alaris

25-03-2011, 18:58

You could just not bring any pet skills and put traits into bow attacks?

Not sure you can pull traits from pets and put them into bows. I don't think it works that way. If it does, then I'm happy with it, like I said in the OP (in different words).

I've heard enough complaints about WoW pets to think they would also like that option. Not an issue with warlocks though, because ranged pet stays near you and stays out of trouble. If I'd get a ranged pet that would stay nearby, that'd be fine too.

In fact, I would probably not want to play a pet-less ranger at all.

I'm happy for you. Does it mean you disagree, you don't care, or you agree even if it doesn't affect you?

Zayren

25-03-2011, 19:07

Not sure you can pull traits from pets and put them into bows. I don't think it works that way. If it does, then I'm happy with it, like I said in the OP (in different words).

The way traits have sounded to me is that they are basically your talent/skill point/build/whatever, and you can choose which to use over others for variety in your builds. I think they should release some more concrete info about them. (Unless they have I must admit I have not kept up with all the news.)

sorudo

25-03-2011, 19:47

they simply should make an article specifically about how pets affect rangers and if it's possible to play pet-less or make pet's support-only.

Alaris

25-03-2011, 19:54

The way traits have sounded to me is that they are basically your talent/skill point/build/whatever

Yes, but take weapon traits for example... you equip traits *per* weapon for however many weapons you want. Whenever you equip a weapon, its traits are active.

If the pet has its own trait line (I dunno), then not using the pet would be losing out on a bunch of traits. If the pet shares its trait line with some other ranger main trait, then you can trade-off the pet against your own abilities. I'm not sure the difference would make non-pet play viable, but it would be a start.

they simply should make an article specifically about how pets affect rangers and if it's possible to play pet-less or make pet's support-only.

Support-only or ranged-only. I'd be happy with either. I'd love to hear more info.

BrettM

25-03-2011, 20:49

Every profession has traits for each weapon it can equip. As Alaris said, these are independent, so choosing traits for your sword does not influence the traits you choose for your axe.

In addition, each profession has special trait lines that are independent of each other. Rangers have two independent trait lines: Wilderness Survival and Beast Mastery. For example, one of the traits that can be chosen for Beast Mastery is "Nature's Care", which gives your pet increased health regen. So there is no trade off between pets and other abilities in terms of traits.

Zayren, the ranger is supposedly balanced around having both a weapon and a pet. This means that any ranger relying on either one alone is theoretically going to be gimped for damage and/or support compared to a ranger using both. There is currently no option to give up the pet and transfer the power into other aspects, or vice versa, as they are independent components. You can play without bringing your pet, but, is that a good idea?

If the profession really does work as we have been told, then a ranger who leaves his pet behind should be noticeably inferior to one who doesn't. If the ranger without a pet is anywhere near as effective as one with a pet, then the pet becomes a liability. In that case, the ranger without a pet is going to pwn one with a pet, because the first will not have to spend any time managing that pet's health, position, and targeting during battle. He can concentrate completely on managing his own, which gives him a decided advantage even if his damage and support is slightly less effective.

Shadowhand, I don't want to play a pet-less ranger either. But, even less do I want to play a ranger with a useless decoration hanging around me that actually hampers my overall effectiveness compared to someone who leaves his pet at home.

I have no objections to ANet providing an option for those who don't care for pets, as long as that option can be balanced properly with the pet option. Otherwise, GW2 pets will again come to be regarded as a "noob filter" rather than a legitimate choice of play styles. "Got a pet? Gtfo. Noob. Ltp."

Alaris

26-03-2011, 00:43

Indeed, BrettM. The no-pet option should be gimped enough to make the pet option the one that is the accepted standard in groups. But... not too much.

Bilbo Baggins

26-03-2011, 07:44

I personally don't think I'd ever play a ranger without a pet. However, I'd love to see mounts in the game (even if those mounts were no faster than any other mode of travel), and I'd hate for mounts to be excluded simply because some (or even most) people wouldn't use them. From solo to group PvE, to structured/unstructured(WvW) PvP, GW2 is about giving every playstyle option possible. To that end, I see no reason to exclude the option to play a petless ranger

MaximumSquid

26-03-2011, 13:35

Bilbo Baggins:

Did you want your Pet to be a mount?
(because that is something we haven't seen yet)

Or do you want mounts in general?
There really isn't any need for them in GW because you can open the map up at anytime and teleport to within a 1 min walk of almost everything

Might be a good time to throw down for a Yak pet that is a walking stash

I wonder if Nicholas has any insurance on his. . .
I could easily see Proffessor Yakington getting carried off by a Dragon if he's still around for GW:2

Dragon Insurance . . . lawl

-

Alaris

05-04-2011, 14:31

I want mounts like in GW1... junundu, etc. Combat mounts are awesome. Travel mounts are annoying fast.

Ringsgold

05-04-2011, 15:39

meh, junundo was annoying and boring, but an actual mount would be nice (as long as it doens't change all your skills)

Also, I'm all for petless rangers. Having to rely on pet AI sucks now matter how good it is.

Alaris

05-04-2011, 15:46

What I meant is that if I wanted mounts, it'd be of the junundu type. Siege devourer if you prefer. Give it a good fun bar, and make it restricted to area, and make it optional too.

Ringsgold

05-04-2011, 17:41

What I meant is that if I wanted mounts, it'd be of the junundu type. Siege devourer if you prefer. Give it a good fun bar, and make it restricted to area, and make it optional too.
The bar is the problem, siege devourer isn't much better imo. They usually give you lame OP'd skills that allow you to faceroll through enemies which for me takes the fun out of the game. I want to keep my own build, maybe add a few skills for the mount (backward kick for lulz (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-rl3RPC_Mw)) but just let me dismount for any real combat.

So yes, make it optional :)

Alaris

05-04-2011, 18:38

I think combat mounts should let you experience a unique bar that is only slightly OP if used right, otherwise it`s slightly UP. You should not feel gimped for using it or not using it, rather you should want to use it because of the unique experience it gives, or not use it if you`d rather stick to your own bar.

BrettM

05-04-2011, 19:51

It looks like GW2 is going to be full of environmental weapons that change your bar in any case, just like siege devourers and junundu. Everything the thief steals, every object you can pick up, everything the ele can conjure, anything the ranger can get from the Forage skill, every turret you find ... all will present you with a replacement skill bar. I see no reason why some mounts couldn't be included as well, but I don't expect that you will get to keep your own build while using them.

I expect that most or all of the environmental weapons are going to make you more-or-less OP. Otherwise, why would you even bother picking them up and replacing the weapons and skills that you are used to using? It also looks like most of them only last a brief amount of time, one or two uses, so there just seems to be no good reason to bother with them unless they give you an ability greater than your normal weapons.

Egal

07-04-2011, 12:56

I'd like to try the ranger/pet combo with the ability to quickly switch between playing the ranger and letting the AI play the pet (as it will be in GW2) and playing the pet, letting the AI take over the playing of the ranger.

For example, I, playing my ranger, put a couple of arrows in the hide of some beast as the pet runs to the target foe. I use the ranger's bar with bow skills. As the pet arrives I click my pet's UI button and switch instantly to playing the pet as I would any other character. Pet skill bar swaps into place. AI plays the ranger. I might have a flag or command to force him to hold position if using a bow. If I see my ranger getting clobbered in the backline I hit his UI button and I'm back to playing him while the AI handles the pet again.

If he's in the frontline with me playing the pet, some, say, axe/pet combos might be available if I'm good enough to pull them off by switching between the two bars.

At times I might play the pet to scout ahead, leaving the ranger in a safe position but risking separating the two and leaving them without the ability to support each other.

I imagine the pet bar having less utility and no ressing option, but I haven't worked out the fine details, balance, etc. I just rather like the idea of having to manage two characters in a fast paced combat situation (the way microing heroes can be fun and satisfying) and occasionally playing a more tactical game with the pet as an advance party.

Norcek

01-05-2011, 21:28

Ranger without pet? Go play warrior longbow

DragonSkull

02-05-2011, 00:11

No pet? Rabid Rottweiler would feel nekkid without Chickenzilla (her white moa)... but then Rabid is a necro not a ranger so... nevermind! :)

But I'm thinking an option to not have a pet is a valid argument.

BrettM

02-05-2011, 01:19

Ranger without pet? Go play warrior longbow
Poor advice. A ranger isn't just about doing damage with a bow. Rangers are more mobile in melee than warriors and work with traps and nature rituals, neither of which is available to a warrior. Rangers have camouflage abilities, while warriors do not. There are a number of reasons why someone might be attracted to the ranger's style of play aside from pets.

However, given that the pet is the special mechanic for the profession, I don't think there's much hope of a workable petless option. The professions are balanced around their mechanics, which aren't optional for any of the other revealed professions. If a warrior ignores his adrenal skills, for example, he's going to be underpowered, just as a ranger will be if he ignores his pet. I would think it would be difficult to balance a profession to either use or ignore their mechanic without being either overpowered one way or underpowered the other.

Bilbo Baggins

02-05-2011, 03:33

Question: Can't you fill your skillbar with petless skills and work on traits that improve traps and/or bow accuracy and crit rate? I haven't even played the demo and I don't have some insight into the final product, but I have to believe a petless ranger will be possible. Or do you feel you deserve a buff to the ranger for playing petless? If the latter is the case, then I don't agree.

raspberry jam

02-05-2011, 09:12

In GW2, the ranger is a guy with a pet. It's who the ranger is. The pet represents his connection with nature. There will be other professions for you if you hate animals so much.

/notsigned

BrettM

02-05-2011, 11:44

Question: Can't you fill your skillbar with petless skills and work on traits that improve traps and/or bow accuracy and crit rate?
Yes. But, you can do this whether you use a pet or not. The Beast Mastery trait line is totally separate from the weapon trait lines and the Wilderness Survival trait line. Utility skills dealing with the pet are optional as well, and there are sure to be valid builds using non-pet utilities even if you bring a pet. Bringing a pet adds damage and/or support on top of whatever you do with your weapons and skill bar. It isn't an either-or choice between pets and other options, because the ranger is designed to have both at the same time.

It is possible for a ranger to simply not bring a pet. But, a ranger who does not bring a pet will not reach his full potential, as we have been told. The current petless "option" is the option to shoot yourself in the foot. A true petless option would require some means of not penalizing the ranger for failure to use his professional mechanic.

raspberry jam

02-05-2011, 12:09

A true petless option would require some means of not penalizing the ranger for failure to use his professional mechanic.You might as well petition for a weaponless warrior or a magicless elementalist.

BrettM

02-05-2011, 14:05

Alaris

02-05-2011, 14:26

Ranger without pet? Go play warrior longbow

Ranger has many ranged options, including options that allow him to move while attacking.

Also, I said "if not all the time". I plan to use my pet, but not all the time.

Poor advice. A ranger isn't just about doing damage with a bow. Rangers are more mobile in melee than warriors and work with traps and nature rituals, neither of which is available to a warrior. Rangers have camouflage abilities, while warriors do not. There are a number of reasons why someone might be attracted to the ranger's style of play aside from pets.

This.

However, given that the pet is the special mechanic for the profession, I don't think there's much hope of a workable petless option.

Traits would be a fairly easy way to do it. Doesn't hurt to ask.

Question: Can't you fill your skillbar with petless skills and work on traits that improve traps and/or bow accuracy and crit rate?

If we can get a viable build by doing that, then I'm happy with it. My impression is that we'd be gimping ourselves seriously if we played petless, so a *small* buff like a trait that slots in the pet line (do they have a pet line?) or pet skills that buff you but remove the pet... I'm sure ANet can figure out (1) how to make it happen, and (2) how to balance it.

In GW2, the ranger is a guy with a pet. It's who the ranger is.

I've only rarely played ranger with a pet in GW1. Granted, there was not real need for it... but ranger is a guy with excellent ranged attacks for me... and this remains what he does best.

But, a ranger who does not bring a pet will not reach his full potential, as we have been told. (...) A true petless option would require some means of not penalizing the ranger for failure to use his professional mechanic.

Or at least, not penalizing him much. I'd be fine if he's a bit less effective, and I'd have to compensate by playing better.

You might as well petition for a weaponless warrior or a magicless elementalist.

Feel free to start your own thread.

I would say more like a warrior with only energy-based skills, or an ele that has four weapon sets but is only allowed one attunement while in combat. Or perhaps weapons for the thief that do not have any skills requiring initiative.

If profession mechanics were optional, they would seem kind of pointless, as well as creating a balance nightmare. Learning to use the mechanic well is part of the challenge of playing any profession.

Alternatively, could you have a pet that can't be targeted and that buffs you? Swarm of bees, for example... it could do extra damage but not as much as regular pets, and it can't be targeted. It dies / disappears if you die.

