Talk:Pet

Zoo?

Has anyone read anything about the ability to store and switch out animal companions? ~Ao Allusir 03:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope. - 03:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

we might get something soon...though i probably figure how we change animal companions--Icyyy Blue 06:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This video does mention you can have up to three animal companions, a bit past the halfway mark. --208.100.163.103 11:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I assume Ao Allusir meant a feature that lets you store more than just the 3 pets you can take along at one time. Something along the lines of the Zaishen Menagerie in Guild Wars 1. - Infinite - talk 11:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I seem to remember one of the devs saying how they aren't happy with the animal comapnions yet (or completely finished with their AI), so it wouldn't surprise me if they just haven't got around to a storage yet Thering 14:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if you choose to change your animal companion you have to put it down in a sort of mini-game? Kaloce 16:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be sweet if you stored your excess pets at your home instance. So when you go home you can see your pets hanging around the house, and can change out your active 3 from there. --Moto Saxon 20:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I doubt they wouldn't create something for this, the reason they put it in GW1 was so people could have different pets, now that pets actually have skills and different terrains I can't see them not having it. Thank you all for checking though =^.^= ~Ao Allusir 05:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

3 terrestrial?

Main page says 3 terrestrial companions and lists 4. Obviously there is an error, but I haven't really followed pets or the sources, so someone that knows this should update it. For all I know, they could have changed this to 10terr-7aqu-142amp since it was updated last. --Falseprophet 19:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Read the paragraph above the animal list on the page. We know the list isn't accurate because we don't know how the different animals are grouped into types. We'd fix it if we had the information, but we simply don't have it. So until we have more we've just listed the different animals we know can be pets along with those we know are types. We can't do much better at the moment. -- aspectacle  21:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Overusing "animal companion"

I was going to put this over on Template talk:Animal companion nav, but I figured it'll get more attention here and, more importantly, this is more than just the navbox. Firstly, on the template itself - it is placed on every single "kind" of pet animal companion and every single NPC of that "kind." Effectively, I feel that the navbar is being overused to an extent it was placed on River Drake which isn't likely to be charmable (as only the young versions of NPCs are, and we have River Drake Hatchling). IMO, I think it should only be placed on the "juvenile" versions of potential animal companions.
Onto the use of the term animal companion itself; every single "family" (Anet-used term for gw1:creature type which is non-existent on this wiki due to lack of knowledge or if it's even the same term used (likely imo)) on the nav is said "this is an animal companion" when we have explicit information that there are creatures of these types which are not charmable - the adult versions, specifically meaning, and I feel that it is inaccurately documenting. I have already altered River Drake and Drake and would of continued but felt it wise to allow folks to voice their opinions on the matter. If no objections, I will alter all current "animal companion" articles to mirror those - effectively, I shall remove the navbox from adult versions of NPCs, add them to the juvenile versions (including the hatchling), and alter the creature type articles to be more accurate in showing that not all are charmable, unlike in GW1. Konig/talk 01:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this for a while, but I've always felt that there isn't enough information yet to make a good decision here - anything you do is tidying at best. The most basic and important information for the decision - the pet types and the nature of the creatures within that type - is very limited. We have not seen a ranger tame a pet in game. We've not seen a juvenile creature in game but those given to the ranger at character creation.

What you've done to the pages is okay, but I don't think it fixes the fundamental problems of the pet information we've got so far. Pets in gw2 can also be monsters in the world and both aspects of the creature have information we want to record about them. The pet type might mean that pets called bears or drakes are not necessarily actually be bears or drakes - may be they are only 'like' them as we've been told of the bear type.

At the moment I think a separate page like "drake (pet type)" or a clear header on the page with the pet information (not a note) listing the known ranger pets of the type (some drakes might not have a charmable version, list pets of the type which are not "actual" drakes), the generic skills they have, the health or damage mods the pets get and how they change as the player levels.

Please don't put the animal companion nav on the hatchling pages. We have no evidence they're the charmable, juvenile version of the pets. -- aspectacle  04:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering

Under what category is the 'bunny' going to be? 83.134.151.71 00:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If you mean the Rabbit, that's not a pet/animal companion. That's an environmental weapon. ~~ Kiomadoushi 00:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If I'm correct, that's only an environmental weapon in a dynamic event. Konig/talk 00:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's what I'm wondering

When you dive into the water, how do you switch from terrestrial to aquatic? Does your terrestial pet just run off and disappear, and the aquatic one just shows up, or is there... some kind of... "pokeball system"?--Gerroh 18:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe you need to call your underwater pet in the water (because it doesn't just swap automatically), but the demo at the upcoming cons should give some information and confirmation regarding that claim. - Infinite - talk 20:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll try and see if I can keep an eye on that. The problem is that so far everyone only had a single pet, so nobody could have done that yet. zeeZ (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Animal Companion?

What a lame contrivance. They're pets. No one calls their pets "animal companions". Minions, spirits and turrets are not pets, the first two are magical contrivances and the latter are machines. They are in no sense of the word pets. Ramei Arashi 00:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to this page to continue discussion on this topic. --Moto Saxon 00:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

New companion spotted.

