Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst
1
2
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Cuchulainn View Post
    I've had at least 3 people say this to me, it's just not acceptable. I am going to make the Warrior my main class, but I want to melee with him mainly, and do ranged only when it's viable. I'm not going to have my dedicated plate profession using a bow most often, and I should have the option as a ranger to be just as effective without a pet as any other ranger. If a warrior is able to be just as effective as ranger with a bow (still doubt it), then a petless ranger should be just as effective as a ranger with a pet. There are no excuses if other classes that are heavily melee reliant can be effective as ranged too. God forbid a game with so many options tie a profession down to a derptastic pet. I don't like pets, I don't want anything to do with them, and I'm tired of seeing "bow, dagger, green tunic" professions/classes getting tied down to pets.
    Ranger = Pet class. That's the way the profession is designed. You really SHOULD play a ranged warrior if you don't like pets, because without a pet a ranger basically would be a ranged warrior with a different set of abilities. It's perfectly acceptable if a pet class needs to use a pet in order to be at its best.

    OT: I find that odd as well. And although it doesn't really bother me when games do this, it would be nice if they added a quiver later on, if not at launch. The little things matter just as much as the big things.

  2. #22
    Bloodsail Admiral Cuchulainn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    On the Exodar, lecturing Neophytes.
    Posts
    1,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Doozerjun View Post
    Well then you are going to be disappointed as ANet already said that you will be definitely weaker if you try to play a ranger without a pet.
    Which is a big reason why I'm not going to bother with the ranger. It's ridiculous that every other class has a viable ranged option, but one of the classes that is mainly ranged has to rely on a four legged meat shield. It just makes it feel like a class I've played before. I'd hate to bring it up, but I hardly see a difference between WoW's Hunters and the GW2 Ranger. I'm sorry, that's just how it feels to me.

    OT: I'd like to see the quiver stay on the back of the player rather than just mysteriously disappear once combat ends or the player holster(?) his bow. It'd be pretty cool to see an ammo pouch for gun users too.

  3. #23
    Brewmaster Newbryn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Leaving
    Posts
    1,334
    Drake pet for the win always wanted a dragon as a pet,but I can sympathize with Cu I dont feel rangers should need a pet, in wow its perfectly acceptable because I've always seen the pet as a gameplay gimmick to ensure your ranger stays at range, and since you're getting melee options I don't feel it belongs but thats just my opinion I'm kinda torn anyways dragon pet won me over.
    Claymore is Epic again, eat it priscilla fanboys.

  4. #24
    Bloodsail Admiral Cuchulainn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    On the Exodar, lecturing Neophytes.
    Posts
    1,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Newbryn View Post
    Drake pet for the win always wanted a dragon as a pet,but I can sympathize with Cu I dont feel rangers should need a pet, in wow its perfectly acceptable because I've always seen the pet as a gameplay gimmick to ensure your ranger stays at range, and since you're getting melee options I don't feel it belongs but thats just my opinion I'm kinda torn anyways dragon pet won me over.
    I mean, it just doesn't seem fair either. Like you said, if a Ranger can be viable at melee range as much as a Warrior can be viable with a bow, then why is there even a pet? It's stupid. Not only is it stupid, but this pet can revive you! So not only are you doing decent damage with your bow, but your pet is beating the hell out of your enemy too. I say buff bows when you're not using a pet, and don't allow pets to revive players in PvP at all.

    This isn't a Ranger balance thread though, so I'll leave by saying I hope Rangers get some love, and get less generic. They can definitely start good with adding quivers and Civil War era ammo pouches.

  5. #25
    GW2 has shown some fantastic AI for npcs so far, I don't think pets will be an issue on that front. Also, there's some wacky pets like Jellyfish in GW2 so it should feel fresh enough imo.

  6. #26
    Scarab Lord Blznsmri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    4,055
    I sense a lot of bitching in this thread.

    The quiver thing is meh, don't really care and usually quivers are ugly.

    The pet thing... lol... They're not WoW pets. They actually will have decent AI and having them brings a lot of utility. It's not dumb. A ranger without a pet is a scout/ archer, so if you don't want a pet, roll warrior or thief.
    Quote Originally Posted by SW:TOR
    Jokerseven - Kinetic Combat Shadow - Praxeum - Canderous Ordo
    Ce'lia - Combat Sentinel - Praxeum - Canderous Ordo
    Sentinel PVE Basics for the two Specs that matter

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Cuchulainn View Post
    I've had at least 3 people say this to me, it's just not acceptable. I am going to make the Warrior my main class, but I want to melee with him mainly, and do ranged only when it's viable. I'm not going to have my dedicated plate profession using a bow most often, and I should have the option as a ranger to be just as effective without a pet as any other ranger. If a warrior is able to be just as effective as ranger with a bow (still doubt it), then a petless ranger should be just as effective as a ranger with a pet. There are no excuses if other classes that are heavily melee reliant can be effective as ranged too. God forbid a game with so many options tie a profession down to a derptastic pet. I don't like pets, I don't want anything to do with them, and I'm tired of seeing "bow, dagger, green tunic" professions/classes getting tied down to pets.
    Anyone proficient with a bow is considered a good Archer, regardless of what they wear. I don't see how playing other professions as ranged is bad. I mean, Engineer has pretty much all ranged weapons. Yes the Flamethrower can be used up close (I think the Rifle as well), but they don't actually have a physical weapon yet. Will I complain about that? No, there's no need to. There are 7 other professions I can play better as melee I'm betting. I would say just play a Ranger at least in at least 3 PvP rounds (you get all the skills to test out) to get a general feel for that class. If you don't like it, move on to another profession.

  8. #28
    Here's a ranger in some concept art who's depicted with a quiver, although you can't see the quiver itself.


  9. #29
    The Lightbringer Durzlla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Cuchulainn View Post
    I mean, it just doesn't seem fair either. Like you said, if a Ranger can be viable at melee range as much as a Warrior can be viable with a bow, then why is there even a pet? It's stupid. Not only is it stupid, but this pet can revive you! So not only are you doing decent damage with your bow, but your pet is beating the hell out of your enemy too. I say buff bows when you're not using a pet, and don't allow pets to revive players in PvP at all.

    This isn't a Ranger balance thread though, so I'll leave by saying I hope Rangers get some love, and get less generic. They can definitely start good with adding quivers and Civil War era ammo pouches.
    *facepalm* Your logic is so so so bad...

    Saying "Why can't my ranger be good without his pet?" Is like saying "Why can't my elementalist be good without their attunements?" or "Why can't my thief be good without initiative?" or "Why can't my necromancer be good without adrenaline"

    It's their core class mechanic, they are defined by their pet, taking that away from them would break the prof!

    Can they be good melee? Yes, can they be good ranged? Yes. If you want a light armored ranged prof go with a thief using a short bow, and either sword/dagger, or dagger/dagger for close up, or go with shortbow and double pistol for super ranged. Thiefs have traps and preparations like a ranger, only thing their missing is their pet and nature spirits. Quit your bitching.

    ---------- Post added 2011-11-17 at 09:30 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Barrowmore View Post
    Here's a ranger in some concept art who's depicted with a quiver, although you can't see the quiver itself.

    lol is it bad that i imagine my ranger exactly like that picture except with a wolf pet instead of a cat?
    Quote Originally Posted by draykorinee View Post
    Youre in the mmo forums and you find mmos boring, Im heading on over to the twilight forums to add my unecessary and shallow 2 cents.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •