Main Hand Dagger Condi
Isn’t life siphon bonus only work if the necro is bleeding, not its target?!
Isn’t life siphon bonus only work if the necro is bleeding, not its target?!
Damage is increased if foe is bleeding, healing is increased if you are bleeding.
Surrender and serve me in life, or die and slave for me in death.
tbh while I believe putting a condi on dagger would be great, chill is not the one.
Putting chill on dagger only really synergizes with Reaper, it does nothing for scourge and little for core necro.
The dagger AA should apply bleeding on the 2nd and 3rd auto chain, and dagger #3 should have a lower cast time to make it more reliable to land.
I’d still opt for torment, just because its pretty much the main scourge condition (and burning would be a bit much).
I can’t really picture a weapon that does Immobilize having Torment.
I would rather have a mix of Bleeding and Poison on Mainhand Dagger.
The arguing in this thread has really done nothing, and seems to mainly be from one person now. I don’t know if Obtena is trolling again or what. They have had a long presence of doing things like this in threads in the past. I just ignore them now.
This thread is just a game suggestion that makes sense. Arguing back and forth attacking other people’s ideas does nothing. At least I see more agreement in the thread.
The reason I want a mix of Bleeding and Poison is because I don’t want Mainhand Dagger to be the most powerful Condition weapon. I’d be fine with just Poison.
The only problem I could see from suggesting this, is making camping Mainhand Dagger more powerful than Scepter. I don’t want it to be stronger. I just want it to do a bit more damage, so the loss of switching to it for Life Force isn’t as big of a loss. I think Mainhand Dagger is also the best weapon to add a Condition to for us.
Even if they never do this, I’d want Life Force on Scepter auto at least. I’m just hoping they add a Condition to Mainhand Dagger because the playstyle when testing was so fun. It was the most fun I’ve had in a while on Necromancer. I loved switching from Scepter/Dagger to Dagger/Torch. It was actually using a weapon instead of just abusing it for Combo Fields like with the Greatsword.
I just hope Devs read threads like these.
It’s in anet’s interests to be honest, since they aren’t a fan of camping a single weapon set.
That doesn’t make sense … increasing the versatility of dagger with conditions PROMOTES camping a single weapon set. So no, I don’t see it being in Anet’s interest.
tbh while I believe putting a condi on dagger would be great, chill is not the one.
Putting chill on dagger only really synergizes with Reaper, it does nothing for scourge and little for core necro.
The dagger AA should apply bleeding on the 2nd and 3rd auto chain, and dagger #3 should have a lower cast time to make it more reliable to land.
I’d still opt for torment, just because its pretty much the main scourge condition (and burning would be a bit much).
I can’t really picture a weapon that does Immobilize having Torment.
I would rather have a mix of Bleeding and Poison on Mainhand Dagger.
The arguing in this thread has really done nothing, and seems to mainly be from one person now. I don’t know if Obtena is trolling again or what. They have had a long presence of doing things like this in threads in the past. I just ignore them now.
This thread is just a game suggestion that makes sense. Arguing back and forth attacking other people’s ideas does nothing. At least I see more agreement in the thread.
The reason I want a mix of Bleeding and Poison is because I don’t want Mainhand Dagger to be the most powerful Condition weapon. I’d be fine with just Poison.
The only problem I could see from suggesting this, is making camping Mainhand Dagger more powerful than Scepter. I don’t want it to be stronger. I just want it to do a bit more damage, so the loss of switching to it for Life Force isn’t as big of a loss. I think Mainhand Dagger is also the best weapon to add a Condition to for us.
Even if they never do this, I’d want Life Force on Scepter auto at least. I’m just hoping they add a Condition to Mainhand Dagger because the playstyle when testing was so fun. It was the most fun I’ve had in a while on Necromancer. I loved switching from Scepter/Dagger to Dagger/Torch. It was actually using a weapon instead of just abusing it for Combo Fields like with the Greatsword.
I just hope Devs read threads like these.
It’s in anet’s interests to be honest, since they aren’t a fan of camping a single weapon set.
That doesn’t make sense … increasing the versatility of dagger with conditions PROMOTES camping a single weapon set. So no, I don’t see it being in Anet’s interest.
Well if sceptre is still the superior condi dealer, you’ll be switching from dagger mh after your life force is high enough then back to dagger mh again when it is low. Sceptre/dagger, dagger/torch seems like the way to go for a meta build.
Surrender and serve me in life, or die and slave for me in death.
tbh while I believe putting a condi on dagger would be great, chill is not the one.
Putting chill on dagger only really synergizes with Reaper, it does nothing for scourge and little for core necro.
The dagger AA should apply bleeding on the 2nd and 3rd auto chain, and dagger #3 should have a lower cast time to make it more reliable to land.
I’d still opt for torment, just because its pretty much the main scourge condition (and burning would be a bit much).
I can’t really picture a weapon that does Immobilize having Torment.
I would rather have a mix of Bleeding and Poison on Mainhand Dagger.
The arguing in this thread has really done nothing, and seems to mainly be from one person now. I don’t know if Obtena is trolling again or what. They have had a long presence of doing things like this in threads in the past. I just ignore them now.
