Guild Wars 2

Stealth Solution:

• Stealthed players now gain the revealed debuff if they miss an attack (due to blind, being out of range, due to line of sight, due to an opponent evading an attack) or strike a foe that is blocking or invulnerable.

Stealth is a free attack. If you can’t capitalize on that (especially if your auto-attack flips into something that can completely wreck an opponent with the press of a button), it should be your fault (for being bad/so predictable) or the opponent’s victory (for counter-playing during your perfect invisibility duration). No player should just get multiple free shots from stealth until he/she finally deals damage. It’s unfair. This isn’t just for Thieves; this is for anyone that has regular access to stealth or gains stealth via an ally’s ability. You get one shot. Make it count.

Swagg.9236:

Stealth Solution:

• Stealthed players now gain the revealed debuff if they miss an attack (due to blind, being out of range, due to line of sight, due to an opponent evading an attack) or strike a foe that is blocking or invulnerable.

Stealth is a free attack. If you can’t capitalize on that (especially if your auto-attack flips into something that can completely wreck an opponent with the press of a button), it should be your fault (for being bad/so predictable) or the opponent’s victory (for counter-playing during your perfect invisibility duration). No player should just get multiple free shots from stealth until he/she finally deals damage. It’s unfair. This isn’t just for Thieves; this is for anyone that has regular access to stealth or gains stealth via an ally’s ability. You get one shot. Make it count.

Not a good idea. Engineers are capable of chaining blocks longer than most stealth applications, and Warriors are just as good as it. Heck, a Guardian who’s Virtue of Courage happened to passively pop would completely shut a thief out of any stealth attacks.

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

OP is still on his anti thief forum spam I see.

Thieves are balanced the way they are and someone who plays mesmer shouldn’t be having ANY problems with thieves

I am the OP.
I think you may be talking about someone else, I certainly don’t spam anti-thief stuff, and while I do play my mesmer occasionally, I main ele because they killed all of the mesmer gameplay I enjoyed (that is, not spamming stealth and not letting AI carry me).

Mesmer/Ele are the biggest thief haters atm

Play a thief and learn

Or be like me and just fight em enough to learn. Either way this post is full of bad ideas and continual unfounded thief hate

Ad hominem (an argumentative fallacy that relies on attacking elements of the opposition’s person that do not directly pertain to the argument at hand).
Either explain why this idea, and only this idea, is bad, or get out of my thread.

Yet you supported the whole BS to cost initiative movement a lil while back. You’ve also made other posts in that area as well….then you just happen to main ele/mesmer who are the leading complainers about thieves in PvP.

O don’t get me wrong you’ve tried your hand at a stealthless thief…whether you finished it and actually fought anything other than AI remains to be seen.

I’ll be staying in this thread to provide a voice of reason among the ideas that would break a class I immensely enjoy fighting against…..because I actually took the time and L2p like they told me too

More ad hominem. I think you either don’t understand the concept, or are a follower of Nietzsche (who believed that ad hominem arguments were the only valid ones). I could think that the president is an alien frog from the center of the earth and it wouldn’t make any other argument I make more or less valid.

I did support the BS initiative cost a while ago, it is true, but I no longer do because frankly this is just a lot more fair to everyone as far as I can see, especially good players of both classes. Frankly, a BS initiative cost wouldn’t really change anything for the bads who just spam it through dodges (because whatever the cost is it would still be worth it), and it would hurt the good players who put thought into it.

Either explain why this idea, and only this idea, is bad, or get out of my thread.

@Icyflame:
Your idea would probably be a viable solution as well, and it has the additional benefit of punishing heartseeker spam as well (which is less an issue of how powerful it is than of how obnoxious it is) though I think thieves would have to be compensated somewhere else in order to compensate for the total power loss (for those who don’t know the logic behind thief skill spam, there tends to be a single skill that just flat out has the best damage/utility ratio, so most of the time there’s just no reason to use anything else).
I also agree that certain defenses are would be abusable (evade thieves would probably be the most frustrating things to fight ever even more than now, and guardian’s OOC aegis would certainly be a place where both of our ideas would tend to fall through, though yours slightly less in terms of cost), but I still feel like that should be weighed against the current lack of effect of good use of those.

I demand more discussion.

P.S. There is a marked distinction between intoxicated snarky me and normal me, please take less offense from the former if at all possible.

Can’t claim ad homien when your card gets pulled because of your previous posts. If all you had to do was throw in a new Latin phrase on the same BS biased argument to pretend like you’re not a hater then Burnfall would be a developer right now…

Screw it, you entirely don’t understand the concept of an argumentative fallacy.

You don’t even seem to understand ad hominem, despite my repeated efforts. What I’m saying is that, while I resent being called a hater and being lumped in with that whole crowd, whether I am or not is irrelevant to the argument at hand. If you don’t understand that you don’t understand debating and I suggest you brush up on the topic, because what we are doing here is debating and I would rather we all do it well.

If you continue to post in this thread, I ask that you consider this idea in isolation from everything else I have said.

Edit: I’m not throwing out a new Latin phrase, ad hominem is the technical term for the described argumentative fallacy, which you could have figured out yourself if you so much as searched it on google.

You can’t claim ad homien if you’ve already previously proved you’re a hater only interested in destroying a class.

It doesn’t matter if weeks later you think you’ve come up with what you think is a brand new “discussion” on the same topic. You are still biased and trying to nerf something that is perfectly balanced.

there’s a saying that sums up everything you post

You can put a dress on a pig but in the end it’s still a pig.

In this case just a fancier thief hate thread with falsely used Latin phrases

T raw.4658:

You can’t claim ad homien if you’ve already previously proved you’re a hater only interested in destroying a class.

Actually, he can. The thread has a defined topic. You choose to ignore said topic to attack the person who started it instead. This is the perfect definition of ad honimen arguments (which is correct Latin, btw).

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

T raw.4658:

You can’t claim ad homien if you’ve already previously proved you’re a hater only interested in destroying a class.

Actually, he can. The thread has a defined topic. You choose to ignore said topic to attack the person who started it instead. This is the perfect definition of ad honimen arguments (which is correct Latin, btw).

The topic is the same thus throwing it out applies.

If he was putting up a topic and all we knew about him was that he mained Ele/Mesmer than yes ad homien would apply.

Lets look at it this way. If a Westboro Baptist started a thread to have a “discussion” on how to change laws in regards to homosexual citizens would you listen?? Even after you saw that same person protesting homosexual rights at someone’s funeral weeks earlier???

No you wouldn’t…you’d disregard

T raw.4658:

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

T raw.4658:

You can’t claim ad homien if you’ve already previously proved you’re a hater only interested in destroying a class.

Actually, he can. The thread has a defined topic. You choose to ignore said topic to attack the person who started it instead. This is the perfect definition of ad honimen arguments (which is correct Latin, btw).

The topic is the same thus throwing it out applies.

If he was putting up a topic and all we knew about him was that he mained Ele/Mesmer than yes ad homien would apply.

Lets look at it this way. If a Westboro Baptist started a thread to have a “discussion” on how to change laws in regards to homosexual citizens would you listen?? Even after you saw that same person protesting homosexual rights at someone’s funeral weeks earlier???

No you wouldn’t…you’d disregard

I would listen, at least long enough to see if they actually had a new idea or if they were spouting the same BS they were before.

Given that “a new idea” is exactly what happened here in this thread, I suggest you actually try reading the OP and evaluating the idea presented instead of making the ad honimen attacks. After reading your posts in this thread, I don’t think you even know what his idea is, as you have made no reference at all to it.

T raw.4658:

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

T raw.4658:

You can’t claim ad homien if you’ve already previously proved you’re a hater only interested in destroying a class.

Actually, he can. The thread has a defined topic. You choose to ignore said topic to attack the person who started it instead. This is the perfect definition of ad honimen arguments (which is correct Latin, btw).

The topic is the same thus throwing it out applies.

If he was putting up a topic and all we knew about him was that he mained Ele/Mesmer than yes ad homien would apply.

Lets look at it this way. If a Westboro Baptist started a thread to have a “discussion” on how to change laws in regards to homosexual citizens would you listen?? Even after you saw that same person protesting homosexual rights at someone’s funeral weeks earlier???

No you wouldn’t…you’d disregard

To use your example, and assuming you are for gay rights, if a Westboro Baptist church member turned around and began to promote gay marriage, would he still be wrong?

Now before you get your panties in a bundle, I do understand that that is not a metaphor for what I am doing. But immediately assuming I am wrong because of any prior post I have made, and then attempting to convince everyone else of the same without actually considering my argument is blatantly idiotic, especially considering your insistence that attacking someone’s person instead of their argument is not ad hominem, despite the fact that the one and only definition of ad hominem is to reject an argument on the basis of the arguer’s personal characteristics.

More importantly than arguing the basics of debate with someone who clearly is incapable of comprehending them for reasons beyond my knowledge, I ask that a moderator remove this post and all other similarly off-topic/flamey posts from this thread.
Thank you in advance.

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

T raw.4658:

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

T raw.4658:

You can’t claim ad homien if you’ve already previously proved you’re a hater only interested in destroying a class.

Actually, he can. The thread has a defined topic. You choose to ignore said topic to attack the person who started it instead. This is the perfect definition of ad honimen arguments (which is correct Latin, btw).

The topic is the same thus throwing it out applies.

If he was putting up a topic and all we knew about him was that he mained Ele/Mesmer than yes ad homien would apply.

