Guild Wars 2

So; you read the title, and you’re here to call me an idiot. Before doing that, please read the post. Titles are woefully too short to properly encapsulate my idea in full.

From the SotG, it sounds to me like the devs initially gave thieves such high damage as a bunker busting mechanic – they’re supposed to deal high burst damage, even through boons, in an attempt to overwhelm a players defenses. I don’t know about you guys, but to me this description appears more fitting for a Warrior than a Thief. Thieves shouldn’t be the ones hitting so hard that they overwhelm a target with sheer damage – they should be the one slipping in behind to ignore and strip those defenses.

To that end, I’m suggesting all (or almost all) thief abilities do some percentage of their listed damage through block. Each ability could have a different % (for balance reasons, and to make some skills better than others for dealing with bunkers who constantly block). That’s where thieves belong – standing behind their target, sliding the dagger into their back through a gap in their armor – not just beating on them as hard and as fast as they can.

Obviously, there would have to be an adjustment of damage as well. I’m not going to suggest specific numbers (that’s a playtesting issue), but I think this would give the class a distinct identity – the ability to consistently pressure and damage bunkers (by taking advantage of/stripping their boons like mentioned in the SotG, and making it so they can’t rely on block to completely save their lives) without doing so much damage that other classes fear being 1 shot.

What do you guys think?

I actually like this idea. Reminds me of Dark Souls where even if you had a shield up, certain weapons, like the katana that werent as “strong” as bigger weapons like a zweihander, could still bypass some shield protection for even a percentage of their damage. I imagine the same analogy here. Thieves aren’t as “strong” as a warrior but they are sneakier, quicker, and can therefore be deadlier.

I think blocking is pretty balanced already, as characters that block can generally do nothing else while blocking. I think having it apply to all thief skills would be OP.

Better balance would be some thief skills (on specific weapons) and would have to be traited for (much like unblockable marks for the Necromancer.) This would allow for a specific bunker bursting build while having to give up traits/weapons that may do more damage. (and could allow for full damage through the block)

dandamanno.4136:

I think blocking is pretty balanced already, as characters that block can generally do nothing else while blocking. I think having it apply to all thief skills would be OP.

Better balance would be some thief skills (on specific weapons) and would have to be traited for (much like unblockable marks for the Necromancer.) This would allow for a specific bunker bursting build while having to give up traits/weapons that may do more damage. (and could allow for full damage through the block)

Except that blocking gives them a chance to regenerate (via the boon or other health restoring means), wait out CD’s, and wait out boons on their opponents. They could also have thrown out some AoE’s before blocking,

The point of giving different skills a different percentage of damage is to give the thief a unique application in sPvP and tPvP – you can have abilitites like flanking strike and BS do 100% damage (please don’t point out if this is OP or not, I’m not advocating, just using these as an example), and have something like CnD do 10% – the idea isn’t to use CnD as a DPS tool against a blocking opponent, more that a thief is so quick and sneaky that they can still land a glancing strike on you even though you’re blocking to take advantage of an abilities other effects (stealth in the case of CnD, blind for BP, immob for IS, etc…)

Cool idea. I have a feeling thief is going to need love after this massive nerf.

Two words……. FLANKING STRIKE!

Time to take the training wheels off and play a real build.

Adaneshade.2409:

Two words……. FLANKING STRIKE!

Time to take the training wheels off and play a real build.

Only the first strike on flanking strike (The kittenty one, that hits only slightly harder than dancing dagger in a power crit build) is unblockable – the second more powerful strike (the one that only occurs after your evasion has ended, btw) is blockable.

Also, considering the extremely poor pathing of the skill, you might want to leave the training wheels on – seems like it needs it.

evilapprentice.6379:

Adaneshade.2409:

Two words……. FLANKING STRIKE!

Time to take the training wheels off and play a real build.

Only the first strike on flanking strike (The kittenty one, that hits only slightly harder than dancing dagger in a power crit build) is unblockable – the second more powerful strike (the one that only occurs after your evasion has ended, btw) is blockable.

Also, considering the extremely poor pathing of the skill, you might want to leave the training wheels on – seems like it needs it.

How about popping a venom before using it? You land the venom (let’s say basilisk) guy is turned to stone and can’t block. His CD is burned and he’s screwed.
Think outside the box.

Adaneshade.2409:

evilapprentice.6379:

Adaneshade.2409:

Two words……. FLANKING STRIKE!

Time to take the training wheels off and play a real build.

Only the first strike on flanking strike (The kittenty one, that hits only slightly harder than dancing dagger in a power crit build) is unblockable – the second more powerful strike (the one that only occurs after your evasion has ended, btw) is blockable.

Also, considering the extremely poor pathing of the skill, you might want to leave the training wheels on – seems like it needs it.

How about popping a venom before using it? You land the venom (let’s say basilisk) guy is turned to stone and can’t block. His CD is burned and he’s screwed.
Think outside the box.

Oh cool, I’ll specifically dedicate a utility to make one of my poorly designed and poorly functioning weapon skills work! That’s much easier than expecting Anet to fix the ability so it works in and of itself, with no outside help, like every other single weapon skill in the game was designed to do.

If you don’t like my suggestion, feel free to express your opinion without being condescending or an kitten. If you can’t do that, do not bother.

