Guild Wars 2

Seeing as the Dev’s feel there’s a need for Stealth countering skills, I have a suggestion that I think will make everyone happy (except thieves – they’ll just be marginally less unhappy).

Instead of skills that apply revealed, how about skills that nullify the invisibility aspect of stealth for the same duration?

This way, thieves heavy into SA still have access to all their stealth based traits and abilities(Might on stealth, health regen, condition dropping, stealth attacks, etc), but players can still see them. This allows for an effective counter for stealth without completely nullifying 30 points in SA. Countering a class mechanic is (arguably) fine, countering 30 trait points is not.

How do people feel about this?

Yes.

EDIT: Apparently this gif is too flamboyant for this topic to process it properly.

EDIT2: nvm

Zacchary.6183:

Yes.

Glad to hear it!

I’m making the assumption most thieves will like this suggestion – some will say stealth doesn’t need specifically targeted counters at all (and I agree here), but that’s not the point here. The dev’s have already stated they’re likely going to give Rangers an anti-stealth move, and this just means there will be more to come (which I called when they introduced anti stealth traps in WvW)

Instead of revealed (which kittens over SA completely), I’d like to see a “Stealth does not grant invisibility” effect attached to Sic Em (and whatever other skills they decide need it in the long run). This should satisfy both parties – thieves won’t be able to go invisible, and SA thieves won’t be completely screwed out of all their traits.

Again, assuming thieves like this suggestion over Revealed(and I am making that assumption), how do we bring it to the Dev’s attention and potentially get a response before the Sic em change goes live?

Yeah I could care less for stealth. I just want the benefits from it. As for devs hearing about it that’ll be a statistical impossibility.

Zacchary.6183:

Yeah I could care less for stealth. I just want the benefits from it. As for devs hearing about it that’ll be a statistical impossibility.

I don’t even play a Stealth build – I’ve been S/D since March. I just think it’s silly to target a classes traitline so explicitly.

As for Dev posts, if this gains enough traction (and I’m hoping it will), I’ll cross-post to SPvP forums (since this proposed change is a problem primarily for SPvP/TPvP) and cross my fingers.

I always thought auto attacks and aoes were a stealth counter.

Doggie.3184:

I always thought auto attacks and aoes were a stealth counter.

Again, not the point. While I agree with you, this can be discussed elsewhere. I’d rather focus on my suggestion (which may seem a bit egocentric, but I assure you it’s not), because I feel that it’s an infinitely better compromise than attacks that apply revealed. I feel its pointless to explain why stealth doesn’t need a targeted counter, the Dev’s have already made a decision concerning “anti-stealth” abilities.

Most importantly, we can assume it’s not an outlandish suggestion which would require a ton of work to implement – I’m sure turning off the “is invisible” flag while in stealth if the thief has a particular debuff on them should be fairly easy, seeing as up until recently thieves had a bug where they would be visible to themselves even while in stealth after using certain abilities.

Well it is better than Revealed. I do absolutely despise with all my heart that **** Last Refuge trait. The main thing this new addition/concept (which may even be expanded to other classes because of how hated we are) is having to deal with the potential of more random reveals that cause me to waste ini/utility skills on top of that absolutely horrible, disgusting trait that still manages to remain rampant among our lesser traits, trolling us for all eternity…

evilapprentice.6379:

This way, thieves heavy into SA still have access to all their stealth based traits and abilities(Might on stealth, health regen, condition dropping, stealth attacks, etc), but players can still see them.

There was an occasional graphic glitch/bug that it doesn’t turn me invisible when even under stealth that really bugs me, thus this will really bug me.

Why not make us transparent instead? That way, as a Thief, I can also tell if my stealth mode is active.

But to be honest, I hated stealth from the beginning. Even more so because there are many skills that relies on using it.

evilapprentice.6379:

Zacchary.6183:

Yeah I could care less for stealth. I just want the benefits from it. As for devs hearing about it that’ll be a statistical impossibility.