Mechanically, it's the same. Sure you need to balance pet against petless, but you already have to balance far more difficult things to balance like Warrior ranged+melee vs Thief mobility vs Necro summons. Surely petless ranger is easier to balance, no?

raspberry jam

02-05-2011, 14:38

sorudo

02-05-2011, 15:55

Yeah well, GW2 won't be GW1, and the GW2 ranger won't be the GW1 one.
they both use a bow, they both have traps, they both can have a pet, they both have evade skills.
yep, still the same.

Alaris

02-05-2011, 16:01

Lady Rhonwyn

02-05-2011, 17:14

I've only rarely played ranger with a pet in GW1. Granted, there was not real need for it... but ranger is a guy with excellent ranged attacks for me... and this remains what he does best.
But in GW1, the only one with a decent ranged melee weapon is the Ranger (that is, until the spearchucking paragon arived). But in GW2, ranged weapons aren't exclusive to rangers anymore.

Alaris

02-05-2011, 17:26

So? Does that make petless ranger a fundamentally bad idea?

Surely, if petless ranged is already viable and balanced for warrior, thief, etc... why can't it be for ranger?

Skyy High

02-05-2011, 17:57

I refuse to believe that a pet-less ranger and a ranger with a pet can be balanced together in the same game. GW1 tried, and they've pushed and pushed and pushed to get players to take pets with them, and it's just not happening, because no matter what you do, you have to give something up to take your pet: at least 1 skill slot and a couple of attribute points, in GW1. If they ever make it a choice between "petless" or "pet" in GW2, you will again have to give up something to get your pet, namely whatever buff or extra skill that a petless rangers gets to "make up for" their lack of a pet....and one side will always be better than the other.

No. The only way to make pets viable is to make them an integral part of the class. Rangers should, on their own, be capable fighters; pets should be their additional mechanic, like adrenaline is for warriors. They're not essential, but they help a lot. You'll get a full trait line to buff your pet, so you won't be giving up any traits to help them. Your pets get their own evolution levels and skills on their own bar, so you don't give up anything there either. The only thing you will give up, possibly, is utility skills to help your pets; that's going to be the main difference between a "beastmaster" and a normal ranger, and it's small enough that there shouldn't be significant balance issues.

If you don't want a pet class, pick a warrior for the longbow or a thief for the skirmishing playstyle, or pick a buff pet and set them on heel. Simple. The only change I want to see for pets is the ability to activate their skills on demand. No other professions' mechanic introduces randomness into the fight, and I don't think pets should either. Rangers aren't "the ranged physical class" anymore. There are a ton of ranged physical classes now to choose from. Rangers are "the physical skirmishers with pets". If that's not what you want, pick something else.

Alaris

02-05-2011, 18:17

I should add to the debate that I just read up a bit on pets, and some of their skills may be support / ranged. I wonder if it's possible to have pets that stay pretty much by your side, yet help you out with damage and support... A pet without melee skills would essentially do that.

If that's possible, I could be happy with that too.

I refuse to believe that a pet-less ranger and a ranger with a pet can be balanced together in the same game.

And yet, the same game offers a warrior and thief, both of which are ranged without pet.

What I like about GW1 ranger is the ranged attacks, but also the *option* of a pet. I also like GW2 pets, but I would like it to be an option rather than a forced choice (in the sense of gimp-if-you-don't).

GW1 tried, and they've pushed and pushed and pushed to get players to take pets with them

Enough people take pets now... but yes, it's hard to balance summons/pets well. See also necro and ritualist.

no matter what you do, you have to give something up to take your pet

Yes, there should be a tradeoff.

and one side will always be better than the other.

Maybe, but they could be pretty close in efficiency. Or as I said, I'd be ok if petless would be slightly worse, given the higher control you have with it.

or pick a buff pet and set them on heel.

If that's a viable option, then I'd be happy with that too.

BrettM

02-05-2011, 19:26

Rangers should, on their own, be capable fighters; pets should be their additional mechanic, like adrenaline is for warriors. They're not essential, but they help a lot.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "essential".

Are attunements essential for an ele? Without them an ele is limited to five weapon skills in combat vs. 20, so being able to switch attunements seems critical to the ele's overall effectiveness. Is initiative essential for a thief? Without it a thief has no weapon skills except one autoattack skill for each weapon set, which would make the profession virtually unplayable. Whether adrenaline is essential for warriors is dependent on just how powerful those burst skills turn out to be, I think.

Some of the professions have more complex mechanics than others, with the thief having the steepest learning curve so far and the warrior the lowest. Warrior will likely be the easiest profession to learn to play at a basic level, though that doesn't mean they are devoid of subtleties. However, of the non-ranger professions, I think all of the mechanics (with the possible exception of adrenaline) would meet just about anybody's definition of "essential". I can't see ANet following a different philosphy for ranger design, though they might be more toward the warrior end of the scale than the thief end.

@Alaris: It does look to me as if you will be able to select pets that are support oriented and keep them on passive. Offloading most personal support onto a pet would, of course, allow you to choose other utilities for your own bar. It might be a great option for a trapper or ambush specialist, for example, or for a nature-spirit support ranger.

However, it doesn't really eliminate all worries, like your earlier swarm-of-bees example. The support pet will still be vulnerable to AoE in PvE, if nothing else, and I would imagine it would be a PvP target. (Like killing the monks first to make everyone else easier to take down.) I can't really see this as being a true petless option, but just another strategy for making use of the mechanic. I'm not sure it will satisfy most supporters of a petless option.

Alaris

02-05-2011, 19:53

I guess it depends on what you mean by "essential".

The difference is that pets are external to rangers, whereas attunements, initiative, and adrenaline are internal to their respective classes. Moreover, every profession has some form of initiative, adrenaline, and attunements: attunements are like weapon swaps (but you get an extra 2), and initiative/adrenaline is part of energy management (which every prof has).

The analogy is more accurate you want a viable necro without using minions, or a viable guardian without using weapon spells.

I'm not sure it will satisfy most supporters of a petless option.

Well, being a supporter of the petless option myself (still), it would be a fair compromise... to the extent that said pet would be as viable as a more active combat-oriented pet.

What I worry most actually with the pet is aggro management. Especially with camouflage (etc), playing solo ranged gives you a lot of options for stealth / tactical strikes that you lose when a pet runs into melee range. Likewise if the pet follows you but lags behind, and/or require micromanagement.

But if the pet is well-behaved, stays close to you, and buffs you at a level that you're as viable (or almost) as other types of pets, then that's fine by me.

Skyy High

02-05-2011, 20:53

And yet, the same game offers a warrior and thief, both of which are ranged without pet.
That's a completely different situation. The question is not "Can a ranged physical class be balanced in this game without a pet?" The answer to that is "Herp derp OF COURSE!" Rather, the question is "Can a ranger be balanced such that pet and non-pet options are equally viable?" There will be very little to differentiate a pet ranger and a petless ranger; unlike a warrior vs. ranger comparison, both rangers will have identical skills, utilities, base attributes and stats, weapon sets, elites, etc. Balance will be very binary; is a pet worth the loss of X stat points, or isn't it? The fact that it's so simple (and it's so easy to swap from one to another) actually makes it harder to balance. This will be especially evident if you ever try to get into a dungeon PUG with the "inferior" option; since it's so easy to swap to the superior one, you will be asked to do so. Sure, if a warrior is better at ranged physical damage than a ranger in every way, they'll be taken over a ranger too, but there are enough differences between the classes that proclaiming one class to ever be "strictly better" than another is going to be difficult, at best. Not so with pet vs. petless rangers. This is, again, exactly what we saw in GW1.

Enough people take pets now... but yes, it's hard to balance summons/pets well.
Which is why, if you're trying to make a class designed around their pets, asking them to take them out of the equation and then add something else to compensate is asking for trouble. It will not work the way you want it to. Even if, statistically speaking, the petless ranger is worse off than the pet ranger, the sheer fact that you've consolidated more power into yourself rather than relying on the AI will make it a more attractive option in most high end content. I want pets to actually be relevant for once! I don't want to feel like a newbie because I want to bring my pet along, but it's basically impossible to do so in GW1 specifically because it's a choice with a tradeoff, and the tradeoff is never worth it.

I'm happy they're making the ranger a true pet class...I just want to be able to command my pet.

@BrettM: You can definitely play an ele without swapping elements. You'll be gimped, probably, possibly; looking at the traits, they're actually set up in such a way that you're rewarded for traiting a lot of skills in a single element. So, no, I wouldn't consider them "essential". Guardian virtues certainly aren't essential, they're just an extra set of buffs that'll help every once in a while. Life Force isn't essential; you can build your necro to take advantage of it, but I don't imagine most necros will be using it beyond being a "second chance" sort of thing. Initiative is not, IMO, the Thief's hallmark mechanic, it's just a unique way they have for paying for skills. They replace recharges. Throw some recharges on their skills, hey, they're still playable. The Thief's real unique mechanic is Stealing, which is, again, non-essential. Very cool, very useful, but non-essential.

My point was that rangers shouldn't depend on their pets to simply keep up with what a warrior can do on their own. Pets can be shut down, killed, immobilized, and otherwise dealt with in a number of ways that other professions don't have to deal with. The least they can do is be a bit more powerful than, say, the boost warriors get from Adrenaline.

sorudo

02-05-2011, 21:04

if pets are forced on rangers, i hope i can get a pet that stays away from battle.

Alaris

02-05-2011, 23:35

There will be very little to differentiate a pet ranger and a petless ranger (...) The fact that it's so simple (...) actually makes it harder to balance.

Ah yes, I see your point.

@BrettM: You can definitely play an ele without swapping elements. You'll be gimped, probably, possibly

I think not swapping reduces your flexibility, but you're not gimping yourself otherwise...

My point was that rangers shouldn't depend on their pets to simply keep up with what a warrior can do on their own. Pets can be shut down, killed, immobilized, and otherwise dealt with in a number of ways that other professions don't have to deal with.

I'm ok with that... My main motivation was aggro and once in a while playing without pet (just because).

Cyberman

03-05-2011, 05:10

they both use a bow, they both have traps, they both can have a pet, they both have evade skills.
yep, still the same.
But GW2 is trying to force you to play the game the RIGHT way. So if you're X, you have to use Y.
There is no choice, unless Y has them. Z is not an option.

Why the sudden stereotyping? What would happen if a warrior had a pet? Would he turn into a ranger?

if pets are forced on rangers, i hope i can get a pet that stays away from battle.
Doubtful. If they're forced on rangers, they're forced on you for a reason - you NEED them to function. I doubt they'll only give passive boosts.

Bilbo Baggins

03-05-2011, 06:00

I would say more like a warrior with only energy-based skills, or an ele that has four weapon sets but is only allowed one attunement while in combat. Or perhaps weapons for the thief that do not have any skills requiring initiative.

If profession mechanics were optional, they would seem kind of pointless, as well as creating a balance nightmare. Learning to use the mechanic well is part of the challenge of playing any profession, and the reward is a significant enhancement to the survivability and damage-dealing ability of the character.

Should rangers be the one exception to the rule? I'm not sure this is a good idea, even if I see the appeal that the ranger archtype has aside from pets.

I'd have to say I'm completely against giving a buff to people who decide to play a petless ranger. Speaking to your ele example: I guarantee there will be players who will only play a fire ele. Water gives extra healing, earth adds defense, I'm not sure what air focuses on, but the point is they will be gimping their ele in some aspects by specializing.

So now Anet gives the petless ranger special treatment by buffing them. Realistically, how long do you think it will be before the forum lights up with complaints from fire eles wanting the same treatment? Or, how about necros who like the death spells but don't want to be bothered with minions? They'll be the next group to hollar. If it's impossible to play a ranger without a pet, I would wholeheartedly agree that it should change, but not utilizing all the abilities of a particular class is a choice, and doesn't warrant a reward, at least in my thinking.

For what it's worth, I would happily group with any of you and only decide on future grouping based on personalities and the fun factor, and not whether or not you brought a pet.

raspberry jam

03-05-2011, 08:10

Honestly though, jam, that's a poor excuse for being against petless rangers. Balance, I can understand. Lore is iffy at best, as that can go either way. But what you are doing is just going blindly with what ANet devs tell you the new ranger is like... blindly, in the face of viable alternatives proposed here.

If it can't be balanced, then so be it. Otherwise, I believe that giving players a choice would be a good idea here.I'm not saying it can't be balanced. Of course it can. Actually, if you want balance, it would probably be easiest to just remove the pet altogether from the game, but that's not the topic here.