It isn’t really a suggestion, though. Just another QQ thread by someone using a very linear build, my point is; built properly, the thief has a counter to EVERY ability.

Posts like this are the reason everyone assumes that thief is incapable of anything more than “moar pew pew”.

Adaneshade.2409:

It isn’t really a suggestion, though. Just another QQ thread by someone using a very linear build, my point is; built properly, the thief has a counter to EVERY ability.

Posts like this are the reason everyone assumes that thief is incapable of anything more than “moar pew pew”.

How is this QQ? I’m not complaining about anything, I’m making a suggestion. In the SotG they mentioned bunker busting via high damage – I feel that should be a warrior’s area of expertise. High damage and boon hate (Dealing more damage per boon an enemy has) seems a very “Warriory” thing to do – just hitting harder and harder and harder until your enemy falls.

That doesn’t really fit the theme for a thief – they should be stripping boons and doing damage to you even if you do block, like a sneaky backstabbing thief would – and not with just a single skill on 1 weaponset (which at the moment is poorly designed and poorly functioning).

People cry that thieves do too much damage – Anet says thats because they’re supposed to bust bunkers. I’ve suggested a bunker busting method which would allow thieves damage to be more normalized, but still be considered deadly to bunkers in a way rangers and engineers and elementalists might not be.

And again, its just a suggestion which I’ve asked for opinions on. If your opinion is “I disagree”, by all means contribute. But there’s no need to be a prick about it, and don’t fall back on your forum cheat sheet by calling what is clearly a suggestion “QQ”.

OK, how’s this…

ArenaNet already thought of this. That is why they implemented Flanking Strike’s ability to ignore block functions. We can’t give everything to dagger builds or there’d be no diversity at all. Simply having us hit through block is too easy, players should be expected to be able take A and B and make C with it.

Sure Flanking Strike’s first hit sucks. But it does provide an unblockable vector to carry some poison or other effect to the target. In addition, it will strip a boon off (let’s say regeneration, or maybe even aegis itself).

The use of basilisk venom with sword builds is a very good combination as sword kind of focuses on CC, so it’s not so far out of the realm of possibility that a player would already be using that venom.

I do not mean for this to come out as personal attacks against you, rather an attack on the current idea of what a thief is or “is forced to be”. I think the thief community will have to better itself through use of “off the wall” ideas if we are ever to generate respect for out community.

We are viewed almost unanimously by players as an “unskilled” or “trash” class that requires no thought to play. I’m simply trying to show that the class has potential to use thought processes more advanced than simply increasing damage output, or in this case making attacks ignore functions without having the player make a conscious decision to do so.

Adaneshade.2409:

OK, how’s this…

ArenaNet already thought of this. That is why they implemented Flanking Strike’s ability to ignore block functions. We can’t give everything to dagger builds or there’d be no diversity at all. Simply having us hit through block is too easy, players should be expected to be able take A and B and make C with it.

Sure Flanking Strike’s first hit sucks. But it does provide an unblockable vector to carry some poison or other effect to the target. In addition, it will strip a boon off (let’s say regeneration, or maybe even aegis itself).

The use of basilisk venom with sword builds is a very good combination as sword kind of focuses on CC, so it’s not so far out of the realm of possibility that a player would already be using that venom.

I do not mean for this to come out as personal attacks against you, rather an attack on the current idea of what a thief is or “is forced to be”. I think the thief community will have to better itself through use of “off the wall” ideas if we are ever to generate respect for out community.

We are viewed almost unanimously by players as an “unskilled” or “trash” class that requires no thought to play. I’m simply trying to show that the class has potential to use thought processes more advanced than simply increasing damage output, or in this case making attacks ignore functions without having the player make a conscious decision to do so.

But I’m also advocating the lowering of damage – I’m not just saying “make all thief attacks some % unblockable”, I’m also saying “While normalizing thief damage”. In addition, I’m also advocating that some abilities have really low damage % through block – you’ll still have to make conscious decisions (Do I flanking strike for 100% damage through block, or do i IS (which we’ll pretend only does 10% damage through block) for the immob?)

My suggestion would make thief a weaker class against anyone who can’t block or who blocks very infrequently – its a way to lower thief damage (which should please the rest of the community) while NOT decreasing their ability to down bunkers (which is something ANet feels thieves should specialize in).

While I Agree with you about how other players view thief, you can’t account for the views of other players; they’ll NEVER be happy.
A) It wouldn’t matter if thieves hit for 10 damage an attack, people will QQ about stealth. People will QQ on the boards as long as stealth exists. This is a fact.
B) Most skilled players who tPvP rate thief around the middle for a reason – they’re currently useful, but by no means “necessary” in tPvP. Thieves shouldn’t be concerned with making “off the wall” and “outside the box” decisions to prove they’re not OP, because the tPvP community already understand they’re not. The people who believe they are OP are generally inexperienced or highly biased, and you don’t need to cater to inexperienced or biased players – in fact, catering to them will only kitten up the balance.

Your suggestion is unnecessary. All players are sadface when their attacks are blocked.

Deal with it?

Defenses exist for a reason this is why Boon removal and Unblockable skills will continue to be relatively few in number, and generally outside of the box.

