Talk:Summon/Archive 2

Pet Icons

(and pet infoboxes, more on that later...) I've noticed in some of the game play video that each pet has a specific icon you use to take it out. I can extract the Hall of Monuments icons, but do we want to implement a greenish pet infobox? (Will be doing mock ups in the sandbox shortly.) Aqua (T|C) 01:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Bump and here it is here. That's just the infobox. (Intend to add progression tables and skill lists too.) Aqua (T|C) 00:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Not to reiterate the pokemon discussion down below... looks good. :) (Xu Davella 11:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC))

Bump again. Trying to get at least a couple of opinions on this, before implementation. Discussion of colors (for this one) also wanted. Aqua (T|C) 21:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me that everything in the game has an icon. We should definitely use those where ever we can. While I understand that green is a desirable colour because of the link to ranger it breaks with the idea that different colours should be associated with different game mechanic themes. Currently green has been used for skills and traits. Pets might be better served by a colour which is associated with NPCs or creatures despite the link to the ranger profession. -- aspectacle  22:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Pokemon

So in this game you have a number of "pets", each one with FOUR skills, with different types, strenght and weakness and probably there will be some way to store the ones you're not using like the menaigere... doesn't it scream Pokemon? xD Lokheit 16:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I mean, Pokemon is awesome!-- Shew 00:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with rangers becoming Pokemon trainers. I might do that as a mini-game with friends, at least. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 02:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Polymock X-treme! :3 --The Holy Dragons 11:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That is just a weird connection. -- Cyan 11:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

you're a weird connection >3> (nah kidding :3)--The Holy Dragons 11:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Available to certain professions

Have we determined what exactly classes as a pet, and if we have more information on whether other professions use it? I remember mention that the necromancer's minions were noted as pets but there's no mention of it on this page, so was just wondering if anything's changed on that. (Xu Davella 11:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC))

This page should be renamed as 'animal companion', since that's what this is all about really. For example necromancer minions are pets ([1]), as are - arguably - the spirit weapons of guardian. Calling only the animal companions pets is missleading, as this is obviously not how arena-net defines them. Kitsunebi 18:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we should probably have both a Pet page and an Animal Companion page. --Moto Saxon 19:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we should redirect pet to Animal companion and note on Animal companion "also known as pets". - Infinite - talk 19:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Because like, pets classify as ally companions, but minions classify as minion, not pets. Spirit weapons also follows their unique classification. - Infinite - talk 19:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Minions, spirits and turrets are not pets. The first two are magical constructs, the latter are machines. And all 3 are temporary. Ramei Arashi 00:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

@Ramei, because Arenanet refers to all of them as pets, so will we. And this page reflects that. If you read back over interviews, devs have stated that multiple professions would have "pets" referring to each of these. They have also specifically called minions "short term pets". --Moto Saxon 00:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @Ramei, Although I agree with you, unfortunately that is not the terminology Anet uses. - 00:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Downside to amphibious pets?

So you're allowed to take a landbased, seabased, or amphibious pet? Looks and fluff aside, why wouldn't you take 3 amphbious pets that you can always use (especially if you plan to use alpha strike as your elite). Are amphibious pets weaker than dedicated land or sea pets? Bificommander 23:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

recharge?

is it known that the pet's death will cause a skill recharge like in gw1? i hope not...Getefix 23:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

There has been no evidence of skill recharge after pet death in the demo videos so far. -- aspectacle  00:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"Pets can't be downed, only defeated, but this doesn't have any adverse effect for the owner." Nothing else needs to be said. Aqua (T|C) 00:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

aaah thats good :) so we will have to res our pets manually? and is the charm animal feature one of those skills that arent on the skillbar like the guardian's virtues or the thief's 'steal'? Getefix 22:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The article used to say that it was an interactive action with a juvenile animal - and so you could assume it probably uses the F key like you were looting, reviving or interacting with something. However there hasn't been any demo footage of charming animals. I might readd the interactive bit. -- aspectacle  00:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