Look at this video from pax. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1DtpjfXOeM. The charr ranger is traveling along with a "Juvenile Flamingo". Did we just encounter a new pet category? CaiusTheBig 14:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, images' quality isn' t that good, but here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1osdLzZ8C8 i spotted what seems to be a "Juvenile Alpine Wolf". CaiusTheBig 14:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Good finds, I just added them to (i think?) the correct groupings. and btw, Asura with a pink flamingo sounds hilarious. --Moto Saxon 14:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Asuran rangers always give orders to their pet while pointing upwards.... hopefully they wont make "scaled" pet versions for smaller races. :) CaiusTheBig 14:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It's already known this doesn't happen. --The Holy Dragons 14:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Types

Seriously, alpha wolf? You put that there, when there was a wolf category right near it as well. But besides that, It's probably dog and wolf grouped together, moa and flamingo in a bird group, maybe with raven in that as well, and maybe devourer and spider together in an insectoid group. Of course most of that is speculation other than alpha wolves being wolves. 96.245.177.118 15:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"Of course all of that is speculation other than alpha wolves being wolves." fixed Venom20 15:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Well really basically naming any groups at all is speculation. 96.245.177.118 16:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

True. We' re not even sure lizard and drake wont share the same group. CaiusTheBig 17:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it is silly to come to this page and not be able to find a list of all existing animal companions. At this point, we don't know what the "type" groupings are, but we do know what pets exist. Can we just list the pets individually under Amphibious, Auquatic or Terestial with a note saying they will be grouped, but groupings are currently unknown? --Moto Saxon 17:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Assuming we currently know all types of groups, and all groups are listed, then there are only two additional groups. Ravens and moas are not very similar outside being birds; same goes for devourer and spider in that they're arachnids. Dogs and wolves are likely the same group (they'll use the same base model, more than likely) and I bet lizards and drakes will as well (again, same base model). I'm betting that the groups are based on the model - as is my reasonings for lizards/drakes and dogs/wolves, which means devourers are not the same as spiders.

This said, however, Flamingo and Moa probably are the same group - I can't see there being that many flamingos to merit their own group (dog is arguable based on number of types between the "wolf" names and "dog" 'names'). So in the end I think that we're missing one group and that we've listed 3 twice. But as Venom20 said, all of this is speculation (which even is created from assumptions). Konig/talk 17:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

So if all groupings are still speculation, can we get rid of them and just have a list of known pets with a note that says there will be groupings, but details are still unknown? --Moto Saxon 17:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The fourth character is an i (dot has drop shadow in vid), so Alpine it is. Adrian R 19:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Skills!

It's been a while since I last read up on our pets but the last I knew, we could choose what skills our pet's used from a list of eight skills thet became unlock by evolving.

So, now that pets no longer evolve and each family now has three basic skills defined by the family plus one skill unique to each species, does that mean that we will no longer be able to choose any of the skills our pets use? Titan Crow 22:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be correct. They are predetermined by family and species. Venom20 01:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, Now that really is a shame! Titan Crow 20:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

current list too complex

Currently it is a pain to try and add a new pet and the family groups are not even confirmed as being correct. I'm fine with keeping the family groups for now, but can we just scrap this intense diagram and have a running list? With beta's here we will be adding more pets, let's make that easy. We can build a new diagram once we have sufficient info. --Moto Saxon 15:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Video showing available pets in press beta.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXM_ZsNwKWg Arshay Duskbrow 02:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Updated the table to reflect this... MASSIVE pita to handle the formatting for this thing. It may need re-doing when someone feels up to it. -- Sirius (talk) 11:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

On another note, would it make sense to class a murrelow as a bear (since that's what the article suggests) and a tapir as a pig? I'm pretty sure the latter isn't biologically accurate - IIRC tapirs are perissodactyls, pigs are artiodactyls - but perhaps nobody cares about those details :) -- Sirius (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Might be better to wait for release to get down to those details, although I can see Tapirs being in the "pig" group, they are similar enough. I thought Murrelows were supposed to be a kind of rodent, though... Arshay Duskbrow 07:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, also...you've classed several pets in "terrestrial" that are known to be amphibious, such as canines... Arshay Duskbrow 19:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, per the video, they aren't. -- Sirius (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Other notes: murrelows were supposedly a kind of "rat-bear", though due to this they don't quite look like either! I'm not sure why ArenaNet decided to make canines terrestrial only, since they're no less able to swim than cats are (curiously the Snow Lynx is an exception though; it can't swim either, apparently). But I guess that's up to them. It looks not-too-unlikely that they still have some tweaking to do anyway; I noted that the portrait image of one of the cats (the stalker I think) was outright wrong - it had a drake portrait instead. If that's unfinished, it's possible it's not the only thing. -- Sirius (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Pretty clearly it's just unfinished. Dogs/wolves will obviously be amphibious if cats are. Not a big problem at the moment, though. Arshay Duskbrow 05:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This video is in 1080p. Maybe someone with decent editing skills could make screenshots of all the animal companions shown and integrate them into the respective pages? Some of them are still missing, like the Armorfish. Gnarf 16:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Amphibious pets.

I have been looking at the list of amphibious pets as it's been growing and have been thinking since the begining that half the pets on it just really shouldn't be there. In all fairness, I don't think that any of the Canines or Felines really class as amphibious as they can only swim along the surface of the water and not under it (for more than a few seconds at least). The breathing apparatus was an excellant way of explaining the underwater mode for the player's characters but it's quite hard to imagine our pets swimming around underwater with a diving mask. To be honest, I think that the only mammals that I reckon could possibly be classed as amphibious are the bears, and thats pushing it as only the Polar Bear has any real claim to it really.

Im not saying any of this because Im doing the whole "It's not like in Real Life" thing but because I think that so far, the game looks amazing and they have done an excellant jod of explaining and justifying everything (given that it's set in a fantasy reality) but I just feel that the presant amphibious pet list really drops the bar quite a bit. Like I said, I know it's just a game but where I find the breathing apparatus thing compleatly believable, I just can't get over my pet dog spending half an hour with me swimming around the ocean floor, lol. You see what Im getting at? Titan Crow 10:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Anet's already stated that they were going for convenience over realism by doing this. Obviously, having as many pets as possible in the "amphibious" group gives you the most freedom of choice when picking out what pets to slot. So don't sweat the details too much. Arshay Duskbrow 03:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(new question on this subject)- On this note, will there be a "Frog" tree of animals available because that's what im looking forward the most to be avaliable.