You have exceptions on traps and FS. FS doesn’t hit quite hard, and Tripwire can be difficult to land specifically when someone is blocking. Lack of getting past block is not an issue or a solution to a thieves role or damage.

While I do agree that the majority of top end PvP players already understand that the thief is pretty balanced. I have to be concerned by the “viewpoint” of the masses.

I must be concerned because ANet must. If 90% of their playerbase is unhappy about something; fiscally, they MUST make changes to accommodate. However, if players manage to change the “perception” of the lesser skilled within the current META. We may save ourselves headaches down the road.

EasymodeX.4062:

Your suggestion is unnecessary. All players are sadface when their attacks are blocked.

Deal with it?

We’re going to try and have a discussion here – I’d like to assume you know how to do that, but so far it doesn’t appear so. Allow me to help you with specific inquiries.

Why do you feel my suggestion is unnecessary? Try and list some justifications as I and others have, not just blanket statements and dismissals. A discussion isn’t “your idea sucks, L2P”. Its more along the lines of “I feel as though your suggestion is unnecessary – here are some reasons why” (then you supply the reasons).

What exactly do you feel is bad about my idea to lower a thieves overall damage while keeping them as the “Bunker busting” class ANet envisions them as? From my point of view, it keeps the community happy (lower thief damage overall, raising the skill floor since thief can no longer rely on huge burst to remove skill from the equation) while still allowing them to fulfill ANets vision behind the classes design.

To re-iterate (Again, so that it’s perfectly clear), I want this to be a discussion. I want to know why you disagree with me – maybe there are things I haven’t taken into account, maybe my idea is just plain dumb. But we’ll never know if all you contribute to the conversation is “Your idea is bad, L2P”.

ensoriki.5789:

Defenses exist for a reason this is why Boon removal and Unblockable skills will continue to be relatively few in number, and generally outside of the box.

You have exceptions on traps and FS. FS doesn’t hit quite hard, and Tripwire can be difficult to land specifically when someone is blocking. Lack of getting past block is not an issue or a solution to a thieves role or damage.

But Anet disagrees with your statement about boon removal – the last SotG (as far as I know, maybe I’m not recalling it correctly?) specifically talked about giving DPS a way around boons. Their current “Give thieves and Warriors enough damage to simply outweigh the boons” isn’t working as they intended, and there are undesirable side effects (they can hit SUPER hard on squishier classes). Current Boon Bunkers (the players that tailor their spec for maximum defensive boon applications and uptime) has caused Anet to examine a possible way around boons – more Boon removal, and maybe a new mechanic Boon Hate (X% More damage per boon your target has).

What I’m suggesting is, instead of just adding some boon removal and boon hate to warriors and thieves, why not differentiate the 2 a little bit? Keep warrior the hard hitting “Overwhelms bunkers with sheer damage” class by giving them access to Boon hate. Make thieves the “Undermines your efforts” bunker buster by giving them more boon removal and unblockable attacks while also reducing their damage. Each class has a way to seriously threaten bunkers, but they’re distinctly different. This would add some dynamic elements to the game (Bunkers will have to employ entirely different tactics against warriors and thieves, rather than mostly the same tactics with slight variations).

So in short, my suggestion is both warriors and thieves no longer do insane damage up front – the way bunkers are dealt with is changed for both classes.
Warriors do more and more damage the more boons their target has – that means they can still have good (but not overwhelming) damage against classes that don’t stack boons, but still be very strong at bunker busting – a good balance.
Thieves instead get to keep good (but not overwhelming) damage against players that don’t rely on boons and blocks, but still have the tools to drop those bunkers when they encounter them.

Thieves are not “necessary” in tPvP because elementalist exists.

Thief can move quickly. So can the elementalist.
Thief can burst. So can the elementalist.

… now look at what else the elementalist can do. This is one of the reasons elementalist is in ArenaNet’s sights for a nerf … they are the apex predator for what seems to be the only position people have gotten a thief to work for in tPvP.

… why take a leopard when you can have a tiger? Sure, the leopard is stealthy, but that’s no good for taking and holding ground.

They didn’t disagree, you’re misunderstanding the statement.
You cannot have an entire defense mostly to exist.
You’re having Block now significantly ignored inherently.
Let’s look at Flanking strike, boons are still a factor for an S/D even with Bountiful theft, they are not ignored. To remove a boon you use 4 ini, to remove a boon you use steal.
If a Mesmer wants to remove a boon, they use a skill (outside of sword auto). Meaning trading a resource for that specific capability.

If all thief abilities had a % damage to just go through block, it’s not about trading resource, just keep doin what you do.

In gw1 Warrior’s “boon-hate” and the “assassins” we originate from was inherently different.
Warriors did not remove boons, they had additional effects against them.
Assassin’s removed the defense which worked for their lower dps but quick burst attitude. In exchange that did not invalidate non-boon defenses which you’re essentially requesting, to do that you had to take another skill (say Expose Defenses) or hex removal.

There were trade off’s for everything, Shattering Assault could be stopped, Lift Enchantments could be stopped, Expunge enchantments could be stopped.
Dark Apostasy could be stripped. We made trade off’s to break through defense instead of just blowing things apart with the highest damage Blades of Steel/Death Blossom combo we could figure out at the time. Having skills like Exhausting assault.
Having more unblockable skills would certainly make more sense if there were more skills that applied block but as it currently is, there isn’t really enough for such changes not to be fairly polarizing.