I am saying that the design decision is to make the ranger the class-with-a-pet. It's fundamental, just like the WoW druid is the shapeshifter class, or like how a shotgun in an FPS have a cone of fire instead of a line. That doesn't mean that you need to change form when you play as a druid, it doesn't mean that you can't aim carefully with a shotgun, and doesn't mean that you can't play a petless ranger. It just means that it's not designed for that, so you should not complain if you are doing worse than you would if you actually adapted your playstyle to the game.

And yes, I realize that you're asking for them to revoke that decision, but that would turn the ranger away from being the class-with-a-pet into the class-that-can-have-a-pet. Now I personally would be ok with that but it's just not what ANet wants the ranger to be.

Alaris

03-05-2011, 13:03

I'd have to say I'm completely against giving a buff to people who decide to play a petless ranger. Speaking to your ele example (...)

For what it's worth, I would happily group with any of you and only decide on future grouping based on personalities and the fun factor, and not whether or not you brought a pet.

I seriously believe fire-only eles will be pretty viable, more so than petless rangers. If a petless ranger is as viable as a fire-only ele, in fact, then I'd be happy with that.

Also, thanks for not discriminating against odd build decisions. I'd like to point out that I am happy to bring whatever the team needs when grouping... I keep odd builds for solo play mainly.

that would turn the ranger away from being the class-with-a-pet into the class-that-can-have-a-pet. Now I personally would be ok with that but it's just not what ANet wants the ranger to be.

Yup. I think the ranger would be more popular if the pet was optional.

raspberry jam

03-05-2011, 13:55

Yup. I think the ranger would be more popular if the pet was optional.Well, maybe, but the ranger is for people who want to play with a pet. If you don't want to play with a pet, there are 7 other professions for you.

BrettM

03-05-2011, 14:38

I think Skyy has a good point and optional pets might take us right back into the GW1 mold for rangers. If pets are not required, then perhaps they should not exist as anything more than a temporary summons (such as the birds called by a ranger with a warhorn) and rangers should have been given a different professional mechanic.

As for the viability of fire-only eles, I think I would hate to be on a team with one. If your group is under heavy pressure and a quick Geyser or Healing Rain could pull you through, would you accept the ele telling you after the wipe that he's a fire ele and it's unreasonable of you to expect him to ever do anything else, even if the necessary skills are only an attunement-switch away?

I don't really see how an ele is rewarded any more for traiting two or three skills in one element than by spreading traits across elements or using generic traits. It depends on the play style, and a flexible approach should work at least as well as an approach focusing on one element. Each element has its own trait line, so only the weapon traits require decisions between generic and skill-specific traits. Is an ele with, say, improved Fireball and Lava Font really that much better off than one who improves Static Field and stuns his foes before switching to blast them with an improved Fireball?

Alaris

03-05-2011, 15:01

As for the viability of fire-only eles, I think I would hate to be on a team with one.

What I mean is that the ele doesn't have to switch away from fire usage if other party members take care of healing, e.g. if there's a guardian in the team. Or if things go well and you don't need healing.

Whereas ranger pretty much has to bring a pet to be effective, afaik.

The right analogy is if fire damage would be lower if he doesn't use water.

Well, maybe, but the ranger is for people who want to play with a pet. If you don't want to play with a pet, there are 7 other professions for you.

6 at most, necro is probably gimped if he doesn't use summons.

And also, this ignores *again* that I don't *always* want to be petless.

raspberry jam

03-05-2011, 16:17

6 at most, necro is probably gimped if he doesn't use summons.

And also, this ignores *again* that I don't *always* want to be petless.May I suggest that you use an alt. Or maybe take advantage of the no-pet-buff that rangers will have if they don't use their pet.

Alaris

03-05-2011, 16:29

Or maybe take advantage of the no-pet-buff that rangers will have if they don't use their pet.

Which buff?

raspberry jam

03-05-2011, 16:58

Which buff?Mmmmmm... I thought there would be some buff on you if you didn't take a pet. I might have been wrong. I'm not perfect, you know. I am wrong sometimes. Almost never. It does happen, though. Like once per year or so.

BrettM

03-05-2011, 17:08

Mmmmmm... I thought there would be some buff on you if you didn't take a pet.
:laughing: That's what the whole topic is about: petitioning for the option to get a buff if you don't take a pet. This option does not exist, and we've been discussing whether this is really desirable, how it might be added, and how it might affect ANet's ability to balance the profession.

Alaris

03-05-2011, 17:12

You just used up your once per year.

You might have gotten confused with companions, which were kinda like GW2 henchmen / heroes anyone could take, and if you didn't then you'd get a buff instead. But that concept has since been trashed.

Petition is basically to have the same but for rangers... get a small buff if you decide not to take the pet...

raspberry jam

03-05-2011, 17:30

:laughing: That's what the whole topic is about: petitioning for the option to get a buff if you don't take a pet. This option does not exist, and we've been discussing whether this is really desirable, how it might be added, and how it might affect ANet's ability to balance the profession.Yeyeyeye so maybe I don't read the OP that carefully :cry: Stop being mean :cry:

Anyway, I think that the ranger seems to be powerful enough to play without a pet for part of the time, at least in more casual contexts.

sorudo

03-05-2011, 17:53

they could do something like, when you don't use a pet, you have a higher chance the evade attacks.
it isn't a HUGE buff, but it helps.

Skyy High

04-05-2011, 05:16

6 at most, necro is probably gimped if he doesn't use summons.
Considering that's just one type of utility skill, and we only get to pick 3, I certainly hope not...

BrettM

04-05-2011, 12:19

A necro not using his Life Force to activate Death Shroud would be the proper comparison, since that's the professional mechanic. I think a necro would certainly be gimped by ignoring this ability, since we know that necros were found to be OP because of it and adjustments had to be made.

BrotherGrimm

05-05-2011, 17:20

While this concept may work for the Ranger profession....what about the other 7? If it's not viable for other professions, I can't see this being acceptable for just the Ranger.

Alaris

05-05-2011, 17:25

What concept? The petless option? Or being able to shut off your primary mechanic.

I really doubt that warriors have a problem with adrenaline, or thieves with stealing or initiative, or necros with death shroud. Maybe elementalists don't want to switch elements, but I doubt that they'd be gimped much if they don't switch. Guardians already get to choose whether they use virtues to buff allies, or keep them to themselves.

But people already complain about the AI and specifically pet AI, and there's already been concerns voiced about pet AI. The ability to switch that off without being too gimped would at least make that less worrisome.

Skyy High

06-05-2011, 00:47

But people already complain about the AI and specifically pet AI, and there's already been concerns voiced about pet AI. The ability to switch that off without being too gimped would at least make that less worrisome.
...to the point where people who actually want to play with their pets will get sidelined and ridiculed. Again.

Alaris

06-05-2011, 02:57

Skyy...

If pet rangers get discriminated because of their pets, then I'd worry that forcing the pet would only leave all rangers to be discriminated. Afterall, there are other ranged options.

Also, the companion AI is more of a concern in solo play than in group play, because in solo play you probably want to pull, but in group play you have others up front already.

raspberry jam

06-05-2011, 08:59

If pet rangers get discriminated because of their pets, then I'd worry that forcing the pet would only leave all rangers to be discriminated. Afterall, there are other ranged options.Yeah, but the ranger in GW2 isn't plain "ranged damage", he is a beastmaster class who also can fight both at range and in melee, as well as making traps and some other stuff that other classes can't.

Tru Reptile

06-05-2011, 10:24

TBH, I don't think this conversation would be happening if the pet system in GW1 was any good. On one hand, I think Rangers should have to use ther pets as they are a unique mechanic (I don't think Necro minions are the same), but on the other hand, I think pets should be optional because I'm not so sure that Anet can even make a good pet system. That last part might not sound fair to say, but from the comments I've read regarding Ranger pets in GW2, many people feel the same way.

I think it was before Pax East that Anet stated that they were improving pet A.I, but I don't know if they implimented it before the event, or that the new A.I was bad enough that no one even noticed an improvement.

Alaris

06-05-2011, 13:19

Even if the AI was great, I would still want to play petless sometimes.

As is, I am planning to make one char per race. Depending on the last two professions, I am unlikely to make a warrior or a thief, so ranger is my ranged physical choice.

And conversely, I'm hoping for some pet-like options for my elementalist, like charr summons.

BrotherGrimm

09-05-2011, 14:49

What concept? The petless option? Or being able to shut off your primary mechanic.

.....
I'm not sure that with how the GW2 Ranger is speced out right now, there is any difference...is there? I get that you are asking for the former, not the latter, but asking for a "buff" to compensate for the "petless" option is where the fairness to other classes becomes an issue. I'm not taking a side one way or another, I'm just pointing that out.

While I get the idea and what you are asking for it, I don't really see a big downside to taking your pet all the time (assuming you can spec the pet to ZERO and he's basically just tagging along and not causing problems). Your desire to NOT take a pet does have an option (and you stated it yourself in the OP....play a different class).

Alaris

09-05-2011, 14:54

But in all fairness, I doubt other professions even want to shut off their profession-unique abilities.

I could suggest that an elementalist who restricts himself to one element gets to use a weapon swap instead... but that's all I can think of. I can't think of a valid reason why warriors wouldn't want adren, or thieves initiative, or guardians virtues.

BrotherGrimm

09-05-2011, 19:59

So "fairness" is special treatment for some as long as others don't need the special treatment? Your selective use of the word "fair" is interesting, to say the least.

Again, I get where you are coming from, but what you are asking for is special treatment for 1 profession and that is NOT fair.

Alaris

09-05-2011, 20:05

BrotherGrimm, I have not said anything about what others can or cannot have. If they want something, sure, let them ask. But that's a subject for a different thread.

At this stage, it's about making each profession the most fun for everyone. I think "fairness" is having professions that are fun, and that are balanced. You can't start thinking that if one profession gets something, they all should get something. This isn't kindergarden.

raspberry jam

10-05-2011, 08:13

You can't start thinking that if one profession gets something, they all should get something.What kind of an argument is this? Oh hey one profession gets +100 damage per hit but no other profession does.

Alaris

10-05-2011, 12:06

Jam, read the sentence before the one you quote. It'll answer your question as to where my priorities are.

Please read before you post.

raspberry jam

10-05-2011, 12:43

Yeah but it would be unbalanced. Why would the ranger gain such immense versatility when no one else does.

Alaris

10-05-2011, 13:09

It would be unbalanced, unless you balanced for it. Which is what I keep repeating... if it can't be balanced, then I don't want it.

Currently, elementalist has the most versatility. Nobody seems worried about that, but I am sure ANet balances with that in mind. Warrior has the largest array of weapons to choose from (if you count off-hands as a separate weapon, as you should).

And petless ranger is still a ranger, it's imo not *immense* versatility. In fact, it's giving up your special mechanic for a buff that barely makes up for the dps loss. How is this unbalanced?

Afaik, necro can choose not to use summons and not be gimped for it.

BrettM

10-05-2011, 13:39

I don't think a pet/no pet option would exactly add "immense" versatility, though it may be difficult or impossible to balance the profession for both options.

Every known profession brings something unique to the table that the other professions don't have. Warriors have adrenaline burst skills, for example, which no other profession has. The ranger has traps, but so do other professions. The ranger has stealth, but so do other professions. The ranger can use a bow, but so can other professions. Other professions may not have the same kind of traps or the same kind of stealth or the same way of using a bow, but these things are not totally unique to the ranger profession.

What the ranger currently brings to the table is the pet, and some are concerned that this won't measure up to what the other professions bring as unique capabilities. Professions that don't measure up get marginalized rather quickly, as we've seen in GW1, and fixes may take years, if they ever come.

ANet does not exactly have a sterling record for making pets work, and they haven't done much to reassure us that GW2 will be different. Some players who are interested in the profession for its other qualities are looking for an escape hatch in case pets turn out to be broken, ensuring that the profession doesn't become marginalized because it's stuck with a mechanic that doesn't work.

Though I almost invariably play my GW1 ranger as a beastmaster, I recognize that it is an undesired role there and I can easily sympathize with those who have their doubts about it going mainstream in GW2. I would jump on that bandwagon myself, but I'm still willing to give ANet more time to address our concerns before concluding that a way out is necessary.

Alaris

10-05-2011, 14:11

sorudo

10-05-2011, 16:41

Yeah but it would be unbalanced. Why would the ranger gain such immense versatility when no one else does.
why can the mesmer shut your adrenaline down and a necro can't, why can a RiT have powerful urns to hold and the monk not, why can the guardian make a shield and the warrior not.
they are the exact same things you're complaining about, and the answer is that you can't because your profession can't do that.

Skyy High

10-05-2011, 16:51

Well said BrettM.