alright ty Getefix 15:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Bang

Head. ****ing. shot. "The Engineer is really no more formidable than any other profession. Turrets have the same restrictions on them that Necromancer pets and Guardian spirit weapons have. The Engineer can have only one turret out for each turret skill he has on his bar. Also, keep in mind that unlike other pets, the turrets are completely stationary." Glad to finally have this resolved. Aqua (T|C) 00:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

hm - so pet is any sort of interesting profession summon or companion? Are banners pets? - perhaps they need to do damage to be pets. Is the ranger's pet called a pet in game or could we shuffle it across to animal companion without too much trouble? If main use for the ranger is pet I think the main pet page should be kept for the ranger and a page with the disambiguation for the term covering the others. -- aspectacle  01:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I would assume something has to be actively interacting to be considered a pet. Banners are definitely passive, while turrets and spirit weapons are active participants in a battle. I do think that spirit weapons were only brought up to make a comparison rather than to suggest that it counts as a pet, but it's difficult to say. --ஸ Kyoshi 02:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I just realised how out-of-date this article is... -Xu Davella 03:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Can I tell everyone "I told you so" now? - Infinite - talk 10:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Equally, I could use some help double-checking every change I just made (and those yet to come). - Infinite - talk 11:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, someone can move parts of this talk page to the new talk page, if anyone can be bothered. - Infinite - talk 12:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

See, you probably should have asked about that before saying you told them so. --ஸ Kyoshi 05:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"Because like, pets classify as ally companions, but minions classify as minion, not pets. Spirit weapons also follows their unique classification. - Infinite - talk 19:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)" - I think the "I told you so" would be my line. :) --Xu Davella 09:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That was back when Eras kept harrassing me for being wrong, so I compromised. Excuses, excuses. :P

But on a serious note; do you think we should start dishing out the categories for animal companions now? - Infinite - talk 10:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, so important a quote from more than a year ago that we need to have this huge discussion about it... seriously. Like a turret is gonna follow you around like a moa bird. right. --Starfleck 15:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Elementals

Do you think we should add elemenatls as a type of pet for the elementalist? Source-http://www.guildwars2guru.com/forum/showpost.php?p=773335&postcount=6 88.108.83.24 19:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I dont know if thats a special skill type or if it should be listed as a summon though. Otherwise I'm surprised nobody at the wiki have heard of this. --AdventurerPotatoe - 13:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Query

I'm curious... Does anyone have a link to the infamous "at least two professions with access to pets" quote? I had always thought that it was in response to this image, which would change it's meaning drastically. That image was released on, or about, May 26th, 2010, the Ranger was announced July 14th, 2010. In the 2010 archive for this page, it is referred to on July 14, 2010, and an individual refers to a source mentioning it on July 29, 2010, but neither of them provides an actual link to it. I've searcbed and searched, but except for references to it, I've been unable to find an actual source for it.--Warzog - talk 03:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

That quote was rectified ages ago. It was a simple misinterpretation of what was stated about pets in this blog post. "(...) the professions that do use pets very distinctive and cool." The plural "professions" was how someone ended up with "at least 2 professions," but as previously stated, it was since rectified (or rather, nullified). We know that, currently, 4 professions use pets. In hindsight the misinterpretation *was* correct, but back then it was simply an assumption. The quote was never official, nor sourced. Again, in hindsight it was correct, but that is besides the point. - Infinite - talk 15:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Mesmer pets?

Now by this broad definition that we're using, should the mesmers clones and phantasm be added too as pets? --213.10.126.30 18:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

They are already in there, grouped as illusions --zeeZ (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Pets?

Every time I come to this page I can't help but feel that the page name is totally misleading. This is a basic definition (different dictionaries word it differently of corse) of "Pet":

• An animal kept for amusement or companionship.
• An object of the affections.
• A person especially loved or indulged; a favorite: the teacher's pet.