This thread is just a game suggestion that makes sense. Arguing back and forth attacking other people’s ideas does nothing. At least I see more agreement in the thread.
The reason I want a mix of Bleeding and Poison is because I don’t want Mainhand Dagger to be the most powerful Condition weapon. I’d be fine with just Poison.
The only problem I could see from suggesting this, is making camping Mainhand Dagger more powerful than Scepter. I don’t want it to be stronger. I just want it to do a bit more damage, so the loss of switching to it for Life Force isn’t as big of a loss. I think Mainhand Dagger is also the best weapon to add a Condition to for us.
Even if they never do this, I’d want Life Force on Scepter auto at least. I’m just hoping they add a Condition to Mainhand Dagger because the playstyle when testing was so fun. It was the most fun I’ve had in a while on Necromancer. I loved switching from Scepter/Dagger to Dagger/Torch. It was actually using a weapon instead of just abusing it for Combo Fields like with the Greatsword.
I just hope Devs read threads like these.
It’s in anet’s interests to be honest, since they aren’t a fan of camping a single weapon set.
That doesn’t make sense … increasing the versatility of dagger with conditions PROMOTES camping a single weapon set. So no, I don’t see it being in Anet’s interest.
Well if sceptre is still the superior condi dealer, you’ll be switching from dagger mh after your life force is high enough then back to dagger mh again when it is low. Sceptre/dagger, dagger/torch seems like the way to go for a meta build.
This. Again, nobody is asking for Dagger to become the condition weapon. All they’re asking for is less of a drop in damage when they go into life force gain mode on a condition build and a buff to dagger’s damage output on Power builds.
Low duration bleeds (or Torment, or Poison, but Bleeding fits best thematically) means dagger will never be the superior condition damage weapon, but you won’t feel as awful about using it when you need to.
In addition, some bleeds added on will improve its damage output in Power builds as well, many of which are decent at stacking Might (which also improves condition damage).
All of that is understood; it goes iwthout saying that giving a condition to dagger makes it better, even though I struggle to understand how that means it’s a good idea; that means any improvement is a good idea. Clearly you can justify any buff with that logic, though some buffs make no sense.
Let’s just not pretend that condi buffing dagger is in Anet’s best interests, just because some of you think it’s a good idea. Maybe if people thought about things they wrote … I mean, if Lahmia is acknowledging that Anet doesn’t want people to camp a single weapon, then why is it in their best interest to make a single weapon so versatile? That makes no sense. If we have legitimate reasons to promote this idea, then say them; no need to invent things that aren’t true or make common truths reasons to buff.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Translation: I don’t actually have any points, so I’m just going to pretend that I know what ANet wants and just hate the idea of any more condition application being added.
Adding bleeds on dagger auto does many things to help the weapon. It ups the damage (which it needs, It gives synergy to its own skills (which is always good), and it opens up the number of options for various builds (namely condition and hybrid builds).
So, what language is “Obtena” anyway? Has to be some Greek offshoot, given the similarity to “Obtuse.”
Yeah you’re right there, fair point well made. What do you think the amounts should be, if they were to add?
I think a single stack of bleed for 3.5 seconds on Necrotic Stab and Necrotic Bite would suffice. It would be just enough duration to get off life siphon, and also enough to make the weapon not a joke for condi builds, while at the same time not be enough to overthrow scepter.
that Anet doesn’t want people to camp a single weapon, then why is it in their best interest to make a single weapon so versatile? That makes no sense.
Because making dagger versatile would give dagger a role, since right now dagger is just a bad version of GS.
Also just because a weapon is versatile does not mean it’s optimal for everything. In most cases specialized weapons are better than a “versatile” one. However having a “versatile” weapon gives build options for those handful of cases where versatility trumps specializing.
I’m also going to point out that “versatile” weapons already exist on other classes. See: Thief dagger, thief sword, thief shortbow, ranger axe, literally every ele weapon, Berserker’s mace
Sanity is for the weak minded.
YouTube
YouTube
(edited by Crinn.7864)
Yeah you’re right there, fair point well made. What do you think the amounts should be, if they were to add?
I think a single stack of bleed for 3.5 seconds on Necrotic Stab and Necrotic Bite would suffice. It would be just enough duration to get off life siphon, and also enough to make the weapon not a joke for condi builds, while at the same time not be enough to overthrow scepter.
Seems good for necrotic bite.
Translation: I don’t actually have any points, so I’m just going to pretend that I know what ANet wants and just hate the idea of any more condition application being added.
Adding bleeds on dagger auto does many things to help the weapon. It ups the damage (which it needs, It gives synergy to its own skills (which is always good), and it opens up the number of options for various builds (namely condition and hybrid builds).
So, what language is “Obtena” anyway? Has to be some Greek offshoot, given the similarity to “Obtuse.”
I don’t need to pretend … even you’re supporter friend admitted that Anet doesn’t want us to camp a single weapon because it’s not the intention. I mean, you’re again trying to discredit simple facts of the game to promote your desire to have condition on dagger. That’s not really a sensible approach because that is in fact, what Anet will use to consider the idea; the intent and mechanics of the game.
