Hunter: Ninja vs Pet user, which is better?

[_dracus_]

Originally Posted by makarios68

He says nothing positive whatsoever about pets, when the majority of hunters find them useful.

Such subjectivity therefore bears no relation to the facts.

I know lots of hunters that don't. From my way of playing pets are only usefull to kill unprotected levelers faster. It's only my opinion based on my experience but I like fort wars and pet are always dead so fast in thoses fights, that I find them useless.

[fluffy_muffin]

It is weird post from someone who don't know how to use pet. But ok so let's start.

Warlock.
Camu ambush stun fist + bestial = dead lock
In case when hunter have high evasion then high dmg pet + bestial is enough if he know what to do.

Warju.
Ambush (confuse as an option) stun fist zarkit/distracting shot, kill mage.

Barb.
Camu, confuse, skin, ambush, SS, stun fist. Usually barb have 60-80 % hp less before pet is dead and for me it is enough.

Knight, skin of the beast + bestial. It will die but later.

Other hunters. Depend.

Marks. If you prevent buffing then pet is your friend. In other case it is additional 40-100dmg.

Pet have their cost but if you know how to use it, it will be your weapon and punch bag.

[Valorius]

Originally Posted by Zordak

I feel a lack of precision in the situation analysis presented here: What situation are we considering? Is it a 1 vs 1? If so, all references to allies can just be cut out. If not, some of the disadvantages might be efficiently compensated and the whole situation gets *a lot* more complicated - valid for both sides of the argument.

Maybe it would be wiser to analyse each situation in a different thread, with a clearly formulated frame.

Z.

I am speaking in overall terms, all things considered.

If there is some particular scenario you wish to discuss, post it.

Originally Posted by zielski

It is weird post from someone who don't know how to use pet. But ok so let's start.

I used to use pets for several months, and i've tested them extensively each time there's been a pet update, and i fight against them every day. Your statement is therefore woefully inaccurate.

It would however be accurate to say you have very limited experience as a ninja.

Originally Posted by zielski

Warlock.

Camu ambush stun fist + bestial = dead lock
In case when hunter have high evasion then high dmg pet + bestial is enough if he know what to do.

I clearly stated that in an offensive ambush (sneak attack) role that pets are great vs all classes. The problem is, for most hunters, a very small % of their actual total fights are launched that way. You have to consider battles, skirmishes, pursuits, fort fights, bridge battles, the whole nine yards.

Originally Posted by zielski

Warju.
Ambush (confuse as an option) stun fist zarkit/distracting shot, kill mage.

That's a lot of spells in a row to work, but you can still do it without a pet. A pet is not needed for this combination. A ninja wouldn't even executed this attack sequence. Confuse+DF+SOTW and the Warju is in serious trouble. That sequence only allows the Warju one chance to resist. DF and SOTW cannot be resisted.

Originally Posted by zielski

Barb.
Camu, confuse, skin, ambush, SS, stun fist. Usually barb have 60-80 % hp less before pet is dead and for me it is enough.

Again, very few attacks are actually launched from camo. We have to consider the full range of scenarios in which fights occur. This combo (sans the 500 mana Skin) also works perfectly well without a pet too, btw.

IMO, skin of beast is a total waste of 500 mana in almost any scenario but large/fort battles.

Originally Posted by zielski

Knight, skin of the beast + bestial. It will die but later.

AoO and blocking spells totally counteract beasatial wraths effects. As a hunter, as soon as i see a hunter cast skin of the beast(which i often intentionally try to get them to do), i smile as i shift my attack back to the hunter...who now has 500 less mana to defend himself with.

Originally Posted by zielski

Marks. If you prevent buffing then pet is your friend. In other case it is additional 40-100dmg.

The easiest way to prevent a marks from buffing is with confuse. You don't need a pet for that, and having it to begin with is a lot easier to do without having to put all those points in pet to begin with, but i do agree that vs marks pets are definitely a great advantage.

Originally Posted by zielski

Pet have their cost but if you know how to use it, it will be your weapon and punch bag.

It's not worth the sacrifice in PP and DP to have a pet in this hunter's opinion.

Dirty fighting and high evasion are my weapon and punching bags.

Originally Posted by Angelwinged_Devil

I know, but that makes the thread sorta based around his opinion and not nonpet vs pet...

Well, Duh. It is my opinion on no pet vs pet.

[fluffy_muffin]

The Beastly hyena and Goblin warrior master are both very good pets, again, as far as pets go. And neither one gets in the way like the really big ones do. You seem to favor an orc, which is better than most wrt LOS issues, but they still definitely get in the way. All pets block the ability to target knocked players, it is a disadvantage inherent to pets, but a least with the little ones you can target a standing enemy.

1)Hyena does so small dmg on me that i can ignore it.
2)Goblin is cool as far as your oponent is debuffed.
3) Orc is my height. And i have small halfelf.
4) And imo i am ninja Camu ftw :P

It's not worth the sacrifice in PP and DP to have a pet in this hunter's opinion.