__________________________________________My Take On Aquatic Canines__________________________________________

This topic has been well worked over I'm sure, but it is something I have to get off my chest. I will be HUGELY disappointed if the canines are terrestrial pets, and not for the reasons I've heard many people express. I understand this is a fantasy game, and so the realism of the amphibious cat vs dog argument doesn't bother me much. They could make winged pig companions and I'd still happily main ranger. But for those of you concerned in terms of gameplay or realism, pet skills are often altered underwater, and there are many swimming breeds of dogs. The mechanics of the dog can be changed, and will not break game immersion.

But as it is now, the dog fails to capture the essential feel of what makes a dog a dog.

The dog already has the reputation of being "man's best friend," and reflects this by being a starter pet choice for most races. I want it to reflect this reputation by being a faithful, inseparable companion, accompanying my ranger up to the highest mountains and down to the deepest, darkest pools, my unwavering companion through thick and thin. Guild Wars 2 works so hard to create an immersive feel and mood in all aspects of their game. Races, environments, and even towns tell the player a story. The story I get from the dog is one of constant companionship and unconditional loyalty, and I'd like the game to reflect this nature by allowing our dogs to accompany us ANYWHERE.

That and I was totally going to make a "blind" ranger and have a seeing eye dog. Seeing eye jellyfish just doesn't cut it for me. >___>

Why are Hyena's classed as "canines"?

Hyenas are hyaenids, and are actually more closely related to felids than they are to canids, but their closest cousins are herpestids-- meaning mongooses, meerkats, and such. If ArenaNet seriously classed them under canids, then they've made a rather large taxonomic error. Edit: Forgot to sign, sorry. Ivokk 18:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice catch. Put new discussion page sections at the bottom of the page, though, not at the top, to keep discussions in chronological order. Lysander 19:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Same thing goes for the Tapir (whose family is Tapiridae); whereas, the boar, pig and warthog are all members of the Suidae family. That being said, we cannot expect anet to create a completely different family for "closely-related" families, if it is only for a single creature. After all, members of the same family share 3 skills and therefore using this scheme it would be silly to have a one-creature family. Nevertheless, I suspect that we will see a few more "family squeezes" as more animal companions are released. Venom20 22:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

But like I said, Hyenas are more closely related to cats than they are to dogs. They're feliforms. Ivokk 20:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That's actually a bit misstated. They're phylogenetically close to felines, but behaviorally and morphologically similar to canines. They hunt by chasing (like canines, instead of prowling and pouncing), they kill using teeth (like canines, instead of claws), and their paws are calloused and their claws are non-retractable (like canines, instead of soft paws and retractable claws). In ways, they're a lot like a half-feline wolf, and were even previously more dog-like than now. That's not a rather large error, especially relating to taxonomy (as it simply uses the group name canines, as not all canines are dogs); that's a smart way to define animal characteristics relating to hunting patterns and a history of what they are (they DO have canine characteristics, and fit in as such in the animal world). They're more dissimilar from canines and similar to felines NOW, but they have developed over time in the same manner as canines, not felines. That's what makes them hyenas after all. To argue so that they should be grouped closer to felines wouldn't do them any justice. ~~ Kiomadoushi 06:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

One other thing; we don't know how ANet is categorizing them so far, or at least I haven't heard of any official announcement. The groups shown here are most likely just guessing, though I suspect there's a good chance most are accurate. If they are true to the game, it's also important to note that taxonomic correctness probably isn't the highest priority here. If it acts like a dog or a bear or a pig in-game, they might as well class it as one - especially if the game doesn't actually tell us what "family" the creature is. As far as I've seen so far, it doesn't seem to? Besides, it's a fantasy game - even if some of the creatures are real, others are not, and ... that leaves a lot of room for hand-waving inaccuracies in the real ones - maybe their Tyrian counterparts really are slightly different? -- Sirius (talk) 08:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like devourers are aquatic

Video confirmation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXM_ZsNwKWg&feature=BFa&list=UUHCZROl73PAnJ7giQVHNkKg&lf=plcp He starts with the aquatic pets at 2:07. He pulls out all three devourers while underwater, and they all have swimming animations. I'm going to fix the wiki now. Ivokk 01:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Ooops, nvm... wrong page. I looked at the individual devourer pages and they all list them as terrestrial, so I kind of assumed this was the case here too. My bad, I'll just fix the other pages. Ivokk 01:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

GW1 felines in GW2?

I was just playing GW1 and thinking of getting a new pet when it occurred to me that like half the the GW1 felines havn't been mentioned at all yet (or at least, not that I've seen). I'd love to know if any of them will be making a come back for GW2. The four that I noticed were:

• Lion
• Lioness
• Lynx
• Tiger

The two I most want to see are the Lion and Lioness. Titan Crow 11:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

"A (likely non-final) list of animal companions is listed", is what can be read on the article. That said, snow lynx is on that list so it wouldn't surprise me if lynx itself would be on there in the future as well. - Infinite - talk 11:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There seems no reason GW2 won't be like GW1 in that respect; even if something doesn't make the initial list, it might show up later on. And that's if they weren't just hiding incomplete pets in that video in the first place. -- Sirius (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The lion and lioness are native to Elona and the tiger is native to Cantha, so it seems like a logical choice not to include them in GW2 initially. --Elemonk Nibo 10:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Now thats exactly why I thought they weren't in the game yet, because they're not native to Tyria. I'd still love to see them though. They could have moved into Tyria because they have been dissplaced from their old homes by the Dragons and whatever else has been happening in their home continents. Titan Crow 11:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

An arguably gormless decision regarding classification of the species

Firstly I acknowledge that I am slightly biased as a dog lover, but I would also reassure you that I like cats too. It seems absurd that all the canine pets are all terrestrial despite the fact that all of the canines listed are capable of swimming at least a nautical mile without any difficulty. In fact, dogs are even bred for fishing and swimming in waters where half the species on the amphibious list couldn't survive. The alpine wolf has an extremely similar muscle complex to the golden retriever ( if anything the wolf is more muscly) and yet despite the fact these dogs are bred to swim far out into water to retrieve fish and ducks that not even boat faring humans can reach, Arena Net continues to insist that none of their canines are capable of swimming. Meanwhile they suggest that feline animals are happy to jump into the water (despite the steriotype that all felines hate water) and succeed where a canine won't. I understand this is only a steriotype despite but I'd imagine that 99% of snow leapards have never seen the sea or any other large body of water in their lives, and thus their amphibious merit is deeply ambigious. Similarly, traditional desert faring scorpions ( changed slightly in the form of devourers) can now apparently take to the water. I understand the crustaceans such as crabs and lobsters could be described as aquatic, but a scorpion swimming long distance underwater is a long stretch of the imagination.