Yeah you’re right there, fair point well made. What do you think the amounts should be, if they were to add?
I think a single stack of bleed for 3.5 seconds on Necrotic Stab and Necrotic Bite would suffice. It would be just enough duration to get off life siphon, and also enough to make the weapon not a joke for condi builds, while at the same time not be enough to overthrow scepter.
that Anet doesn’t want people to camp a single weapon, then why is it in their best interest to make a single weapon so versatile? That makes no sense.
Because making dagger versatile would give dagger a role, since right now dagger is just a bad version of GS.
Really? You don’t think dagger has a role? You think dagger needs to be more versatile to make it have a role? Those things don’t make much sense do they? Other posters have outlined daggers role in this thread and I can assure you that if you want to give a weapon a role, adding versatility is not the most effective approach to do that.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
And how would adding bleeds in low amounts encourage anyone to camp Dagger?
Go ahead. I’ll wait.
You’re going to wait a long time; my argument isn’t about camping dagger, it’s about how dagger doesn’t actually need more versatility (because we have that through swapping) or how simply stating adding condition is an improvement isn’t a reason to buff it. You can ignore that Anet wants you to make those choices to get things you need if you want, but rest assured, weapon swapping is there exactly for this reason, to enforce players to make meaningful choices to get things they need from the various weapons.
I mean, we can wax on academic all we want about what condition and how many on whatever weapon … sounds good until someone asks you why it’s necessary despite the fact that it’s clear we can swap weapons to get the things you say are the reasons to buff dagger.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Translation: I don’t actually have any points, so I’m just going to pretend that I know what ANet wants and just hate the idea of any more condition application being added.
Adding bleeds on dagger auto does many things to help the weapon. It ups the damage (which it needs, It gives synergy to its own skills (which is always good), and it opens up the number of options for various builds (namely condition and hybrid builds).
So, what language is “Obtena” anyway? Has to be some Greek offshoot, given the similarity to “Obtuse.”
I don’t need to pretend … even you’re supporter friend admitted that Anet doesn’t want us to camp a single weapon because it’s not the intention. I mean, you’re again trying to discredit simple facts of the game to promote your desire to have condition on dagger. That’s not really a sensible approach because that is in fact, what Anet will use to consider the idea; the intent and mechanics of the game.
Yeah you’re right there, fair point well made. What do you think the amounts should be, if they were to add?
I think a single stack of bleed for 3.5 seconds on Necrotic Stab and Necrotic Bite would suffice. It would be just enough duration to get off life siphon, and also enough to make the weapon not a joke for condi builds, while at the same time not be enough to overthrow scepter.
that Anet doesn’t want people to camp a single weapon, then why is it in their best interest to make a single weapon so versatile? That makes no sense.
Because making dagger versatile would give dagger a role, since right now dagger is just a bad version of GS.
Really? You don’t think dagger has a role? You think dagger needs to be more versatile to make it have a role? Those things don’t make much sense do they? Other posters have outlined daggers role in this thread and I can assure you that if you want to give a weapon a role, adding versatility is not the most effective approach to do that.
You can’t assure anything. Didn’t see you assuring the self bleed to dagger 3, or the buffs to dagger 2. Put it simply, you have no idea how Arenanet balances, despite all your pointless heralding. Again, qualifications please? From the way you talk, its obvious you don’t PvP, you probably don’t raid, or wvw, so where is all this ‘knowledge’ and qualifications coming from? open world pve? auric basin meta? lol
haha, having a look at your post history on this forum, if I didn’t know better I’d have thought you were gaile gray LOL. i think you forget you don’t work at arenanet sometimes. And yep, everything I said above is true, no contribution to wvw topics, spvp, raiding. i.e. your opinions on balance are pretty much not backed by experience.
(edited by Ramoth.9064)
This isn’t about balance … this is simply an attempt to blur lines across weapons to make choices less meaningful. I can’t assure you that weapon swapping doesn’t force a player to make meaningful choices? I’m pretty sure it does …. otherwise we wouldn’t be talking here now about how that’s a bad thing.
You’re going to wait a long time; my argument isn’t about camping dagger, it’s about how dagger doesn’t actually need more versatility (because we have that through swapping) or how simply stating adding condition is an improvement isn’t a reason to buff it.
I mean, we can wax on academic all we want about what condition and how many … soujnds good until someone asks you why it’s necessary.
But you just said that it won’t get added because ANet doesn’t want people camping a weapon. The only reason you would bring that up is if you thought that such a change would encourage that.
So, why do you think it would? You have got to have an answer here or you wouldn’t have brought it up in the first place.
We’ve explained why we think doing so is necessary, as it increases the DPS, adds synergy to the weapon (After all, Dagger 2 has synergy with bleeding on the target, but no way of causing said bleeding), and increases the number of builds that would consider using it. All three of these things are things that dagger mainhand needs. The fact you are sticking your fingers in your ears without any actual points doesn’t change that.
I said it won’t get added because it starts diminishing meaningful choices, which is clearly intended by the design of the game. What makes you think Anet doesn’t intent for classes to have restrictions and trade offs by choice of weapon? It’s pretty clear it is intended.
