Guild Wars 2

If the mesmer can have stealth (arguably BETTER stealth), why shouldn’t the agile Thief have access to blur?

We are even the profession that has a blur animation implemented on its base dodge (yet it’s only something visual and it’s the same as everyone else). Blur would help all those low tier acrobatic builds a huge lot if implemented correctly on traits and sword skills.

For example the first part of S/D dual skill could give you some blur instead of just being and evade. Some traits could give you some blur under certain conditions. Etc…

Thieves may need tiny buffs in survival department but imo they don’t need invuls. Mesmers are just too strong right now however it doesn’t mean that every other class should be buffed up. If anything, problematic traits from mes need to be toned down.

Pvp is already being hurt by insane power creep, we don’t need more of that.

Cynz.9437:

Thieves may need tiny buffs in survival department but imo they don’t need invuls. Mesmers are just too strong right now however it doesn’t mean that every other class should be buffed up. If anything, problematic traits from mes need to be toned down.

Pvp is already being hurt by insane power creep, we don’t need more of that.

Couldn’t agree more. We aren’t Mesmer’s, we’re thieves. As much as I’m disgusted by the capabilities of a Mesmer post patch, we should not turn to their strong points as a solution for our problems. We have many QoL issues with this patch and our defense took a severe dive, can only hope they improve them but stick to what thief is known for and not turn it into some boon heavy profession mimic just to “fix” us.

I think this game needs less uncounterable things like blur or random aegis/blind procs. Priority for thief should be 1) fixing bad weapon abilities, 2) making condi/celestial stats playable.

Cynz.9437:

Thieves may need tiny buffs in survival department but imo they don’t need invuls. Mesmers are just too strong right now however it doesn’t mean that every other class should be buffed up. If anything, problematic traits from mes need to be toned down.

Pvp is already being hurt by insane power creep, we don’t need more of that.

Cynz and I agree on something!

Eles too.

I agree that acrobatics, and the thief’s ability to be evasive in general, needs to be improved since the last patch, but I do not believe we need blur. I would rather they made dodging and evading better again for the thief.

My big issue with acrobatics is that a profession like Engineer can have an unconditional 50% endurance regen trait, but the thief has to successfully evade to get a 2-3 seconds of 75% endurance. Over a period of 10 seconds (assuming you only evade one attack) the thief will recover endurance 1 second slower than the engineer.

I know Anet wants things like defenses to be more skill based, and I am ok with that, but when you fight stealthed opponents, or multiple opponents, it can often be very difficult to time your dodges right, and it is sometimes better to dodge roll out of range before getting hit, than to actually time the dodge to get the evade frames. On top of that some attacks do not trigger the ‘evade’ when you expect them to. You might roll out of reach of the attack a fraction of a second before the evade frame would have stopped the attack, and because of your successful prediction you are punished with no vigor or endurance gain.

Sometimes a predictive dodge can be just as effective, if not better than, a reactive dodge, but they are not rewarded, and that I think is not very balanced, considering a profession not renowned to be particularly acrobatic (engi) gets an effortless buff. If anything the vigor reward and passive buff should be the other way round. Thief should have the always on endurance regain, and engi only on a successful evade..

To be honest though, I would be much happier if the vigor on evade, and the improved vigor, were removed completely in exchange for the 15 endurance return on dodge we used to have. Having both 15 endurance on dodge AND high vigor upkeep was a bit OP, but I think Anet removed the wrong part of that problem in this instance.