I could remove Protective Spirit, to start my spike, but a Mo/W could activate Bonetti’s defense, and stop themself from being shotdown. What you’re requesting is basically for you to passively get results by having inherent block piercing. That goes against active play that makes decisions.
I’d argue it’s not healthy.

Boon-hate and removal aren’t the same thing so there isn’t really a point to differentiate them. One destroys a boon completely, the other is working around it.
Boon removal being the ideal choice.

Make thieves the “Undermines your efforts” bunker buster by giving them more boon removal and unblockable attacks while also reducing their damage

Read what you’re saying.
Thief removes boon. Thief has unblockable attacks.
Thief essentially has no defensive counter then outside of dodge, and blind. Can’t snare me because I teleport. Mobility prof ftw. There has to be trade off’s. It’s part of why Tripwire is what it is. If a Ranger uses Counter attack, I am free to just plant a tripwire on him. His block is long enough that I can justify it. Same with Shield stance and many guardian blocks as well. In exchange they now sit on their kitten for 2s while you pound on them. Which frankly enough, can be more time than you need as a thief.

Having Niche unblockable attacks is fine. Having a few select boon removal skills is fine (there should be more). Most of your attacks just piercing through block as if it was just another type of “protection” is silly.

Thieves are finishers and mobile. They can’t just walk up to a guardian and say “You know you gonna eat aaaalllll of this”. Both sides are supposed to have options and this, is just kittenting on the guardians excessively with limited conscious choice involved on your own part.

ensoriki.5789:

They didn’t disagree, you’re misunderstanding the statement.
You cannot have an entire defense mostly to exist.
You’re having Block now significantly ignored inherently.
Let’s look at Flanking strike, boons are still a factor for an S/D even with Bountiful theft, they are not ignored. To remove a boon you use 4 ini, to remove a boon you use steal.
If a Mesmer wants to remove a boon, they use a skill (outside of sword auto). Meaning trading a resource for that specific capability.

If all thief abilities had a % damage to just go through block, it’s not about trading resource, just keep doin what you do.

In gw1 Warrior’s “boon-hate” and the “assassins” we originate from was inherently different.
Warriors did not remove boons, they had additional effects against them.
Assassin’s removed the defense which worked for their lower dps but quick burst attitude. In exchange that did not invalidate non-boon defenses which you’re essentially requesting, to do that you had to take another skill (say Expose Defenses) or hex removal.

There were trade off’s for everything, Shattering Assault could be stopped, Lift Enchantments could be stopped, Expunge enchantments could be stopped.
Dark Apostasy could be stripped. We made trade off’s to break through defense instead of just blowing things apart with the highest damage Blades of Steel/Death Blossom combo we could figure out at the time. Having skills like Exhausting assault.
Having more unblockable skills would certainly make more sense if there were more skills that applied block but as it currently is, there isn’t really enough for such changes not to be fairly polarizing.

I could remove Protective Spirit, to start my spike, but a Mo/W could activate Bonetti’s defense, and stop themself from being shotdown. What you’re requesting is basically for you to passively get results by having inherent block piercing. That goes against active play that makes decisions.
I’d argue it’s not healthy.

Boon-hate and removal aren’t the same thing so there isn’t really a point to differentiate them. One destroys a boon completely, the other is working around it.
Boon removal being the ideal choice.

Make thieves the “Undermines your efforts” bunker buster by giving them more boon removal and unblockable attacks while also reducing their damage

Read what you’re saying.
Thief removes boon. Thief has unblockable attacks.
Thief essentially has no defensive counter then outside of dodge, and blind. Can’t snare me because I teleport. Mobility prof ftw. There has to be trade off’s. It’s part of why Tripwire is what it is. If a Ranger uses Counter attack, I am free to just plant a tripwire on him. His block is long enough that I can justify it. Same with Shield stance and many guardian blocks as well. In exchange they now sit on their kitten for 2s while you pound on them. Which frankly enough, can be more time than you need as a thief.

Having Niche unblockable attacks is fine. Having a few select boon removal skills is fine (there should be more). Most of your attacks just piercing through block as if it was just another type of “protection” is silly.

Thieves are finishers and mobile. They can’t just walk up to a guardian and say “You know you gonna eat aaaalllll of this”. Both sides are supposed to have options and this, is just kittenting on the guardians excessively with limited conscious choice involved on your own part.

But I’m not advocating that ALL (or even most) of our skills do 100% damage through block – I specifically said in the initial post that attacks do a % of their damage through block, and that % is on an attack by attack basis (not some blanket number). You’d have a small selection of attacks that do All or Most of their damage through block (Again, a playtesting issue), while the rest do severely reduced damage.

I imagine it being balanced in a way that just gives the thief options – do I want to wait until block is over and do damage, or do I spend initiative on moderately to severely reduced damage because its important for me to strip a boon/apply a condition/gain stealth…and so on. In the version I’ve suggested, if a thief blindly goes nuts on a blocking target, they’ll find themselves having spent all their initiative to do 15-25% of the damage they would have done if they had just waited.

Its about more tactical choices. More variety of play. Bunkers will have to respond differently to warriors and thieves, giving them more varied play and tactical decisions on the fly, not just “Uh oh, big DPS on the way, I know what abilities to dodge/block and what boons I want up”.