I don’t even play a Stealth build – I’ve been S/D since March. I just think it’s silly to target a classes traitline so explicitly.

As for Dev posts, if this gains enough traction (and I’m hoping it will), I’ll cross-post to SPvP forums (since this proposed change is a problem primarily for SPvP/TPvP) and cross my fingers.

New Thief phrase:

“Do you even stealth bro?”

Sir Vincent III.1286:

evilapprentice.6379:

This way, thieves heavy into SA still have access to all their stealth based traits and abilities(Might on stealth, health regen, condition dropping, stealth attacks, etc), but players can still see them.

There was an occasional graphic glitch/bug that it doesn’t turn me invisible when even under stealth that really bugs me, thus this will really bug me.

Why not make us transparent instead? That way, as a Thief, I can also tell if my stealth mode is active.

But to be honest, I hated stealth from the beginning. Even more so because there are many skills that relies on using it.

The actual mechanic of how the thief remains visible is up for debate – it honestly doesn’t matter much, as long as it’s clear to both the thief and other players that they are in stealth (but suffering from the “Still visible” debuff). Making the thief transparent is certainly better IMO, but probably harder to implement – seeing as this Sic Em change is coming in a month, I was offering a simpler solution that would hopefully be easy to implement – perhaps just a “flare” icon over the thief’s head when afflicted by the debuff and in stealth.

I am also not the biggest fan of stealth, but as you said, so many key skills (and traits) rely on using it, so giving classes an ability that completely negates stealth is silly. Giving them an ability that counters just the invisibility portion of stealth, however, works.

I’ll just paste my friend’s suggestion that we were discussing. I had posted it somewhere else, thanks for pointing this thread out Sir Vincent III.

Make it is so you can be target-able or visible in a transparent form (think allies stealthing without the name over them, possibly a bit harder to see) at a certain range of around 450 after you have been stealthed for around 1-1.5 seconds. In doing so they could possibly decrease the cost of our stealths or increase the durations of them.

As for the nullify idea the OP had, I do think it’s much more reasonable than revealed debuff. Although I’m still not a fan of it in general, if they think stealth is too good that it needs hard counters then perhaps they should look at stealth itself.

I truthfully don’t find stealth in it’s current state over-powered, but I do think it’s generally not fun to fight against. It would be nice if they find a way to make fighting stealth thieves more enjoyable while stealth still being useful and fun to use.

If Anet absolutely must introduce anti-stealth skills so that the WvW zerg-scrubs (no one in tPvP has trouble with it, stealth isn’t even viable) who cbf learning how to counter a highly counterable mechanic then I agree, this suggestion is infinitely better than a straight up reveal, even if that reveal is on a long CD and lasts a short duration.

This is one of the best suggestion I have heard in a while. Honestly it really is the chock factor of disappearing in front of their eyes that does it. That being said even this would need to be in moderation.

Put it in the balance preview thread. Don’t know if they’re still reading it as it ballooned to a huge number of pages quickly, but the possibility that it’s seen there is better than here.

Incurafy.6329:

If Anet absolutely must introduce anti-stealth skills so that the WvW zerg-scrubs (no one in tPvP has trouble with it, stealth isn’t even viable) who cbf learning how to counter a highly counterable mechanic then I agree, this suggestion is infinitely better than a straight up reveal, even if that reveal is on a long CD and lasts a short duration.

Do you ever run shadow’s refuge? Or is that not any good in high level tpvp?

Chopps.5047:

Incurafy.6329:

If Anet absolutely must introduce anti-stealth skills so that the WvW zerg-scrubs (no one in tPvP has trouble with it, stealth isn’t even viable) who cbf learning how to counter a highly counterable mechanic then I agree, this suggestion is infinitely better than a straight up reveal, even if that reveal is on a long CD and lasts a short duration.

Do you ever run shadow’s refuge? Or is that not any good in high level tpvp?

It’s great for certain splits, sure, but I’m talking about stealth in tPvP overall, you can’t defend a point or take one if you’re jumping in and out of stealth and letting your opponent tick the node.