Besides, dagger needs things? I think there is a big difference between what it needs and what you want it to have. Dagger 2 has synergy with bleeding? Seems to me that’s a good reason to NOT put bleeding on Dagger AA … I mean, if you’re just going to make an opponent bleed for so little effort, then that synergy simply turns into a thinly veiled buff of Dagger 2. The idea here isn’t that Anet just hand you all these buffs; you need to think about where they come from to take advantage of them. There is no thinking behind getting a bleed on AA just to automatically get a conditional, extra effect on Dagger 2. That’s silly.
To say there is NO way to get bleed to take advantage of Dagger 2 extra effect because Dagger AA doesn’t have bleed is nonsense. Your demonstrating that you aren’t willing to solve your build challenges with the tools we already have.
Increasing DPS? Again, I’ve asked why any sensible player would want to increase a power weapon DPS with a few crap condition applications. Apparently, you guys think this is the obvious answer; I think it’s a dishonest reason to buff dagger with a condition.
Finally … the number of builds. So far, I’ve seen zero builds from the people that make this claim that would make me think I’ve got something new to try out; a way to make me rethink how I build and play necro; if dagger got a condition.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
I said it won’t get added because it starts diminishing meaningful choices, which is clearly intended by the design of the game. What makes you think Anet doesn’t intent for classes to have restrictions and trade offs by choice of weapon? It’s pretty clear it is intended.
Besides, dagger needs things? I think there is a big difference between what it needs and what you want it to have. Dagger 2 has synergy with bleeding? Seems to me that’s a good reason to NOT put bleeding on Dagger AA … I mean, if you’re just going to make an opponent bleed for so little effort, then that synergy simply turns into a thinly veiled buff of Dagger 2. The idea here isn’t that Anet just hand you all these buffs; you need to think about where they come from to take advantage of them. There is no thinking behind getting a bleed on AA just to automatically get a conditional, extra effect on Dagger 2. That’s silly.
To say there is NO way to get bleed to take advantage of Dagger 2 extra effect because Dagger AA doesn’t have bleed is nonsense. Your demonstrating that you aren’t willing to solve your build challenges with the tools we already have.
Increasing DPS? Again, I’ve asked why any sensible player would want to increase a power weapon DPS with a few crap condition applications. Apparently, you guys think this is the obvious answer; I think it’s a dishonest reason to buff dagger with a condition.
Finally … the number of builds. So far, I’ve seen zero builds from the people that make this claim that would make me think I’ve got something new to try out; a way to make me rethink how I build and play necro; if dagger got a condition.
Lol no one here is bothered to entertain your naysaying. Everyone else has had meaningful discussion agreeing with each other while you’re that guy on the outside screaming no. Again, qualifications please? So far, I’ve seen zero meaningful contributions from you in any realm of competitive play.
And thats all there is to it, if you can’t play competitively your arguments hold no water.
Why does this have to be regulated to competitive play? So you can claim my concerns and points aren’t relevant? GG. I think you are dillusional if you think adding condtion to dagger AA elevates it to ‘competitive play’, whatever your vague definition of that may be.
The fact is that while I’m a primary dissenter, I haven’t been the only one; try to keep it honest OK? The other people that have commented and challenged this idea have also echoed my own feelings on this; ignoring the fundamental concept of the weapon just to buff it out of what is simple desperation. Not a compelling reason.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Because if you’re not balancing around anything remotely competitive, what point is there in balancing?
The difference between you and other dissenters is that the others have given some actual backing for their dissent. You just keep waving things around that are unrelated and, when asked to give backing, just wave something totally different around instead.
For example, you claim that there needs to be an opportunity cost when the initial suggestion included the opportunity cost.
(edited by Drarnor Kunoram.5180)
Because if you’re not balancing around anything remotely competitive, what point is there in balancing?
Here comes the ‘metapushing’ mentality. You can’t think of a reason, other than being competitive, for Anet to buff or change something? That’s funny, because it happens often that things are buffed for non-competitive reasons. You’ve even mentioned some of those changes yourself in this thread!
Maybe you want to think that balancing is only because of ‘competitive’, but that’s not true. There have been buffs, and nerfs, simply because of concepts that weren’t implemented. Let’s not pretend that every change is a ‘competition’-based one.
I’ve given TONS of reasons for my dissent. I don’t really get that accusation. If I thought it was useful to continually table all the reasons I think this is a bad idea, I would.
Oh for crying…
At this point, it’s obvious you’re just a troll. Or President of the US. Nobody else can be this obtuse.
Why does this have to be regulated to competitive play? So you can claim my concerns and points aren’t relevant? GG. I think you are dillusional if you think adding condtion to dagger AA elevates it to ‘competitive play’, whatever your vague definition of that may be.
The fact is that while I’m a primary dissenter, I haven’t been the only one; try to keep it honest OK? The other people that have commented and challenged this idea have also echoed my own feelings on this; ignoring the fundamental concept of the weapon just to buff it out of what is simple desperation. Not a compelling reason.
OMG, yes. I claim your concerns and points are irrelevant. Was that not obivious? So far your arguments have been based around you thinking you work at Arenanet. Balance is based around the nature of competition, if there were no competition involved there would be no need to balance.