You can have pet sotw and df. I play like ninja imvho. tracking, watching, prebuffs, camu, kill. If you want rush on herd of ppl with sotw then fine. But i don't have problems with barbs killing me thru sotw. I said how i am using pet that is all. And belive me mage die really fast. Mine ensnaring with df and ss on ambushed mage is 680 + 400 hit form pet.
With all respect but you don't play as ninja 1 there is no ninja in RO and even if i am sure that Nahue would say "You bad ninja. Ninja powaaaa."
There is different between showing your opinion and play in who have longer .... and imo you are not showing only your opinion. And imo no matter what we will say then you will replay that your bow is longer. I dont's say that pet are superb. I just say that with pet life is easier (when you are ninja :P).

[-Edge-]

Anger Managment class Valorius... take some please, you scare me

OT:

What do I think about ninja's? First off I don't like the term ninja's, both are hunters, one is just smarter than the other. From my experience a pet is good in any situation as its a 2 on 1, but in the case of a fort war a pet dies fast. But hunters aren't made for Fort Wars in the way NGD has designed them now.

A hunter has little attack, a pet helps in anyway, whether it takes a few hits from the enemy for you, or whether its dealing the extra damage, a pet serves its purpose always.

Playing in a setup without a pet can be done, but hunters don't have a real offense at the moment, especially in fort wars. Right now they are just set to play in an actualy hunting style. Just don't try to play your hunter like a marksman, because you won't.

A hunter isn't built for instant killing in the style you play Valorius, its for deadly over time damage in a guerella like style of battle.

A hunter playing without a pet is like a knight playing without a shield.

Your setup is built for fighting all classes, so your not going to have a positive on any class. A "ninja" just plays like a retarted marksman, he hits half the damage and can only pop in and out.

A pet is great for fighting warriors, they don't die so fast in the way you say they do, before you kill a pet the hunter would have dealt heavy damage on you, I PvPed with Compoundius several times and if it wasn't for the pet he would have been smoked. The pet is a nuisance if you don't kill it, and if you do its still a problem, either way its good to stop the barb from attacking a lone target being you.

The Triangle of Balance:
Warrior -> Archer -> Mage ->

Eh whats the weakest class of them all?
The hunter without a pet for extra offense, in that case all you rely on is only low based normal hits, an ensaring arrow here or there, and a maxed evasion tree.

P.S. Valorius my tip to you: The reason you die so fast is because you sacrafice your range and belive too much in numbers, a hunter should always be on the move, but in Ignis we kind of laugh at how in your case we don't need to come to you, you come to us, in melee range in otherwords. (Don't respond to this, you can just laugh to yourself)

[save_the_trees]

both are horrible. The class itself is horrible

[Anpu]

As a marksman, I was almost never defeated by petless hunters, while hunter with pet can make me probs. especially if player uses full sotw, in that time you need to take care of pet by stopping it, ambush, stunning etc while hunter is still shooting at you.
imo, only hunters with pets are worth fighting, because fight is totally fair, while pteless hunters are no problem, for me at least. They die extremely fast, so thats why they usually use SotW, to buy few more seconds of life. or they just ran away, which is usual scenario
When i play my hunter, I really like having pet. Its so cool in hunts, and its like i m 1 player + 0.5, sometimes even 0.8
In fort, pet dies often that is true, but sometimes really does its job. if there are only more advvanced pet controls, that ll be more better, and not watching my pet running 30 m just because i clicked one enemy from range in combat mode.
i find with hunter more enjoying hunting with friends anyway, and encountering enemy parties, using some tactics that hunter can offer, like stalker for ambushes and so on.
usually petless hunters are those who prefer fort wars and would like to be so called class: "marksman with track".

[Angelwinged_Devil]

Originally Posted by Valorius

Well, Duh. It is my opinion on no pet vs pet.

I think you misunderstand, such topic should be objective, playing styles are possibilities not best or worst unless you have a playing style which is named suicide XD.

What I see in the initial post is how you explaing about your playing style and how it pwns hunters with pets.

Objective would be to discuss what possibilities you have and don't have, comparing them and let the playing style be to the individual player about how he wants to play or not to play.

I agree with zielski though, a pet makes a hunters life much easier

[save_the_trees]

Btw have you noticed something? This thread is started by Valorius. Obviously he already knows for sure which setup is best for him and doesn't listen to any opinion anyway. So what is his purpose? There are only 2 possibilities left:
a) He wants to convince everybody not to use pets
b) He wants to start a forum *debate*, ending in some people banned again

On topic: I wouldn't use pets either, I would use caltrops and/or hinder. Dmg is not everything but it is important to have fun

[Valorius]

Originally Posted by Angelwinged_Devil

I think you misunderstand, such topic should be objective, playing styles are possibilities not best or worst unless you have a playing style which is named suicide XD.

What I see in the initial post is how you explaing about your playing style and how it pwns hunters with pets.

Objective would be to discuss what possibilities you have and don't have, comparing them and let the playing style be to the individual player about how he wants to play or not to play.

Start your own thread if you don't like mine.

Originally Posted by Angelwinged_Devil

I agree with zielski though, a pet makes a hunters life much easier

Until it gets 1 hit killed by a barb, or pwned in 5 seconds flat by a warlock.

Then you got all kinds of problems. Again, if i felt that pets were better i would use them. Extensive testing has shown me that clearly -overall- they are not.

In some scenarios and in some cases, they can hold an advantage, i listed several myself...but overall, all aspects of RO warfare, bugs, and limitations considered, you're better off without them.

Again: In my opinion.