Next time, read.

The interesting part of the story is being able to target the thief while he is stealthed. As you said, 30 points in SA will not be useless and players can still fight thieves

It’s a good idea.
With some sort of icon that allows the thief to know he’s visible and as a temporary counter… i mean something like 3 – 4 seconds on a 50- 60s CD … not a permament state.

This is exactly what I suggested in this thread: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Counter-Invisibility-not-Stealth/first

Nobody replying seem to have read the actual post though…

The amount of mindless hate for Thieves in the main forum is rather astounding…

it shood come as boon. like add it to boon giving skills I play mesmer so basicly chaos storm would have chance to give 3s boon with what you can see invisible enemys + other skills what allready give massiv ammount of boons it should not be you need to take extra skills just to counter stealth.

no, we’re getting reveal counter , quit crying

and gg

Ryan.8367:

no, we’re getting reveal counter , quit crying

and gg

You still die to d/d conditions. :3

Zacchary.6183:

Ryan.8367:

no, we’re getting reveal counter , quit crying

and gg

You still die to d/d conditions.

maybe, maybe not

I know one game where stealth lasts for a longer period of time, but your character flashes out of stealth for a split second (making them visible). I don’t know how people would feel about that in this game but it works pretty well.

I prefer the ranger pet idea from anet. Thanks though.

Sanduskel.1850:

I prefer the ranger pet idea from anet. Thanks though.

Care to explain why?

I want to share this post I made in the other thread:

Sic ’Em:
40 second cd, 32 second if traited for shout cd reduction.
10 seconds of increased damage and movespeed for the the pet.

Sharp’s description on Sic ’Em’s possible reveal capability:
“Sick ‘Em will now apply ‘Revealed” to enemies they target.”
-The wording implies that using the shout immediately applies the reveal to the target, rather than granting the pet the ability to apply reveal.
-Ergo, the shout can “miss” if the ranger does not have a target or applies it to an unintended target.

Incorporating Sic ’Em usually implies that the ranger is using a beastmaster build, one that grants his pets improved stats and the ranger additional healing power. A beastmaster ranger largely deals single target damage. One can assume that the ranger would not be using Sic ’Em in a spirit build, trap build, or a power/prec build: these builds do not emphasis pet damage/survivability to the same extent. Thus, using this utility only to counter stealth means losing a utility when confronting a situation where the enemy has no stealth abilities.

Sic ’Em may indeed be a hard counter to stealth, but given that a ranger has to spec into a certain build to be most effective with Sic ’Em implies that the trade-off is not unfair. I hope that the incorporation of more anti-stealth mechanics will be as measured as this.

Why does he have to be specced into beastmastery to get it? You only have to go 10 in BM to get the reduction. I can go traps / spirits and still be able to get rid of my swiftness spirit (10 in skirmishing would give me swiftness on weapon swap for 8 seconds, more if im specced 30 into NM) and run Sicem as a utiity. You’ll see more NM Shout builds moreso than beastmaster builds running this. Keep in mind too, 10 in skirmishing allows 30% more dmg on pet crit.

Let’s see here then:

30% more dmg on pet crit + 40% more dmg and speed + reveal + regen and swiftness given to me without even going further than 10 in BM.

Edit: also keep in mind im able to put 25 might on my pet instantly when specced correctly, and youre not going BM at all to get that.

25 Might + 30% crit dmg + 40% dmg + Fury from horn.. Hope you don get caught in entangling roots + #5 stun from shortbow combo without an immediate condi clear / shadow step because youre probably getting close to 1-shotted by a jag/jungle stalker.

You are right—speccing into beastmaster is not necessary. You are a more pro ranger than me haha.

Given the traits you mentioned, I still think that incorporating reveal into Sic ’Em is not unfair.

you dont get much pet dmg going from 10 to 30 in BM though is my point, you can get further stat increases passively in other trait lines. the only rsn rangers go into BM is for passive sustain (healing power + dwayna usually) and the vigor effects of running birds or the condition dmg addition from bleed on crit to feline pets, after doing a plethora of testing, the direct dmg changes from 10 → 30 are almost irrelevant.