Aside from the placement of devourers and felines in the aquatic list when the naturally aquatic canine group is denoted "terrestrial," I am generally happy with the list, and commented not to bash ANET but to express my dissapointment that slots I would have loved to fill with dogs must now be replaced with the slightly less cool bears, drakes and jellyfish. Sorry if I ranted a bit Jumblehunter 21:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

all felines hate water? i dont think so ..... whilst we're at it flying sharks? Getefix 21:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I was more arguing that felines are steriotypically presented as not liking water. On the otherhand it emerges that snow leapards can't even swim, let alone dive underwater Jumblehunter 09:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Pet/Monster Split?

I had updated River Drake with another drop then realized that the page is actually for the animal companion. Should it be left like that or do we want to split it so that there is an animal companion version and an mob version? It doesn't look like there is any splits for other animal companions atm. 19:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Most likely the animal companion pages will be split to monster and juvenile pages. The charmable pets (to the best of our knowledge) are mostly juvenile so the charmable pets may have a suffix added to them for that reason. Of course it's also possible that hatchlings are charmable which would screw that up as well. Currently it was agreed upon to wait until further investigation can be done, so that all the animal companion pages can follow the same titling method (and categorization method). Venom20 19:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Locations Found?

Anyone figuring out where in the world are the pets? Where to charm them or if you can unlock them by other means. --216.252.27.247 12:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Windth

Redirect family articles to here

I've proposed that we redirect to this article these pages:

• [[Terrestrial animal companion]]
• [[Amphibious animal companion]]
• [[Aquatic animal companion]]

Those specialized pages don't add any meaningful additional content. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 15:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

No complaints here. :) --Xu Davella 15:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need redirects - mostly I just don't see anyone searching for a term that complex and niche. —Dr Ishmael 20:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

rewrite needed

This article and ranger both need a rewrite in order to update the terminology "animal companion" → "pet". I'm not terribly good at overhauling large sections of prose. —Dr Ishmael 20:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

on it. -- aspectacle  21:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Methinks the list of juvenile locations is going to get too long and should either get its own page, or be deleted in favour of the information being better situated on the individual species pages. -- aspectacle  23:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

...And you're working on the ranger page next, right? :P

I am copying the location info to the species pages as I update them, so we could remove this table once I'm done. {{Pet infobox}} has parameters for up to 5 locations, so I've been putting the info there, but I have a hunch that most of these animals will have a lot more than 5 locations and it probably shouldn't be in the infobox. —Dr Ishmael 23:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm in favor of making a separate page, much like Charmable animal from GWW. Seeing as the page has had almost 700,000 hits, I'm guessing players actually used it. --Thervold 23:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh man - the ranger article. Maybe laters... I need to spend time with my family. >_>; Sounds like the list is under control - good to know. -- aspectacle  00:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Pet and non-pet overlap

How are we going to handle pet articles going forward? So far, I've only seen that "<animal name>" is dedicated to the pet version, but I ran into a problem with Cave Spider because it already existed as a standard NPC article, and I had to add the pet data because the "Canyon Spider" pet got renamed. I'm almost certain that there are non-pet versions of all the other animals, so this will not remain an isolated case.

One thing we could do is a split: keep "<animal name>" as the standard NPC article, and move the pet data to "Juvenile <animal name>" since only the juvenile versions are charmable. This has the benefit of clearly delineating the pet and non-pet versions, with the drawback that people looking for pet info will probably not realize that "Juvenile" is part of the name and go to "<animal name>" first.

Another option is to merge {{Pet infobox}} (what little there is after I pruned it today, really just auto-cats on "pet family") into {{NPC infobox}} and decide how to best present both non-pet and pet data in the same article. This makes it easier on people searching for pet info, but could make the article a lot denser.

Discuss. —Dr Ishmael 02:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Bah, NOW I notice that this was brought up above. Oh well. —Dr Ishmael 02:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Another option is to have separate pages with either the NPC or pet page with a disambiguation term. I'm not a huge fan of the juvenile prefix option, because I'd like the page to be also about the pet when tamed (ie its skills) and using juvenile doesn't imply that to me. The information about the pet (the skills and the locations of juveniles) is substantial and interesting enough to have its own article - though I can be convinced otherwise. The NPCs animals will probably have enough locations and variants to make a messy page just by themselves. -- aspectacle  03:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

They remain "Juvenile <animal>" even after being tamed, so that would be correct in terms of matching the in-game creature's name. I dislike disambiguation suffixes and take any chance I can get to avoid them, though I can be convinced otherwise. ;) —Dr Ishmael 03:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