Thieves will have options when faced with a bunker – is sacrificing X damage worth performing some secondary action (boon strip, apply a condition, etc)? Is he trying to bait me into stripping these boons and wasting my init? Should I blow my init pool and go for the kill, or try to wear him down?

Those choices already exist. The only difference is you have to consider there skills and acknowledge them atm. Doing % damage basically says “well you are at X health and my attacks pierce block, so GG” instead of “kitten he got the block off, I shouldn’t of let that happen, or shoot if I was packing tripwire I could stop him now before he gets the heal! He’s at X health if he had flanking strike I could’ve taken it out. Oh well this is the cost of My Choices”. If a warrior activates shield block at 10% I know Flanking strike will kill him. Where the Dagger thief can now go “dang, should’ve brought trip”.

Giving thieves boon removal is an answer to a global problem.
Giving them excessive block pierce is just denouncing limited defenses.
Won’t be surprised if I see “We should do a % of damage through invulnerability” next as if that is a frequent defense.
Everyone has boons and can be affected on a significant scale. Blocking is infrequent, invulnerability more so. More boon removal is required because so many boons go around. You see what happens not just with a guardian but when a Guardian + Necro are together or Ele + Engi and other such pairings? The guardian ele gives them boons, it’s not just about breaking down ele/guardian but the people they support with boons as well. This is why more boon removal is required. Boons are supportive and get passed around frequently, there has to be greater frequency on dealing with that, and in exchange we can take a damage hit for that capability. Blocking is primarily an individual aspect.

Thieves should not ignore block. But anet should probably ignore thief QQers

We’re going to try and have a discussion here – I’d like to assume you know how to do that, but so far it doesn’t appear so. Allow me to help you with specific inquiries.

You make posts like this and you don’t get infractions? Wow.

In case you didn’t know, you are the one who started the discussion. Your original post didn’t actually make any case supporting any change to the Thief class.

You:

1. Cite an original intention from the Devs.
2. Suggest (with no support) that that intention should be for Warriors.*
3. Put forth your own vision for the Thief class (with no reasoning why it should be as you imagine).
4. Suggest a damage buff against block in particular (without any reasoning as to why block is a “key” tank mechanic), as opposed to any other anti-bunker mechanic imaginable (why not have Thieves ignore X% of armor?).
5. Mention an ambiguous damage nerf to compensate with no order of magnitude from which to begin a useful discussion.

• I want to separately point out that you only reference a vague and poorly-described sentiment that Thieves do “too much damage” as a the driver for this entire discussion. There’s no assessment by you to measure Thief burst or sustained damage, and how those are effective, or not, against bunkers.

I’m not seeing where you establish a link that bunkers rely on block to tank. I’m seeing no comparison of existing Thief anti-bunker capabilities (boon shred, poison, weakness) versus those of other classes to assess how well-oriented towards busting bunkers Thieves already are. I’m not seeing any argument from you that supports the need for a new mechanic (%block penetration?) instead of existing mechanics (boon shred for Aegis, rapid attacks or evade-attacks for block-counters, or interrupt mechanisms for pure block).

Edit: There is an addition issue of changing the nature of blocks beyond just the damage — currently blocks evade the effect of whatever attack was blocked. With a percentage pass-through, the target would now be affected by whatever conditions/CC the Thief is applying. This is a fundamental change to the mechanic of blocking, which would require significantly more consideration.

So, the bottom line:

Why do you feel my suggestion is unnecessary?

This is your thread. Maybe you should start by demonstrating why your suggestion is necessary?

Perhaps if you started with some actual logic and arguments, I would have something more than blanket dismissals to throw at it.

What exactly do you feel is bad about my idea to lower a thieves overall damage while keeping them as the “Bunker busting” class ANet envisions them as?

Generally speaking, in order to make [some] Thief options more aligned to bunker-busting (ignoring the discussion of whether this is a good idea or not), I would say:

1. Improve boon shredding arsenal.
2. Slightly more weakness.
3. Increase the heal reduction of poison across the board.
4. Significantly reduce the burst damage of key burst abilities and give them armor penetration. This retains their burst against “bunkers” and reduces their effectiveness against glass. ARPen is a pretty common solution for this problem. Still don’t know why you key on block so hard.

Edit: For example, replace the “double damage from behind” on backstab with “ignores armor from behind”. Reduce Mug’s damage by 30%, and add a 50% armor penetration to it. Make the first hit of Flanking Strike ignore armor (the weak hit). Make the Warr GS Burst ignore 100% of armor. Shrug.

The first 3 are minor tuning that can take place within the existing system. The last is an unprecedented change, but also very targeted to the problem. However, it would also demand a general balance pass to see if other class/subspecs that are also targeted towards “ANTI-TANK” aspects should have armor penetration as well.

And, aside from all of this, there is the discussion of whether or not that’s a valid mechanic when you already have conditions that bypass armor. I think it’s valid, but it’s worth discussing next to conditions.

EasymodeX.4062:

We’re going to try and have a discussion here – I’d like to assume you know how to do that, but so far it doesn’t appear so. Allow me to help you with specific inquiries.

You make posts like this and you don’t get infractions? Wow.