Lets look at it this way. If a Westboro Baptist started a thread to have a “discussion” on how to change laws in regards to homosexual citizens would you listen?? Even after you saw that same person protesting homosexual rights at someone’s funeral weeks earlier???

No you wouldn’t…you’d disregard

I would listen, at least long enough to see if they actually had a new idea or if they were spouting the same BS they were before.

Given that “a new idea” is exactly what happened here in this thread, I suggest you actually try reading the OP and evaluating the idea presented instead of making the ad honimen attacks. After reading your posts in this thread, I don’t think you even know what his idea is, as you have made no reference at all to it.

There was no new idea just the same old “thieves shouldn’t spam bs”

Besides as a Necro you shouldnt be losing to thieves 1v1

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

T raw.4658:

You can’t claim ad homien if you’ve already previously proved you’re a hater only interested in destroying a class.

Actually, he can. The thread has a defined topic. You choose to ignore said topic to attack the person who started it instead. This is the perfect definition of ad honimen arguments (which is correct Latin, btw).

The topic is the same thus throwing it out applies.

If he was putting up a topic and all we knew about him was that he mained Ele/Mesmer than yes ad homien would apply.

Lets look at it this way. If a Westboro Baptist started a thread to have a “discussion” on how to change laws in regards to homosexual citizens would you listen?? Even after you saw that same person protesting homosexual rights at someone’s funeral weeks earlier???

No you wouldn’t…you’d disregard

To use your example, and assuming you are for gay rights, if a Westboro Baptist church member turned around and began to promote gay marriage, would he still be wrong?

Now before you get your panties in a bundle, I do understand that that is not a metaphor for what I am doing. But immediately assuming I am wrong because of any prior post I have made, and then attempting to convince everyone else of the same without actually considering my argument is blatantly idiotic, especially considering your insistence that attacking someone’s person instead of their argument is not ad hominem, despite the fact that the one and only definition of ad hominem is to reject an argument on the basis of the arguer’s personal characteristics.

More importantly than arguing the basics of debate with someone who clearly is incapable of comprehending them for reasons beyond my knowledge, I ask that a moderator remove this post and all other similarly off-topic/flamey posts from this thread.
Thank you in advance.

Thank you for so eloquently saying that you concede defeat. I’m impressed with the way you realized your errors. Good form.

Next time you would like to discuss any issue you have with any class I’ll be available to discuss. Send me a PM with the link or you can just do it to chat.

Thank You

T raw.4658:

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

T raw.4658:

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

T raw.4658:

You can’t claim ad homien if you’ve already previously proved you’re a hater only interested in destroying a class.

Actually, he can. The thread has a defined topic. You choose to ignore said topic to attack the person who started it instead. This is the perfect definition of ad honimen arguments (which is correct Latin, btw).

The topic is the same thus throwing it out applies.

If he was putting up a topic and all we knew about him was that he mained Ele/Mesmer than yes ad homien would apply.

Lets look at it this way. If a Westboro Baptist started a thread to have a “discussion” on how to change laws in regards to homosexual citizens would you listen?? Even after you saw that same person protesting homosexual rights at someone’s funeral weeks earlier???

No you wouldn’t…you’d disregard

I would listen, at least long enough to see if they actually had a new idea or if they were spouting the same BS they were before.

Given that “a new idea” is exactly what happened here in this thread, I suggest you actually try reading the OP and evaluating the idea presented instead of making the ad honimen attacks. After reading your posts in this thread, I don’t think you even know what his idea is, as you have made no reference at all to it.

There was no new idea just the same old “thieves shouldn’t spam bs”

Besides as a Necro you shouldnt be losing to thieves 1v1

I was so excited! This is your first post in this entire thread that actually addressed any part of my argument, but then you had to follow it up with yet another ad hominem that additionally assumed something never stated or even implied.

At least I have an actual argument to respond to now, though.
You are entirely correct in saying that I share a premise with other ideas (that is, that repeatedly pressing 1 to ignore aegis/blind/dodging for a powerful attack is probably not the best example of intelligent play ever), however I did propose something I think is a more fair solution to the perceived problem than previously suggested ones.
So to make this perfectly clear, do you think that backstabbing through active defenses with little to no drawback is a good thing? Wouldn’t it be better for well-timed active defenses to prevent such a strong attack?

Edit: To the post you made while I was making this one, I simply would like flaming to stay out of this thread (which is essentially what your arguments here boil down to, and I will admit some of my posts as well), because it deters people who actually have something to say about the idea itself, be it good or bad, from posting. Again, it would make me very happy if a mod could delete the flaming.

Fortus.6175:

IcyFlame.9705:

I can agree that this would be good when you time aegis of something very well. You should be rewarded for that kind of play, but on the other hand you have some active defenses that can be repeated way too often that it would be impossible for a thief to land a BS.

Thats the whole point of this thread. A thief shouldn tbe impermeable to defense mechanisms of other classes. Whenever I hear “but else how are we supposed to land backstab all the time?!” all I see is people who believe they are immune to everything and everything should go their way. ALL classes are affected by defense mechanisms that can be repeated often.

Lets take for example a thief vs an ele. Thief with dagger pistol. Thief timed his pistol #5 and made the ele miss his firegrab with a 45 secs CD. The ele depended on it, but for the thief that was nothing but literally a no CD spell. See how that works? Now lets see it the other way around. The same thief now uses HS on that same smoke field and goes into stealth for a nasty backstab, the ele times his defense and uses Arcane shielding (75 seconds CD) , it shows block block block 8k backstab 4k HS and the ele is dead.

See the disparity of defense vs attack on that? Whats the CD on the thief combo? Virtually none. Whats the risk? Virtually none. Whats the CD on the ele? All of his spells are on about 40+ seconds, his defenses are on 75+ seconds CD, his risk is also going into melee with very limited options.

As you can see, all thieves out there need to stop being so selfish and stop defending something they deep down know is wrong. If you cant see the logic on that i would be more than glad to share another example. The point is; defenses are there for a reason, classes that rely on those active defenses shouldnt be pooped on. In fact, the reason why eles and mesmer are hard countered by thieves is because of this very same reason. Why it remains like this is beyond me.

About the “active defense” part…Stealth is active. It is a defense. It only lasts a max of around 15 seconds (SR + BP). Thieves depend on it. So why don’t you stop being selfish because you can’t use an AoE spell near you to remove the effective area a thief can go in?

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

T raw.4658:

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

T raw.4658:

You can’t claim ad homien if you’ve already previously proved you’re a hater only interested in destroying a class.

Actually, he can. The thread has a defined topic. You choose to ignore said topic to attack the person who started it instead. This is the perfect definition of ad honimen arguments (which is correct Latin, btw).

The topic is the same thus throwing it out applies.

If he was putting up a topic and all we knew about him was that he mained Ele/Mesmer than yes ad homien would apply.

Lets look at it this way. If a Westboro Baptist started a thread to have a “discussion” on how to change laws in regards to homosexual citizens would you listen?? Even after you saw that same person protesting homosexual rights at someone’s funeral weeks earlier???

No you wouldn’t…you’d disregard

I would listen, at least long enough to see if they actually had a new idea or if they were spouting the same BS they were before.

Given that “a new idea” is exactly what happened here in this thread, I suggest you actually try reading the OP and evaluating the idea presented instead of making the ad honimen attacks. After reading your posts in this thread, I don’t think you even know what his idea is, as you have made no reference at all to it.

There was no new idea just the same old “thieves shouldn’t spam bs”

Besides as a Necro you shouldnt be losing to thieves 1v1

I was so excited! This is your first post in this entire thread that actually addressed any part of my argument, but then you had to follow it up with yet another ad hominem that additionally assumed something never stated or even implied.

At least I have an actual argument to respond to now, though.
You are entirely correct in saying that I share a premise with other ideas (that is, that repeatedly pressing 1 to ignore aegis/blind/dodging for a powerful attack is probably not the best example of intelligent play ever), however I did propose something I think is a more fair solution to the perceived problem than previously suggested ones.
So to make this perfectly clear, do you think that backstabbing through active defenses with little to no drawback is a good thing? Wouldn’t it be better for well-timed active defenses to prevent such a strong attack?

Edit: To the post you made while I was making this one, I simply would like flaming to stay out of this thread (which is essentially what your arguments here boil down to, and I will admit some of my posts as well), because it deters people who actually have something to say about the idea itself, be it good or bad, from posting. Again, it would make me very happy if a mod could delete the flaming.

There is no response to make that all the people who actually play thieves haven’t already said on the subject the last 12 times it was posted. You refuse to listen and repost the same crap in a different thread

So now It’s simple.

L2p

I did and guess what?? Thieves are actually fun to fight…Scratch that GOOD thieves are fun to fight. Average thief is a free kill tbh. Heck all but the best are free kills

Y

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

T raw.4658:

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

T raw.4658:

You can’t claim ad homien if you’ve already previously proved you’re a hater only interested in destroying a class.

Actually, he can. The thread has a defined topic. You choose to ignore said topic to attack the person who started it instead. This is the perfect definition of ad honimen arguments (which is correct Latin, btw).

The topic is the same thus throwing it out applies.

If he was putting up a topic and all we knew about him was that he mained Ele/Mesmer than yes ad homien would apply.

Lets look at it this way. If a Westboro Baptist started a thread to have a “discussion” on how to change laws in regards to homosexual citizens would you listen?? Even after you saw that same person protesting homosexual rights at someone’s funeral weeks earlier???

No you wouldn’t…you’d disregard

I would listen, at least long enough to see if they actually had a new idea or if they were spouting the same BS they were before.

Given that “a new idea” is exactly what happened here in this thread, I suggest you actually try reading the OP and evaluating the idea presented instead of making the ad honimen attacks. After reading your posts in this thread, I don’t think you even know what his idea is, as you have made no reference at all to it.

There was no new idea just the same old “thieves shouldn’t spam bs”

Besides as a Necro you shouldnt be losing to thieves 1v1

I was so excited! This is your first post in this entire thread that actually addressed any part of my argument, but then you had to follow it up with yet another ad hominem that additionally assumed something never stated or even implied.

At least I have an actual argument to respond to now, though.
You are entirely correct in saying that I share a premise with other ideas (that is, that repeatedly pressing 1 to ignore aegis/blind/dodging for a powerful attack is probably not the best example of intelligent play ever), however I did propose something I think is a more fair solution to the perceived problem than previously suggested ones.
So to make this perfectly clear, do you think that backstabbing through active defenses with little to no drawback is a good thing? Wouldn’t it be better for well-timed active defenses to prevent such a strong attack?

Edit: To the post you made while I was making this one, I simply would like flaming to stay out of this thread (which is essentially what your arguments here boil down to, and I will admit some of my posts as well), because it deters people who actually have something to say about the idea itself, be it good or bad, from posting. Again, it would make me very happy if a mod could delete the flaming.

There is no response to make that all the people who actually play thieves haven’t already said on the subject the last 12 times it was posted. You refuse to listen and repost the same crap in a different thread

So now It’s simple.

L2p

I did and guess what?? Thieves are actually fun to fight…Scratch that GOOD thieves are fun to fight. Average thief is a free kill tbh. Heck all but the best are free kills

Y

And again you take the easy way out.

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

T raw.4658:

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

T raw.4658:

You can’t claim ad homien if you’ve already previously proved you’re a hater only interested in destroying a class.

Actually, he can. The thread has a defined topic. You choose to ignore said topic to attack the person who started it instead. This is the perfect definition of ad honimen arguments (which is correct Latin, btw).

The topic is the same thus throwing it out applies.

If he was putting up a topic and all we knew about him was that he mained Ele/Mesmer than yes ad homien would apply.

Lets look at it this way. If a Westboro Baptist started a thread to have a “discussion” on how to change laws in regards to homosexual citizens would you listen?? Even after you saw that same person protesting homosexual rights at someone’s funeral weeks earlier???

No you wouldn’t…you’d disregard

I would listen, at least long enough to see if they actually had a new idea or if they were spouting the same BS they were before.

Given that “a new idea” is exactly what happened here in this thread, I suggest you actually try reading the OP and evaluating the idea presented instead of making the ad honimen attacks. After reading your posts in this thread, I don’t think you even know what his idea is, as you have made no reference at all to it.

There was no new idea just the same old “thieves shouldn’t spam bs”

Besides as a Necro you shouldnt be losing to thieves 1v1

I was so excited! This is your first post in this entire thread that actually addressed any part of my argument, but then you had to follow it up with yet another ad hominem that additionally assumed something never stated or even implied.

At least I have an actual argument to respond to now, though.
You are entirely correct in saying that I share a premise with other ideas (that is, that repeatedly pressing 1 to ignore aegis/blind/dodging for a powerful attack is probably not the best example of intelligent play ever), however I did propose something I think is a more fair solution to the perceived problem than previously suggested ones.
So to make this perfectly clear, do you think that backstabbing through active defenses with little to no drawback is a good thing? Wouldn’t it be better for well-timed active defenses to prevent such a strong attack?

Edit: To the post you made while I was making this one, I simply would like flaming to stay out of this thread (which is essentially what your arguments here boil down to, and I will admit some of my posts as well), because it deters people who actually have something to say about the idea itself, be it good or bad, from posting. Again, it would make me very happy if a mod could delete the flaming.

There is no response to make that all the people who actually play thieves haven’t already said on the subject the last 12 times it was posted. You refuse to listen and repost the same crap in a different thread

So now It’s simple.

L2p

I did and guess what?? Thieves are actually fun to fight…Scratch that GOOD thieves are fun to fight. Average thief is a free kill tbh. Heck all but the best are free kills

Y

And again you take the easy way out.

What’s it called if you repeat the same action (aka counter arguing this same topic) over and over again expecting a different result?

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

T raw.4658:

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

T raw.4658:

You can’t claim ad homien if you’ve already previously proved you’re a hater only interested in destroying a class.

Actually, he can. The thread has a defined topic. You choose to ignore said topic to attack the person who started it instead. This is the perfect definition of ad honimen arguments (which is correct Latin, btw).

The topic is the same thus throwing it out applies.

If he was putting up a topic and all we knew about him was that he mained Ele/Mesmer than yes ad homien would apply.

Lets look at it this way. If a Westboro Baptist started a thread to have a “discussion” on how to change laws in regards to homosexual citizens would you listen?? Even after you saw that same person protesting homosexual rights at someone’s funeral weeks earlier???

No you wouldn’t…you’d disregard

I would listen, at least long enough to see if they actually had a new idea or if they were spouting the same BS they were before.

Given that “a new idea” is exactly what happened here in this thread, I suggest you actually try reading the OP and evaluating the idea presented instead of making the ad honimen attacks. After reading your posts in this thread, I don’t think you even know what his idea is, as you have made no reference at all to it.

There was no new idea just the same old “thieves shouldn’t spam bs”

Besides as a Necro you shouldnt be losing to thieves 1v1

I was so excited! This is your first post in this entire thread that actually addressed any part of my argument, but then you had to follow it up with yet another ad hominem that additionally assumed something never stated or even implied.

At least I have an actual argument to respond to now, though.
You are entirely correct in saying that I share a premise with other ideas (that is, that repeatedly pressing 1 to ignore aegis/blind/dodging for a powerful attack is probably not the best example of intelligent play ever), however I did propose something I think is a more fair solution to the perceived problem than previously suggested ones.
So to make this perfectly clear, do you think that backstabbing through active defenses with little to no drawback is a good thing? Wouldn’t it be better for well-timed active defenses to prevent such a strong attack?

Edit: To the post you made while I was making this one, I simply would like flaming to stay out of this thread (which is essentially what your arguments here boil down to, and I will admit some of my posts as well), because it deters people who actually have something to say about the idea itself, be it good or bad, from posting. Again, it would make me very happy if a mod could delete the flaming.

There is no response to make that all the people who actually play thieves haven’t already said on the subject the last 12 times it was posted. You refuse to listen and repost the same crap in a different thread

So now It’s simple.

L2p

I did and guess what?? Thieves are actually fun to fight…Scratch that GOOD thieves are fun to fight. Average thief is a free kill tbh. Heck all but the best are free kills

Y

And again you take the easy way out.

What’s it called if you repeat the same action (aka counter arguing this same topic) over and over again expecting a different result?

If you aren’t willing to do so, don’t bother to post in the first place.

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

T raw.4658:

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

T raw.4658:

You can’t claim ad homien if you’ve already previously proved you’re a hater only interested in destroying a class.

Actually, he can. The thread has a defined topic. You choose to ignore said topic to attack the person who started it instead. This is the perfect definition of ad honimen arguments (which is correct Latin, btw).

The topic is the same thus throwing it out applies.

If he was putting up a topic and all we knew about him was that he mained Ele/Mesmer than yes ad homien would apply.

Lets look at it this way. If a Westboro Baptist started a thread to have a “discussion” on how to change laws in regards to homosexual citizens would you listen?? Even after you saw that same person protesting homosexual rights at someone’s funeral weeks earlier???

No you wouldn’t…you’d disregard

I would listen, at least long enough to see if they actually had a new idea or if they were spouting the same BS they were before.

Given that “a new idea” is exactly what happened here in this thread, I suggest you actually try reading the OP and evaluating the idea presented instead of making the ad honimen attacks. After reading your posts in this thread, I don’t think you even know what his idea is, as you have made no reference at all to it.

There was no new idea just the same old “thieves shouldn’t spam bs”

Besides as a Necro you shouldnt be losing to thieves 1v1

I was so excited! This is your first post in this entire thread that actually addressed any part of my argument, but then you had to follow it up with yet another ad hominem that additionally assumed something never stated or even implied.

At least I have an actual argument to respond to now, though.
You are entirely correct in saying that I share a premise with other ideas (that is, that repeatedly pressing 1 to ignore aegis/blind/dodging for a powerful attack is probably not the best example of intelligent play ever), however I did propose something I think is a more fair solution to the perceived problem than previously suggested ones.
So to make this perfectly clear, do you think that backstabbing through active defenses with little to no drawback is a good thing? Wouldn’t it be better for well-timed active defenses to prevent such a strong attack?

Edit: To the post you made while I was making this one, I simply would like flaming to stay out of this thread (which is essentially what your arguments here boil down to, and I will admit some of my posts as well), because it deters people who actually have something to say about the idea itself, be it good or bad, from posting. Again, it would make me very happy if a mod could delete the flaming.

There is no response to make that all the people who actually play thieves haven’t already said on the subject the last 12 times it was posted. You refuse to listen and repost the same crap in a different thread

So now It’s simple.

L2p

I did and guess what?? Thieves are actually fun to fight…Scratch that GOOD thieves are fun to fight. Average thief is a free kill tbh. Heck all but the best are free kills

Y

And again you take the easy way out.

What’s it called if you repeat the same action (aka counter arguing this same topic) over and over again expecting a different result?

If you aren’t willing to do so, don’t bother to post in the first place.

You’re trying to kill an extremely enjoyable fight for me.

ofc I’ll say something

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

T raw.4658:

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

T raw.4658:

You can’t claim ad homien if you’ve already previously proved you’re a hater only interested in destroying a class.

Actually, he can. The thread has a defined topic. You choose to ignore said topic to attack the person who started it instead. This is the perfect definition of ad honimen arguments (which is correct Latin, btw).

The topic is the same thus throwing it out applies.

If he was putting up a topic and all we knew about him was that he mained Ele/Mesmer than yes ad homien would apply.

Lets look at it this way. If a Westboro Baptist started a thread to have a “discussion” on how to change laws in regards to homosexual citizens would you listen?? Even after you saw that same person protesting homosexual rights at someone’s funeral weeks earlier???

No you wouldn’t…you’d disregard

I would listen, at least long enough to see if they actually had a new idea or if they were spouting the same BS they were before.

Given that “a new idea” is exactly what happened here in this thread, I suggest you actually try reading the OP and evaluating the idea presented instead of making the ad honimen attacks. After reading your posts in this thread, I don’t think you even know what his idea is, as you have made no reference at all to it.

There was no new idea just the same old “thieves shouldn’t spam bs”

Besides as a Necro you shouldnt be losing to thieves 1v1

I was so excited! This is your first post in this entire thread that actually addressed any part of my argument, but then you had to follow it up with yet another ad hominem that additionally assumed something never stated or even implied.

At least I have an actual argument to respond to now, though.
You are entirely correct in saying that I share a premise with other ideas (that is, that repeatedly pressing 1 to ignore aegis/blind/dodging for a powerful attack is probably not the best example of intelligent play ever), however I did propose something I think is a more fair solution to the perceived problem than previously suggested ones.
So to make this perfectly clear, do you think that backstabbing through active defenses with little to no drawback is a good thing? Wouldn’t it be better for well-timed active defenses to prevent such a strong attack?

Edit: To the post you made while I was making this one, I simply would like flaming to stay out of this thread (which is essentially what your arguments here boil down to, and I will admit some of my posts as well), because it deters people who actually have something to say about the idea itself, be it good or bad, from posting. Again, it would make me very happy if a mod could delete the flaming.

There is no response to make that all the people who actually play thieves haven’t already said on the subject the last 12 times it was posted. You refuse to listen and repost the same crap in a different thread

So now It’s simple.

L2p

I did and guess what?? Thieves are actually fun to fight…Scratch that GOOD thieves are fun to fight. Average thief is a free kill tbh. Heck all but the best are free kills

Y

And again you take the easy way out.

What’s it called if you repeat the same action (aka counter arguing this same topic) over and over again expecting a different result?

If you aren’t willing to do so, don’t bother to post in the first place.

You’re trying to kill an extremely enjoyable fight for me.

ofc I’ll say something

I’m not trying to kill anything. I’m trying to promote skillful play by pointing out mechanics that don’t reward skillful play and even punish it and presenting a possible way to remedy that.

You start posting on this thread, insult me, post volumes worth of ad hominem (which you then claim is a fake latin phrase), and then avoid actually debating me on the issue at hand to the point that I begin to doubt that you actually have an argument behind all of your mindless personal attacks. Of course I’ll take issue with that.

wow this thread is turning into blind rage threats. But oh well, every 2 threads there’s a thief nerf thread and it always ends up like this so I wont even bother

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

I would listen, at least long enough to see if they actually had a new idea or if they were spouting the same BS they were before.

Given that “a new idea” is exactly what happened here in this thread, I suggest you actually try reading the OP and evaluating the idea presented instead of making the ad honimen attacks. After reading your posts in this thread, I don’t think you even know what his idea is, as you have made no reference at all to it.

There was no new idea just the same old “thieves shouldn’t spam bs”

Besides as a Necro you shouldnt be losing to thieves 1v1

I was so excited! This is your first post in this entire thread that actually addressed any part of my argument, but then you had to follow it up with yet another ad hominem that additionally assumed something never stated or even implied.

At least I have an actual argument to respond to now, though.
You are entirely correct in saying that I share a premise with other ideas (that is, that repeatedly pressing 1 to ignore aegis/blind/dodging for a powerful attack is probably not the best example of intelligent play ever), however I did propose something I think is a more fair solution to the perceived problem than previously suggested ones.
So to make this perfectly clear, do you think that backstabbing through active defenses with little to no drawback is a good thing? Wouldn’t it be better for well-timed active defenses to prevent such a strong attack?

Edit: To the post you made while I was making this one, I simply would like flaming to stay out of this thread (which is essentially what your arguments here boil down to, and I will admit some of my posts as well), because it deters people who actually have something to say about the idea itself, be it good or bad, from posting. Again, it would make me very happy if a mod could delete the flaming.

There is no response to make that all the people who actually play thieves haven’t already said on the subject the last 12 times it was posted. You refuse to listen and repost the same crap in a different thread

So now It’s simple.

L2p

I did and guess what?? Thieves are actually fun to fight…Scratch that GOOD thieves are fun to fight. Average thief is a free kill tbh. Heck all but the best are free kills

Y

And again you take the easy way out.

What’s it called if you repeat the same action (aka counter arguing this same topic) over and over again expecting a different result?

If you aren’t willing to do so, don’t bother to post in the first place.

You’re trying to kill an extremely enjoyable fight for me.

ofc I’ll say something

I’m not trying to kill anything. I’m trying to promote skillful play by pointing out mechanics that don’t reward skillful play and even punish it and presenting a possible way to remedy that.

You start posting on this thread, insult me, post volumes worth of ad hominem (which you then claim is a fake latin phrase), and then avoid actually debating me on the issue at hand to the point that I begin to doubt that you actually have an argument behind all of your mindless personal attacks. Of course I’ll take issue with that.

In your ignorance you will be killing skillful counter play that currently exists. You’ve been told repeatedly how this is so. You keep choosing to ignore said counter plays and continue posting to destroy it.

You also wanna incorrectly use kewl latin phrases hoping that it will deceive people into believing your idea is something more than redressed rubbish. This also seems to be your tactic of choice when an informed person (Me) pulls your card and calls your bullkitten.

I’m liking the new appeal to the mods because I’m a mean poster tactic you seem to want to take as well.

You need to follow the ToS on these forums honestly.

First your idea is spam. We’ve all read this thread a hundred times already.

Second you’ve obviously didn’t search the forum since w/e info you need to tell you why your spam idea is bad for the game has been posted a bazillion times already.

Third just because you want to dress up your rude posting with latin phrases and bigger words doesn’t mean you aren’t being rude. Also one has quite the valid argument that you are insulting our intelligence with this stuff.

I will give you a piece of information that someone may not have told you though. Back Stab isn’t an instant ability. It channels. That is by design to give you MORE than enough to time avoid/prepare/defend the 2nd attempt at landing one after you get the huge tell of Block/Miss/Evade/Etc.

Thank You

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

And again you take the easy way out.

What’s it called if you repeat the same action (aka counter arguing this same topic) over and over again expecting a different result?

If you aren’t willing to do so, don’t bother to post in the first place.

You’re trying to kill an extremely enjoyable fight for me.

ofc I’ll say something

I’m not trying to kill anything. I’m trying to promote skillful play by pointing out mechanics that don’t reward skillful play and even punish it and presenting a possible way to remedy that.

You start posting on this thread, insult me, post volumes worth of ad hominem (which you then claim is a fake latin phrase), and then avoid actually debating me on the issue at hand to the point that I begin to doubt that you actually have an argument behind all of your mindless personal attacks. Of course I’ll take issue with that.

In your ignorance you will be killing skillful counter play that currently exists. You’ve been told repeatedly how this is so. You keep choosing to ignore said counter plays and continue posting to destroy it.

You also wanna incorrectly use kewl latin phrases hoping that it will deceive people into believing your idea is something more than redressed rubbish. This also seems to be your tactic of choice when an informed person (Me) pulls your card and calls your bullkitten.

I’m liking the new appeal to the mods because I’m a mean poster tactic you seem to want to take as well.

You need to follow the ToS on these forums honestly.

First your idea is spam. We’ve all read this thread a hundred times already.

Second you’ve obviously didn’t search the forum since w/e info you need to tell you why your spam idea is bad for the game has been posted a bazillion times already.

Ad hominem is a technical term, which is by now so far dissociated from Latin that understanding what I mean by it can be likened to understanding the meaning of “P.S.”, which is an abbreviation of post script, another Latin term. It’s pretty common, to the point that I’m shocked that you think using it is an attempt to make my calling you out on doing it sound prettier.
Here’s a few links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem

More importantly, you tricked me into thinking I had actually posted something within the last month that could remotely imply that I thought thieves were OP, because there was a point in time where I legitimately thought that and posted moderately frequently on it. Turns out the last post of that nature was on February 25th, when I said that stealth was bad for the game in it’s current implementation, five pages into my post history, and I don’t remember you being around on the forums then. That makes this the first comment I’ve made on thief balance in close to two months, and I have not once claimed that thief was overpowered at any point in this thread.

So actually, every single time I have claimed that you were using ad hominem arguments in this thread I have been wrong. Ad hominem arguments, while still fallacious, are at least truthful.

T raw.4658:

In your ignorance you will be killing skillful counter play that currently exists. You’ve been told repeatedly how this is so. You keep choosing to ignore said counter plays and continue posting to destroy it.

I will give you a piece of information that someone may not have told you though. Back Stab isn’t an instant ability. It channels. That is by design to give you MORE than enough to time avoid/prepare/defend the 2nd attempt at landing one after you get the huge tell of Block/Miss/Evade/Etc.

Thank You

And this is what I wanted to hear the whole time! A counterargument that doesn’t rely on argumentative fallacies that, while still phrased in the same condescending tone present from your first post in this thread onwards, is something that can be actually discussed!
As you know, backstab has a 1/4 second cast-time , with a moderately long aftercast that prevents it from being used four times in a second (sword and shortbow have the same cast time, but lack the aftercast, by the way, and pistol ignores blind/aegis for an entirely different reason. This isn’t solely about backstab, because other stealth skills have the same issues and are powerful as well), and certainly does give enough time to dodge after a first cast. Despite this, in most cases a single dodge does not prevent the stealth attack because the skill can be used continually through even the best timed active defenses and still retain effectiveness as one of the higher damaging single skills in the game.
It just frankly doesn’t make very much sense to me to have it so that perfectly timing an active defense to avoid the skill doesn’t actually avoid the skill. In the same vein, I don’t think the traditional solutions to this problem are particularly fair either, because they just switch the sides the problem is on so that thoughtless usage of blind/aegis can hardcounter stealth however well the thief plays. So thus, I came up with my idea of having stealth attacks be usable once per stealth cast with no other change, so that even if the thief lost his stealth attack because he was outplayed or swung without being aware of what was going on he could either restealth using another skill and try again (without even leaving stealth), or use another attack, while still giving the benefit to a skilled defender of preventing a stun/damage spike/immobilize.
Now, ideally, you respond to this post explaining why I am wrong and why using backstab a second time after it has already been dodged is acceptable.

OP your suggestion makes too much sense. Better remove Capricorn first to see how people adjust before we do anything drastic to class balance.

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

And again you take the easy way out.

What’s it called if you repeat the same action (aka counter arguing this same topic) over and over again expecting a different result?

If you aren’t willing to do so, don’t bother to post in the first place.

You’re trying to kill an extremely enjoyable fight for me.

ofc I’ll say something

I’m not trying to kill anything. I’m trying to promote skillful play by pointing out mechanics that don’t reward skillful play and even punish it and presenting a possible way to remedy that.

You start posting on this thread, insult me, post volumes worth of ad hominem (which you then claim is a fake latin phrase), and then avoid actually debating me on the issue at hand to the point that I begin to doubt that you actually have an argument behind all of your mindless personal attacks. Of course I’ll take issue with that.

In your ignorance you will be killing skillful counter play that currently exists. You’ve been told repeatedly how this is so. You keep choosing to ignore said counter plays and continue posting to destroy it.

You also wanna incorrectly use kewl latin phrases hoping that it will deceive people into believing your idea is something more than redressed rubbish. This also seems to be your tactic of choice when an informed person (Me) pulls your card and calls your bullkitten.

I’m liking the new appeal to the mods because I’m a mean poster tactic you seem to want to take as well.

You need to follow the ToS on these forums honestly.

First your idea is spam. We’ve all read this thread a hundred times already.

Second you’ve obviously didn’t search the forum since w/e info you need to tell you why your spam idea is bad for the game has been posted a bazillion times already.

Ad hominem is a technical term, which is by now so far dissociated from Latin that understanding what I mean by it can be likened to understanding the meaning of “P.S.”, which is an abbreviation of post script, another Latin term. It’s pretty common, to the point that I’m shocked that you think using it is an attempt to make my calling you out on doing it sound prettier.
Here’s a few links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem

More importantly, you tricked me into thinking I had actually posted something within the last month that could remotely imply that I thought thieves were OP, because there was a point in time where I legitimately thought that and posted moderately frequently on it. Turns out the last post of that nature was on February 25th, when I said that stealth was bad for the game in it’s current implementation, five pages into my post history, and I don’t remember you being around on the forums then. That makes this the first comment I’ve made on thief balance in close to two months, and I have not once claimed that thief was overpowered at any point in this thread.

So actually, every single time I have claimed that you were using ad hominem arguments in this thread I have been wrong. Ad hominem arguments, while still fallacious, are at least truthful.

Wow…..I think you should delete this one mate.

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

In your ignorance you will be killing skillful counter play that currently exists. You’ve been told repeatedly how this is so. You keep choosing to ignore said counter plays and continue posting to destroy it.

I will give you a piece of information that someone may not have told you though. Back Stab isn’t an instant ability. It channels. That is by design to give you MORE than enough to time avoid/prepare/defend the 2nd attempt at landing one after you get the huge tell of Block/Miss/Evade/Etc.

Thank You

snip

Go back and reread all the counter arguments. I’m not going through them again when plenty of people have already posted such things.

Go to the thief forum and find some more counter arguments.

After researching all the counter arguments that have previously been made you might understand why you should just stop posting. I do believe you have the capacity of coming to this conclusion and I will accept PMs to aid you in your quest to enlighten oneself.

Thank You

To the OP: While the idea is nice, if a thief fails to land a backstab, they will let the stealth wear off naturally, which doesn’t apply revealed, then immediately reapply stealth and try again (you can only dodge so many times). This change would hurt a d/d thief a lot more than a d/p thief, because dodging the d/d thief burns him out much faster and prevents him from using his primary stealth tool (CnD). Also, I can see people rolling around much more frantically than usual when a thief stealths if this change was made.

On a side note, I’ve seen someone say, “You’re X, you shouldn’t lose to thieves 1v1,” to every class except ranger. If thieves really should only be able to kill rangers, there would be almost no complaints about them. Thieves are very strong and extremely punishing to less experienced players, who they reduce to a pile of loot faster than no other. I think there would be far less fuss about thieves if the learning curve needed to defeat them was less punishing and easier to overcome. That said, I really don’t know how to achieve this goal without making thieves bad and I don’t want to wade through a sea of l2p’s and thief is perfectly fine to come up with an answer. Thief balance is delicate. One small tweak and an entire weapon can lose its niche and become obsolete.

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

And again you take the easy way out.

What’s it called if you repeat the same action (aka counter arguing this same topic) over and over again expecting a different result?

If you aren’t willing to do so, don’t bother to post in the first place.

You’re trying to kill an extremely enjoyable fight for me.

ofc I’ll say something

I’m not trying to kill anything. I’m trying to promote skillful play by pointing out mechanics that don’t reward skillful play and even punish it and presenting a possible way to remedy that.

You start posting on this thread, insult me, post volumes worth of ad hominem (which you then claim is a fake latin phrase), and then avoid actually debating me on the issue at hand to the point that I begin to doubt that you actually have an argument behind all of your mindless personal attacks. Of course I’ll take issue with that.

In your ignorance you will be killing skillful counter play that currently exists. You’ve been told repeatedly how this is so. You keep choosing to ignore said counter plays and continue posting to destroy it.

You also wanna incorrectly use kewl latin phrases hoping that it will deceive people into believing your idea is something more than redressed rubbish. This also seems to be your tactic of choice when an informed person (Me) pulls your card and calls your bullkitten.

I’m liking the new appeal to the mods because I’m a mean poster tactic you seem to want to take as well.

You need to follow the ToS on these forums honestly.

First your idea is spam. We’ve all read this thread a hundred times already.

Second you’ve obviously didn’t search the forum since w/e info you need to tell you why your spam idea is bad for the game has been posted a bazillion times already.

Ad hominem is a technical term, which is by now so far dissociated from Latin that understanding what I mean by it can be likened to understanding the meaning of “P.S.”, which is an abbreviation of post script, another Latin term. It’s pretty common, to the point that I’m shocked that you think using it is an attempt to make my calling you out on doing it sound prettier.
Here’s a few links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem

More importantly, you tricked me into thinking I had actually posted something within the last month that could remotely imply that I thought thieves were OP, because there was a point in time where I legitimately thought that and posted moderately frequently on it. Turns out the last post of that nature was on February 25th, when I said that stealth was bad for the game in it’s current implementation, five pages into my post history, and I don’t remember you being around on the forums then. That makes this the first comment I’ve made on thief balance in close to two months, and I have not once claimed that thief was overpowered at any point in this thread.

So actually, every single time I have claimed that you were using ad hominem arguments in this thread I have been wrong. Ad hominem arguments, while still fallacious, are at least truthful.

Wow…..I think you should delete this one mate.

I dare you, go read through my post history. I guarantee you, you will be unable to find a post that says there is a problem with thieves outside of this thread until page five.

i only see 2 effective fixes :

make stealth be affected by active defenses Invuln/block/aegis

and/or

remove leap finisher from heartseeker or so it doesnt kill other non existant builds give heartseeker’s leap finisher a cooldown

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

And again you take the easy way out.

What’s it called if you repeat the same action (aka counter arguing this same topic) over and over again expecting a different result?

If you aren’t willing to do so, don’t bother to post in the first place.

You’re trying to kill an extremely enjoyable fight for me.

ofc I’ll say something

I’m not trying to kill anything. I’m trying to promote skillful play by pointing out mechanics that don’t reward skillful play and even punish it and presenting a possible way to remedy that.

You start posting on this thread, insult me, post volumes worth of ad hominem (which you then claim is a fake latin phrase), and then avoid actually debating me on the issue at hand to the point that I begin to doubt that you actually have an argument behind all of your mindless personal attacks. Of course I’ll take issue with that.

In your ignorance you will be killing skillful counter play that currently exists. You’ve been told repeatedly how this is so. You keep choosing to ignore said counter plays and continue posting to destroy it.