If they keep the Juvenile throughout then that would be preferable sure. (I shouldn't get involved with discussions about things I haven't spent game time on. :P) I guess for me it comes down to just how ugly the merged page would be? I'm inclined to the separate pages. -- aspectacle  03:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and move/split the pet pages to include "Juvenile" in the name. Probably won't have time tonight, but I'll definitely get to it tomorrow. —Dr Ishmael 01:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Something I'm confused about - why were the images renamed to "Juvenile" in the name when the models are exactly the same (for most cases at least) and the non-pet is more common? Also, outright moving rather confuses the situation since most information on the pages were for the non-pet versions rather than the pets. Konig/talk 17:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Which pages have more non-pet info than pet info? The only one I saw like that was Cave Spider, which I split instead of moving. Some of them have drop info, yes (which may still apply to the juvenile version, unless you can't damage them?), but otherwise I didn't notice any info that did not pertain specifically to the juvenile version. —Dr Ishmael 17:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Looked through some I was pretty damn certain had levels and such, but I guess I was mistaken? Either way, I don't think the images should have been renamed at least, and I hope that those redirects will be returned to proper pages (btw, Juvenile River Drakes only use lightning attacks, the non-pet versions use fire, which is what the image shows as well). Konig/talk 18:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, moving the images was a bit hasty - I didn't consider that at all. As for "restoring" the non-pet pages, what would I put there besides a nearly-empty infobox? Do we know that every pet has a non-pet version? (probably not the HoM ones) I'd rather leave those empty and let people fill them in as the creatures are (re-)discovered. Maybe I should delete the redirects? —Dr Ishmael 18:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Naming pets?

How do I name a pet in GW2? This should go on the wiki page. - Brian Kendig 17:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It is, under Pet Management. "To rename a pet, click on the quill icon to the left of the pet name." 96.33.173.168 01:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me like the pet names reset every time I reload the game? Anyone else?

Pet Stats

On a website I was linked to from [1] (the GW2 Ranger one), there was a chart with pet stats. The website seems to be down, at least for now. I am wondering if we should set something up like that so if someone was to come to gw2 wiki searching for a pet with say high toughness, they could use the chart to narrow down their options. How exactly to find the pet stats I don't know, I also do not know how accurate the stats were. --I Made Bows 20:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I too look at the pet families chart and think that there is plenty of room to add 4 columns of numbers so people can compare family stats easily. Does anyone disagree ? Keenedge (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Limited Pet Names

loving the pet system as it is currently, after i gained more than 4 pets i decided i would start to name them all. what i noticed was though sometimes their names reset. sometimes when i switched out a pet by management, sometimes when i named all other pets. i have not figured out what makes pet names reset but i know the pets you have equipped keep their names while they are with you.

From my experience, it seems that switching a pet out from your active slots to the "pen" causes the replacement to keep the name you had before. So, if I had a Jungle Stalker named "Mr. Fluffykins" and replaced it with a Cave Spider, it would also be named "Mr. Fluffykins". Bringing out the Jungle Stalker in the other slot wouldn't give it the Fluffykins name back, but simply apply the name of the other slot's animal. So the name is attached to the slot rather than the particular animal.

That's been my experience, anyway. It may have been different for you. Regardless, it's not quite ideal. I'd love to be able to just give every pet their own name, and it stick with that particular animal unless I choose to rename it. 98.198.251.165 19:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Miniatures (or Mini-Pets)

Added a short section devoted to Miniatures. I feel including some info in Pet is justified because I assume many players will discover that non-ranger professions can own pets but might not know that these pets are called Miniatures. --Protozork 16:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I see User:Dr ishmael redacted the section recommending, "add otheruses instead". I have done so. --Protozork 19:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

{{Otheruses}} is a disambiguation template that goes at the top of the page to direct people to similarly-named articles. This page is not about minipets, so there should not be any information about minipets on this page. —Dr Ishmael 05:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

How many can be charmed?

I am an Sylvari Ranger who started the game with one pet, then went to the Hall of Monuments and charmed a Black Moa, if I charm another pet, which pet gets replaced? Or do I now have 3 charmed pets? Varuuth 14:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You can charm all 44 pets. Open your pet management window by clicking on the pet's portrait or pressing K and you can pick which 4 (2 on land and 2 underwater) you currently have equipped. —Dr Ishmael 15:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

wait .. there are underwater pets? cool! :-) and thanks for the reply :-) Varuuth 16:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Pet Locations all together on one page.

I think it would be a good idea to have all the pet locations together on one page so that a player trying to collect them all does not have to hunt through every location page to find the information. It doesn't have to be THIS page, perhaps a new page ie Pet/locations or something. I think this would be a good addition to the wiki. (IF such a page already exists then it is not easy to find...) Bluestone 21:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

A list of all locations for all pets would be extremely long and not terribly useful. How about just listing the easiest location for each pet instead? I mean, why would you bother going all the way to Mount Maelstrom to charm a Juvenile Pink Moa when you can find them in Rata Sum? —Dr Ishmael 21:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That would certainly meet the needs of rangers perfectly fine, I didn't mean to imply all locations for all pets, just a location per pet works. There may be limited cases where there is no "easy" option and something would need to be sorted there, like listing the two or three easiest locations, or someone testing them and making a judgement call based on the amount of resistance in the actual area in-game (NPC enemies, terrain obstructions etc). I am happy to compile the page/list myself from the pet and/or locations pages. Is there a specific pagename that would fit the naming conventions of the wiki? My preference is suggesting Pet/Locations. Bluestone 21:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I took my ranger on a safari a couple weeks ago to get all the pets, so I'm already familiar with the locations. I could have the table compiled in less than an hour. —Dr Ishmael 21:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) What about a world map, or collection of zone maps with each pet location shown? Is something like the interactive maps on GW1W possible here? That could possibly make it easier for people to add their findings, rather than have one person do a lot of work one specific way to keep it consistent. Manifold 22:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I was also thinking a map (or maps) would be helpful, either a mini-map segment for each pet or grouping pets by location on the page and having them marked/numbered on a map of that zone. This can be done using Dr Ish's suggestion of easiest places to catch them too (using level as the primary scale I imagine, with cities being considered the easiest places to gather pets). I think I read somewhere that interactive map isn't doable on this wiki atm but is a requested function (or however it would work). Bluestone 22:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That's something we can do with Semantic Maps, whenever Anet's web team is done dealing with billing issues and can get back to work on the wiki upgrade. >.> In the meantime, there are a number of other fansites doing interactive maps like this. —Dr Ishmael 22:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, basic page is done. Debate on "easiest" location can begin. :) —Dr Ishmael 23:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Pig > Boar?