Regardless of pet damage, who has the ability, how the ability is applied, etc etc etc…

My point is still that its silly for any class to get an ability that has the potential to completely invalidate up to 30 points in a trait line – My suggestion clearly and effectively addresses the biggest complaint with stealth – you can’t see the thief. Further locking them out of their trait choices, or out of their access to stealth based attacks seems silly – As long as its obvious to both the thief and other players that the thief is in stealth, but visible due to Sic Em, everyone should be happy – it counters the biggest reason people hate stealth without being overly punitive to a thief running a build that relies on SA or stealth attacks.

What do you lose in 4 seconds? i.e. how many condition drops, how many might stacks, etc.

Yih.4950:

What do you lose in 4 seconds? i.e. how many condition drops, how many might stacks, etc.

Why quantify it? You lose access to the entirety of your points spent in SA (at least currently – ATM, the best traits for SA are entirely stealth based. This might change in the future), one of your primary defense mechanics, and potential offensive mechanics, all to counter invisibility. Why not just counter the invisibility aspect?

I support this idea. It’s a great way to implement the “anti stealth” instead of this revealed nonsense.

4 seconds every 32-40 seconds, you dont have access to evades? instead of crying, adapt… we’ve had to come up with builds for op thieves for a year – its your turn now for us, now you have toavoid something when fighting us and not jus continually steal from us and use one of the most op steals in the game while abusing our horrible pet ai mechanics.

get a sword and spam flanking strike, you do it when youre spamming the air to get your 2 boon steal skill anyway (abusing a mechanic, btw), get a bow and spam evades , it’s 4 seconds lulz.

Thieves cry so much , yet there’s a reason why you only see them roaming and at mostly at duel clubs. They succeed heavily in 1on1s. They were never great in group fights but lets be honest, neither are rangers, we provide virtually nothing that a guardian/ele doesnt alrdy provide. Atleast you can drop out backliners and SR people.

also, it’s one class, particularly and SPECIFICALLY a class that thieves used to gloat about owning in battles ‘rangers are too ez’ ‘if you die to a ranger it’s a l2p issue’ ‘ive never lost to a ranger’, etc

spare me the victim card, please

evilapprentice.6379:

Yih.4950:

What do you lose in 4 seconds? i.e. how many condition drops, how many might stacks, etc.

Why quantify it? You lose access to the entirety of your points spent in SA (at least currently – ATM, the best traits for SA are entirely stealth based. This might change in the future), one of your primary defense mechanics, and potential offensive mechanics, all to counter invisibility. Why not just counter the invisibility aspect?

I’m not an experienced thief—mine is only level 30; therefore, I’m interested in what is not gained during the 4 second reveal duration so I can determine my stance on your proposal. From what I know, you can lose one condition; regen initiative faster; regen health; and gain one might stack. You are proposing to negate the invisibility aspect of stealth with revealed, but still include these benefits. If that is implemented, the revealed state would have to be reworked or another state would have to be implemented to signify this pseudo-stealth.

Someone in another forum proposed a name for this state—being visible while gaining the benefits of stealth: Detected. He argues that Detected should replace Revealed because the latter hinders the thief SA line significantly.

The problem with this proposition is that a thief can extort Detected by applying it on himself—using stealth skills while he is still stealthed— to gain the boons/condition-clears of the SA tree. With Detected, there would be no timer preventing a thief from continuously stacking might, removing conditions, regaining health, and regaining initiative…as long as he has enough initiative.

I think it’s clear that this game’s definition of invisibility is stealth and vice versa. 4 seconds is really not that rough, especially given that a ranger has to time the reveal skill it to really disrupt a thief’s flow. I assume other skills which will gain access to applying reveal will also be measured.

Yih.4950:

evilapprentice.6379:

Yih.4950:

What do you lose in 4 seconds? i.e. how many condition drops, how many might stacks, etc.