Now I know that the Devs have also been calling them "pets" so its not necessarily something that the GW2 community has come up with but surly we can find a more suitable word or description (and in doing so, a new title for the page). Maybe something more vague but that covers them all, like NPC Ally or Personal NPC Ally etc... Titan Crow 20:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I know how you feel, but this is the official term for NPC allies, thus the article is named as it is. Just imagine Spirit Weapons as manifestations of the guardians virtues, which they love to put forward in battle, and the turrets as personal and meaningful creations of the engineers. - Infinite - talk 20:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Not only that, "pet" is a common term in MMOs, even way back in EverQuest 1 (1999) where the two main initial pet classes used elementals and skeletons, not animals (the Beastlord, which focused on animals, wasn't put into the game until a couple years later). Pets have rarely been just animals in MMOs but a general term for the various NPCs you could summon that were linked to you and included things like elementals, skeletons, spectres, undead, robots, floating hammers, swords and shields, mushrooms (turrets), ghosts, etc. Vahkris 16:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Summons?

Should we make a Summon page like the pages for the other 4 pet types. We already know of the Hounds of Balthazar and all the summons from the profession skills. We also just found out about some more summons from the Superior Runes. Here are some of the sommons I know of already:

• Superior Rune of the Pirate summons a Parrot.
• Superior Rune of the Lich summons a Minion.
• Superior Rune of the Ogre summons a Rock Dog.
• Superior Rune of the Citadel summons a Bomb.
• Superior Rune of the Flock summons a Bird.
• Superior Rune of the Golemancer summons a Golem.
• Superior Rune of the Pack summons a Wolf.
• Superior Rune of the Rata Sum summons a Radiation Field.
• Superior Rune of the Bale Fire causes a Balefire.

Also:

• Sigil of Deamon Summoning summons a Fleshreaver.

I found most of this here, it's a link I found on the Talk:Rune of the Pirate page. So, what do you think, you reckon we have enough to get started with? Titan Crow 22:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Maximum Turrets

Am I right in saying that the statement that four turrets is the maximum that an engineer can deploy at one time is incorrect? As a build could include a Rifle Turret in slot 7, a Rocket Turret in 8, a Thumper Turret in 9 and the Supply Crate in the elite slot would create a Flame Turret, a Healing Turret and a Net Turret totaling 6 unique turrets that could be deployed at one time. - User:Arkanakaz 00:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thieves

Thieves can summon other thieves through the use of at least two skills. One is an elite skill called Thieves' Guild, the other is Ambush Trap. Does this warrant mentioning here? It is, after all, a class feature that allows you to summon friendlies to your side.--108.206.124.69 20:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It indeed seems to fit the definition. --92.103.0.242 14:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

In-house term

Referring to the discussion here I propose that we come up with a new definition to player-controlled allies. In the above section it is implied that all of these player-controlled allies are referred to as "pets" – which certainly does not make sense when talking about illusions or turrets. In the original Guild Wars, gw1:pet used to strictly refer to the ranger animal companion, and all other player-allies were simply referred to as allies with additional categorization to minions and spirits and whatnot.

I can see two kinds of solutions to this: 1) Pet strictly refers to the ranger animal companion and view all other player-controlled allies as Summons because that is essentially what they are; the only non-summonable ally available to players is indeed the animal companion and all other allies are summoned by skills or other effects. In-game skill descriptions also refer to summoning of minions, elementals, spirit weapons and creating of illusions, etc. thereby reinforcing the fact that they are all temporary companions whereas the animal companion is the only permanently available companion regardless of skills, traits, weapons or equipment (except for mesmer, which always has illusions available). Option 2) would be to contact ArenaNet and ask their stance on this, and I suggest we do this anyways if community agrees on the first solution, and receive a confirmation whether or not Pet is nothing but their in-house term for player-controlled allies.

I understand if many will not see this as a problem, but many players from GW1 and other games will be confused by this sort of definition of "Pet" and refer to minions and minions and spirit weapons as spirit weapons anyways, so it is the right time we come up with a term that actually refers to the means they are available to us: Summoning. Mediggo 12:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The window for managing the ranger's "profession mechanic allies" is called Pet Management, which I think reinforces the idea that "pet" refers only to those allies. No other profession has access to a Pet Management window like that. —Dr Ishmael 14:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Pet is also used throughout the ranger skill names to refer to this particular "profession mechanic ally". Animal companion is a term we made up which makes us confusing and a little bit wrong if we're trying to describe the game.

Whatever the other allies, summons, callings, conjurings, builds, minions, illusions are called, and whether a group name for these allies is actually needed is moot to this discussion. The ranger term should be the primary use for pet. -- aspectacle  16:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

"Animal companion" is actually a holdover from GW1, where Pet attack skills used it - of course, having "pet" in the skill type name, and the fact that other skills primarily used "pet," made the two terms pretty much synonymous for GW1. In GW2, I don't think I've seen the term "animal companion" used anywhere in-game - but we do have the Pet Management window and a Pet skill type, where both of those skills use the term "pet." —Dr Ishmael 16:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realise there was a gw1 reasoning in there. Agreed, I've not seen any use of animal companion in gw2. -- aspectacle  16:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I sure didn't know that, certainly makes things more simple. Then we just need to decide what to do with this page before moving animal companion here. One option would be to abandon grouping player-controlled allies altogether, and another to continue doing so on another article under another defition which hopefully makes more sense for non-pet-like summoned allies and objects. Mediggo 19:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

My vote would be to abandon grouping the player-controlled allies and let people categorize them how they wish. I've seen complaints on other sites (example) about our usage of "pets" to refer to turrets, etc. as well. If ArenaNet has a term to refer to the group, then so be it; we should have an article. But I don't think we've seen one yet. Because these allies are specific skill types, they're so top-level already that there isn't really a technical reason to group them. Newcomers can easily see what professions "summon" allies just by going to the professions page.-- shew|make 01:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm for abandoning the grouping too. Because we can't name it easily probably means that there are no really great names for them all at once. Perhaps if the discussion needs to continue we could move this page to Pet (summons) or something like that and continue on there. -- aspectacle  03:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I agree that we should disentangle "Pet" from the others, since Pets are persistent allies (they can even be rez'd by strangers). However, I don't think we should abandon the grouping just because ANet failed to offer a term of its own.

• It's helpful to compare the types on a single article, to get an idea of differences across professions.
• They have features in common: they appear temporarily and they offer some benefit to other players (cannon fodder, firepower, shared resource).

As a temporary placeholder, I propose we use something with "Summon," e.g. "Summoned ally" or "Summons". Another workable term might be "temporary ally". For now, how about if we move the article to Pet/Non-ranger summoned-allies to make room for Animal companion to be moved here? That gets us past the immediate issue and gives us time to decide if the article is worth keeping or not (without it getting in the way of other articles).– Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm still in favor for moving or merging them to Summon. It is quite closely related to the mechanic they come available to players. Mediggo 17:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It may be just me, but doesn't every. single. section. use the word summon or summoning (except for pets, which are persistent, NOT summoned, and Illusions, for which you could easily use the word summon to describe using a skill to cast them)? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

edit* Actually, with the mechanical term "to summon" I'd rather have a disambiguation page to the following: summon (to summon), Summons (allied NPCs), rune-summoned (effects and allies) (to account for other effects like the rad field, etc.). Or just skip the third one of those, but the distinction is important between mechanic and object/NPC. --Starfleck 15:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there any objection to moving the non-persistent summoned beasties to a placeholder article, so that we can move on with updating the Pet article as being strictly about the ranger's animal companions? We can continue to discuss where that comparison belongs (merge to summon or article of its own with a tbd name or something like what Starfleck proposed). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This was all because of that bloody *hint-hint* article they had posted about multiple professions having pets, as well as consistently referring to necromancer minions as pets, which threw everything off. Anyway, "Summoned ally" sounds like an appropriate term. --Xu Davella 12:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Calling stuff pets back then made sense because it would have pretty much spoiled profession reveals if they refered to "summon allied objects" or something like that. Summoned ally sounds cool, though it can be discussed on later, after moving this page and moving animal companion here and people start noticing the discussion here more. Mediggo 12:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Rename or is "Summoned ally" the right term?

(Reset indent) Even though we don't have consensus on the final name for this article, we do have overwhelming consensus that it needs to move so that Pet can be used for the ranger's profession mechanic ally. Thus, the page has been moved to "Summoned ally" for now, but it doesn't have to remain here if we can decide on a better name. —Dr Ishmael 19:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I've put this in a new section to reflect the fact that the conversation has changed from should we move the article to where should it be moved to. I think [[summoned ally]] is fine — there might be other terms we could use, but none proposed above are demonstrably better. Starfleck suggested multiple articles, but I'd rather have just one, so we can compare all types of summoned allies. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 08:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

We already have the multiple articles: elemental, turret, illusion, etc. But I agree that an overview article like this is useful. —Dr Ishmael 13:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, the suggestion above was to create multiple generic articles, based on how each summons is created. I think the current setup is fine: one article for each specific type (e.g. elemental), one for the general summons, and an overview article (this one, under whatever name we choose). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Also need to fix categorization. I don't think that overview article on player allies is too necessary, though, since each of the summoned things are very unique in their functions. Perhaps linking to proper categories and setting up the navi template prominently enough (and even expanding it with lists of pet skills or mechanics, etc.) would be satisfactory. Mediggo 13:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Without this overview article, I wouldn't have even realized that every profession offers the ability to summon an ally (or an ally-like object). I find it help to see a comparison, something that a navigation tool alone does not offer. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

They're still not very related. As you know, mesmer's entire unique mechanic is tied to their illusions, while most other professions' summons are entirely optional. There's also object-like summons like turrets and banners which behave very differently (like explained in section below). They are all too distinct and affected by different mechanics and especially traits which affect certain skill types. For example, saying that spirit weapons are similiar to minions by that they are both consumed by activating their sequence skills is only half true because not all minions are consumed by their sequence and spirit weapons cannot be attacked (and they can also be made to "endure" being commanded with grandmaster trait). It's easy enough to provide simple descriptions of each kind of profession-unique summons, but it's not useful for comparison because they are too distinct and full articles of each summon provide more thorough information anyways, and in addition to all related traits as well as the skills themselves. Abandoning this overview might also help to promote profession individuality and possibly reduce redundant like "engineers are so good because they get turrets, warriors only get banners and those are good for nothing, bwah!" Mediggo 07:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this page "almost" makes sense. To be honest, it's hard for us to classify every summoned thing as an "ally," especially if you take the warrior banners or some other targetable objects into consideration. What this page has lost, in it's current overview format, is the ability to classify a "type" of thing. Let's say, for instance, we created more pages for each of the separate objects that have been summoned through use of a skill, rune, sigil, or other. Flesh Golem or Ballista for instance. If each object had it's page to basically say "I'm a targetable object, here's what I do" and then categorized them on this page, it would be much more like what the Pet page was trying to accomplish, before... in my opinion. Does it have to have hitpoints to be an object which you'd want to see the properties of? I think that's not for us to decide. Simply linking to various other overview pages (which is what those are) doesn't help a whole lot a year from now, because we already know that a Minion is a Minion before we look at this page. I thought the whole point of the page before was to be a list. Already it's far more intuitive than the Pet article was before, so good job. --Starfleck 00:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"They're still not very related. " They aren't supposed to be very related, or the professions would end up being too much alike. The point is that they show how each profession offers a somewhat similar mechanic (in this case, establishing an AI being) that is a an interesting part of playing the class. For mesmers, illusions are fundamental, whereas for engineers, they seem more in the way of a bonus. But, in each case, the character brings a "something" into being that has its own set of mechanics.