You also wanna incorrectly use kewl latin phrases hoping that it will deceive people into believing your idea is something more than redressed rubbish. This also seems to be your tactic of choice when an informed person (Me) pulls your card and calls your bullkitten.

I’m liking the new appeal to the mods because I’m a mean poster tactic you seem to want to take as well.

You need to follow the ToS on these forums honestly.

First your idea is spam. We’ve all read this thread a hundred times already.

Second you’ve obviously didn’t search the forum since w/e info you need to tell you why your spam idea is bad for the game has been posted a bazillion times already.

Ad hominem is a technical term, which is by now so far dissociated from Latin that understanding what I mean by it can be likened to understanding the meaning of “P.S.”, which is an abbreviation of post script, another Latin term. It’s pretty common, to the point that I’m shocked that you think using it is an attempt to make my calling you out on doing it sound prettier.
Here’s a few links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem

More importantly, you tricked me into thinking I had actually posted something within the last month that could remotely imply that I thought thieves were OP, because there was a point in time where I legitimately thought that and posted moderately frequently on it. Turns out the last post of that nature was on February 25th, when I said that stealth was bad for the game in it’s current implementation, five pages into my post history, and I don’t remember you being around on the forums then. That makes this the first comment I’ve made on thief balance in close to two months, and I have not once claimed that thief was overpowered at any point in this thread.

So actually, every single time I have claimed that you were using ad hominem arguments in this thread I have been wrong. Ad hominem arguments, while still fallacious, are at least truthful.

Wow…..I think you should delete this one mate.

I dare you, go read through my post history. I guarantee you, you will be unable to find a post that says there is a problem with thieves outside of this thread until page five.

Shouldn’t have posted this either mate.

Lets get a close or let this one die due to proposal getting exposed.

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

T raw.4658:

P Fun Daddy.1208:

And again you take the easy way out.

What’s it called if you repeat the same action (aka counter arguing this same topic) over and over again expecting a different result?

If you aren’t willing to do so, don’t bother to post in the first place.

You’re trying to kill an extremely enjoyable fight for me.

ofc I’ll say something

I’m not trying to kill anything. I’m trying to promote skillful play by pointing out mechanics that don’t reward skillful play and even punish it and presenting a possible way to remedy that.

You start posting on this thread, insult me, post volumes worth of ad hominem (which you then claim is a fake latin phrase), and then avoid actually debating me on the issue at hand to the point that I begin to doubt that you actually have an argument behind all of your mindless personal attacks. Of course I’ll take issue with that.

In your ignorance you will be killing skillful counter play that currently exists. You’ve been told repeatedly how this is so. You keep choosing to ignore said counter plays and continue posting to destroy it.

You also wanna incorrectly use kewl latin phrases hoping that it will deceive people into believing your idea is something more than redressed rubbish. This also seems to be your tactic of choice when an informed person (Me) pulls your card and calls your bullkitten.

I’m liking the new appeal to the mods because I’m a mean poster tactic you seem to want to take as well.

You need to follow the ToS on these forums honestly.

First your idea is spam. We’ve all read this thread a hundred times already.

Second you’ve obviously didn’t search the forum since w/e info you need to tell you why your spam idea is bad for the game has been posted a bazillion times already.

Ad hominem is a technical term, which is by now so far dissociated from Latin that understanding what I mean by it can be likened to understanding the meaning of “P.S.”, which is an abbreviation of post script, another Latin term. It’s pretty common, to the point that I’m shocked that you think using it is an attempt to make my calling you out on doing it sound prettier.
Here’s a few links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem

More importantly, you tricked me into thinking I had actually posted something within the last month that could remotely imply that I thought thieves were OP, because there was a point in time where I legitimately thought that and posted moderately frequently on it. Turns out the last post of that nature was on February 25th, when I said that stealth was bad for the game in it’s current implementation, five pages into my post history, and I don’t remember you being around on the forums then. That makes this the first comment I’ve made on thief balance in close to two months, and I have not once claimed that thief was overpowered at any point in this thread.

So actually, every single time I have claimed that you were using ad hominem arguments in this thread I have been wrong. Ad hominem arguments, while still fallacious, are at least truthful.

Wow…..I think you should delete this one mate.

I dare you, go read through my post history. I guarantee you, you will be unable to find a post that says there is a problem with thieves outside of this thread until page five.

Shouldn’t have posted this either mate.

Lets get a close or let this one die due to proposal getting exposed.

You shouldn’t have posted that, bud.

As I said earlier in this thread (and to pull it back on track), this change is actually a good one. It doesn’t really nerf thieves in any way other than that they actually have to think before using their stealth attacks. Can they go into stealth and try again? Absolutely, but it opens up counterplay. Of course, there WILL be cons to this, but I think it would be nice for Anet to try it out and see how well it works.

As the title says. I am sick and tired of playing against no brain ultra safe stealth and teleport spammers. It is bunker up or die. I know that the condition/sustain metagame is rampant at the moment, but there is a reason for that.

Namely, the THIEF counters every single glass cannon build. To a lesser extent the mesmer as well. This led to bunker conditions which led to overbuffing of warriors. The thief is toxic and backstabbing, stealth spamming and heartseeker is totally dumb to play against.

Ty for reading

Chokolata.1870:

As the title says. I am sick and tired of playing against no brain ultra safe stealth and teleport spammers. It is bunker up or die. I know that the condition/sustain metagame is rampant at the moment, but there is a reason for that.

Namely, the THIEF counters every single glass cannon build. To a lesser extent the mesmer as well. This led to bunker conditions which led to overbuffing of warriors. The thief is toxic and backstabbing, stealth spamming and heartseeker is totally dumb to play against.

Ty for reading

Let put the bold in perspective.

YOU ARE MADE OF GLASS! How are you not going to be destroyed by a thief or rather any other competent player for that matter?

If you know how thieves play wouldn’t it be a good idea to come up with some of stratagem to out do them?

Yes I do main a thief. Yes I utilize 3 skills out of the D/D weapon set and I do go into stealth. No I don’t have a problem with other thiefs on my thief or otherwise. I play Knights meditation guardian, Glass thief, Knights/soldiers power Necro and glass Ele. And I DO NOT have a problem fighting thiefs because I know how they move.

Play a thief in SPVP for one week using common builds found on the forums, just TRY it and you will see how they play, or watch guides on how many people play them. Stealth movements are EASY to predict. You will know when they are coming and what they are going to do if you have a brain.

You can not stop an invisible thief from running away though. They have the best movement and you can’t follow them easy. Personally I would be fine with getting revealed when using an attack, actually I support that. It’ll cut thief numbers down by removing some bad ones.

just repost my post from another thread so there might be some formatting errors and the responses might seem to be irrelevant!

just my 2 cents to several posts so far.

1. why am i (are we) playing thief?

someone mentioned he wants to play against players who wants to fight them fair and square. that’s not what the thief is about! simple as that. a thief is a pain in the a**, a rat that demoralise the enemy, fighting unfair and dirty and thats what i (we) like about that profession. we don’t care to fight 1v1 in honor we want to be the most possible nuisense to our enemy and to kill him. otherwise i wouldn’t have picked the thief as my profession in the first place.

2. spamming the same abilities over and over.

yeah that can happen if the situation is rewarding you for it why shouldn’t you?
but mostly that’s the difference between mediocre and good players.
i think there are enough posts/threads about this so far so my advise too all those anti-thief guys: play a thief yourself in spvp for a month. after that i guess 90% won’t argue anymore….

but i agree that some weapon skills and their synergy doesn’t feel right atm and could need a rework

3. INVIS OP!!!!

i have to say invis in GW2 is broken, but far away from OP.
most stealth skills have with traited shadow arts 4 seconds of invis. during this 4 sec the thief is most likly going to hit on you seems very predictable isnt it? and to a decent player it’s also manageable to dodge, block etc. the incoming attack.

whats broken about it tho?…. it doesn’t serve it’s original propose:

insteat of making the thief unpredictable for an amount of time it makes him pretty predictable during stealth.
stealth is way too short to actually be used to find an opening to engage a “prey” you can’t make any real distance with it (excl. SR) and too short to disengage the fight if you want so. therefore it is “spammable” or let’s say more precise it’s useable quite often during the fight, and here is the real problem in my eyes.

Neither our enemy wants us to get invis every 3 seconds for 3 secs nor we want to use this over and over again till we finally are able to land with enough DMG.

make invis/stealth an out of combat mechanic only. i think the best system regarding stealth is the system Blizzard uses in WoW.
invis should be to engage (no cd, but only outofcombat) and to disengage (usable during combat, but with decent cd).

the moment you decide to engage you can’t disengage and reengage 5 seconds later and than again and again and again untill you feel like finishing your enemy.
you completly rule the pace of the fight and that’s what the QQ’ers are hating on.

stealth should’t be in your skillrotation. it should be your initiate and your last resort to escape. with the option to play mindgames and use the “retreat invis” to reengage again once!

you either choose wisly and you are able to finish your enemys off > reg > keep going onto the next “prey” or you choose poorly and you lose the fight. you still have the ability to disengage with your infight invis, but than you have to risk not having it the next time you make a go or wait long enough to get it from cd again. so it is more about decision making which increases the skillcap to be more effective/effecient with stealth and it reduces the need of counterplay to it.

just a possible change to the skills regarding above:

-Hide in the shadows: instead of making you invis, it grants you the same state as mistform for 3 secs.
-CnD: gives you the abillity to use the stealthskill without being invis for 3 secs.
-Smokebomb: this could be the CD infight invis i mentioned above.
-Shadow refuge: instead of giving invis to you and your allies give them boons (protection and reg f.e.) and add a condition cleanse to it.
-Shadowtrap: i think this can stay that way, even if it makes you invis.

the smoke combo field needs a rework than but i think Anet can think of solutions by themseves if they would consider it as a possible change to stealth.