Why quantify it? You lose access to the entirety of your points spent in SA (at least currently – ATM, the best traits for SA are entirely stealth based. This might change in the future), one of your primary defense mechanics, and potential offensive mechanics, all to counter invisibility. Why not just counter the invisibility aspect?

I’m not an experienced thief—mine is only level 30; therefore, I’m interested in what is not gained during the 4 second reveal duration so I can determine my stance on your proposal. From what I know, you can lose one condition; regen initiative faster; regen health; and gain one might stack. You are proposing to negate the invisibility aspect of stealth with revealed, but still include these benefits. If that is implemented, the revealed state would have to be reworked or another state would have to be implemented to signify this pseudo-stealth.

The actual benefits don’t matter – they represent 30 out of 70 possible trait points – that’s the issue at hand – you should counter the “Stealth Issue” (quotes because I don’t personally believe stealth is an issue, but that’s not important to this discussion) of not being able to see/track/directly attack thieves in stealth without potentially nullifying all the trait related benefits of up to 42% of my total trait point allocation can provide. No other skill in the game carries that kind of power, especially since once the skill hits you, there’s no counter for it.

Someone in another forum proposed a name for this state—being visible while gaining the benefits of stealth: Detected. He argues that Detected should replace Revealed because the latter hinders the thief SA line significantly.

The problem with this proposition is that a thief can extort Detected by applying it on himself—using stealth skills while he is still stealthed— to gain the boons/condition-clears of the SA tree. With Detected, there would be no timer preventing a thief from continuously stacking might, removing conditions, regaining health, and regaining initiative…as long as he has enough initiative.

That’s not my suggestion, that’s someone else’s – my suggestion does not grant the thief any special benefits – stealth is still stealth – whether or not you have this proposed debuff which makes you still visible, it still acts like stealth in every other way – No capping points, landing any attack triggers revealed, etc etc etc. It does not replace revealed, the thief still gets revealed normally, I’m just suggesting these skills (Sic Em, the skills that will eventually gain anti-stealth in the future) apply a different debuff that counters the invisibility portion of stealth.

I’m not familiar with this other persons suggestion, but I believe you’re misreading it – he probably meant "Instead of Sic Em and traps in WvW triggering revealed, have them trigger “Detected” instead", Not “replace revealed with detected completely”. Perhaps I’m wrong there, but the version you’re describing would be a pretty insane buff, whereas my suggestion is just a way to counter stealth without screwing over SA thieves and thieves who rely on their stealth attacks to do the Damage in their builds.

Also note, with my proposed change, stealth is still countered fairly hard – it loses all defensive benefits, and it makes the offensive benefits much harder to pull off (you can see the thief approaching for the BS/TS, see the sneak attack coming, etc) – all my suggestion prevents is potentially locking the thief out of 42% of their traits.

I think it’s clear that this game’s definition of invisibility is stealth and vice versa. 4 seconds is really not that rough, especially given that a ranger has to time the reveal skill it to really disrupt a thief’s flow. I assume other skills which will gain access to applying reveal will also be measured.

I don’t agree with you concerning stealth and invisibility, but that is again beside the point – there’s no reason to keep the 2 needlessly intertwined, especially when it would be easy and better for the game to decouple the 2 – The main gripe against stealth is “I dont know where the thief went, and he gets to get away” – decoupling the invisibility aspect counters that without needless collateral damage.

The length of time does not matter – it’s silly to introduce anything to the game that can potentially invalidate 42% of your total trait selections for any length of time. It’s only a matter of time before different classes gain “anti-stealth” abilities (See: GW2 before anti-stealth trap, after Anti-stealth trap, and again after the Oct 15th update), and I’d rather see them intelligently designed rather than just applied heavy handedly.

Correct me if I’m misunderstanding:
You are proposing that potential skills that apply reveal like Sic ’Em instead apply another debuff that only nullifies the invisible aspect of stealth. With your proposition, a thief can use stealth skills and gain the benefits of the SA tree while being visible as a result of Sic ’Em/etc. The integration of this would be 3 states of being concerning stealth: invisibility, revealed (no invisibility or access to abilities of SA traits and stealth skills like backstab), and your proposition (no invisibility but can access abilities of SA traits and stealth skills).