I was simply offering some clarification – you continually responded with “Nope, L2P” after I specifically requested people offer some sort of reasoning for their assertions. It appears to have worked (I couldn’t quote your whole post, it was rather long and attempted to include reasoning and logic, unlike your earlier ones, which I do appreciate), so I’d say it had the intended effect. Now, lets get into it.

1) I didn’t ask you to attach footnotes and formulas to your opinion, just to explain it, as I explained mine. Go watch SotG, or read some excerpts, and you’ll find the parts I referenced. It’s possible I’ve mis-remembered the SotG, but I don’t believe so.
2) Again, something I either saw during the SotG or read in the transcripts. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I don’t believe so.
3) No reasoning? Here’s a truncated version of the last paragraph of my original post. “Keep bunker bustering in via changes suggested, that way overall damage can be lower and other classes no longer feel like thieves 1 shot them, but bunkers still need fear them”.
4) I feel its safe to assume you’ve played the game and fought other bunkers – they all utilize block. I don’t see the point in listing all the block options for the current popular bunker specs.
5) I don’t have the data in front of me Anet has – I didn’t cite specific numbers because that’s a decision you make via a design process and playtesting using data from the game.

Second set of points
1) I suggested better boon removal
2) Perhaps thieves need more weakness, haven’t thought about it enough to make that call – though at a glance, thieves do seem to have decent access to weakness.
3) Heal reduction affects all classes, not just bunkers (as my suggestion did). People already feel thieves are too powerful, and with high access to poison, this will appear as though a pretty direct buff for them.
4) That’s not a bad suggestion! Thanks for making it.

Seriously, I like the idea of armor pen. On one hand, protection is much, much more important than armor for DR, but we’ve already both agreed that more Boon removal is probably in order. That, combined with armor pen is probably a better mechanic than ignoring blocks (though both have the same aim – give thief a way to seriously threaten bunkers that cant be used on non-bunkers for ungodly high damage).

I think there is some confusion here. Easymode only made 1 post that was equivalent to “nope l2p”. Not sure where “continually” comes from.
It just goes to show that, while well laid out, your idea simply is not what many thieves find to be an acceptable fix.

evilapprentice.6379:

…snip…
To that end, I’m suggesting all (or almost all) thief abilities do some percentage of their listed damage through block. Each ability could have a different % (for balance reasons, and to make some skills better than others for dealing with bunkers who constantly block). That’s where thieves belong – standing behind their target, sliding the dagger into their back through a gap in their armor – not just beating on them as hard and as fast as they can.
…snip…
What do you guys think?

In as much as I want my thief (main prof) to be able to do as you suggested, I have to disagree because it will diminish the value of blocking.

Blocking should be a guaranteed negation of damage, if not, then it becomes a useless boon and your suggestion will make it that — useless.

Besides, there’s already a lot of thief skills that can waste blocks, for example, Dancing Daggers. As for a stance block, like Shield Stance, just wait it out and heal yourself.

Your suggestion is totally unnecessary for those Thieves who use their brain. Your suggestion only favor those who mindlessly attacking their target even when block and retaliation is up. :/

That’s where thieves belong – standing behind their target, sliding the dagger into their back through a gap in their armor

That feature is already in the game in term of Critical Hits, which also counts for the fact that the target might be wearing a chain mail under their armor.

Adaneshade.2409:

I think there is some confusion here. Easymode only made 1 post that was equivalent to “nope l2p”. Not sure where “continually” comes from.
It just goes to show that, while well laid out, your idea simply is not what many thieves find to be an acceptable fix.

I reported the first one (and it was removed) because I didn’t want to have to repeatedly ask people to actually back up their “nope, L2P” submissions. When it happened a second time, I decided it would be better to try and draw him into a conversation rather than continually reporting it.

And its fine that thieves are disagreeing with me – I’m not going to throw a hissy fit if people dislike my idea. The point of putting it here was to discuss it, I’m glad for even disagreeing opinions, as long as they’re opinions and not just internet toughguy snark.

3) No reasoning? Here’s a truncated version of the last paragraph of my original post. “Keep bunker bustering in via changes suggested, that way overall damage can be lower and other classes no longer feel like thieves 1 shot them, but bunkers still need fear them”.

That’s nice. Doesn’t explain whether or not players actually do get 1-shot, or whether getting “1-shot” is legitimate or not in the first place, or the conditions and characteristics of getting 1-shot that are legitimate or overpowered. Or how reducing “1-shot” damage/scenarios somehow correlates to a requirement for a total damage reduction.

In other words, you’re assuming that Thieves need a general damage nerf and that they need to bust bunkers more than they currently do (in order to compensate for it). If you want to make those assumptions, fine. State that those are your assumptions.

However, based on the last 10 patches, it doesn’t seem like ANet is interested in nerfing general thief damage (good). And if any changes need to be made, they are relative to the specific execution of specific combos (the classic CND Mug BS) or itemization (PvE crit damage itemization in WvW) rather than any general damage change for the class.

3) Heal reduction affects all classes, not just bunkers (as my suggestion did). People already feel thieves are too powerful, and with high access to poison, this will appear as though a pretty direct buff for them.

Bunkers don’t survive without sustain. Healing is the primary sustain mechanism in GW2, particularly the relatively “high” base healing with armor (toughness) stacking.

