Petition for a pet-less ranger option

[Ringsgold]

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) but just let me dismount for any real combat.

So yes, make it optional :)

[Alaris]

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]

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]

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]

Ranger without pet? Go play warrior longbow

[DragonSkull]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.