Fundamentals of a weapon change frequently. Thief shortbow used to be only useful for SB5, now it is actually a viable condition weapon. Mace on the warrior is a power/lockdown weapon, on the berserker it is a viable condition weapon. See how things change?
Nothing obtuse here. You guys want to pat yourselves on the back for a poorly thought out idea to buff dagger with damage conditions while ignoring game mechanics and intention. It’s not all that hard to even think of an idea that doesn’t ignore those things to buff dagger, but for some reason they elude you because of this conditions fixation.
I mean, someone asked what happened to simply buffing dagger damage … he was completely ignored because that idea doesn’t push the condition buff agenda.
OK so what about that idea? It maintains the concept of the dagger, it maintains meaningful choices during swapping, it addresses ‘competitive’ to a degree.
Why does this have to be regulated to competitive play? So you can claim my concerns and points aren’t relevant? GG. I think you are dillusional if you think adding condtion to dagger AA elevates it to ‘competitive play’, whatever your vague definition of that may be.
The fact is that while I’m a primary dissenter, I haven’t been the only one; try to keep it honest OK? The other people that have commented and challenged this idea have also echoed my own feelings on this; ignoring the fundamental concept of the weapon just to buff it out of what is simple desperation. Not a compelling reason.
Balance is based around the nature of competition, if there were no competition involved there would be no need to balance.
This isn’t a question of balance. If it was, no one would be so clueless as to suggest a few conditions applied by dagger AA would address it.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Nothing obtuse here. You guys want to pat yourselves on the back for a poorly thought out idea to buff dagger with damage conditions while ignoring game mechanics and intention. It’s not all that hard to even think of an idea that doesn’t ignore those things to buff dagger, but for some reason they elude you because of this conditions fixation.
I mean, someone asked what happened to simply buffing dagger damage … he was completely ignored because that idea doesn’t push the condition buff agenda.
OK so what about that idea? It maintains the concept of the dagger, it maintains meaningful choices during swapping, it addresses ‘competitive’ to a degree.
Oh, applying conditions = ignoring game mechanics now? That’s a new one to laugh to!
Nothing obtuse here. You guys want to pat yourselves on the back for a poorly thought out idea to buff dagger with damage conditions while ignoring game mechanics and intention. It’s not all that hard to even think of an idea that doesn’t ignore those things to buff dagger, but for some reason they elude you because of this conditions fixation.
I mean, someone asked what happened to simply buffing dagger damage … he was completely ignored because that idea doesn’t push the condition buff agenda.
OK so what about that idea? It maintains the concept of the dagger, it maintains meaningful choices during swapping, it addresses ‘competitive’ to a degree.
Oh, applying conditions = ignoring game mechanics now? That’s a new one to laugh to!
Maybe you think that … I never said such a thing. Feel free to laugh at yourself if that’s what you want to think.
I will say that applying conditions that isn’t aligned with the concept of a power weapon is ignoring it’s concept and intention.
Nothing obtuse here. You guys want to pat yourselves on the back for a poorly thought out idea to buff dagger with damage conditions while ignoring game mechanics and intention. It’s not all that hard to even think of an idea that doesn’t ignore those things to buff dagger, but for some reason they elude you because of this conditions fixation.
I mean, someone asked what happened to simply buffing dagger damage … he was completely ignored because that idea doesn’t push the condition buff agenda.
OK so what about that idea? It maintains the concept of the dagger, it maintains meaningful choices during swapping, it addresses ‘competitive’ to a degree.
Why does this have to be regulated to competitive play? So you can claim my concerns and points aren’t relevant? GG. I think you are dillusional if you think adding condtion to dagger AA elevates it to ‘competitive play’, whatever your vague definition of that may be.
The fact is that while I’m a primary dissenter, I haven’t been the only one; try to keep it honest OK? The other people that have commented and challenged this idea have also echoed my own feelings on this; ignoring the fundamental concept of the weapon just to buff it out of what is simple desperation. Not a compelling reason.
Balance is based around the nature of competition, if there were no competition involved there would be no need to balance.
This isn’t a question of balance. If it was, no one would be so clueless as to suggest a few conditions applied by dagger AA would address it.
They added a ‘few conditions and situational effects’ to dagger 2 and 3, so your argument here is dead in the water. If a ‘few conditions’ have so little purpose why did arenanet do it at all?
Thief deadly arts got a ‘few’ conditions added to two traits that redefined several weapons. Oh no, how pointless.
Those things that were added are inline with the concept of the weapon .. I see no problem with that … and that had nothing to do with balance either, it was a change basd on the weapon concept. That doesn’t mean that dagger AA bleed application are though.
You buff dagger direct damage and now you have a big problem with Greatsword: one will always be better than the other if you try to solve its issues that way.
By only increasing Power coefficients, you either kill Greatsword or you leave Dagger irrelevant. This will continue to be the case until yet another Power-based Elite Spec comes along.
However, by tweaking Dagger’s identity to that of a sustain-focused weapon for all damage types, you now have something attractive to many builds without trying to directly compete with other options. Adding short duration bleeds means condi builds now have an option to rapidly replenish life force without totally murdering their damage output. It means Life Siphon actually has synergy with both of the other skills on the weapon. It means Power builds still get a DPS boost (which they need).
It’s not without tradeoffs, though. For condition builds, you will still lose DPS and be at higher risk due to melee range. For Power builds, Axe is much safer. Only Life Siphon useage doesn’t have a tradeoff, and honestly, that skill is hard enough to actually use that a direct buff through self-synergy won’t hurt anything.
Axe is actually a decent weapon now due to self-synergy and a focused theme of execution. Vulnerability increases the Axe 2 damage, which subsequently makes it easier to get the target low on health to stack Vuln faster and get them in range for the second hit on Axe 3. Each skill feeds into the others and now it’s actually a good weapon. Dagger, they went halfway on the synergy, and they chose the bad half to start with.
Nothing obtuse here. You guys want to pat yourselves on the back for a poorly thought out idea to buff dagger with damage conditions while ignoring game mechanics and intention. It’s not all that hard to even think of an idea that doesn’t ignore those things to buff dagger, but for some reason they elude you because of this conditions fixation.
I mean, someone asked what happened to simply buffing dagger damage … he was completely ignored because that idea doesn’t push the condition buff agenda.
OK so what about that idea? It maintains the concept of the dagger, it maintains meaningful choices during swapping, it addresses ‘competitive’ to a degree.
Oh, applying conditions = ignoring game mechanics now? That’s a new one to laugh to!
Maybe you think that … I never said such a thing. Feel free to laugh at yourself if that’s what you want to think.
I will say that applying conditions that isn’t aligned with the concept of a power weapon is ignoring it’s concept and intention.
You have no idea what intentions a weapon has despite how much you think you know about the game. GS in raids is now used in condition builds, despite it being marketed as a ‘power’ weapon.
Nothing obtuse here. You guys want to pat yourselves on the back for a poorly thought out idea to buff dagger with damage conditions while ignoring game mechanics and intention. It’s not all that hard to even think of an idea that doesn’t ignore those things to buff dagger, but for some reason they elude you because of this conditions fixation.
I mean, someone asked what happened to simply buffing dagger damage … he was completely ignored because that idea doesn’t push the condition buff agenda.
OK so what about that idea? It maintains the concept of the dagger, it maintains meaningful choices during swapping, it addresses ‘competitive’ to a degree.
Oh, applying conditions = ignoring game mechanics now? That’s a new one to laugh to!
Maybe you think that … I never said such a thing. Feel free to laugh at yourself if that’s what you want to think.
I will say that applying conditions that isn’t aligned with the concept of a power weapon is ignoring it’s concept and intention.
You have no idea what intentions a weapon has despite how much you think you know about the game. GS in raids is now used in condition builds, despite it being marketed as a ‘power’ weapon.
That’s not correct. You can get a really good insight to what the devs intended a weapon to do by it’s skills, the special traits associated with it and the other traits in the same line … to claim otherwise is nonsense.
Nothing obtuse here. You guys want to pat yourselves on the back for a poorly thought out idea to buff dagger with damage conditions while ignoring game mechanics and intention. It’s not all that hard to even think of an idea that doesn’t ignore those things to buff dagger, but for some reason they elude you because of this conditions fixation.
I mean, someone asked what happened to simply buffing dagger damage … he was completely ignored because that idea doesn’t push the condition buff agenda.
OK so what about that idea? It maintains the concept of the dagger, it maintains meaningful choices during swapping, it addresses ‘competitive’ to a degree.
Oh, applying conditions = ignoring game mechanics now? That’s a new one to laugh to!
Maybe you think that … I never said such a thing. Feel free to laugh at yourself if that’s what you want to think.
I will say that applying conditions that isn’t aligned with the concept of a power weapon is ignoring it’s concept and intention.
You have no idea what intentions a weapon has despite how much you think you know about the game. GS in raids is now used in condition builds, despite it being marketed as a ‘power’ weapon.
That’s not correct. You can get a really good insight to what the devs intended a weapon to do by it’s skills, the special traits associated with it and the other traits in the same line … to claim otherwise is nonsense.
Again, intentions have constantly been changed. None of which you could have predicted in your tenure as a fake arenanet employee.
Oh look, signets are for corruption, now they aren’t for corruption. Pretty big 180. Come PoF, deathly chill is probably going to get changed so that it doesnt interact with condition damage anymore, pretty big 180. Spectral wall was supposed to be for inflicting vulnerability, now it inflicts fear, what was the original intention there?
(edited by Ramoth.9064)
You buff dagger direct damage and now you have a big problem with Greatsword: one will always be better than the other if you try to solve its issues that way.
By only increasing Power coefficients, you either kill Greatsword or you leave Dagger irrelevant. This will continue to be the case until yet another Power-based Elite Spec comes along.
However, by tweaking Dagger’s identity to that of a sustain-focused weapon for all damage types, you now have something attractive to many builds without trying to directly compete with other options. Adding short duration bleeds means condi builds now have an option to rapidly replenish life force without totally murdering their damage output. It means Life Siphon actually has synergy with both of the other skills on the weapon. It means Power builds still get a DPS boost (which they need).
It’s not without tradeoffs, though. For condition builds, you will still lose DPS and be at higher risk due to melee range. For Power builds, Axe is much safer. Only Life Siphon useage doesn’t have a tradeoff, and honestly, that skill is hard enough to actually use that a direct buff through self-synergy won’t hurt anything.
Axe is actually a decent weapon now due to self-synergy and a focused theme of execution. Vulnerability increases the Axe 2 damage, which subsequently makes it easier to get the target low on health to stack Vuln faster and get them in range for the second hit on Axe 3. Each skill feeds into the others and now it’s actually a good weapon. Dagger, they went halfway on the synergy, and they chose the bad half to start with.
I don’t disagree that dagger concept is lacking; that’s a game issue more than a weapon issue … life-drain/sustain builds aren’t implemented very well or very useful. I don’t think adding a condition to it to change it’s identity will really do that much to change that. I mean, if we are being honest and civil here, I think the whole lifesteal idea needs to be dropped and dagger get a whole new one if dagger as a competitive weapon is to be a thing again. The lifesteal/sustain is a questionable strategy in this game and Anet doesn’t seem to want to support it for ‘competitive’ level.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Nothing obtuse here. You guys want to pat yourselves on the back for a poorly thought out idea to buff dagger with damage conditions while ignoring game mechanics and intention. It’s not all that hard to even think of an idea that doesn’t ignore those things to buff dagger, but for some reason they elude you because of this conditions fixation.
I mean, someone asked what happened to simply buffing dagger damage … he was completely ignored because that idea doesn’t push the condition buff agenda.
OK so what about that idea? It maintains the concept of the dagger, it maintains meaningful choices during swapping, it addresses ‘competitive’ to a degree.
Oh, applying conditions = ignoring game mechanics now? That’s a new one to laugh to!
Maybe you think that … I never said such a thing. Feel free to laugh at yourself if that’s what you want to think.
I will say that applying conditions that isn’t aligned with the concept of a power weapon is ignoring it’s concept and intention.
You have no idea what intentions a weapon has despite how much you think you know about the game. GS in raids is now used in condition builds, despite it being marketed as a ‘power’ weapon.
That’s not correct. You can get a really good insight to what the devs intended a weapon to do by it’s skills, the special traits associated with it and the other traits in the same line … to claim otherwise is nonsense.
Again, intentions have constantly been changed. None of which you could have predicted in your tenure as a fake arenanet employee.
Hey, I’m all for changing intention … but adding bleed on AA isn’t going to do that. That’s silly. It doesn’t do anything … there is no new concept there and even worse, an effect that very little to take advantage of. It’s simply a desperate plea for a buff.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Nothing obtuse here. You guys want to pat yourselves on the back for a poorly thought out idea to buff dagger with damage conditions while ignoring game mechanics and intention. It’s not all that hard to even think of an idea that doesn’t ignore those things to buff dagger, but for some reason they elude you because of this conditions fixation.
I mean, someone asked what happened to simply buffing dagger damage … he was completely ignored because that idea doesn’t push the condition buff agenda.
OK so what about that idea? It maintains the concept of the dagger, it maintains meaningful choices during swapping, it addresses ‘competitive’ to a degree.
Oh, applying conditions = ignoring game mechanics now? That’s a new one to laugh to!
Maybe you think that … I never said such a thing. Feel free to laugh at yourself if that’s what you want to think.
I will say that applying conditions that isn’t aligned with the concept of a power weapon is ignoring it’s concept and intention.
You have no idea what intentions a weapon has despite how much you think you know about the game. GS in raids is now used in condition builds, despite it being marketed as a ‘power’ weapon.
That’s not correct. You can get a really good insight to what the devs intended a weapon to do by it’s skills, the special traits associated with it and the other traits in the same line … to claim otherwise is nonsense.
Again, intentions have constantly been changed. None of which you could have predicted in your tenure as a fake arenanet employee.
Hey, I’m all for changing intention … but adding bleed on AA isn’t going to do that. That’s silly. It doesn’t do anything … there is no new concept there and even worse, an effect that very little to take advantage of. It’s simply a desperate plea for a buff.
Lol, no. No you aren’t. That comment flies directly against your ‘neigh, weapons have intentions and no foul heathen shall ever change that’ argument.
That’s just plain dishonest; I’ve never said the intention couldn’t change; I said if you want to add something to a weapon, it needs to be inline with the intention of the weapon. That’s not the same thing.
If you think adding a paltry condi on AA is ‘intention changing’ for a weapon, then I don’t believe you understand what intention or weapon concept actually means.
i would rather have staff completely reworked than see just bleeding added to dagger
If you think adding a paltry condi on AA is ‘intention changing’ for a weapon, then I don’t believe you understand what intention or weapon concept actually means.
Funny you say this, because that’s the argument YOU YOURSELF ARE MAKING.
So, yeah. You can’t even keep your own arguments straight. You’re done here.
That’s just plain dishonest; I’ve never said the intention couldn’t change; I said if you want to add something to a weapon, it needs to be inline with the intention of the weapon. That’s not the same thing.
If you think adding a paltry condi on AA is ‘intention changing’ for a weapon, then I don’t believe you understand what intention or weapon concept actually means.