I would like to remind that the reason I want this isn't just in case pets don't work as intended, but also because I might not always want to play with a pet. Sometimes it's fun to play solo.
But in your desire to hedge your bets against the possibility of the pet not working, you're guaranteeing that it won't. Give players the option of not sharing their power with an AI, and they'll take it. No, if you want to make pets a useful and beneficial mechanic for the ranger, fix them, don't make it advantageous to play without them. "Fixing", in this case, probably means letting us control their skills directly, and maybe buffing their survivability / hp regen to compensate for the fact that they can't dodge or heal themselves from ancillary damage that wouldn't be life-threatening to a player. That, and making sure that the ranger, on his own, contributes about as much as any other class, should be sufficient.

To reiterate: the GW1 beastmaster was gimped specifically because it was an optional path that took power away from your ranger in other areas. Why oh why do you think that repeating this in a new game is a good idea?

Want to play on your own? Play another class, or play gimped. The ranger is the pet class.

Alaris

10-05-2011, 17:12

Give players the option of not sharing their power with an AI, and they'll take it.

Not true. People choose hunters or rangers or necros or warlocks usually because they want a pet. Even if ANet implements what I am asking for (any version really) people will still want to play with the pet most of the time.

No, if you want to make pets a useful and beneficial mechanic for the ranger, fix them

Why would you want to neuter them? They don't reproduce anyways. In all seriousness though, I agreed with this part.

don't make it advantageous to play without them.

Not advantageous... equal or even slightly disadvantageous. I just don't want to be at a serious disadvantage.

To reiterate: the GW1 beastmaster was gimped specifically because it was an optional path that took power away from your ranger in other areas.

Disagree. Giving a choice is fine, provided the choices are balanced. I think pets in GW1 have their issues and I hope they fix that in GW2. But people were motivated to bring pets and would have if not for the issues... even given having to give up a bit of power to do so.

Other pet issues were that they used up your skill slots like crazy (not an issue in GW2) and they didn't chain skills properly (easily fixed in GW2). If they work on pet AI a bit, I think people will be happy to take them along.

I should note that it's entirely possible to play Warlock in WoW without your pet, but people generally don't do that because they like the pet. So this is one piece of data that goes against your claim.

sorudo

10-05-2011, 17:15

why do you think i like my dog to die when i am in the spire tower in fable 2, it's because i like to play completely solo without being forced out of a profession.(sure, fable two doesn't have profs or classes but the same reason is there)

answer me this, is there any prof that has the exact same skills as the ranger but doesn't use a pet,no?
then a petless ranger is what we need, just saying we should play a different prof is simply avoiding the obvious problem, doesn't "fix" anything.

BrettM

10-05-2011, 22:04

But in your desire to hedge your bets against the possibility of the pet not working, you're guaranteeing that it won't. Give players the option of not sharing their power with an AI, and they'll take it. No, if you want to make pets a useful and beneficial mechanic for the ranger, fix them, don't make it advantageous to play without them. "Fixing", in this case, probably means letting us control their skills directly, and maybe buffing their survivability / hp regen to compensate for the fact that they can't dodge or heal themselves from ancillary damage that wouldn't be life-threatening to a player. That, and making sure that the ranger, on his own, contributes about as much as any other class, should be sufficient.
You seem to be assuming that not sharing power will always work to the player's advantage, regardless of how well pets are implemented. I don't think this is provable.

If it is true, then your argument boils down to forcing players to share power despite the guaranteed disadvantage but fixing the system so the disadvantage is somewhat less painful. That sounds like a lousy goal for designing a profession, and I'd rather see the pet mechanic scrapped than play a profession designed under such a philosophy. Give rangers a different professional mechanic and let "pets" be nothing more than wild animals temporarily summoned using skills.

If it is possible to implement pets well enough that sharing power is actually an advantage (however slight) over not sharing, then the option not to share is harmless. Some, like Alaris, might sometimes use it for variety, but I don't think it will be the usual practice for most players most of the time. The better players will find out quickly enough that taking the pet is the right way to go, and word will spread. "Noobs" will be the ones who don't take their pets.

Your last sentence seems a bit contradictory. If the ranger, on his own, contributes as much as any other class, then how exactly is the ranger sharing power with the AI? Wouldn't ranger+pet then contribute more than any other class, making the combination OP? If it is not OP under these circumstances, then ranger+pet is either no better than ranger alone or is actually worse, and one would gain an advantage from leaving the pet pinned at the gate. Which is exactly what we'd like to avoid.

Cyberman

11-05-2011, 05:34

Give players the option of not sharing their power with an AI, and they'll take it.
Then why are there GW1 rangers with pets?
Or worse, secondary rangers with pets, warriors even?

They are sharing power and likely even losing some by doing so.

raspberry jam

11-05-2011, 08:56

why can the mesmer shut your adrenaline down and a necro can't, why can a RiT have powerful urns to hold and the monk not, why can the guardian make a shield and the warrior not.
they are the exact same things you're complaining about, and the answer is that you can't because your profession can't do that.No, I mean, I'm ok with only the ranger having a pet. But I'm not ok with the ranger being able to have an additional profession-specific mechanic that allows him to be just as good without a pet. No one else have two profession-specific mechanics.

I should note that it's entirely possible to play Warlock in WoW without your pet, but people generally don't do that because they like the pet. So this is one piece of data that goes against your claim.WoW is horrible. You might as well point to WoW to show that stealth works or that level grind is a good idea. And warlocks without pets are severely disadvantaged in many situations (though it's still possible to play of course).

BrettM

11-05-2011, 10:36

No, I mean, I'm ok with only the ranger having a pet. But I'm not ok with the ranger being able to have an additional profession-specific mechanic that allows him to be just as good without a pet. No one else have two profession-specific mechanics.
I don't think it would take another profession-specific mechanic. All you would need is a clause in each non-pet-related skill that gives it a boost if you do not bring a pet. For example, healing skills might have slightly longer durations and damage skills might have a little extra damage. Take the expected contribution of the pet to the overall support and damage output of the team and distribute it among the ranger's skills if he activates the no-pet option.

The joker in the woodpile is figuring out the "expected" contribution, of course, and trying to ensure that it is balanced with someone actually using a pet. You would have to take into account skill tiers, pet evolution, and probably several other things. I don't think it would be a simple problem.

Alaris

11-05-2011, 14:54

If it is possible to implement pets well enough that sharing power is actually an advantage (however slight) over not sharing, then the option not to share is harmless. (...) The better players will find out quickly enough that taking the pet is the right way to go, and word will spread. "Noobs" will be the ones who don't take their pets.

Agreed.

The current implementation in GW1 is that you sacrifice four things to have a viable pet: (1) skill slots, (2) attribute points, (3) energy to use those skills, and (4) blacked out skills if the pet dies. The reason why people don`t use pets that much is because the cost is actually pretty high.

GW2 seems to implement pets as a no-sacrifice. You get them essentially for free, and they bring dps, tanking, and presumably some utility as well (conditions). If they die, you don`t even get your skills blacked out.

What I`m asking for isn`t what we had in GW1. GW2 seems pretty good, people *should* prefer to take pets, it should be the better choice. What I am asking for is that those who don`t take pets anyway should not be penalized too much, and a small buff would help.

Then why are there GW1 rangers with pets?
Or worse, secondary rangers with pets, warriors even?

They are sharing power and likely even losing some by doing so.

Some of them are gaining power imo.

I'm not ok with the ranger being able to have an additional profession-specific mechanic that allows him to be just as good without a pet. No one else have two profession-specific mechanics.

Just a simple buff... not an entirely new mechanic. It could be a pet trait for example, where if you equip it you can't use pets but your damage and armor is increased.

Basically, you get a buff for giving up your profession-specific mechanic.

WoW is horrible.

You might as well use that to argue that a trading hall is a bad idea.

My point was about feasibility, not about WoW is awesome lulz.

Take the expected contribution of the pet to the overall support and damage output of the team and distribute it among the ranger's skills if he activates the no-pet option.

Or even just a significant portion of it. It's easier to figure a good level if you goal isn't "equal", but rather "almost as good as".

-----

edit: also, theif has several profession mechanics: stealing, initiative, shadowstepping, and stealth that doesn't break when they move. Even if you don't count one or two of those, you have to admit... professions don't have exactly one profession-specific mechanic.

BrettM

11-05-2011, 15:45

There is an interesting and relevant post (http://www.killtenrats.com/2011/05/11/stochastically-dominant/) by Zubon on Kill Ten Rats today. The money quote for purposes of this discussion:

If one option is better than another by a non-negligible margin in all cases or nearly so, it is a poor decision to choose the inferior option, and it is fair to criticize someone for doing so. This is true even if there are role-playing or decorative reasons for the choice. As an extreme example, it is perfectly valid to refuse to group with someone who is role-playing an ascetic mendicant who refuses to use equipment or someone who wants to raid in level 10 equipment because it looks nice.
The unanswered question is how to identify the point at which the margin crosses the line between negligible and non-negligible.

Some of the comments to this post are quite interesting as well.

sorudo

11-05-2011, 15:49

No, I mean, I'm ok with only the ranger having a pet. But I'm not ok with the ranger being able to have an additional profession-specific mechanic that allows him to be just as good without a pet. No one else have two profession-specific mechanics.
who said anything about one prof having more mechanics, just being able to play without a pet actually removes a specific mechanism.
i don't want to ranger to be stronger then the pet ranger, just the ability to not take a pet with me with a return of a small stealth/evade buff, nothing huge.

when your pet-less ranger is just as good as a pet ranger then what's the harm, it's about choice not advantage. (if anything, a pet ranger has a bigger advantage duel to the addition of damage and distraction)

Alaris

11-05-2011, 16:06

The unanswered question is how to identify the point at which the margin crosses the line between negligible and non-negligible.

This needs to be looked at not for a given statistic, not wholistically, but point-by-point.

If you adjust the petless buff so the ranger does the same dps as a pet ranger, then you might run into problems if the petless ranger can avoid damage better than the ranger with pet (i.e. if the pet gets pummeled and you keep losing it, it becomes better to play petless).

If you look only at success rate (a wholistic measure) then with and without pet can easily become a question of what style fits better the task or group. It may be that using a pet is better when you don't have a frontline, and worse when you do. The success rate won't show that, because these two alternatives will average out, at least until people figure it out and start using the pet only when advantageous to do so.

Point-by-point is looking at dps, survivability, interaction with the team, aggro, etc... and provide a solution that keeps petless and pet rangers about on-par on all of these points. It's not *that* hard to do especially since you already have to make a good pet AI anyways... it's just a question of buffing petless specifically in the areas that the pet helps. If for example, the extra tanking just compensates for the extra aggro, then there is no need to buff the petless for survivability. If the pet does X dps, then petless should be buffed by about X dps. If the pet allows to tank and therefore increase the damage done by AoE's, this you shouldn`t compensate for because grouping with a frontline will essentially give you the same advantage.

Sounds complicated? Well, turns out that this is one thing devs get paid for doing. As stated before, they already do all of what I said above when they balance professions, weapons, group vs solo play, ranged vs melee, etc.

BrotherGrimm

11-05-2011, 17:43

.......
This isn't kindergarden.
Thousands of posts on every GW forum on the internet after a nerf or buff say hi......
:tongue:

I'm not saying you don't have the right to ask for something, just don't cover it with the cloak of "fairness" when it is not what players of the other 5 professions may possibly consier "fair". I think if you step back a bit and look at what you are asking from the perspective of someone other than yourself, you might just see what I mean.

Then again, many find that excersize nearly impossible (see the kindergarden respons above).

I certainly may be arguing the semaintics of the term "fair", but as in a lot of things in life, the decision on what is "fair" is often based on your point of view. I personally don't care one way or another about the "buff" issue, but I can GARANTEE others would harp on this issue to no end. (and I mean if they do it or not...this thread proves that).

Alaris

11-05-2011, 18:09

I'm not saying you don't have the right to ask for something, just don't cover it with the cloak of "fairness" when it is not what players of the other 5 professions woudl consier "fair". I think if you step back a bit and look at what you are asking from the perspective of someone other than yourself, you might just see what I mean.

Here's my perspective.

Right now, ranger is by far not my favorite profession in GW2. I do really want to play it, but I'll likely play Guardian, Necro, Elementalist, and maybe even that new profession (Engineer?) before I play ranger. Ranger is at the bottom of the list of professions I plan to play (or tied with Elementalist), even if I am really excited about playing it. Yes, I am a alt-a-holic, I have played every profession across at least one campaign (usually through Factions, NF, and EotN) except assassin in GW1.

And yet, I do not find my own suggestions "unfair"... By your flawed account of fairness, I should.

"Fairness" is often a word flailed around as a argument when we don't have a valid counter. Tell me... why is it unfair? What is it that my suggestion does that makes all other professions less interesting? The answer is that it doesn't make all other professions less interesting, and so it's not unfair.

