Make pets perma-stowable in combat in WvW only [Simple request after so many years]

[bigo.9037]

3 hours ago, jemdarr.2158 said:

A compromise would be:

If you stow away your pet, you can only get it back while out of combat and you get no boons/traits associated with it, while it is stowed away. No passive boons, no trait that say "when you have a pet you gain x" etc.

Anything else would be, as someone said, "not having to deal with the negative aspects" and cherrypicking.

That’s more than a comprise. You literally LOSE dmg and utility by stowing it away. That’s a compromise enough already. 
 

Some of us, if not most of us, don’t play ranger for the pet. We play it for the hunter/archer class/archetype. We can discuss whether or not ranger thematically should be viable in large scale combat, but if core or druid IS supposed to be viable in large scale, being able to stow pet should be an option.

[Jski.6180]

I love to see this with ele pets where you could still get there effects "there skill use" on the ele it self for a set duration but are not killlable.

[ArchonWing.9480]

On 5/4/2021 at 11:07 PM, gebrechen.5643 said:

But ranger, with soulbeast as an exception, is a class with a pet. You either use it, or you play soulbeast. You have enough options to swap it, stow it, retreat it.

Or if you want to be cool Legolas go Soulbeast or Deadeye.

If you consider pet to be a core aspect of ranger, then all the reason to ensure that it is not broken.

 

The fact is that in practice players choose to not use the pet because it's a liability and pick soulbeast suggets that it isn't working right.

 

What you are missing is that you think people don't want to use pets, which in fact the suggestion-- more control over the pet-- means people want to use it instead of switching to soulbeast to ignore it entirely.

 

Suggestions like "play another class" or "don't use the pet" are just misunderstanding the issue entirely.

Edited May 7, 2021 by ArchonWing.9480

[Some Call Me Tim.2319]

7 minutes ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:

If you consider pet to be a core aspect of ranger, then all the reason to ensure that it is not broken.

 

The fact is that in practice players choose to not use the pet because it's a liability and pick soulbeast suggets that it isn't working right.

 

What you are missing is that you think people don't want to use pets, which in fact the suggestion-- more control over the pet-- means people want to use it instead of switching to soulbeast to ignore it entirely.

 

Suggestions like "play another class" or "don't use the pet" are just misunderstanding the issue entirely.

Actually I understand the situation very well.  I run soulbeast so I can have complete control of the pet.  Merging with the pet (stows it)  AND gives me higher stats to work with.  Why on earth would I want to run a different ranger and just put the pet away like it's useless.  That just doesn't make sense to me.  Also, I very often take the pet out and let it deal with enemy in small groups and especially 1v1 when it calls for it.  Very functional and useful.  I stand by all my comments.

[ArchonWing.9480]

7 minutes ago, Some Call Me Tim.2319 said:

Actually I understand the situation very well.  I run soulbeast so I can have complete control of the pet.  Merging with the pet (stows it)  AND gives me higher stats to work with.  Why on earth would I want to run a different ranger and just put the pet away like it's useless.  That just doesn't make sense to me.  Also, I very often take the pet out and let it deal with enemy in small groups and especially 1v1 when it calls for it.  Very functional and useful.  I stand by all my comments.

And guess what? I play soulbeast too. A lot of people do this already.

 

But why would you be against a QoL change that doesn't hurt you at all?

[Some Call Me Tim.2319]

18 minutes ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:

And guess what? I play soulbeast too. A lot of people do this already.

 

But why would you be against a QoL change that doesn't hurt you at all?

I’m not.  And i’ve stated that in a few of my posts.  I actually support the idea of being able to stow the pet if that’s  what you want.  I’m giving my point of view yes, but as I have stated earlier I do support this request change.  

Edited May 7, 2021 by Some Call Me Tim.2319

[ArchonWing.9480]

1 minute ago, Some Call Me Tim.2319 said:

I’m not.  And i’ve stated that in a few of my posts.  I actually support the idea of being able to stow the pet if that’s  what you want.  I’m giving my point of view yes, but as I have stated earlier I do support this request change.  

Oh. Not really sure what is there to disagree on anymore, lol.