Petition for a pet-less ranger option

[Zayren]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Ringsgold]

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]

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.