Petition for a pet-less ranger option

[Ghosties]

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]

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]

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]

(...)

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).

[sorudo]

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.

a ranger is for the most part a hunter/scout that is more self sufficient then a traditional hunter/scout, the pet is only there because the game world made it a part of the ranger.
a beastmaster is someone with a pet, rangers have a choice to do so, period.

[raspberry jam]

a ranger is for the most part a hunter/scout that is more self sufficient then a traditional hunter/scout, the pet is only there because the game world made it a part of the ranger.
a beastmaster is someone with a pet, rangers have a choice to do so, period.

That might be what "ranger" means to you, but it's not what it means in GW2.

[Ghosties]

a ranger is for the most part a hunter/scout that is more self sufficient then a traditional hunter/scout, the pet is only there because the game world made it a part of the ranger.
a beastmaster is someone with a pet, rangers have a choice to do so, period.

"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."

The GW2 people made the ranger a "beastmaster" in GW2.

So it is unlikely that they will go through and do all the changes needed to let the ranger go without a pet.


There is likely lots and lots of text in the game that would need to be changed to make it work. + other stuffs.

[Alaris]

"Lone wolf. Major beast mastery trait. You fight without your pet, accepting that in doing so you will be weaker. Its spirit accompanies you and gives you strength."

+X% damage while not using a pet.

------

There. Now all that ANet devs need to do is figure out what the X value is that keeps petless no stronger than with pet, but fairly close anyway.

[Auntie I]

Ok, this thread is getting closed as well.

You guys aren't making any progress in your arguments and some of this is just as silly as the Steal-less Thief thread.