"Summoned ally" isn't the best term, but it's better than anything else we have right now: each of these AI-incarnation types is summoned...and each is allied with PCs/NPCs friendly to the creator. They aren't "allies" or "summons" in the traditional sense from other MMOs, but then again, huge portions of the game's mechanics and/or principles are traditional, so I'm okay with it. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) If, as you say, "the whole point of the page before was to be a list", then there's hardly any point in having a page - add all the listed pages to a category instead. That's the point of categories, to provide lists. The point of an overview page like this should be to give brief descriptions of the listed pages, focusing on the aspects that make them similar (thus justifying this overview) and on the aspects that make them different (justifying the need for individual pages). The individual pages then focus on the specific details and mechanics of their subjects, e.g. listing all skills of that type and listing traits that affect the skill type.

If you want to include banners, fine, just come up with a better name for the page. :P —Dr Ishmael 01:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Technically, banners sure are allied to you (in PvE) and either allied or opposed to your team (in PvP). If you really want this article to provide overviews of what kind of "reinforcements" each profesison can bring to battle, we should definitely include banners. Mediggo 07:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Banners?

What do we think about Banners? They are almost as much a summonable allie as Turrets or Nature spirits? It kinda seems to me that they have given every profession some kind of summon. I remember reading last year, just after they said they were scrapping the companion system, that they would be adding something to satisfy all the companion fans. With that in mind, it makes sence to me that Banners are the Warrior's summonable allie/companion thingy. Titan Crow 19:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's add it to this article for now (on the Turret analogy basis). Arguably, these are NP-objects rather than NP-characters, so we might need to redefine "ally" to include objects or invent a new word that describes the set of allied objects and characters. (I'm in favor of the first — it's simpler and does not involve inventing a term.) If ally doesn't work, then let's move the article. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the major point is that the creatures in the article are just that, creatures. I could be wrong though. Although it would make sense that banners could be a replacement for companions. - 20:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Aren't banners just environmental weapons? ~ ♥ Kailani! ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 20:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Turrets, too, can be picked up and replanted, yes? However, they and banners also act as allied objects when planted. Mediggo 20:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No. Banners are not allies, they are environmental weapons that can be picked up by any character and also provide an area effect when on the ground. Turrets can't be picked up (except by the engineer who placed them, and it's actually a "de-summon" because the engineer does not "carry" the turret after). —Dr Ishmael 03:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Turrets still provide an environmental weapon version of them when picked up, AFAIK, but that does not make the turrets themselves environmental weapons. Mediggo 17:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Turrets cannot be "held" the way environmental weapons like banners can. Only the engineer who created the turret can interact with it, and although the interaction says "Pick up," what it actually does is de-summon the turret, making it disappear and putting the skill on recharge. (Mortar is a special case, because it acts like a cannon or trebuchet instead of a turret.) —Dr Ishmael 17:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant. Can mortar be moved in the same way? If not, then it's more akin to environmental weapon than turret, even if its skill type is turret and it is affected by related traits. Mediggo 07:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Although a banner is almost identical to an environmental weapon, it's most important difference is that it has a passive effect while it exists. It says on the banner's page that "Once summoned, banners function as an environmental weapon." and not that they are environmental weapons. I do agree that it is quite a stretch to see a banner as an ally though but it is a summon that easily has as much of an effect on surrounding players as the nature spirits. Titan Crow 08:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we are getting too caught up in the idea that an "ally" has to be an NPC, has to be mobile, and/or has to be active (as opposed to passive). I don't think we need to conduct a Turing test: the point is that the entities covered by this article are produced by a character, they benefit the friendlies of the summoner, and there's roughly one for each prof. Further, ANet hasn't defined its terminology well (probably because they haven't yet hired Konig), so there's tons of ambiguity out there.