I just wonder why the porcine pets are listed as the Boar family rather than the Pig family? Is this a term from ArenaNet, or just what a wiki editor went with? If it's the first, okay. If it's the second, I'd like to propose the change to Pig family. Jauranna 21:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Pet list at the bottom of every pet page is screwed up

At the bottom of every page dedicated to ranger pets, there's a list of what they can tame but every link goes to the non-tamable article. Please fix this, I'm not sure where to start. As an example, clicking on armor fish goes to the armor fish stub, not to the well-filled Juvenile Armor Fish article.--T-Lo 21:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

by location

anyone against adding a by location section to this page i think having it all in one place would be the most useful on this page.- Zesbeer 21:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Some updated info on Ranger Pets in PvE

Shark and Armor Fish are not the same Family

Sharks have a completely different set of stats and skills than Armor Fish. IMO, each is currently the only member of its family (12 total families.)

The information below is no longer accurate since the June 25th 2013 Ranger nerfs. According to some tests I made, it seems the mob A.I. has been modified and no pet can hold aggro any more for any appreciable length of time. This, together with the decrease in damage they have suffered, considerably reduces the ranger pet's usefulness. --Alad (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Aggro Management in PvE with Ranger Pets (Tanking pets)

• Drakes, Canines, Devourers, Bears, Boars and Armor Fish, unlike other pets, take and hold the enemy NPC's aggro, especially in lower and middle level areas, with most types of enemies. (I'll call these "Tanking Pets").
• Moas, Bears, Boars, Felines, Spiders, Birds, Jellyfish and Sharks cannot take aggro.

When your pet is a Drake, for example, the average enemy (NPC AI) prefers to hit the Drake, even if you take away 50% of its health before the Drake has a chance to hit it and even if you're standing right next to it. When your pet is one of the other types, the enemy prefers to hit you, even if only the pet is damaging it and you are doing 0 damage to it. This can be an important aspect of choosing your pet, and is easy to test (I tested vs level 4, 10, 30, 50 and 80):

• Equip one pet of each type listed above.
• Start with the one that doesn't take aggro. Make it attack a mob and don't attack the mob yourself at all. Make sure you stand close enough for the mob to notice you (don't stand a mile away).
• The mob comes for you and stays on you while your pet keeps damaging it. Wait until you're convinced the mob will not turn to your pet (but don't wait until its health is very low because it will probably die too soon).
• Now switch to the other type of pet and watch as the mob turns to fight them after a couple of seconds.

Some high level enemies (most Risen, for example) will stay on you even after you switch to a tanking pet in the above test. Also, in too low level areas the mobs can die too quickly if you're very high level (no time to switch pets). For these two cases simply start the fight with one type of pet, then start another fight with the other type of pet. You'll notice that with the "Taking type" of pet, the mob will actually start by fighting the pet, even for a few sec in the case of high level mobs. With the other type of pet the mob will always go after you, ignoring the pet.

The information currently in the Aggro page may also need to include these differences between the pets. --Alad 08:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

good finds and subjective information that leaves players to decide that non tanking pets are best in dungeons, and also general use if toughness and/or vit are high. next step is to figure out agro of certain mobs as you hinted at via risen. 67.233.98.18 20:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I updated the page with the above info (the pertinent part in any case). --Alad 22:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Update: After a user added Bears to the aggro pets, I went and did a quick re-test. It seems that Ursines (bears) have now indeed changed their behavior, together with Porcines (boars and pigs), who are now both aggro/tanking pets. --Alad (talk) 06:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Those "tanking pets", while not an inaccurate term in itself, can only hold aggro because they have high vitality and toughness which are key factors when calculating aggro. They don't have any additional code to force enemies attack them; it's simply a sum of proximity, armor, health and damage dealt by the target to the mob. For example, a max level devourer has almost 3k toughness and 2k vitality with no investment in Beast Mastery, which is much more than its master, unless they heavily spec into toughness and vitality, and thus the "tank pet" can and will hold aggro of most enemies easily. Mediggo (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are wrong. Moas and Felines and others have high vitality but cannot get the enemy's aggro. Canines have low vitality but the mobs hit them, not you. Boars and Bears have low toughness but they keep the aggro from you. Have you done some tests?

Otherwise, the recent sweeping changes you made to this article have removed and obscured some useful information. The ranger class is designed to fight with have a pet, because it's designed to be dependent on the pet for both damage and defense. The changes you made are good at times, but some need to be reverted. Please review your changes and discuss them here. --Alad (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That's the impact of toughness and vitality combined. It also depends what kind of build you're running on your ranger. You can ask pretty much anyone who has done high level dungeons a bit more how much of an impact toughness and vitality have on aggro. So unless there's a source for these "tanking pets" being provided with additional programming to make them draw attention of enemies besides standard aggro procedure, I suggest we stick with what we know instead of making hasty conclusions. Mediggo (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

My source is a couple of hours of testing that you can verify quite easily using the procedure outlined above. How many things are detailed in this wiki that people have discovered and are declared or described nowhere officially? What is your source of how the combination of toughness/vitality affects aggro, or the way monster AI works, or aggro works? Have you written some of that code? You sound very authoritative, in many ways. I suggest you take your pets and do some testing; on normal monsters, as I described above and on the page. --Alad (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Against PvP sparring targets, while in full toughness and vitality build, my ranger can hold aggro of the sparring NPC just as well as my pet. Proximity becomes a deciding factor; a retreating devourer, which has 2,7k armor and 20k health, will lose aggro rapidly, allowing my ranger (25k health and 2,9k armor and thus a more valuable target) to hold off the enemy. However, while using the other pet, a drake with 2k armor and 30k health who stays mostly in melee and deals more damage overall can hold the aggro to much greater extent. As I said earlier, the effects of armor, health, damage over time and proximity to target are well-known key factors when deciding aggro. As far as research and player knowledge goes, GW2 aggro system is based on those factors. None of the pet families are known to have any additional aggro generation mechanics. Mediggo (talk) 06:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

