Pets need to be the last targets from mobs and bosses in PvE

Some weeks ago Woodenpotates had a live twitch were IMO he was right.He was explaining that ranger is the only class in game which doesn't allow the player to experience the GW2 game experience. Because of the pet. More particularly because the ranger's pet allow the player to leave the pet to tank for the player while himself can skip all the mechanics the game has in place.

I think he was on the money there. The pet allows the player to be able not to learn to play the actual game in a natural way and as result the player learn a behaviour which is closer to afk farming than to the actual gameplay.

As a realistically easy solution: Apply the aggro to the pet the same way as the Boons are applied. Mobs and Enemies should consider the pet the last target in priorities and focus on the player first.That would bring also a closer experience of how other game modes are played with this class, as most players focus the ranger instead the pet.

This may seem a bit of a shock but.. Woodenpotatoes isnt right just because he says it. He's a player with a particular viewpoint like any of us. While ranger does have a pet that can generate a good amount of aggro it doesnt have a taunt unless traited for it, and pets dont live forever if focus fired. On top of that they arent the only profession to have a pet mechanic to get mobs attention away from the player. Mobs will target engineer turrets, mesmer clones and necromancer minions.That aside what exactly is the definition of 'play the actual game in a natural way?' (and no i will not watch his video to get the answer). Outside of group content people will play their professions however they wish regardless of which one they pick. But lets pick on rangers b/c a youtuber said so. If I want to see an afk farming profession, I'll go to wintergrasp, there are plenty of minion master reapers there.

I can't agree. Part of the fun of a directed-pet-oriented prof such as ranger is the very fact that the pet can draw off aggro. That makes for different GW2 experience for rangers, one that, in my opinion, makes it worth playing.

full disclosureTraditionally, I don't play rangers because I'm terrible about managing pet aggro (or I don't like micromanaging them or both). And despite that, I very much like the idea because it makes the ranger experience so different. Otherwise, ranger becomes just a warrior-style class in medium armor.

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:I can't agree. Part of the fun of a directed-pet-oriented prof such as ranger is the very fact that the pet can draw off aggro. That makes for different GW2 experience for rangers, one that, in my opinion, makes it worth playing.

Pretty much what I was thinking. The ability to control and to a limited degree direct the pet, or even just to balance your own aggro by using stealth if an enemy is running at you is what makes ranger unique.

Each player has their own experience, this "GW2 Game Experience" isn't real. You can't shove the same experience down everyone's throat. That's his experience of what the game should be like, doesn't mean he's right.Don't get me wrong, I like WP's content and find his thoughts inspired and insightful in many areas. But his point of view on the other hand is biased, and quite frankly, sometimes out of touch with reality. He makes a living out of the game, unlike us regular people who are here to just have a bit of fun. Somewhere at the back of his mind is probably a thought that if everyone could see the game as he does, everyone would love it. That's just not how it works.Pets taking aggro from the ranger is how ranger is supposed to work. Taking that away is kinda like removing an attunement from ele. It doesn't bring diversity, quite the opposite actually.

First make them useful before stripping them from the only use they have (or at least the majority of pets have).I understand your concern but i do not agree on it. They should improve the pets utility and shift the dmg to the ranger. Pets should give mostly fields, cleanses, stunbreaks, CC etc.Ranger should have finishers, pet buffing skills, major part of boons and the dmg.Atm the ranger part is what we can agree on mostly and the pet part is what is lacking mostly.WP is right with the statement that if you let your pet tank everything you do not learn the game but if you kill the aggro generation of a pet you automatically kill the usefulness of all tanky pets even more.It will not provide any improvement to pets and as many players proof, there are rangers that can play and understand the game.

Kind of in between here. What if some pets were more tanky than others. So Bear bow would be pet tanking and taking aggro, but maybe cat pets would barely hold aggro?

Don't play my ranger a ton, but I like the diversity of gameplay in GW2, and ranger isn't like engie turrets or mesmer clones (these two are my mains), a mob will stick to my pet like glue and it is a different experience, not necessarily a lesser experience.

In order to get the most out of your pet you need to be using their F1 skill, swapping them, healing them, merging and un-merging them (soulbeast) and taking into account your relative positioning with the pet. Allowing the pet to just tank while you stand still is not a valid option beyond easiest of content, any profession can face tank at that kind of level regardless of whether they have any kind of pet or summon. I don't see it being an issue, it's just a mechanic like any other profession and can be utilised well or poorly just like any other profession.