At this point, it's a matter of preference whether passive, non-NPC belong on this article. I'd rather see banners and turrets included, but I don't think it's the biggest deal if they aren't as long as we have another article that covers those we're dropping from this one. Remember: we're providing an overview to make it easy for newer players (or those that have stuck to one profession) a chance to see some parallels.

However, if the terms are still giving people conniptions, what about: summoned reinforcements, summoned entities, summoned NPCs & summoned objects, calls for aid, or just summons ? – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of just going with "Summons" and changing the Summons page to "Summoned Allies" as all the summons on that page are creatures that are allied to players friendly to the summoner. Titan Crow 19:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Swap this page with "Summon"

I propose we swap the two pages. The content of this page pretty much covers everything that can be summoned and would suit the page name "Summon" a lot better. Also, the content of the "Summon" page covers all summonable creatures that are not specific to a particular profession and hence would suit this page's title a lot more. All in favour, say Aye! X ) Titan Crow 14:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's what the new pages might look like, [[User:Titan Crow/Sandbox/Summon|Summon]] and [[User:Titan Crow/Sandbox/Summoned ally|Summoned ally]]. Titan Crow 14:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd actually rather see the two pages merged. (In which case, either name will work.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I like Ernie's idea - there really isn't any difference other than this page lists all profession-linked summons and the other lists racial-skill- and item-based summons. —Dr Ishmael 16:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm more in favor of the merge as well. Choosing Summon as article/term name would make linking easier and better justify summoning of allied objects, since someone might argue that objects like banners aren't allies (which is untrue, because they are objects with team affiliation, nevertheless). Mediggo 17:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"someone might argue that objects like banners aren't allies" *raises hand* :D —Dr Ishmael 17:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Although I see a certain logic in merging the two pages, I do think that all the summons that do not belong to any specific profession deserve their own page. If we were to merge the pages, we would have to stick the two tables ("Summoned by skills" and "Summoned by items") somewhere on this page and that would look messy. And, if we get/find more non profession specific summons after the game is released, this page will get even worse. The way I see this page is that it's here to explain the mechanics of summoning and to list all the different types of summons and not to document any of the specific summons themselves.

Also, going back the whole name of pages thing, I absolutly agree that this page should be called "Summon" and not "Summoned ally" but I still reckon that we need a "Summoned ally" page (maybe with a different name, like "General summons" or whatever). Titan Crow 18:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

If we move the contents of Summoned ally to Summon and alter the general summary and include the reasoning why they are called summons, the article of general/common summons will become quite a stub. The common summons are essentially a subtopic of the whole summoning term and mechanic. I believe that the current contents of article on common summons can be fit into the new, merged article quite nicely. It would also eliminate or substitute the whole section describing these common summons. I agree that if we'll have dozens of summons common to all professions in future, we could include it as a separate article, but right now that is not the case. Mediggo 18:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

So then this page would provide information on the mechanics of summoning, links and general information on each of the profession specific summon types and information on actual specific summons. Am I the only one that thinks that's a bit inconsistant. Surly it should be a page that coveres basic/general information, like a resource page, and not a page that covers specific items/objects? (obviously, the specifics of the mechanics that the page is named for should be covered) Titan Crow 18:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

fallout cleanup

There are still a few things that need to be cleaned up from this whole pet/summon rename thing.

• Category:Pets needs to be transferred to Category:Summoned allies
• "Category:Animal companions" needs to be transferred to Category:Pets
• Template:Pet nav needs to be moved to Template:Summon nav or something similar
• {{Template:Animal companion nav}} needs to be moved to Template:Pet nav

—Dr Ishmael 01:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Which summoned allies count as allies for AOE boon effects?

An area of effect skill may only affect a maximum of 5 targets, so this is an important question. Minions apparently do count, while objects like banners and turrets almost certainly do not, but what about the others? --Triplehammer 09:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)