-----

I look at the other professions, and I can't say that I would change them. Even the professions that I don't plan on playing. Take thief for example, it's not my style, but it's got tons of cool things to offer. And in my opinion, it's a very cool profession for those who like stealth / rogue-like gameplay. I can`t think of a valid reason why I`d want to play it without initiative. As for stealth or shadowsteps, you can use those skills or you can slot in different optional skills, so you are given a good alternative.

Likewise, I can`t think of anything that the guardian needs. Virtues can be kept or shared. Skills both offensive and defensive sound fun to play with. Weapon spells sound really cool.

I do hope that necros are viable without pets... but that`s less of an issue with them as you can summon them when needed rather than have them with you all the time. You also have ranged summons so no concern here with overaggro.

I would at most offer a weapon swap in exchange to sticking to an element for elementalists, as I have suggested above.

sorudo

11-05-2011, 18:57

you can better ask, what's really wrong with a pet-less ranger?
you can play a necro without using minions even without gimping, so why not have the same option for the ranger.

BrotherGrimm

11-05-2011, 20:05

Here's my perspective.

Right now, ranger is by far not my favorite profession in GW2.
.....

I think I see your problem with what I asked you to do.....

Your persepctive has been clear from the OP. Your inability to see this from other rational positions is what is almost funny. I'm not even suggesting that you agree, sympathize or adhere to the view....just consider it long enough to understand that they just might have a VALID issue or some sliver of reason to have that point of view.

I'll try one last time. IF this gets implimented as you have suggested (with a buff), will it surprise you when someone that is NOT a Ranger fan jumps up and exclaims, "Hey, that's not fair, the Ranger can basically turn off thier special skill and get other boosts for doing so! I'M OUTRAGED!!!"? If not, then you fully understand the point I've been trying to make and for some reaon still think that the PERCEPTION fairness of an issue revolves around YOUR perspective....it does not. If you DON'T then I give up.

you can better ask, what's really wrong with a pet-less ranger?
you can play a necro without using minions even without gimping, so why not have the same option for the ranger.
I think you understand full well your comparison is lacking (one is set of skills and the other is the profession special ability). If this is a general issue with the Ranger's special ability (that may be the entire source of this argument in general), that's really a deeper design issue. Again, I'm not trying to argue FOR or AGAINST this request, I'm just saying it constitues a speical concession for the Ranger Class in terms of their special ability and there WILL be players that will have an issue with that kind of exception.

Alaris

11-05-2011, 20:51

I think I see your problem with what I asked you to do.....(...) Again, I'm not trying to argue FOR or AGAINST this request

So?

Is "some people will complain" a justification in itself? Or should we at least demand that they have a valid reason to complain.

I've seen people complain about the thief's movement especially with regards to PvP, but I'd say that the complaint is only valid if there is no good and valid way to counter their movement. The thief may be sensitive to snares, but also has less survivability than other professions afaik. I'm willing to bet that they are not as great in PvP as you'd think.

Likewise, people have complained about the removal of trinity and quests. I would not give in for either request. Seems that the new direction ANet is taking has lots to offer, giving in would be a step back.

People always complain when their favorite get-rich-build gets the much-deserved nerf. Again, this is not a valid reason to not fix the game when you find something that is broken.

So, yes, I can take their perspective. But I do not consider it valid. Not all opinions are of equal merit. I have seen some good arguments against petless in this thread, enough to believe that petless might not be a good idea when you get down to it (I don't believe that, but I can at least see that it might be the case). But I'll go ahead and say that most opinions I have seen are not valid insofar that either (a) reasonable solutions have been given, or (b) the complaint is not valid to begin with.

With respect to doing a special favor to rangers by allowing them to be petless, let them complain. It's kindergarden behavior and should be ignored. The other professions have plenty to offer, and if somebody wants something added or changed, then they can start their own thread. I will only shut down their ideas if what they want would unbalance the game, or some such valid reason. Otherwise I'll support it. I am a firm believer that every profession should be the best it can be, offering a good range of viable playstyles. I will not shut down their idea because "my favorite profession doesn't get a bonus too". Like I said, I don't consider that a valid complaint.

Bilbo Baggins

11-05-2011, 23:41

you can better ask, what's really wrong with a pet-less ranger?
you can play a necro without using minions even without gimping, so why not have the same option for the ranger.

Where's the gimping? You play a minionless necro, all you lose is the extra damage your minions do. You play a petless ranger, same thing. This is not like GW1 where you needed to dedicate a portion of your skillbar to pets, the pet option has been seperated from your skillbar, the pets are a seperate mechanic.

raspberry jam

12-05-2011, 07:52

The joker in the woodpile is figuring out the "expected" contribution, of course, and trying to ensure that it is balanced with someone actually using a pet. You would have to take into account skill tiers, pet evolution, and probably several other things. I don't think it would be a simple problem.No, you should not think of an MMO as a single-player game. You have to consider the situation two years after release, when everything has been figured out already.

You might as well use that to argue that a trading hall is a bad idea.But the WoW auction hall is a bad idea. A trader house (similar to the dye/rune NPC traders of GW1, but for all goods) is far superior. But of course no one wants that. People just want the same generic we have seen so many times before, with better graphics.

My point was about feasibility, not about WoW is awesome lulz.Yes, and so was mine. Blizzard thinks up a lot of things that are unfeasible and then they put them into WoW anyway because they just don't care about making a good game. The theory is of course that if you smear on the **** thick enough, no one will see the individual pieces.

BrettM

12-05-2011, 12:44

Where's the gimping? You play a minionless necro, all you lose is the extra damage your minions do. You play a petless ranger, same thing.
It isn't the same thing. Minion summons are necro utility skills, not a professional mechanic. If a necro does not bring a summons, he will bring another utility skill in its place, making a choice between the benefits of a summons and the benefits of an alternative skill. There are viable alternatives to using minions. There is no gimping, any more than curses necros are gimped in GW1 by not using minions.

For a ranger, there is no choice between competing benefits because he can't replace the pet with something else. The ranger simply gives up whatever benefit the pet provides and gets nothing in return. There is no viable alternative to using a pet. That is gimping. The petless option is about getting something in return.

Alaris

12-05-2011, 13:07

Where's the gimping? You play a minionless necro, all you lose is the extra damage your minions do. You play a petless ranger, same thing. This is not like GW1 where you needed to dedicate a portion of your skillbar to pets, the pet option has been seperated from your skillbar, the pets are a seperate mechanic.

Really?

In GW1, taking a pet had a cost of skill slots and attribute points. In GW2, using minions has a cost of skill slots and possibly traits.

In GW2, there is no cost to using the ranger pet. None. There's the gimping of not using it.

Forgive my impatience, but this has been repeated a lot of times.

But the WoW auction hall is a bad idea. A trader house (similar to the dye/rune NPC traders of GW1, but for all goods) is far superior.

But, I like the auction house. It was fun trading. You can't really play the market with NPC traders.

Also, I don't agree with the WoW hate. It's a game with some things done badly, but many things done well. I think GW is far superior (and GW2 will make WoW obsolete), but that doesn't mean WoW is terrible on all levels.

For a ranger, there is no choice between competing benefits because he can't replace the pet with something else.

Thank you.

You'd think that this is not something we'd need to argue about by now.

raspberry jam

12-05-2011, 13:48

You can't really play the market with NPC traders.Actually, you can. Just not in the same way, which is one reason why it's superior. Another would be complete price visibility. A third would be instant and assured liquidity. A fourth would be a directly controllable gold sink (the spread).

doesn't mean WoW is terrible on all levels.No, true. For example, they have a good mail system.
Oh wait you must pay to send mails.

Alaris

12-05-2011, 14:01

Actually, you can. Just not in the same way, which is one reason why it's superior. Another would be complete price visibility. A third would be instant and assured liquidity. A fourth would be a directly controllable gold sink (the spread).

In GW1, you can play the market over time, but not at a given time. Whether you are for or against the "buy low sell high" method of making profit, this is a personal opinion. I personally like it, and have done it with pigs in GW1 for example.

I have tried both systems, and frankly, I prefer WoW's trading system over GW's. But I'll admit, it's a question of preference. I prefer a trading system where you can shop for a better price, sell for a higher price if you're willing to wait, and not have to stand in town doing nothing while you do that.

Also, when you search for an item, you get a few matches and going prices, which gives you a pretty good idea of its worth.

No, true. For example, they have a good mail system. Oh wait you must pay to send mails.

So above you argue for a system with a controllable gold sink, and here you argue against a gold sink. I guess you like free mail.

Skyy High

12-05-2011, 14:46

This needs to be looked at not for a given statistic, not wholistically, but point-by-point.

If you adjust the petless buff so the ranger does the same dps as a pet ranger, then you might run into problems if the petless ranger can avoid damage better than the ranger with pet (i.e. if the pet gets pummeled and you keep losing it, it becomes better to play petless).

If you look only at success rate (a wholistic measure) then with and without pet can easily become a question of what style fits better the task or group. It may be that using a pet is better when you don't have a frontline, and worse when you do. The success rate won't show that, because these two alternatives will average out, at least until people figure it out and start using the pet only when advantageous to do so.

Point-by-point is looking at dps, survivability, interaction with the team, aggro, etc... and provide a solution that keeps petless and pet rangers about on-par on all of these points. It's not *that* hard to do especially since you already have to make a good pet AI anyways... it's just a question of buffing petless specifically in the areas that the pet helps. If for example, the extra tanking just compensates for the extra aggro, then there is no need to buff the petless for survivability. If the pet does X dps, then petless should be buffed by about X dps. If the pet allows to tank and therefore increase the damage done by AoE's, this you shouldn`t compensate for because grouping with a frontline will essentially give you the same advantage.

Sounds complicated? Well, turns out that this is one thing devs get paid for doing. As stated before, they already do all of what I said above when they balance professions, weapons, group vs solo play, ranged vs melee, etc.
tl;dr: it's impossible. Devs are not gods, and even if they were, there is no way they can balance something as esoteric as "if you keep your pet alive, you'll have x DPS, and if he dies you'll have y, and a petless ranger has z, and x > z > y for all cases, and pet survivability will be balanced in such a way that time-averaging x and y will produce a DPS equivalent to z". That is a stupendously ridiculous set of conditions to expect the devs to balance, and that is the absolute simplest expression of what they need to do. When you get into things like AI and how worthwhile it is to have a dumb pet that may or may not use its skills at the exact right time, compared to just directly controlling those abilities yourself, it's even more ridiculous to expect balance, because now we're not dealing with numbers that we can just plug into an equation.

Oh, and to whichever idiot asked why people use pets in GW1: because they like the idea of a pet enough that they're willing to gimp themselves. That's terrible balance, because it means the class can't use one of its featured mechanics without feeling like they're sacrificing power. PUGs certainly aren't happy to have a beastmaster along for the ride.

I want to play with my pet, which means I don't want anyone giving me any funny looks because I'm choosing a pet over <insert personal buff here>, and the only way for that to happen is for pet rangers to be guaranteed to be more powerful than petless rangers. As soon as they start trying to "balance" the two, you've lost it, because the AI issue will ensure that if the numbers (DPS, survivability, etc) are even remotely close, the petless option will always come out on top because you're not tied to a computer for your performance.

@rasp: Different strokes, mate. Playing the market is fun, sitting and waiting for the trader's prices to get where you want them to go is not. As for transparency, that's why they're implementing price trackers, and letting players post buy orders as well as sell orders. Those two things should go a long way to fixing the problems you seem to have with auction houses.

Also, gold sinks are good, and you admit this yourself, so idk why you're upset about mail costing gold.

Alaris

12-05-2011, 14:57

tl;dr: it's impossible. (...) x > z > y for all cases

Take a deep breath. Relax.

And remember that I am not insisting that the petless be balanced, but rather for the gimp to be less. In other words, if I got petless, I'd rather have a 10% reduction in efficiency rather than a 30%.

Oh, and to whichever idiot asked why people use pets in GW1: because they like the idea of a pet enough that they're willing to gimp themselves.

The zoo crew says hi. I also remember my share of RA teams where pets were an asset, not a gimp.

I want to play with my pet, which means I don't want anyone giving me any funny looks because I'm choosing a pet over <insert personal buff here>, and the only way for that to happen is for pet rangers to be guaranteed to be more powerful than petless rangers.

Agreed. See above. But the power difference doesn't have to be huge for that to happen.

As soon as they start trying to "balance" the two, you've lost it, because the AI issue will ensure that if the numbers (DPS, survivability, etc) are even remotely close, the petless option will always come out on top because you're not tied to a computer for your performance.

This is plain wrong. I just said you don't balance on dps alone, so please read my previous post. If you tl;dr, then please don't follow up with something that's already been addressed.