This is almost exactly the same as the other forum post (https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Counter-Invisibility-not-Stealth/first), except that he replaces revealed with the new state he proposed, Detected, completely.

The problem with both propositions is that there is only one aspect of stealth: invisibility.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Stealth

There is no room for interpretation regarding this game’s definition of stealth. If you want benefits of the SA tree while being targeted by potential stealth-breaking skills, then the SA tree is what needs to be revamped, and based around an alternative instead of stealth.

The potential Sic ’Em’s reveal capability does indeed invalidate many of the effects of the SA line. However:
-It’s only 4 seconds.
-It can be negated if used incorrectly (wrong target or no target).
-Sic ’Em has a mid-long cd.
-The thief has many options to work around the short reveal (evade, teleport, LOS, blind, stuns, etc.)

Considering that along with the possible application of reveal—similar to applying a condition—I think stealth/reveal could be reimplemented as a boon/condition. I haven’t thought about the consequences of this, but the way they are interacting (application/stripping) is already similar. Also, stealing/removing stealth is impossible unless a target has both stealth and revealed, thus this would not break the mechanic.

Yih.4950:

The problem with both propositions is that there is only one aspect of stealth: invisibility.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Stealth

There is no room for interpretation regarding this game’s definition of stealth. If you want benefits of the SA tree while being targeted by potential stealth-breaking skills, then the SA tree is what needs to be revamped, and based around an alternative instead of stealth.

But it doesn’t need to be, that is the point. There’s no ancient stone tablet handed down for generations that declares, irrevocably, that this has to be the way things work. The servers will not explode or catch fire if the 2 are decoupled – you’re arguing that this impossible because “That’s the way Stealth is defined”, and I’m saying “…So just redefine it” – it’s not that hard, it’s not that complicated, and it’s not that big of a departure from what we currently have. It’s Infinitely easier than completely redesigning SA, and as long as thieves have stealth as an option, there should be traits that empower it – base stealth is a pretty kittenty mechanic, it practically relies on SA to be an effective mechanic that you can use on a regular basis. Let’s also note that Mesmer has some heavy stealth trait options, so we’d have to go and redesign a bunch of their traits too – why go through all that when my suggestion satisfies the “stealth is too powerful” people without completely screwing over classes that have stealth as a mechanic, while additionally not being so complicated to implement as the complete overhaul of every stealth trait?

AND AGAIN, stop bringing up how long it lasts – it’s a poorly thought of ability on a design level, the actual parameters are inconsequential. “Using it on the wrong target” is nothing special to Sic em – that applies to every skill in the game. The CD doesn’t matter, the fact that the thief can run away doesn’t matter, It is a fundamentally poor design choice to offer a class an ability that directly counters spent trait points – you don’t have to agree with me, but please stop trying to justify how it’s “not so bad” by listing the exact parameters – they have ABSOLUTELY no bearing on how bad the idea is at its base.

I tried coming up with a purposeful reply, but I feel you shot it down with something you’ve only hinted at and didn’t really think about…I don’t think you’ve explicitly mentioned a stealth rework until the above post. If you believe it does, then provide how it could be.

Also, did you read my post completely? Please read the last paragraph because it’s essentially what you are arguing for.

If you want me to spell it out:
Changing stealth/reveal to a boon/condition implies that one can be both stealthed/revealed at the same time. The player would be visible as reveal would overwrite stealth, but also gain access to SA benefits.

Yih.4950:

I tried coming up with a purposeful reply, but I feel you shot it down with something you’ve only hinted at and didn’t really think about…I don’t think you’ve explicitly mentioned a stealth rework until the above post. If you believe it does, then provide how it could be.

Also, did you read my post completely? Please read the last paragraph because it’s essentially what you are arguing for.

…I didn’t specifically mention a stealth rework because you’re defining stealth extremely narrowly. Your argument is “You can’t be in stealth AND visible because stealth is defined as invisibility!” and I’m saying "My proposed debuff adds a sentence to the definition, “Unless you have debuff X, in which case you can be in stealth and visible” – you’re arguing semantics, I’m arguing game mechanics – there was until recently a bug in the game that made the thief visible (only on the thief players screen) while in stealth after using a teleport skill, so we already know that the engine can handle rendering a character visibly who has the stealth buff on them.

I didn’t acknowledge your last paragraph because it is again, a major departure from my point. Reworking stealth into a boon and revealed into a condition is extremely overly complicated – anet does not have the resources to completely redesign stealth, nor should they have to – my suggestion works because its fair, and most importantly easy to implement, and therefore something they could possibly take seriously and try for a patch coming in less than a month.

evilapprentice.6379:

you’re arguing that this impossible because “That’s the way Stealth is defined”, and I’m saying “…So just redefine it” – it’s not that hard, it’s not that complicated, and it’s not that big of a departure from what we currently have. It’s Infinitely easier than completely redesigning SA

evilapprentice.6379:

anet does not have the resources to completely redesign stealth, nor should they have to – my suggestion works because its fair, and most importantly easy to implement, and therefore something they could possibly take seriously and try for a patch coming in less than a month.

One minute you want a stealth redesign, the next minute you don’t want to to be. If you want an easy fix, you’re just asking for a kittenty game. I’m done in this discussion because I’ve already made a case that SUPPORTS your argument and yet you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.

PS: refrain from extremely overly gargantuan infinitely eternally humongous adverbs. They just fill up space.

Yih.4950:

evilapprentice.6379:

you’re arguing that this impossible because “That’s the way Stealth is defined”, and I’m saying “…So just redefine it” – it’s not that hard, it’s not that complicated, and it’s not that big of a departure from what we currently have. It’s Infinitely easier than completely redesigning SA

evilapprentice.6379:

anet does not have the resources to completely redesign stealth, nor should they have to – my suggestion works because its fair, and most importantly easy to implement, and therefore something they could possibly take seriously and try for a patch coming in less than a month.

One minute you want a stealth redesign, the next minute you don’t want to to be. If you want an easy fix, you’re just asking for a kittenty game. I’m done in this discussion because I’ve already made a case that SUPPORTS your argument and yet you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.

PS: refrain from extremely overly gargantuan infinitely eternally humongous adverbs. They just fill up space.

Sigh. Do try to calm down, you’ve completely missed the point. I’m sorry you don’t like my suggestion, but I can’t make it any clearer for you.

Ryan.8367:

no, we’re getting reveal counter , quit crying

and gg

we aren’t getting any reveal counter. it will allow us to backstab-insta stealth-backstab
making us OP

Daendur.2357:

Ryan.8367:

no, we’re getting reveal counter , quit crying

and gg

we aren’t getting any reveal counter. it will allow us to backstab-insta stealth-backstab
making us OP

mhm

We understand Ryan, you don’t like the suggestion. Thanks for the input, let’s not derail the thread.

Yih.4950:

Correct me if I’m misunderstanding:
You are proposing that potential skills that apply reveal like Sic ’Em instead apply another debuff that only nullifies the invisible aspect of stealth. With your proposition, a thief can use stealth skills and gain the benefits of the SA tree while being visible as a result of Sic ’Em/etc. The integration of this would be 3 states of being concerning stealth: invisibility, revealed (no invisibility or access to abilities of SA traits and stealth skills like backstab), and your proposition (no invisibility but can access abilities of SA traits and stealth skills).

This is almost exactly the same as the other forum post (https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Counter-Invisibility-not-Stealth/first), except that he replaces revealed with the new state he proposed, Detected, completely.

The problem with both propositions is that there is only one aspect of stealth: invisibility.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Stealth

There is no room for interpretation regarding this game’s definition of stealth. If you want benefits of the SA tree while being targeted by potential stealth-breaking skills, then the SA tree is what needs to be revamped, and based around an alternative instead of stealth.