@InsaneQR.7412 said:First make them useful before stripping them from the only use they have (or at least the majority of pets have).I understand your concern but i do not agree on it. They should improve the pets utility and shift the dmg to the ranger. Pets should give mostly fields, cleanses, stunbreaks, CC etc.Ranger should have finishers, pet buffing skills, major part of boons and the dmg.Atm the ranger part is what we can agree on mostly and the pet part is what is lacking mostly.WP is right with the statement that if you let your pet tank everything you do not learn the game but if you kill the aggro generation of a pet you automatically kill the usefulness of all tanky pets even more.It will not provide any improvement to pets and as many players proof, there are rangers that can play and understand the game.You know I fully agree with you: pets mechanic can be improved greatly because right now is very outdated.

But the point that pets are able to tank the aggro and the fact they have a 90% damage reduction (the target thingy really doesn’t work most of the times) makes the players not to have any need to learn the class and the game in general.

Right now pve rangers play almost all the content as an afk farmer, a really static gameplay were the pet gets all the heat and the player only needs to hit skills.

Which in the long term makes them prone to play in a very passive way as the ranger is able to skip most of the combat mechanics.A pve ranger only needs to sit with the LB at 2000 units and let the pet tanking do the work for him.

Removing completely the aggro from the pet can be only good:

• Ranger players will have to deal with the game mechanics same as most classes.
• Ranger players will learn to use the class increasing the average quality of player.
• Ranger players will not get into the AFK farming mentality.

For raids and PvP modes there will not be any difference, being the only mode affected the pve open world.

Which in my opinion is only good as that content is designed to be played following a set of minimal rules to be challenging.

@anduriell.6280 said:

@"InsaneQR.7412" said:First make them useful before stripping them from the only use they have (or at least the majority of pets have).I understand your concern but i do not agree on it. They should improve the pets utility and shift the dmg to the ranger. Pets should give mostly fields, cleanses, stunbreaks, CC etc.Ranger should have finishers, pet buffing skills, major part of boons and the dmg.Atm the ranger part is what we can agree on mostly and the pet part is what is lacking mostly.WP is right with the statement that if you let your pet tank everything you do not learn the game but if you kill the aggro generation of a pet you automatically kill the usefulness of all tanky pets even more.It will not provide any improvement to pets and as many players proof, there are rangers that can play and understand the game.You know I fully agree with you: pets mechanic can be improved greatly because right now is very outdated.

• Ranger players will have to deal with the game mechanics same as most classes.
• Ranger players will learn to use the class increasing the average quality of player.
• Ranger players will not get into the AFK farming mentality.

Pets only receive dmg reduction if not directly targeted. If you let tank your pet it will receive normal dmg.The proposal of others contributing to this thread was actually quiet intriguing.Givibg oets different aggro scaling depending on tankyness. Pets with more dmg shouldnt soak dmg , they should deal dmg, so you can choose which is the facetank of those two.But removing the aggro management from ranger is basically killing the class identity. The point of "Player dont learn the game properly" is kind of invalid. Leveling is easy with every profession, as soon as you hit 80 the game will get better in teaching you gamemechanics.If you like pewpew ranger you can play pewpew ranger, you will not be welcome in groups though and you will need to learn the game regardless if you want to be an effective group member.

Making pets more active and useful is the better solution than stripping them from there current utility. Giving them nuiance in aggro management is also a better solution. So every pet gets its niche, than rather kill off all tanky pets in one sweep.

Let's just say that I don't agree at all with OP on this subject.

i have better suggestion lets nerf all hot and pof pets, they are OP compared to starting pets, oh and while we are overhauling pets, lets cut their stats in 2 and to balace that , lets give ranger passive trait - instant teleport to closest wp when targeted by anything

My pet tanks for me? Hmm that's strange, why do I get targeted by nearly every mob I get close to out in HoT or PoF areas then? My pet is garbage at tanking for me.

I think I'm getting the GW2 experience already, thank you very much.

@FOE.2041 said:lets give ranger passive trait - instant teleport to closest wp when targeted by anything

One trait that successfully makes a ranger more annoying than a thief in WvW.

Okay but what would be the point of tanky companions like bears if something like this went through. They're already barely if ever used, something like this would just make them one of the most pointless things to ever use in game.

Honestly though I'm not sure how I feel about this, it would help if I had a better understanding of Woodenpotate stance on rangers.

@DaFishBob.6518 said:My pet tanks for me? Hmm that's strange, why do I get targeted by nearly every mob I get close to out in HoT or PoF areas then? My pet is garbage at tanking for me.

I think I'm getting the GW2 experience already, thank you very much.

@FOE.2041 said:lets give ranger passive trait - instant teleport to closest wp when targeted by anything

Something lost to time/raids is that the base game has aggro mechanics based on dps, proximity, toughness and some specific ai per enemy. So a bear bow that sends a tanky pet into melee while doing poor sustained dps is less likely to pull aggro than if you run right next to an enemy (especially if you have toughness gear).

NOOOOI love to create strategies to solo champions. Its so fucking cool to play with ranger because of this.

Can't agree with this. Having the pet be able to draw some aggro is part of the Ranger experience and can add some very real value in certain cases.