BrotherGrimm

12-05-2011, 18:05

Ok, this has turned into a self-centered, "I want to play THIS way and screw everyone else" support fest....good luck with that.

Alaris

12-05-2011, 18:37

Ok, this has turned into a self-centered, "I want to play THIS way and screw everyone else" support fest....good luck with that.

You are essentially saying that you don't want petless, and screw everyone who wants it. Why is your opinion better than mine?

I am sorry you *feel* that way, but what you feel is not an accurate representation of reality. Whenever I see valid concerns, I discuss them and offer ways that these problems may be fixed.

I might get annoyed at having to repeat the same arguments for people who don't bother reading this (admittedly long) thread, but at least I don't adopt the "screw everyone else" attitude.

sorudo

12-05-2011, 21:09

DELTAg

13-05-2011, 04:31

so what's the problem, ...

I haven't fully read the thread so I might be wrong but personally I think that some players would prefer playing without pets for the Looks.
They don't like animals, companions, don't find having a pet with you cool or tons of other reasons.
I can understand that altough I don't mind being forced to have a pet.
But imagine this:
You're a sneaky ranger, lurking in the shadows, jumping in the woods from tree to tree, unseen, while keeping an eye on your target and before your prey knows it, it has an arrow or dagger stuck in its skull.
Now that wouldn't be much of a sneaky story if you had a 682 kg (1,500 lb) bear with you who's growling and roaring (with his paw stuck in a jar of honey) while he's trying to fit himself between two trees and desperatly trying to catch up with you, alerting every single mob in the entire world of Tyria.
I know something like that can't happen in-game, but its just that some just don't want someone's nose stuck up theyr bum the whole time. Some just want to be alone.

Imagine you have to bear (pun intended) with a dancing pink fairy, who pukes rainbows all the time, following you EVERYWHERE the entire game just because you want to play your favourite class.

Again, I don't mind having pets at all, I like them, but I agree that it's cooler without them.

As for the Game Mechanics part why people wouldn't like them? I have no idea.

Then why are there GW1 rangers with pets?
Or worse, secondary rangers with pets, warriors even?

They are sharing power and likely even losing some by doing so.
I'm a Warrior and use pets. Go ahead, facepalm as hard as you can.
Why do I do it?
I just have this personal quest.. challange.. thing.
I would tame all available pets in GW1, put them in my Zaishen Menagerie and level them all to level 20. With no cheating. (Buying the pets, deathleveling them,...)
I already have all pets except for the Rainbow Phoenix (33/34) and 24 of them are level 20.
For me, it's really fun, altough frustrating at times.

Skyy High

13-05-2011, 05:38

Take a deep breath. Relax.

And remember that I am not insisting that the petless be balanced, but rather for the gimp to be less. In other words, if I got petless, I'd rather have a 10% reduction in efficiency rather than a 30%.
Right, like that'll go over well. Please. If you give any sort of buff for having a petless ranger, you'll just be legitimizing the playstyle. Instead of "oh, pets are universally good for me, I should learn how to use mine," you'll have "oh, I can leave my pet behind and get a buff, that's cool...pretty crappy buff though, wth is the underpowered s***?"

Furthermore, I thoroughly reject the notion that you can measure any kind of change in "efficiency" in terms of percentages, numbers, or anything else, when talking about the effectiveness of an AI in combat. Either it's worth bringing along, or it isn't; there will be no middle ground.

The zoo crew says hi.
You don't think that the fact that a particular group of players so loved their pets, and were so tired of being turned away by PUGs that they felt it necessary to form their own group, just to post updates to the effect of "yes, we really did this with these builds," doesn't prove my point? I didn't say taking a pet was an autofail, I said it gimped you, and it does. Remember when people ran all-mesmer groups, back when mesmers were universally regarded as terrible in PvE? Same thing.

Agreed. See above. But the power difference doesn't have to be huge for that to happen.
It will be f***ed up, I guarantee it. The scaling factor between how powerful a buff to your character is vs. how powerful an AI companion can be is too situational, too dependent on randomness, for them to get the balance right. Either petless rangers will remain hopelessly underpowered compared to pet rangers, or they'll be just powerful enough that it's a liability to bring a dumb pet along when you can just consolidate your power in your character.

Oh, furthermore, if all you want is a slight buff, here it is: don't waste your utility skills on pet-related stuff, don't bring a pet-related self heal, don't worry about flagging your pet in combat, don't bring any general non-beastmastery traits that benefit your pet. There, there's your slight buff over the ranger who wants to care about his pet.

This is plain wrong. I just said you don't balance on dps alone, so please read my previous post. If you tl;dr, then please don't follow up with something that's already been addressed.
FFS, if it were just DPS alone, it'd be easier to balance, but the AI makes it even more impossible; I repeated that sentiment at least twice already. My point in this paragraph was the same as every other post I've made in this thread: if you get petless rangers to the point where they're "close" to pet rangers on whatever metric you care to measure (numerical or otherwise), they will, in practice, actually hold the edge, regardless of what theory dictates, because the player won't have to worry about controlling a pseudo-random AI, which is something you simply can't take into account when talking about balance. Balancing for suboptimal situations is impossible, because there are infinite suboptimal situations.

raspberry jam

13-05-2011, 08:28

In GW1, you can play the market over time, but not at a given time. Whether you are for or against the "buy low sell high" method of making profit, this is a personal opinion. I personally like it, and have done it with pigs in GW1 for example.

I have tried both systems, and frankly, I prefer WoW's trading system over GW's. But I'll admit, it's a question of preference. I prefer a trading system where you can shop for a better price, sell for a higher price if you're willing to wait, and not have to stand in town doing nothing while you do that.

Also, when you search for an item, you get a few matches and going prices, which gives you a pretty good idea of its worth.I'm in favor of an economy that gets people what they want. A trader house would definitely do that, especially if it replaces normal merchants entirely: after playing a while, every single skin would be available, priced according to rarity. Every single mod, every component... Solving in an instant every problem of the GW1 economy. For example, buying a specific but non-rare skin would often be harder than buying a rare one. Not with a trader house. While it's true that powertrading would be less of a possibility, this would encourage people to play the game, and it would free up time which they would otherwise feel obliged to spend on the market (as was the case in GW1).

As for playing the market at a given time, see below.

So above you argue for a system with a controllable gold sink, and here you argue against a gold sink. I guess you like free mail.The WoW mail price is not intended as a gold sink but as an immersion device.

Different strokes, mate. Playing the market is fun, sitting and waiting for the trader's prices to get where you want them to go is not. As for transparency, that's why they're implementing price trackers, and letting players post buy orders as well as sell orders. Those two things should go a long way to fixing the problems you seem to have with auction houses.So instead of waiting for a trader, you will be waiting for a price tracker. Unless you have a controlling amount of supply, you will not be able to affect a market with high price visibility sufficiently to "play" it anyway. A trader house is the exact same thing as an auction house with a (working) price tracker, except that the payout for sold items is instant instead of having to wait around for your cash.

sorudo

13-05-2011, 08:34

I haven't fully read the thread so I might be wrong but personally I think that some players would prefer playing without pets for the Looks.
They don't like animals, companions, don't find having a pet with you cool or tons of other reasons.
I can understand that altough I don't mind being forced to have a pet.
But imagine this:
You're a sneaky ranger, lurking in the shadows, jumping in the woods from tree to tree, unseen, while keeping an eye on your target and before your prey knows it, it has an arrow or dagger stuck in its skull.
Now that wouldn't be much of a sneaky story if you had a 682 kg (1,500 lb) bear with you who's growling and roaring (with his paw stuck in a jar of honey) while he's trying to fit himself between two trees and desperatly trying to catch up with you, alerting every single mob in the entire world of Tyria.
I know something like that can't happen in-game, but its just that some just don't want someone's nose stuck up theyr bum the whole time. Some just want to be alone.

Imagine you have to bear (pun intended) with a dancing pink fairy, who pukes rainbows all the time, following you EVERYWHERE the entire game just because you want to play your favourite class.

Again, I don't mind having pets at all, I like them, but I agree that it's cooler without them.

As for the Game Mechanics part why people wouldn't like them? I have no idea.

i'm not against pet-less rangers, i am actually 100% for it.
i think you read my post a bit wrong :tongue:

DELTAg

13-05-2011, 09:35

i'm not against pet-less rangers, i am actually 100% for it.
i think you read my post a bit wrong :tongue:

Oh, I never said you where against pet-less rangers, I thought it was a neutral question. :p

Alaris

13-05-2011, 13:42

If you give any sort of buff for having a petless ranger, you'll just be legitimizing the playstyle.

Ok, I see that as a valid concern. What if the buff description says: "A ranger is at his best with his companion, but some rangers decide to adventure alone. Thus who do have developed ... (buff)"

Or something like that, telling players that petless is a legitimate playstyle, but warning them that it offers a bigger challenge.

There's plenty of legitimate playstyles that are more challenging, e.g. mesmer, guardian. The buff might be enough to equate the dps, but you are on your own to manage aggro and your survival.

Furthermore, I thoroughly reject the notion that you can measure any kind of change in "efficiency" in terms of percentages, numbers, or anything else, when talking about the effectiveness of an AI in combat. Either it's worth bringing along, or it isn't; there will be no middle ground.

Your opinion, and you'd be wrong to think that.

I mean if you were right, then we couldn't balance pet professions against petless professions. It would be impossible. And yet, it's done on a regular basis.

How do you think ANet balances warrior vs ranger+pet? Or thief vs ranger? And throw in the necro while at it, because he has summons too.

See, the ranger has to use the AI well to be effective... but the warrior (or thief...) has only himself to rely on, and has to find a counter to the AI.

You don't think that the fact that a particular group of players so loved their pets, and were so tired of being turned away by PUGs that they felt it necessary to form their own group, just to post updates to the effect of "yes, we really did this with these builds," doesn't prove my point?

I was under the impression that your point was "people won't play pet if they can be as efficient without". And my reply is that they'll play pet even if they're less efficient with.

Of course, if you keep changing what your point is, then I get free pass at changing my argument.

I didn't say taking a pet was an autofail, I said it gimped you, and it does.

Yes, in GW1, maybe. And I am not convinced of it, I think it's quite possible to have a viable pet build.

But that's not the case in GW2. As implemented now, bringing a pet gives you no drawback... it's free money.

it's a liability to bring a dumb pet along when you can just consolidate your power in your character.

It can be a liability to consolidate, especially against foes that have strong KD or disables against one target. In this case, it would be far better to divide your power into two.

Likewise, a pet allows you to let it tank while you retreat or reposition yourself. Especially in solo or small groups, an extra group member can be a great asset.

Which is something I should insist on... I do play to play ranger with pet more often than not. I just want to be able to play without a pet, without having to roll a different profession.

If the power differential of the pet is too great, then the petless experience just becomes frustrating. The reason people don't use pets in GW1 isn't because pets aren't viable, but *maybe* because the petless option is *slightly* more powerful. And by now, people rarely play strictly for fun, they want to get things done fast. That's the prevalent mentality in PUGs.

I'm thinking about the players out there still having fun making builds, trying different playstyles, playing balanced.

Oh, furthermore, if all you want is a slight buff, here it is (...)

I'm not arguing "slight buff" but rather "small power difference". It might be the same thing if the pet alone does not much... but if the pet is quite powerful on its own, a slight buff might not be enough.

I'm in favor of an economy that gets people what they want.

I think we can all agree with that ;)

A trader house would definitely do that, especially if it replaces normal merchants entirely (...) Not with a trader house. While it's true that powertrading would be less of a possibility

True that availability is a problem in GW1. But auction house for everything would get tiresome. Trade house for everything would feel too artificial. There needs to be an automatic fast alternative, and a more social alternative, imo. Best case imo would be that everything goes through the auction house, but then you have NPC powertraders that will buy from you low and fast, and trade for a small profit. Or you could have both systems side-by-side.

The WoW trading house wasn't just about trading, it felt social.

As for powertrading, NPC traders do it automatically at a fixed price. Why not let players do it instead? I for one enjoy doing that once in a while, it's a minigame. In theory, with all servers linked together for trading, powertraders don't have that much leverage on prices. If you raise the price too much, farmers and regular players who want money fast will keep undercutting you.

The WoW mail price is not intended as a gold sink but as an immersion device.

Maybe both? Anyway, I never bothered to check the price, it's probably too low to care.

A trader house is the exact same thing as an auction house with a (working) price tracker, except that the payout for sold items is instant instead of having to wait around for your cash.

That, and NPCs get the gold from powertrading instead of players. I'd be in favor of having both systems side-by-side, it would allow powertrading but would curtail it from spiraling out of control (not that there is much of a risk in a large enough population with carefully selected drop rates and usage rates).