At the end of the day, if Thieves already have good access to weakness (anti-dodge), poison (anti-heals), and some degree of boon strip (sigil and/or flanking strike and/or traited strip-on-steal), then why does a Thief need more anti-bunker than what is already “the best anti-bunker in the entire game”?

Seriously, I like the idea of armor pen. On one hand, protection is much, much more important than armor for DR,

0 to protection reduces damage by 33%. 0 to max toughness reduces damage by 50%? Plus or minus. Pretty sure armor (and the synergy of armor x heal) has more of an impact than protection.

Remember that PvE enemy thieves will inherit skills given to player thieves. I don’t think it is a good idea to give bandit mobs many attacks that penetrate block. Some more boon stripping, to wipe away passive benefits, is surely better than defeating active skills with regular attacks.

I actually have trouble use flanking strike for block breaking since auto-attacks trigger a block response before I can use my strike. Trying to time my instant response to to an enemies instant skill is too difficult for me.

If suppose that if you really want to break a block you can lay trap. You can also blind a foe and wait them out, put down aoe with a shortbow, stealth and reposition, well there are plenty of options and one of them might not be as bad as they all sound.

EasymodeX.4062:

3) No reasoning? Here’s a truncated version of the last paragraph of my original post. “Keep bunker bustering in via changes suggested, that way overall damage can be lower and other classes no longer feel like thieves 1 shot them, but bunkers still need fear them”.

That’s nice. Doesn’t explain whether or not players actually do get 1-shot, or whether getting “1-shot” is legitimate or not in the first place, or the conditions and characteristics of getting 1-shot that are legitimate or overpowered. Or how reducing “1-shot” damage/scenarios somehow correlates to a requirement for a total damage reduction.

In other words, you’re assuming that Thieves need a general damage nerf and that they need to bust bunkers more than they currently do (in order to compensate for it). If you want to make those assumptions, fine. State that those are your assumptions.

However, based on the last 10 patches, it doesn’t seem like ANet is interested in nerfing general thief damage (good). And if any changes need to be made, they are relative to the specific execution of specific combos (the classic CND Mug BS) or itemization (PvE crit damage itemization in WvW) rather than any general damage change for the class.

3) Heal reduction affects all classes, not just bunkers (as my suggestion did). People already feel thieves are too powerful, and with high access to poison, this will appear as though a pretty direct buff for them.

Bunkers don’t survive without sustain. Healing is the primary sustain mechanism in GW2, particularly the relatively “high” base healing with armor (toughness) stacking.

At the end of the day, if Thieves already have good access to weakness (anti-dodge), poison (anti-heals), and some degree of boon strip (sigil and/or flanking strike and/or traited strip-on-steal), then why does a Thief need more anti-bunker than what is already “the best anti-bunker in the entire game”?

Seriously, I like the idea of armor pen. On one hand, protection is much, much more important than armor for DR,

0 to protection reduces damage by 33%. 0 to max toughness reduces damage by 50%? Plus or minus. Pretty sure armor (and the synergy of armor x heal) has more of an impact than protection.

If you’ve played the game or visited the boards, you’re familiar with both Instagib and the general “feeling” that thieves do too much burst damage. Again, I’m not going to write a dissertation with citations and references – unless this is your first time on the boards, you have a general idea of what I’m talking about.

I brought up thieves reduced damage because again, SotG mentioned that the “Do a ton of damage to overcome bunkers” model wasn’t working, and that it would need to be re-worked. They mentioned maybe lowering damage a bit, and adding more mobility options (something I didn’t include but should have, my bad). If they plan on lowering thief damage, they will need to increase bunker busting in some other form.

Crit boon removal sigil is garbage – its uncontrolled and happens once every 10s, it cant be applied tactically. Flanking strike would be an awesome boon removal…if the skill pathed correctly. Bountiful theft is nice to rip 2 boons every 32-36 seconds. No bunkering spec in the game will be crippled by losing 2 boons every 32-36s.

If armor was the key to bunkering, you’d see more bunker warriors. Huge armor and Highest base HP pool would make them monsters – but that’s not the case, s it. How effective you bunker is primarily based on your access to protection and healing (also taking into account other factors, like immune skills and condition removal). Being able to strip protection is more important than being able to ignore some % of armor, IMO (Unless you’re advocating some attacks ignore 60%+ armor, which just off the top of my head feels pretty OP, though maybe warrants some investigation)

I play S/D primarily and haven’t had a bit of trouble with flanking strike landing. ESPECIALLY vs a bunker which is a very sedentary build by design in order to maintain control of a point.

evilapprentice.6379:

Crit boon removal sigil is garbage – its uncontrolled and happens once every 10s, it cant be applied tactically. Flanking strike would be an awesome boon removal…if the skill pathed correctly.

Perhaps some easier answers would be to:

• Make the weapon sigil more reliable and/or have a lower cooldown?
• Improve how flanking strike’s pathing worked? (many classes would benefit from pathing improvements on various skills)

evilapprentice.6379:

Bountiful theft is nice to rip 2 boons every 32-36 seconds. No bunkering spec in the game will be crippled by losing 2 boons every 32-36s.

I disagree. First, it takes removing those boons just long enough to burst the tank. Second, many tanks make use of a few utilities/runes to stack boon duration. If you remove that long duration boon, you’ve created a sizeable window of opportunity.