That’s just plain contradictory. Tells people you can’t add stuff that’s not with the intent of the weapon, then tells people the intent can be changed.
I actually don’t give a kitten if anything is added or taken from dagger, i have to reason to use it. It’s hilarious watching you are your way out of the hole you’ve dug though. As per usual.
(edited by Ramoth.9064)
That’s just plain dishonest; I’ve never said the intention couldn’t change; I said if you want to add something to a weapon, it needs to be inline with the intention of the weapon. That’s not the same thing.
If you think adding a paltry condi on AA is ‘intention changing’ for a weapon, then I don’t believe you understand what intention or weapon concept actually means.
That’s just plain contradictory. Tells people you can’t add stuff that’s not with the intent of the weapon, then tells people the intent can be changed.
Then also says adding a condition doesn’t change the intent. Managing to swap sides on the concept twice in the same post. That’s impressive!
If you think adding a paltry condi on AA is ‘intention changing’ for a weapon, then I don’t believe you understand what intention or weapon concept actually means.
Funny you say this, because that’s the argument YOU YOURSELF ARE MAKING.
So, yeah. You can’t even keep your own arguments straight. You’re done here.
I’m making an argument for adding a condi on AA to change it’s intention? No, that’s not even close to anything I’ve said, ever.
i would rather have staff completely reworked than see just bleeding added to dagger
I would like to expand on that … because it makes much more sense to me to take a weapon that already has LF regen and condition applications to address the concerns people have raised in this thread they want to solve. It also maintains meaningful choice. Seems like a much more likely, sensible and inline with what that weapon does.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
If you think adding a paltry condi on AA is ‘intention changing’ for a weapon, then I don’t believe you understand what intention or weapon concept actually means.
Funny you say this, because that’s the argument YOU YOURSELF ARE MAKING.
So, yeah. You can’t even keep your own arguments straight. You’re done here.
I’m making an argument for adding a condi on AA to change it’s intention? No, that’s not even close to anything I’ve said, ever.
You:
“adding a condition will be against the intent of the weapon!”
“adding a condition will take away from it being a Power weapon!”
“adding a condition will change the intent of the weapon!”
“intentions for weapons can change!”
“adding a condition won’t change the intent of a weapon!”
Yeah, I paraphrased, but you’ve said all of these. Congrats on contradicting yourself.
i would rather have staff completely reworked than see just bleeding added to dagger
Staff definitely needs attention and an actual identity. That said, bleeds on dagger make thematic sense as the weapon is tied to blood magic and already has a skill that wants the target to be bleeding specifically (instead of just wanting conditions).
No, I said adding a condition in not inline with the intent of the weapon. That’s a significant difference.
i would rather have staff completely reworked than see just bleeding added to dagger
Staff definitely needs attention and an actual identity. That said, bleeds on dagger make thematic sense as the weapon is tied to blood magic and already has a skill that wants the target to be bleeding specifically (instead of just wanting conditions).
That’s a very weak thematic link IMO. If anything, the staff link with Mark of Evasion is more relevant as a thematic link to Staff than this.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
No, I said adding a condition in not inline with the intent of the weapon. That’s a significant difference.
Which is contradicted by the fact that you said intentions can change.
Yeah, I should have added that to the list as well in my last post. You’ve taken so many positions trying to argue against the idea that it’s hard to keep track of all of them.
But not being in line with the intent of the weapon? The weapon already has a skill that wants your foes to bleed. Was the recent change to Axe 2 against the intent of the weapon? Or was it a buff that was selected to synergize with the theme and existing mechanics of the weapon?
But not being in line with the intent of the weapon? The weapon already has a skill that wants your foes to bleed.
Again, I’ve explained why that’s a reason to NOT add bleed to dagger AA. The weapon takes advantage of bleeding foes; that does not mean it’s intent is to be a condition application weapon. Enabling the weapon to give the extra dagger 2 advantage without thought is a stupid implementation.
The ‘axe’ argument doesn’t make much sense to me. Their is no reason the dagger has to apply bleed and take advantage of it just because axe applies vuln and takes advantage of it. That’s the Axe concept.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
But not being in line with the intent of the weapon? The weapon already has a skill that wants your foes to bleed.
Again, I’ve explained why that’s a reason to NOT add bleed to dagger AA. The weapon takes advantage of bleeding foes; that does not mean it’s intent is to bleed.
Axe takes advantage of vulnerable foes, and applies vulnerability! Heavens, nooooooooooo
But not being in line with the intent of the weapon? The weapon already has a skill that wants your foes to bleed.
Again, I’ve explained why that’s a reason to NOT add bleed to dagger AA. The weapon takes advantage of bleeding foes; that does not mean it’s intent is to be a condition application weapon. Enabling the weapon to give the extra dagger 2 advantage without thought is a stupid implementation.
I love how you just ignored the part there about Axe having received a very similar change. In fact, it happened in the exact same patch as Life Siphon started caring about Bleeding! They’re even both #2 skills and channels!
scepter3 benefits from unique conditions on the enemy, and scepter 1 and 2 applies conditions. heavens, nooooooooooooo