The potential Sic ’Em’s reveal capability does indeed invalidate many of the effects of the SA line. However:
-It’s only 4 seconds.
-It can be negated if used incorrectly (wrong target or no target).
-Sic ’Em has a mid-long cd.
-The thief has many options to work around the short reveal (evade, teleport, LOS, blind, stuns, etc.)

Considering that along with the possible application of reveal—similar to applying a condition—I think stealth/reveal could be reimplemented as a boon/condition. I haven’t thought about the consequences of this, but the way they are interacting (application/stripping) is already similar. Also, stealing/removing stealth is impossible unless a target has both stealth and revealed, thus this would not break the mechanic.

Looks like you misunderstood my post. I was suggesting the exact same idea suggested in this thread.

I mentioned that Revealed is necessary as a self-regulation mechanism in order to keep the power of Stealth attacks like Backstab/Sneak Attack/Tactical Strike. Replacing it with the Detected effect completely would mean Thieves can go back to the early Beta days of Backstabbing multiple times within seconds, which was completely ridiculous.

However allowing others to apply Revealed would make it a hard-counter to the entire Stealth mechanic, including utility effects provided by Stealth related traits and offensive options like Stealth attacks. If people are having trouble countering invisibility in its current state, then a counter for invisibility should be developed to help them with that, but it should be tailored to the invisibility aspect alone, not in the form of a hard-counter to the entire mechanic.

I agree with evilapprentice in that trying to quantify the availability and potency of mechanic-specific hard-counters is rather pointless. All other factors held equal, the very existence of hard-counters for a specific mechanic makes the mechanic inferior to others as a build choice. For now, ANet is only planning on introducing Revealed on a single, fairly underused skill, Sic Em, but they also clearly indicated that they are planning to introduce it to more skills.

How viable will Stealth be when this hard-counter has been introduced to enough skills that every class has access to some way of disabling the mechanic for x-duration? Being a burden to your team in an important teamfight just because you’re heavily specced into Stealth, and enemies happened to have a few skills on their bar to negate your entire investment for a key moment in the fight, is a risk that Thief players on high-level teams simply cannot tolerate. This is decidedly a detrimental effect to build variety, whereby the focus is to have multiple equally viable builds that the player can choose from.

Yih.4950:

Considering that along with the possible application of reveal—similar to applying a condition—I think stealth/reveal could be reimplemented as a boon/condition. I haven’t thought about the consequences of this, but the way they are interacting (application/stripping) is already similar. Also, stealing/removing stealth is impossible unless a target has both stealth and revealed, thus this would not break the mechanic.

Now, onto your suggestion to implement Revealed as a condition rather than an effect. This would make for a rather drastic change, and will definitely have much bigger implications on balance than you might have considered, due to the simple fact that conditions can be cleared.

Consider this: right now Revealed is used basically as a soft cooldown for Stealth attacks in order to balance their effects around a specific time interval. If Revealed can be cleared like any other condition, a Thief specced with multiple condi-cleanses (or if teammates are specced for group condi-cleanse) can then use a Stealth attack, condi-cleanse, Stealth, and then Stealth attack again, and repeat for multiple times without any restrictions on timing. Think of the overwhelming burst that would come from this when used with Backstab, the length of the immobilize that will come from Surprise Shot, or the daze-lock that would come from Tactical Strike. All of these skills will have to be revamped to support this change, in addition Stealth related trait effectiveness and ICD’s, the Thief’s access to condi-cleanses, team condi-cleanse support availability, the impact that these changes and yet another cover condi would have on the already condi-dominated meta, and probably many more factors that you and I could not even begin to imagine.

Is such an overhaul worthwhile considering that introducing another targeted effect that applies a counter to the invisibility aspect of Stealth would achieve the desired effect without all the far-reaching consequences? I would say no. And I believe this is what evilapprentice was trying to communicate to you as well in his reply.