And if general player acknowledgement is not enough a source for you, there are a couple of references to developer interviews in article about aggro, which details quite nicely how the aggro system in GW2 works. Earlier builds greatly emphasized importance of proximity, which is the top deciding factor in lower levels; in higher levels, toughness and vitality, which can be built to great amounts, play a much larger role. Mediggo (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Wait, is that interview from 2011?--Relyk ~ talk < 07:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, but it's still valid because that's how aggro works most of time. Much of the article on aggro is still up to date as well, though I don't think that equipping a shield provides any additional threat beside its bonus to defense and armor. I wish people who have a chance for interviewing developers would ask about game mechanics like that so we had more official sources to cite. Mediggo (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see "general player acknowledgement" here, just you claiming I'm wrong without trying to prove it. What the devs said a year before the game release and two years ago already (much has changed since release) doesn't count as much as testing. They said many things that have been changed. Do those tests mentioned above on normal mobs and give us your results. Stand in melee range with melee mobs, together with your pet, and see who the mobs attack. It's extremely simple. Hard facts. If you get different results than mine, we can start to think about the differences in our rangers' vitality and toughness to see if that can explain it. I also invite anyone interested to do those tests as well. --Alad (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot of general player acknowledgement about aggro working mostly based on armor, health, damage, and distance: These threads all echo this. Manifold 15:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Any further testing would be redundant because the results won't be any different. Testing this by "standing still and not attacking" method would also be extremely useless because that does not compare to a real combat situation in any way. The pets you define as "tanking pets", which you claim to have some kind of additional aggro generation compared to other pets, all possess high toughness, vitality, or a combination of both, which under normal circumstances causes the pet to generate plenty of aggro. Their close proximity to enemies combined with high survivability practically guarantees that these pets will draw attention of any nearby enemies unless they are all being seriously damaged by other nearby foes (can happen with Barrage in combination with Sharpening Stone). Mediggo (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

So you agree with me. Kindly put back the paragraph to the way I had phrased it; i.e. those pets will keep the normal mob's aggro on them, while the other pets will not be able to attract aggro at all. This distinction, beyond what you wrote, is important. Thank you. --Alad (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Only the results and conclusion are the same. Aggro system depends on how much damage creatures have dealt, how much survivability they possess, and how close they are to the aggroed target, while you claim that certain pets automatically generate superb amount of additional threat (they do generate large amounts of threat but only because of their close proximity, high armor, health or both) while also assuming that other pets cannot generate threat at all. That is completely false. Any ranger can quickly disprove that by simply equipping a "non-tank" pet and ordering them to attack enemies. These pets only don't generate as much threat as average ranger because the ranger is normally the source of most damage to the mobs and the "non-tank" pets don't possess as high survivability attributes as the ranger, which under normal circumstances causes the enemies to prioritize the ranger as primary target instead of their "non-tank" pet. If the pet is ranged as well, it will generate significantly less threat to enemies because of being much farther away, but it doesn't mean they don't generate any threat at all. Mediggo (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a shame you don't provide hard facts. Theory is one thing, numbers are another. I decided to go ahead and do further testing. There seems to be a threshold for the Ranger's Toughness, beyond which the mobs will start attacking the ranger rather than the pet. The threshold depends on the pet's toughness, and seems to also depend on the level difference between the player and the mob. This is easier seen with pets having low toughness, especially when using the pets with 1374 Toughness. I.e. the normal mob's A.I. only attacks the ranger if it has much higher toughness than the pet.

Pet Toughness:

1374 = Birds, Felines, Moas, Spiders, Jellyfish, Shark

2061 = Canines, Bears, Drakes, Porcines

2748 = Devourers, Armor Fish

The tests were done in Frostgorge Sound at effective level 80 against level 79 and level 80 mobs, using all types of pets. The dependency on ranger toughness was found using 1374-Toughness pets (because you can't increase your toughness beyond certain levels). The purpose was not to research aggro in general, but to get some useful, practical information about ranger pet tanking, as was my original intent.

Versus level 79 mobs: (Icebrood and drakes) When my toughness was more than around 1720 (25% higher than the pet), the normal mobs attacked me, not my 1374 pet. (With lower toughness, it attacked the pet.) Independently of damage done by me, and irrespective of vitality or health, as far as I could see.

Versus level 80 mobs: (Icebrood, mainly) When my toughness was more than around 1680 (around 22% higher than the pet), normal mobs attacked me, not my 1374 pet.

The behavior of some mobs was different: Some seem to switch to the other character (me/pet) when they've lost a certain % of their health (between 50% and 90% depending on the mob, and independent of the amount of damage the ranger himself does to them). Veterans also seemed to behave differently. (I'll leave that part for someone else to research).