Okay, look, some of you folks just have to get past it – Stealth classes have been, are now, and always will be despised by a large percentage of the MMO player base. And, no, NO – it’s not simply the outcry of “noobs” that need to L2p. Ultimately it boils down to basic human psychology. Because despite the fact that we know on an intellectual level that in MMO wars there are no rules by which to win, we still create a PERCIEVED (not actual) image of what is acceptable, and not, during a fight. And stealth breaks all those self-created perceptions by allowing the stealth-class to be able to pick his fights and easily disengage when losing. And it matters not that there are numerous counters, it matters not that the stealth class in itself may be far weaker as a class than his opponents class; the immediate and obvious reaction will be one of frustration. And frustration often breeds rage (especially among adolescents and young adults). Thus the endless QQ and endless rage-filled posts on every MMO forum in the history of the genre that includes stealth classes.

Yes, I realize that there is nothing particularly OP about the Thief class in Gw2. And yes, I realize that the class has as many inherent limitations as it has strengths. But a low-skilled Zerg-Blob player stomped 3 straight times in WvW while trying to get back to the blob from a waypoint, he DOES NOT CARE about any of that. He’s mad as hell and wants to vent; so often times he comes to the forums to do so. So they will rant that thieves are “OP” or “nerf thieves!” because they are unable to ambush/disengage as well as thieves (they won’t admit this, instead they say they want people to fight “fair” and not be “cowards”, but that’s all BS). And never mind that the stealth ability, the ability to disengage and frustrate your opponent is as central to the class design as the ability to buff oneself and take huge damage by other classes, or the ability to exercise high mobility and inflict enormous AOE damage by some classes, or the …ect … it does not matter. You see, because these other classes central class strengths are for the most part apparently “straight forward”, rightly or wrongly, its viewed as being “fairer”. But stealth is not an obvious and immediately recognizable mechanic, and its biggest sin is that it forces players to adjust whether they want to or not – thus the rage.

So at the end of the day, while it really is nothing more than a L2P issue in dealing with Thieves, that fact will not change/stop the endless QQ and rage. Because those unwilling, unable or incapable of making the adjustment to this particularly frustrating mechanic don’t want to hear it. And when they fight another class “head up” so to speak, they don’t feel the same level of anger when they lose or if they are winning and the other class fled. The different reaction lies in the element of the “sudden appearance, and sudden disappearance” of stealth opponents, because it has that eerie unknowable quality. The fact that no one should be able to run around battle-field (which WvW tries to mimic) alone without being on edge (and potentially frustrated) by the sudden appearance and/or disappearance of an enemy specifically designed to make that hazardous should be of no surprise whatsoever; and yet, it is, and always will be.

All that said, whether people want to admit it or not, the addition of this “eerie unknowable quality” adds enormous depth and fun (and yes, frustrated raging keyboard smacking teens add to part of that fun) to WvW encounters and roaming for EVERY CLASS, and it also adds a much needed added layer of complexity to the MMO WvW/PvP experience. And of course Game companies know this, which is why at least one stealth class is a staple of most games. But this won’t stop the rage or envy, and both those responses are not only to be expected, but understandable.

Felices Bladewing.3914:

just repost my post from another thread so there might be some formatting errors and the responses might seem to be irrelevant!

just my 2 cents to several posts so far.

1. why am i (are we) playing thief?

someone mentioned he wants to play against players who wants to fight them fair and square. that’s not what the thief is about! simple as that. a thief is a pain in the a**, a rat that demoralise the enemy, fighting unfair and dirty and thats what i (we) like about that profession. we don’t care to fight 1v1 in honor we want to be the most possible nuisense to our enemy and to kill him. otherwise i wouldn’t have picked the thief as my profession in the first place.

2. spamming the same abilities over and over.

yeah that can happen if the situation is rewarding you for it why shouldn’t you?
but mostly that’s the difference between mediocre and good players.
i think there are enough posts/threads about this so far so my advise too all those anti-thief guys: play a thief yourself in spvp for a month. after that i guess 90% won’t argue anymore….

but i agree that some weapon skills and their synergy doesn’t feel right atm and could need a rework

3. INVIS OP!!!!

i have to say invis in GW2 is broken, but far away from OP.
most stealth skills have with traited shadow arts 4 seconds of invis. during this 4 sec the thief is most likly going to hit on you seems very predictable isnt it? and to a decent player it’s also manageable to dodge, block etc. the incoming attack.

whats broken about it tho?…. it doesn’t serve it’s original propose:

insteat of making the thief unpredictable for an amount of time it makes him pretty predictable during stealth.
stealth is way too short to actually be used to find an opening to engage a “prey” you can’t make any real distance with it (excl. SR) and too short to disengage the fight if you want so. therefore it is “spammable” or let’s say more precise it’s useable quite often during the fight, and here is the real problem in my eyes.

Neither our enemy wants us to get invis every 3 seconds for 3 secs nor we want to use this over and over again till we finally are able to land with enough DMG.

make invis/stealth an out of combat mechanic only. i think the best system regarding stealth is the system Blizzard uses in WoW.
invis should be to engage (no cd, but only outofcombat) and to disengage (usable during combat, but with decent cd).

the moment you decide to engage you can’t disengage and reengage 5 seconds later and than again and again and again untill you feel like finishing your enemy.
you completly rule the pace of the fight and that’s what the QQ’ers are hating on.

stealth should’t be in your skillrotation. it should be your initiate and your last resort to escape. with the option to play mindgames and use the “retreat invis” to reengage again once!

you either choose wisly and you are able to finish your enemys off > reg > keep going onto the next “prey” or you choose poorly and you lose the fight. you still have the ability to disengage with your infight invis, but than you have to risk not having it the next time you make a go or wait long enough to get it from cd again. so it is more about decision making which increases the skillcap to be more effective/effecient with stealth and it reduces the need of counterplay to it.

just a possible change to the skills regarding above:

-Hide in the shadows: instead of making you invis, it grants you the same state as mistform for 3 secs.
-CnD: gives you the abillity to use the stealthskill without being invis for 3 secs.
-Smokebomb: this could be the CD infight invis i mentioned above.
-Shadow refuge: instead of giving invis to you and your allies give them boons (protection and reg f.e.) and add a condition cleanse to it.
-Shadowtrap: i think this can stay that way, even if it makes you invis.

the smoke combo field needs a rework than but i think Anet can think of solutions by themseves if they would consider it as a possible change to stealth.

Well said.

these good suggestions would help in the redesign/rework of thief class.

blakdoxa.7520:

Chokolata.1870:

As the title says. I am sick and tired of playing against no brain ultra safe stealth and teleport spammers. It is bunker up or die. I know that the condition/sustain metagame is rampant at the moment, but there is a reason for that.

Namely, the THIEF counters every single glass cannon build. To a lesser extent the mesmer as well. This led to bunker conditions which led to overbuffing of warriors. The thief is toxic and backstabbing, stealth spamming and heartseeker is totally dumb to play against.

Ty for reading

Let put the bold in perspective.

YOU ARE MADE OF GLASS! How are you not going to be destroyed by a thief or rather any other competent player for that matter?

If you know how thieves play wouldn’t it be a good idea to come up with some of stratagem to out do them?

By playing a thief lol.
IMO he is mostly right. Condition builds/ PU mesmers were created in reaction to thieves.

@Felices Bladewing.3914 Nice post.

Oh look, more stealth proponent arguments that seem to focus more on aggressively detouring the conversation than really cracking stealth open and examining why people feel the way they do, what about those feels is L2P vs. bad design, and steps that could be taken to remedy those feelings while accommodating the Thief class in other places to insure they don’t become “free kills”.

Remember Bull’s Charge + Frenzy + 100B with the original Quickness? It almost doesn’t get more “L2P” than countering that combo, but there was outrage. Why? Because it was wildly unforgiving. Even though it relied on 2 utility slots and 45 or so seconds between attempts, not having a cooldown up or mistiming your dodge slightly meant you were basically dead. That isn’t really fun, and even though dodging Bull’s Charge meant you were suddenly at an insane advantage, it still smacked of bad design.

I specifically remember a video being released that demonstrated what to look for to dodge the combo and when to time it in an attempt to educate players. Is one of those videos to counter Stealth circulating, and I’ve just missed it? If so, I’d like to see it, just to see what it’s like. If not, I bet I can explain why.

Try imagining a scenario where you’re explaining how to counter something with only words and gestures. You can sort of demonstrate what Bull’s Charge looks like. You can mimic Dark Pact’s animation. You can explain how to quickly identify a heal being cast. The list goes on with regard to teaching through word and gesture that will be recognizeable in-game.

Now try to tell me what you’d do to explain to someone how to counter stealth. Odds are you’d want to say “Just play as one” or “Train against one focusing on their movements”. You can gesture CnD by bringing your left arm across your body, but that’s kind of it. What else do you say? “If they are this far away, just dodge, because they’re probably going to Steal”. “If they are gone and 2-3 seconds have passed, just dodge, because they’re probably about to Backstab”. “If they disappeared, drop AoEs at your feet and stand in it, but still try to unpredictably turn a bit in case they just run in for the Backstab anyway”. “If you think a Thief is going to stealth, you can start a channeled ability and it will continue to damage them, so long as they don’t break the abilities required FoV”.