Bilbo Baggins

14-05-2011, 00:04

so what's the problem, you said it your self it's the same thing.
remove the pet and you lose the dmg advantage, are ppl actually against the option or is this becoming in to a "i am right even if i am wrong" argument?

no pet = less damage.
if you have a problem with it, say what problem and don't hide behind some non-sense about how unfair it is that a ranger can then remove a pet, how is that unfair in any way.......

I'm not for or against a petless option. I just don't see a valid reason to give a buff to someone who chooses to play the ranger petless. I understand that you'd be losing the extra damage that the pet does, and that it's not a direct 1 to 1 comparison with minions, but it's pretty darn close.

If a ranger plays petless, they can choose non-pet skills and still have a full, competitive skillbar. they can choose to invest in traits that boost ranged attacks, or traps, or any number of petless skills. There hasn't been much discussion from anet, but they have said they're looking into a way to save your builds (skills, armor set, weapons, and traits. That 2 part german video even had a bit about it if I remember correctly).

I honestly don't think any petless ranger is even going to need a buff to play any PvE content, and if options to PvE is all the pro-buff rangers are concerned about, then I think this argument is pointless. None of us knows enough about GW2 to be sure if it will or won't be a problem. Like I said, I think it won't be a problem, but until the game ships, who knows.

Now, if the pro-buff ranger group is concerned about playing petless in PvP, that's a whole other story. I definitely think playing petless in PvP will seriously hurt you, and I don't think anet will ever give you a buff to fix that. It would be like a thief choosing not to steal, or shadow-step in a match.

Does the pro-buff group really believe they will be unable to complete PvE content without a pet, or is this just about losing a few ticks on the dps meter?

BrettM

14-05-2011, 01:36

If a ranger plays petless, they can choose non-pet skills and still have a full, competitive skillbar. they can choose to invest in traits that boost ranged attacks, or traps, or any number of petless skills.
You're treating this as either-or. Bring a pet or bring something else. It does not work that way for a ranger, unlike a necro. And it isn't all about DPS, because pets also have support and control functions.

If the ranger gives up the pet, there is no substitute. The ranger simply loses the four skills that are on the pet bar and the benefits of the beast mastery traits. He can't put anything else in their place, because those skills and traits are completely separate from his bar and the traits that affect his skills. Not bringing the pet is all cost -- less DPS, less support, and/or less control.

Regarding skills: The ranger himself does not have any pet skills, such as a pet attack, that go on his bar. All pet skills go on the pet's bar, which has four slots. The ranger does not have a choice between pet skills and non-pet skills. Some skills on the ranger bar can affect both ranger and pet (such as Heal as One), but those are optional even when using a pet. There will be valid builds using traps, spirits, and other utilities that have nothing to do with pets but are used along with a pet.

Regarding traits: the traits for the pet are completely separate from traits for weapons and traits for wilderness-survival skills (such as traps and nature spirits). You will be using such traits regardless of whether you bring a pet or not, so it isn't a choice between equipping, say, a trait that boosts bow damage and a trait that boosts pet damage. You will have both types of traits at the same time. If you give up the pet, you give up the pet traits and you can't put bow traits in their place.

This is completely different from the way minions work. The necromancer has a choice between bringing a minion skill or bringing some other skill. Say Well of Suffering vs. Bone Minions. Both skills do damage in different ways, and neither is better than the other. The necro loses nothing by substituting a different skill for a minion summons. All the necro does is change his playstyle from Death Magic to Curses.

Playing curses is not a weaker way to play necro than using minions, afaik. It is simply different. Playing without a pet IS a weaker way to play ranger. The comparison between minions and pets is nowhere near "pretty darn close".

Bilbo Baggins

14-05-2011, 06:09

You're treating this as either-or. Bring a pet or bring something else. It does not work that way for a ranger, unlike a necro. And it isn't all about DPS, because pets also have support and control functions.

If the ranger gives up the pet, there is no substitute. The ranger simply loses the four skills that are on the pet bar and the benefits of the beast mastery traits. He can't put anything else in their place, because those skills and traits are completely separate from his bar and the traits that affect his skills. Not bringing the pet is all cost -- less DPS, less support, and/or less control.

Regarding skills: The ranger himself does not have any pet skills, such as a pet attack, that go on his bar. All pet skills go on the pet's bar, which has four slots. The ranger does not have a choice between pet skills and non-pet skills. Some skills on the ranger bar can affect both ranger and pet (such as Heal as One), but those are optional even when using a pet. There will be valid builds using traps, spirits, and other utilities that have nothing to do with pets but are used along with a pet.

Regarding traits: the traits for the pet are completely separate from traits for weapons and traits for wilderness-survival skills (such as traps and nature spirits). You will be using such traits regardless of whether you bring a pet or not, so it isn't a choice between equipping, say, a trait that boosts bow damage and a trait that boosts pet damage. You will have both types of traits at the same time. If you give up the pet, you give up the pet traits and you can't put bow traits in their place.

This is completely different from the way minions work. The necromancer has a choice between bringing a minion skill or bringing some other skill. Say Well of Suffering vs. Bone Minions. Both skills do damage in different ways, and neither is better than the other. The necro loses nothing by substituting a different skill for a minion summons. All the necro does is change his playstyle from Death Magic to Curses.

Playing curses is not a weaker way to play necro than using minions, afaik. It is simply different. Playing without a pet IS a weaker way to play ranger. The comparison between minions and pets is nowhere near "pretty darn close".

Are you certain traits work this way? Is this the way it's working in the demo? Look, I've been reading all the posts, and I haven't seen any definitive answers on where this type of information is coming from.

I wasn't able to attend any of the demo conferences, and I have probably only 1-2 years on my ranger alt in GW1, so I'm not claiming to be an authority in any way. I just haven't seen any concrete PROOF (ie, link to anet blog with dev or someone saying this) that the ranger is going to be unable to complete any and all PvE content if they go petless.

I realize that there is literally NO 1 to 1 comparison between a petless ranger and ANY other profession currently known. It's impossible to make a direct comparison because the mechanics for the other professions are "internal" (for lack of a better word) to the profession and the ranger's is "external". Maybe there'll be something similar in one of the final two professions.

A request for a buff for those who are choosing to play the ranger without it's primary mechanic (pets) is a very BIG step. I can really understand that some people like the ranger profession, what it means, it's style, etc. but don't want the pet either sometimes or permanently. But even if some can't or won't see it, granting a buff to those who again are choosing not to use their pet IS giving the ranger profession special/preferential treatment.

Hopefully this better explains where I'm coming from. I'm not trying to rip on the pro-buff group, and I'm not trying to ignore any facts that might be known on the ranger mechanics, I'd just like to know the source of those facts.

For me, the most important question is: "Does playing a petless ranger preclude one from being able to complete all PvE content in GW2?" And so far I haven't seen any link to information that says "Yes, if you play a petless ranger in GW2, you will be unable to effectively complete PvE content."

BrettM

14-05-2011, 13:01

Are you certain traits work this way? Is this the way it's working in the demo? Look, I've been reading all the posts, and I haven't seen any definitive answers on where this type of information is coming from.

<snip>

For me, the most important question is: "Does playing a petless ranger preclude one from being able to complete all PvE content in GW2?" And so far I haven't seen any link to information that says "Yes, if you play a petless ranger in GW2, you will be unable to effectively complete PvE content."
On the first point, I am certain. Look at the GW2 wiki articles for ranger (http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Ranger), ranger traits (http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/List_of_ranger_traits), and ranger skills (http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/List_of_ranger_skills). Much of that information came from people playing the demos. We have known for some time (from sources such as the official Traits Overview (http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/combat/traits-overview/)) that each weapon has its own trait line, and each profession has its own set of general trait lines. For the ranger, Beast Mastery is one of those professional trait lines, keeping pet traits separate from the other lines.

For your important question, I don't think anyone in this thread has claimed that a petless ranger will be unable to complete PvE content. Or even PvP. (I would point out that not everyone regards PvE as being more important than PvP, and the topic of this thread applies to both.) There are no official statements that I've seen saying PvE is impossible without a pet. I'm sure almost any revealed profession, except perhaps the thief, could somehow muddle through without ever using his professional mechanic.

The only clear statement from ANet is one to the effect that a ranger will not be able to reach full professional potential playing without one. A ranger without a pet is unquestionably gimped, and will have noticeably more difficultly in either PvE or PvP. (If the additional difficulty is not noticeable, then the pet isn't making much of a contribution compared to other professional mechanics.)

Just because it is possible to do something with one hand tied behind your back does not mean everyone is going to consider such a handicap acceptable. Those who want a petless option obviously prefer not to have to struggle with the content any more than necessary.

Alaris

14-05-2011, 21:43

I just don't see a valid reason to give a buff to someone who chooses to play the ranger petless. I understand that you'd be losing the extra damage that the pet does

Plus whatever other effects the pet skills have.

they can choose to invest in traits that boost ranged attacks, or traps, or any number of petless skills.

The pet traits are, however, lost. That, and the pet's 4 skills.

I honestly don't think any petless ranger is even going to need a buff to play any PvE content

That almost means that you think the effect of pet + pet skills + pet traits add to a negligeable effect.

I definitely think playing petless in PvP will seriously hurt you

Why is the pet important in PvP but not in PvE?

Regarding skills: The ranger himself does not have any pet skills, such as a pet attack, that go on his bar.

Really? Wow, it's worse than I thought if that's the case.

Are you certain traits work this way?

But even if some can't or won't see it, granting a buff to those who again are choosing not to use their pet IS giving the ranger profession special/preferential treatment.

I have seen official response that playing petless reduces your efficiency, if that answers your question. It's not clear by how much.

The beast mastery traits are one of two major branches of traits for the ranger. http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/List_of_ranger_traits

Special treatment... I don't know why people keep bringing that up. It's not special treatment, it's allowing a playstyle. It does not diminish the other professions in any way.

Those who want a petless option obviously prefer not to have to struggle with the content any more than necessary.

This is it. If playtesting shows that playing without a pet is not much harder than with, than I'm happy with it. I seriously doubt it though.

sorudo

14-05-2011, 23:13

Those who want a petless option obviously prefer not to have to struggle with the content any more than necessary.
it's more for RP reasons then anything els, i don't use a pet because the character doesn't have a pet in her story.
it's true like that in GW1 and i really like to see that option back in GW2, not every hunter/ranger/archer has a pet all the time.

BrettM

14-05-2011, 23:14

Really? Wow, it's worse than I thought if that's the case.
I guess it depends on the way you define "pet skill". Also, we certainly don't know all of the ranger skills that will be in the game yet, so we can't be confident the situation won't change.

The ranger does have Comfort Animal and Feral Signet, which might be considered pet skills since they are useless without pets. It would certainly be a waste of bar space to bring these if you don't bring a pet. OTOH, it is also quite feasible to play with a pet without bringing either of these skills.

Also there is Alpha Strike (E), but this might even be usable petless, assuming you aren't forced to make one of your three on-call slots active. If you can have three pets loaded in those slots but simply not activate any of them, then I would think Alpha Strike would work as usual to temporarily summon all of them.

Then there are a couple of skills that affect both pet and ranger at the same time (Heal as One and Rampage as One (E)), but I don't really consider those "pet skills". For all I know they will work without a pet, just like Run as One does in GW1. And, again, these skills are optional and there will be valid pet-using builds that do not include them.

The major problem is going to be the downed skill Lick Wounds, which is most certainly a pet skill by any definition. The ranger is stuck with it since the downed bar can't be changed, and going petless will have a major impact on your options in the downed state.

In any case, while it might be a bad idea to bring any of the above pet-related skills when playing without a pet, the alternatives are not meant to be a substitute for bringing a pet. Those other skills are there to be used whether you use a pet or not.

Alaris

14-05-2011, 23:34

Well, I'm satisfied that you can fill a bar without using pet skills.

The issue is that even then, you lose 4 skills that the pet equips, pet traits, and whatever damage the pet does.

Bilbo Baggins

15-05-2011, 00:16

@Alaris: It's more important in PvP because you're playing against real people not AI (Ai is never as good as a live opponent), and in PvE (except in dungeons and personal story) there's almost always going to be large groups doing the same or similar things as you, so there'll always be help, Also I don't believe PvE will be all that difficult (based solely on GW1).

@BrettM: regardless of what's decided by anet for PvE, I seriously doubt they will impliment a petless ranger option for competitive PvP. We're what, 5 years into development now? These profession mechanics have their built-in checks and balances with the other professions. I believe it would require a re-tooling of not just the ranger but all the professions if they changed that at this stage.

Ghosties

16-05-2011, 03:54

/not signed

"The ranger is a nature-themed adventurer profession who thrives on mobility and swiftness, fighting in absolute unison with their animal companion as they slash and claw their way through combat."