Since a ranger will hardly ever have toughness in the vicinity of 2500 (2061+22%), one can say that those pets with 2061 or more toughness will always attract and keep the aggro of a normal mob A.I., while those with 1374 Toughness will be able to keep aggro only if the ranger's Toughness is below around 1680. --Alad (talk) 15:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You can spin the numbers around as much as you'd like, but it doesn't change that fact that all pets generate threat, which you denied in your OP, which has been my point all along. As long as you look at only one attribute or one mechanic or even one foe at a time, you won't get the whole picture. What you've done above is prove that toughness generates threat, as I said way earlier, and which is common knowledge. As this seems to be going in circles, I suggest we drop the subject until we get official confirmation from a developer source if ranger pets generate additional threat beyond standard aggro mechanics which I have covered above and which are clearly explained in the article about aggro. Mediggo (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I admit that my ranger having 1800 toughness caused some pets to not be able to keep aggro. But give me the credit for having put this in the page when I spent hours reorganizing it with another person some weeks/months ago. Since you have known all about the intimacies of how aggro is programmed to work, one would have expected you to have put that information there long ago, for the benefit of rangers who would like to get less damage in their regular leveling. This page (and this whole wiki) is mostly for people who don't know, i.e. beginners. Giving clear information is worth a lot more, IMO, than saying "it works just the same as regular aggro works", because nobody really knows how that works, let alone the beginner. (Even the aggro page says that it's outdated). That was my objection about what you did to the page recently. Aren't you supposed to discuss changes before you implement them when they contradict what is written? I mean, you didn't change a sentence or two, you took out your knife and amputated. But never mind. I'll never get used to this wiki system anyway where you have to constantly police content and create conflict. Thank you for forcing me to discover about the effect of toughness on mob AI choice of target. I would have preferred it if you, being the expert, had given me those numbers rather than going on and on with theories that are "well known by everybody". I wanted the hard facts, and I got them. Whether they end up on the page or not is not my concern. --Alad (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite an exaggerated comparison you've made there. I'm sure all the people who've had their fucking limbs cut off so they could live on are impressed by that. I've already gone way out of my way explaining how aggro and pet tanking works, and I refuse to do that again, especially since it seems I have to deal with borderline personal attacks and with people who offend everyone with a disability or anyone who has ever known one. Instead of resorting to petty insults, you could have used your research to improve article in some another way and not whine about another user editing your revision of the article. That's not a really healthy attitude to have while working on a wiki, though it's something I've had to learn the hard way myself as well. Mediggo (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see that much of a difference between the two revisions. One is a more generic version based on toughness/vitality, and the other is simply specific to ranger's pets. Perhaps you could mention the thresholds for breaking tank aggro or losing aggro to the damage pets? That seems like useful info (how tanky can i get but still let the pet take the damage?). I dunno, the explaining here could have been better, but the article itself seems fine to me (either revision, tbh). --JonTheMon (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Pet Switching

Is the pet switching quotes thing really necessary? I believe all races say the same thing. --Ventriloquist (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Changes to Hyena

The hyenas are, mechanically, canines. I'll put a trivia note at the bottom that this is "scientifically" wrong, but in terms of game mechanics (i.e., what SKILLS they have), they're 'dogs'. To put them in the Felid family is just confusing.69.249.224.137 03:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

There's already a trivia note about that on Juvenile Hyena. —Dr Ishmael 04:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Saurian

Wouldn't the smokescale and bristleback be considered saurians as their family instead of as separate things? Auvit (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Families and species section

I think the bulky div boxes being used to display pets in the "Families and species" section could stand to be converted into a table, which would be much more compact. I've already designed the table (see below for a sample), but I'm asking for opinions first because (a) I'm not sure everyone would agree with me that this is necessary, and (b) I need help in figuring out how to insert a 20-pixel whitespace before the amphibious pets' names to make them line up with the others.

Pets marked with are strictly terrestrial; pets marked with are strictly aquatic; pets with no icon are amphibious.

Family	Species
Bear	Arctodus	Black Bear	Brown Bear	Murellow	Polar Bear
Bird	Eagle	Hawk	Owl	Raven	White Raven
Jellyfish	Blue Jellyfish	Rainbow Jellyfish	Red Jellyfish

--Idris (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I solved the problem: redesign the table so it doesn't suck. --Idris (talk) 06:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Path of Fire adds new pets

The demo on the weekend of 18-20 Aug 2017 features Ranger-Soulbeast with a Jacaranda pet. Cynique (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

What counts as pet?

Do rangers get their pet buffs with Sylvan hound or Hounds of Balthazar ability? Like would that work in beastmode?

At the beginning of the game, any kind of minion could count as a pet for the purposes of Ranger Runes and such. A couple years ago, before HoT, they patched it so that those runes/sigils/traits only worked on actual pets, and not minions/summons. Rangers only get pet buffs from their natural, kenneled pet.--Rain Spell (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Names

Ooh, it looks like your pet names will remain now, even after stowing. Thank you anet :) ~Lya

Soliciting opinions on the "downed and defeated" section

It (currently) says that "Like all NPCs, pets go directly to the defeated state instead of being downed' which isn't quite true. Some NPCs (notably Sylvari Toxic Alliance members, but also others) have a downed state and can consequently be Finished, that is, it isn't all NPCs. What do people think is the best way of *saying* this here? Cynique (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Just changed it to "like many NPCs." That section was presumably written before the living story, which introduced downable foes, started. - Felix Omni 16:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, that works. I was thinking of "most" rather than "many", but "many" works. Cheers. Cynique (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Most would have been fine too. For future reference, you don't really need to start a discussion for small, likely-to-be-uncontroversial edits like this; you can just be bold and do it, and if anyone wants to nitpick let them be the one to bring it up. - Felix Omni 16:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Swapping pets and using Special Skills while player is downed

Maybe someone can make a note that states that rangers can swap pets while the player is down and also activate the special pet skill while downed, this can be very useful, such as buy time for a rally and providing extra interrupts. It may seem that it should be obvious, but the other professions do not have access to the F-skills while downed. This is a unique ability.

Added that info. Surprised it wasn't already on there. Thanks!--Rain Spell (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Multiple rangers on account

If you make a second ranger on an account, will that character have access to all the pets tamed by the first, or is he starting over? Couldn't find any info on this in the article. Rose Of Kali 21:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The pets are not shared, unfortunately. A new character will 'start over'. —Ventriloquist 21:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Rose Of Kali 13:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Dubious phrase about damage reduction

"Pets receive 95% reduced damage from most ground AoE attacks..."

The meaning isn't quite clear: whether the pets receive 95% of damage (without "reduced", which is obvious) or they receive the damage reduced by 95% (missed word "by"). In other words, do they receive 95% or only 5% of supposed full damage? Please improve the sense by excluding this confusing. --62.4.35.224 11:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The sentence has been changed into passive voice: "damage received by pets from most ground AoE attacks from PvE enemies is reduced by 95%". Warming Hearth (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)