At the end of the day, it seems to me that it just turns into statements that involve some form of guessing what they’re doing to do. The game isn’t even really designed to give you feedback, you have to extrapolate based on other mechanics. It doesn’t show you damage, but if you use an ability that chains and it starts chaining, odds are you’re hitting them (sometimes I’ve seen auto-chain go for a while but nothing ever shows up). If you use a projectile that doesn’t pierce and it stops mid-air, odds are you hit them (if you can tell that it didn’t go max range). If you dropped a Mark and it triggers, they’re in the area, but you might not have hit them. If you use Earthshaker and your adrenaline drops to 0 even though you don’t see damage numbers, then you hit them.

Is it any wonder there’s an almost constant outcry of people not enjoying fighting against the mechanic? It’s just as easy to say that “the majority of people don’t like fighting against stealth” as it is to say “for every person who doesn’t like fighting against stealth, another person does”. The truth is, there isn’t a survey of opinions regarding stealth in PvP, so saying either is silly. Given the number of threads that keep popping up, though, it seems to be a pretty popular cause for frustration.

Cogbyrn.7283:

Oh look, more stealth proponent arguments that seem to focus more on aggressively detouring the conversation than really cracking stealth open and examining why people feel the way they do, what about those feels is L2P vs. bad design, and steps that could be taken to remedy those feelings while accommodating the Thief class in other places to insure they don’t become “free kills”.

Remember Bull’s Charge + Frenzy + 100B with the original Quickness? It almost doesn’t get more “L2P” than countering that combo, but there was outrage. Why? Because it was wildly unforgiving. Even though it relied on 2 utility slots and 45 or so seconds between attempts, not having a cooldown up or mistiming your dodge slightly meant you were basically dead. That isn’t really fun, and even though dodging Bull’s Charge meant you were suddenly at an insane advantage, it still smacked of bad design.

I specifically remember a video being released that demonstrated what to look for to dodge the combo and when to time it in an attempt to educate players. Is one of those videos to counter Stealth circulating, and I’ve just missed it? If so, I’d like to see it, just to see what it’s like. If not, I bet I can explain why.

Try imagining a scenario where you’re explaining how to counter something with only words and gestures. You can sort of demonstrate what Bull’s Charge looks like. You can mimic Dark Pact’s animation. You can explain how to quickly identify a heal being cast. The list goes on with regard to teaching through word and gesture that will be recognizeable in-game.

Now try to tell me what you’d do to explain to someone how to counter stealth. Odds are you’d want to say “Just play as one” or “Train against one focusing on their movements”. You can gesture CnD by bringing your left arm across your body, but that’s kind of it. What else do you say? “If they are this far away, just dodge, because they’re probably going to Steal”. “If they are gone and 2-3 seconds have passed, just dodge, because they’re probably about to Backstab”. “If they disappeared, drop AoEs at your feet and stand in it, but still try to unpredictably turn a bit in case they just run in for the Backstab anyway”. “If you think a Thief is going to stealth, you can start a channeled ability and it will continue to damage them, so long as they don’t break the abilities required FoV”.

At the end of the day, it seems to me that it just turns into statements that involve some form of guessing what they’re doing to do. The game isn’t even really designed to give you feedback, you have to extrapolate based on other mechanics. It doesn’t show you damage, but if you use an ability that chains and it starts chaining, odds are you’re hitting them (sometimes I’ve seen auto-chain go for a while but nothing ever shows up). If you use a projectile that doesn’t pierce and it stops mid-air, odds are you hit them (if you can tell that it didn’t go max range). If you dropped a Mark and it triggers, they’re in the area, but you might not have hit them. If you use Earthshaker and your adrenaline drops to 0 even though you don’t see damage numbers, then you hit them.

Is it any wonder there’s an almost constant outcry of people not enjoying fighting against the mechanic? It’s just as easy to say that “the majority of people don’t like fighting against stealth” as it is to say “for every person who doesn’t like fighting against stealth, another person does”. The truth is, there isn’t a survey of opinions regarding stealth in PvP, so saying either is silly. Given the number of threads that keep popping up, though, it seems to be a pretty popular cause for frustration.

God stop it with your beautiful logic, it is too good to read and that could prove troublesome for some. Anyways, once again you are on point, well worded and indeed a lot guesswork, something that neither promoted skillful plays or produce any fun on either side of the match.

Just for other people that missed the screenshot due to several threads being merged;

(credit goes to nickcosta.8256)

Fortus.6175:

God stop it with your beautiful logic, it is too good to read and that could prove troublesome for some. Anyways, once again you are on point, well worded and indeed a lot guesswork, something that neither promoted skillful plays or produce any fun on either side of the match.

Just for other people that missed the screenshot due to several threads being merged;

(credit goes to nickcosta.8256)

The part of that screenshot that kills me is the:

• Not enough energy.
• Hits you for X using Backstab.

At least the player tried to dodge

I’m not convinced that the main problem is stealth when it comes to Thieves. It seems to me that the issue is that other professions lacks the necessary skill and experience in dealing with Thieves.

The suggestion to look at the top tier if there are Thieves up there are valid evidence to show the effectiveness of the profession in a competitive scenario.

If you see a Thief in the top tier, then watch what other professions do to counter them — yes there are many counter play against Thieves. And if you don’t see Thieves in the top tier is telling that they aren’t very good in that kind of play setting.

It seems that the opinion about the Thief in this thread are personal issue rather than universal since there are many ways to counter stealth.

For instance, Warriors and Guardians brings hammers to cause untargetted CCs that are used to counter stealth. Elementalist can spec for Stone Heart to mitigate the Backstab damage. Mesmers can counter stealth with stealth and clones. Ranger are now countering stealth with stealth also using LB. Necro goes into Death Shroud to counter stealth. Engis can surround themselves with bombs and mines to counter stealth. And the list goes on.

You see, the main issue here is not because Thieves and their stealth are OP because of lacking counter play — that’s just a sad excuse coming from those who failed to learn from their mistakes and failed to study their chosen profession.

I really have no sympathy to those who choose to play GC and complain that they received a 10k-15k backstab. That never happen to players who knows how to play their professions well. That’s a telling that you have taken the risk and simply whining about why there have to be risk involved with building GC. This is really sad.

Every GC build has a risk. GC Mesmer and GC Warriors are way better than GC Thieves when it comes to survival.

So let’s stay honest here, shall we?

Lastly, “pro” themselves have called out stealth, in fact in the last CDI that was a top topic of discussion, regardless of whether it is OP or not, whether the proble is perceived or not.

Stealth in some occasion is a problem, yes, especially Mass Invisibility — but not exclusive to Thieves. What’s OP is a Warrior coming out of stealth which shouldn’t be allowed to happen.

If you can here to bash, offend and derail the thread then please abandon, now. This thread is about giving solutions to a well known problem, not to try to justify it.

I’m here to highlight the real problem — and it’s not stealth nor Thieves.

I believe these thread mergers are a sign of some big changes to come for the thief profession.

Swagger.1459:

I believe these thread mergers are a sign of some big changes to come for the thief profession.

I hope that as a larger-than-one-class change, we see Stealth:

• Stronger.
• Non-stacking.
• Breaks on any interaction.
• Always reveals.

This would discourage massed stealth usage in favour of tactical single-at-the-right-time usage

Swagger.1459:

I believe these thread mergers are a sign of some big changes to come for the thief profession.

You could be right, and I hope so; because Thieves really could use some attention to some of their weaker skills and trait choices.

But it may just be the forum moderators tidying up the threads. Because you have a few spam posters that either create one Thief QQ thread after another, or keep dying threads that normally would vanish on their own going with long-winded and silly posts whining for more nerfs to thief skills.

If this is true to assume about the mergers, I really hope this comes AFTER they do something about the class voted for most needed help and changes: Ranger.

ReesesPBC.4603:

If this is true to assume about the mergers, I really hope this comes AFTER they do something about the class voted for most needed help and changes: Ranger.

They already did, actually. Simply making the pet as responsive as they did made Rangers hugely more viable. Survival of the Fittest also gave them a great new option for builds.

Now, not saying there aren’t other things that could be done, but Rangers have never been so enjoyable to play and as good as they are now.

ReesesPBC.4603:

If this is true to assume about the mergers, I really hope this comes AFTER they do something about the class voted for most needed help and changes: Ranger.

Well I agree with you that the Ranger class could use a few more tweaks and improvements (especially to pet resistance to AoE damage), but overall, I think they are in a good place right now. I used to main a Ranger ( I now main an engi), but still play the toon frequently, and I’ve never been more satisfied with the class as I am right now.

And ironically, given the topic of this thread, I have recently had a great deal of fun solo roaming in WvW and killing the oh-so-OP Thieves with my Ranger! — LOL

You’re right, there is so much more they could do and the pet responsiveness is a welcomed change but there are sure more necessary changes needed for the Ranger and it should be done first. Otherwise why have dedicated CDI if they’re only going to “fix” (as in make it the way it should have been from launch) the pet and leave it at that? Trait re-work and compression come to mind. I only point this out as these thread mergers show that some focus is being put on the thief class instead of the voted class.

On topic: If they do put focus into this class I’m all for a re-work and re-evaluation of stealth breaking/reveal instead of just applying finally on a hit for all classes.