I think the idea is to force the ranger to use a pet, and balance it.

It is the core of the ranger class in GW2.

I think they want pets used in pvp this time.

"Q: I want to play a ranger without a pet. Are pets mandatory for the profession to be effective? Can you have a non-pet ranger like in GW1 and not sacrifice a lot of your effectiveness?

Eric: Rangers must use their pets to achieve maximum effectiveness. A ranger could choose to mostly ignore his pet and leave it on “auto-pilot” so to speak and still be very effective, but a ranger who doesn’t even have a pet out will be a good deal less effective than one who does. There are many other professions in Guild Wars 2 that have effective ranged damage or ranged utility like the ranger for players who don’t want to use a pet. "

Forgive me if I repeated someone, I did not read all the pages... lol.

Alaris

16-05-2011, 05:06

Ghosties, I know what Eric said, which is why I started the thread. I'd like this decision revoked. I hope that what you copy-pasted to the other thread clarifies why using a different profession is not a good-enough option for me.

Also, I've replied to your thread.

Ghosties

16-05-2011, 05:29

If they did give a buff for the ranger for not having a pet, it would end up needing to be balanced with having a pet.

It would be hard to do.

Once it gets balanced, most likely no one will use pets in pvp.

/fail?

Pets would get a bad name from people using them bad. (gw1?)

Why do more micro with a class in pvp, when doing something that uses less micro is just as well balanced?

Although, whatever the devs decide is what will happen. At the moment they are doing it this pets way, and I hope it stays that way.

raspberry jam

16-05-2011, 09:00

True that availability is a problem in GW1. But auction house for everything would get tiresome. Trade house for everything would feel too artificial. There needs to be an automatic fast alternative, and a more social alternative, imo. Best case imo would be that everything goes through the auction house, but then you have NPC powertraders that will buy from you low and fast, and trade for a small profit. Or you could have both systems side-by-side.Auction house for everything would get tiresome, but trader house would not. Of course, they would not work as clumsily as the GW1 traders. The entire quote mechanic should be hidden. For example, selling things should be like selling to a GW1 merchant, except that the prices should update live as they change (which would not happen that much). Buying things would be a matter of choosing things from a catalog of a sort - with approximate price given - and once you decided what to buy, the merchant (trader) tells you the exact price and you have 10 seconds or whatever to say yes or no (same as the price quote in GW1).

I fail to see how an auction house is social, at least if you talk about the WoW version.

As for powertrading, NPC traders do it automatically at a fixed price. Why not let players do it instead? I for one enjoy doing that once in a while, it's a minigame. In theory, with all servers linked together for trading, powertraders don't have that much leverage on prices. If you raise the price too much, farmers and regular players who want money fast will keep undercutting you.NPCs do not powertrade. They buy for less than they sell for, but that is not to make more money, but to destroy it. As for why players should not be encouraged to powertrade: this is the same reason I hate other minigames with a passion as well; they take away focus from the rest of the game. In GW1 the situation has become so bad because people care more about the economy than the game that ANet releases items (e.g. certain minipets) specifically to spark the economy. Would it be that that time had been spent on content instead, or why not on fixing bugs that has persisted since the release of Prophecies.

That, and NPCs get the gold from powertrading instead of players. I'd be in favor of having both systems side-by-side, it would allow powertrading but would curtail it from spiraling out of control (not that there is much of a risk in a large enough population with carefully selected drop rates and usage rates).NPCs do not get gold from powertrading...
And no. The very point of a trader house is that even the most rare items would have to go through the trader house.

Alaris

16-05-2011, 12:51

(...)

Look, we went over these points already. Please read the thread.

I fail to see how an auction house is social, at least if you talk about the WoW version.

NPCs do not powertrade. They buy for less than they sell for, but that is not to make more money, but to destroy it.

It's more social in the sense that you are trading directly with people, even if you don't speak to them. It felt different than traders in GW1, more social, but I don't really know how to explain it better.

As for NPCs, they *do* powertrade, but I agree that it's a gold sink. If you prefer gold sink to powertrade, then that is at least something I can understand.

The problem with powertrading imo isn't so much the minigame, but the divide between rich and poor.

raspberry jam

16-05-2011, 13:28

It's more social in the sense that you are trading directly with people, even if you don't speak to them. It felt different than traders in GW1, more social, but I don't really know how to explain it better.Except you're not. You're indirectly trading with people. You are directly trading with a list. Though I know what you mean, each item on the list is something that someone else put there.
The GW1 traders had strictly anonymous goods: dyes, ectos, iron ingots... Stackables. Not individual items. That's not what I am suggesting... Well, I am suggesting that for such items, true. For items such as weapons, not so much: they would still be priced according to their skin and their respective stats, but keep their uniqueness.

As for NPCs, they *do* powertrade, but I agree that it's a gold sink. If you prefer gold sink to powertrade, then that is at least something I can understand.Semantics... :smiley: To me, "powertrade" isn't just buying low selling high, but doing so to generate a profit. NPCs don't have separate accounts; they create money when you sell them something and they destroy it when you buy something. At least we understand what the other one means.

The problem with powertrading imo isn't so much the minigame, but the divide between rich and poor.Not even that, there will always be richer and poorer players. Rather, the problem is that people become rich by trading instead of by playing the game. I mean, there could be trading games and those could make you rich, but for a game which is oriented towards action and combat, that action and combat is what should make you rich, not the trading, which should only ever be a side thing, if it need to exist at all.

Alaris

16-05-2011, 13:51

(...)each item on the list is something that someone else put there. (...) Semantics... (...) At least we understand what the other one means.

We understand each other and agree... I guess all that is left is preference. For what it's worth, I think your way of doing it would work pretty well too.

Not even that, there will always be richer and poorer players. Rather, the problem is that people become rich by trading instead of by playing the game.

I see your point, but to me the economy is realistic enough to count as more than a minigame. If you play the economy, you are playing the game... just not the combat part of it. At least, that's how I see it.

Ghosties

16-05-2011, 16:07

raspberry jam

16-05-2011, 16:12

What if instead of losing the pet and getting a buff, you instead, lose HALF the pet and get Halve the BUFF?!?!

Actually, rather than having a BUFF for not having a pet, I think we should get an extra skill on the bar to use.

This would be the most well way of balancing not having a pet.Maybe like in GW1 how you would bring a skill on the bad to get a pet and without the pet you'd get that slot since you wouldn't need to take that skill to get the pet and then you could use that slot for anything you wanted instead of having to use it to get the skill to get the pet.

But I think that the GW2 pet won't take up a skill slot on your bar.

Ghosties

16-05-2011, 16:19

Maybe like in GW1 how you would bring a skill on the bad to get a pet and without the pet you'd get that slot since you wouldn't need to take that skill to get the pet and then you could use that slot for anything you wanted instead of having to use it to get the skill to get the pet.

But I think that the GW2 pet won't take up a skill slot on your bar.

Thus is a truth but yet there is not a skill to take for gw2 pet but them no reason for not have give and extra of skills to let the ranger pick another skills so that he would be balanced as well for not having a pet because he wants the options to not have a pets.

But I think that the GW1 pet was not a skill bringed on the bad.

sorudo

16-05-2011, 16:20

Alaris

16-05-2011, 16:20

Hmmmm...

I'm not sure that an extra skill (or two) to compensate for the loss of pet is the way to go.

1) Skills generally improve flexibility. There's some exceptions, like signets that give you a small buff while you don't use them. The pet however is a large buff, in that it does damage, protects you (by tanking), and has a few skills. The optional skills would have to be pretty strong to compensate for all this.

2) I think it would be harder to balance how many skills to add than to balance a single buff, because you can tweak the buff independently of gamplay with the pet. A buff is one set of fixed values that has no bearing on regular gameplay (i.e. ranger with pet).

3) Also, where would you put those 1-2 extra skills?

Ghosties

16-05-2011, 16:26

3) Also, where would you put those 1-2 extra skills?

On the pets control bar.

Alaris

16-05-2011, 16:28

Good point.

That still leaves points 1-2, which imo would be more work for less profit for ANet devs.

raspberry jam

16-05-2011, 16:31

Thus is a truth but yet there is not a skill to take for gw2 pet but them no reason for not have give and extra of skills to let the ranger pick another skills so that he would be balanced as well for not having a pet because he wants the options to not have a pets. I know, but the point of the ranger in GW2 is that he is a beastmaster. I don't see why a petless beastmaster should exist, or be encouraged.

But I think that the GW1 pet was not a skill bringed on the bad.But it was a skill.

Alaris

16-05-2011, 16:38

GW1 had several costs to beastmasters.

1) Pet dying blacked out your skill bar for a few seconds.
2) You need to use at least 1 skill to bring a pet, therefore giving up one skill slot.
3) You need more than 1 pet skill to make it useful outside just a dps, therefore giving up more skill slots.
4) You need to invest in the beastmastery line to make it stronger, therefore giving up attribute points you could have used in other attribute lines.

In GW2, you have none of these costs.

raspberry jam

16-05-2011, 16:43

In GW2, you have none of these costs.So? You're supposed to always have your pet, thus there is no value in supplying a trade-off.

Balance is all about correct trade-offs, and the GW1 model just wasn't worth it most of the time. I mean, outside of pure fun, B/P teams, IWAY, and thumpers, pets didn't see much worthwhile use.
Well, ok, I guess they could try to have just one or two of the costs. But I think they skipped the costs entirely and simply made ranger = always pet to make it easier to balance.

Ghosties

16-05-2011, 16:45

Good point.

That still leaves points 1-2, which imo would be more work for less profit for ANet devs.

So would removing the pet and give the ranger a buff to make up for it.

The skills could be fixed skills that you get for not having the pet, and they could be balanced that way.

The regular skills and skill bar could stay as it is.

Alaris

16-05-2011, 16:51

But I think they skipped the costs entirely and simply made ranger = always pet to make it easier to balance.

Yeah, but I don't like that in doing so, they also removed petless as being a viable playstyle. I liked that in GW1, you didn't have to bring the pet to be worthwhile.

Also, the problem with GW1 pets were that the costs also made using pets complicated. Pet skills didn't stack, so if you activated more than one pet attack you'd waste the effect. Also, giving up a skill on an already-crowded bar was not something people enjoyed doing.

The skills could be fixed skills that you get for not having the pet, and they could be balanced that way.

The regular skills and skill bar could stay as it is.

I'd be happy with that solution too.

Ghosties

16-05-2011, 17:04

I'd be happy with that solution too.

The main reasons I would be against letting you remove the pet:

1) The lore and the skills are already made and put into the game, with rangers having pets.

2) If the ranger has 2 play options, I do not trust that they would keep up with PET balance correctly. Usually AI must be balanced to be slightly OP with PERFECT play, to make up for it never playing perfect.

However, if they did do this, and they did it by changing the pets controls for some extra skills, I would be happy with this solution too.

AS LONG AS THEY PROMISE TO BALANCE PETS CORRECTLY!!!!!!

Pretty sure they are not going to let you go pet-less though.

raspberry jam

16-05-2011, 17:23

Yeah, but I don't like that in doing so, they also removed petless as being a viable playstyle.No they didn't. For example, warriors and thiefs don't have pets. And yes I'm being serious, the ranger is a pet class, period. You can imagine that the class is called "beastmaster" or "pet guy" instead, it would be silly to have that without a pet.

Ghosties

16-05-2011, 17:30

No they didn't. For example, warriors and thiefs don't have pets. And yes I'm being serious, the ranger is a pet class, period. You can imagine that the class is called "beastmaster" or "pet guy" instead, it would be silly to have that without a pet.

Yeps, they would have a lot of skills and lore to change... and prolly lots of quests and text all over the game... lol...

Alaris

16-05-2011, 17:51

(...)

1) Lore can be used either way. It was used in GW1 to let the ranger have a choice of pet vs petless.
2) We already went over that. Given your confirmed troll (if not bot) status in the other thread, I won't repeat myself. Go read the thread.

And yes I'm being serious, the ranger is a pet class, period.

You're entitled to your opinion.

Yeps, they would have a lot of skills and lore to change... and prolly lots of quests and text all over the game... lol...

I could see that being a valid argument against, if it is that much work to allow a petless option.

As it stands, though, there are plenty of skills and traits that have nothing to do with pets. For that matter, there may not even be that many quests that have to do with pets, and a fully petless ranger would just skip those or still play those just for completeness (I know I would, but then again, I would enjoy playing with a pet some of the time anyway).

We don't know how much work would be involved in making a petless option, and as such we don't know if it would be worth it in effort neede / reward gained (whether you measure reward in extra players earned, or extra satisfaction of rangers who enjoy that playstyle).