Work against all tanks? No. Some? Yes.
As such, I disagree that “no bunkering spec is crippled…”

Adaneshade.2409:

I play S/D primarily and haven’t had a bit of trouble with flanking strike landing. ESPECIALLY vs a bunker which is a very sedentary build by design in order to maintain control of a point.

Any player standing stone still is doing it wrong – some bunkers may have a severe lack of speed buffs and movement related abilities, but you rarely see anything but inexperienced players just stand still for any extended period of time. Flanking strike is only 100% effective on players standing still – otherwise, it randomly has pathing issues, and can’t be relied on.

Have you tried turning your back to your opponent before using FS? It causes you to roll inside their avatar for nearly 100% chance to land it.

Again, I’m not going to write a dissertation with citations and references – unless this is your first time on the boards, you have a general idea of what I’m talking about.

I didn’t mention the sentiment of random players. I mentioned whether or not the 1-shot was a fact (which it is) and the conditions under which the 1-shot occurs (which is a much more interesting discussion and could use nerfing).

Flanking strike would be an awesome boon removal…if the skill pathed correctly.

Tbh it paths well enough when you get used to it. Also, the boon strip has no ‘pathing’. The real limitation seems to be the nature of boonspamlulz where players who focus on it can get ridiculous numbers of boons to buffer with, with Flanking Strike requiring a lot of initiative for only 1 RNG removal.

Minor tuning on the flexibility of the player to control the end of the FS motion sooner is also a nice consideration, but tangent to the main point: FS could remove 2 boons if increased boon removal is actually balanced/necessary for the thief class.

Bountiful theft is nice to rip 2 boons every 32-36 seconds. No bunkering spec in the game will be crippled by losing 2 boons every 32-36s.

Should thieves have pervasive access to every anti-bunker capability in the game?

What capabilities do other classes have for that role?

Crit boon removal sigil is garbage – its uncontrolled and happens once every 10s, it cant be applied tactically.

Should the ICD be dropped to 5s? Should it remove 2 instead of 1?

If armor was the key to bunkering, you’d see more bunker warriors.

The reason why protection is relevant is because it’s an exponential bonus for the final “DPS – HPS” grind. You focus on protection because you can’t remove armor — you can only remove prot.

Bunker warriors have limitations from a general combination of (a) low ret, (b) infrequent condition removal, and © mediocre healing.

Warriors have / can have kitten good CC, but that tends to fade into a wash of “opponent can dodge/evade/block your few CCs”, whereas passives will work regardless.

(Unless you’re advocating some attacks ignore 60%+ armor, which just off the top of my head feels pretty OP, though maybe warrants some investigation)

The one easiest example off the top of my head is to have the rear-arc bonus for Backstab penetrate 100% of armor, instead of granting double damage. BS is the most obvious candidate for such a change. You could also have a signet (say, Assassin’s Signet) grant 50% arpen for the next 3-5 attacks or something, rather than giving the direct % damage boost.

I think Mug is also a good candidate because that needs nerfing all by itself. I was crit for 6.5k by that last night. So silly.

Adaneshade.2409:

I play S/D primarily and haven’t had a bit of trouble with flanking strike landing. ESPECIALLY vs a bunker which is a very sedentary build by design in order to maintain control of a point.

It is almost impossible to land, w/o a shadow step, on a fleeing bunker. This is the silly nature of the skill, it’s a “flanking strike” but will always attempt to get to the opposite side of the target, even if you are already flanking.

It really should orient itself to your target’s flank (i.e. if you’re coming from the rear, roll forward instead of attempting to go around) rather than maintaining the same pathing under all circumstances and doing contrary to what the tooltip says (Stab your foe in the back).

Yeah it would be nice if Flanking Strike simply worked as a delayed shadowstep+hit (evading during the delayed ‘shadowstep’ half). Much easier to code / much more reliable positioning / less player hate / everyone happy.

Laika.8795:

Adaneshade.2409:

I play S/D primarily and haven’t had a bit of trouble with flanking strike landing. ESPECIALLY vs a bunker which is a very sedentary build by design in order to maintain control of a point.

It is almost impossible to land, w/o a shadow step, on a fleeing bunker. This is the silly nature of the skill, it’s a “flanking strike” but will always attempt to get to the opposite side of the target, even if you are already flanking.

It really should orient itself to your target’s flank (i.e. if you’re coming from the rear, roll forward instead of attempting to go around) rather than maintaining the same pathing under all circumstances and doing contrary to what the tooltip says (Stab your foe in the back).

Refer to my post above for the shadowstep/steal less solution.

Adaneshade.2409:

Refer to my post above for the shadowstep/steal less solution.

It’s pretty asinine to require you to about-face to accomplish what it’s supposed to do. No matter how much you want to say it’s a L2Play issue, the fact is, if I press 3 when I’m behind my target, and my toon attempts to “flank” by rolling to the front, it’s a failure to adhere to what the tool-tip suggests.

It may be a work-around, yes, but it is something that should be addressed.

I don’t think flanking strike removing 2 boons instead of 1 would be too overpowered.

If you made it easier to hit with flanking strike, however, I think its damage would need to be lowered as it is barely below the damage of backstab.

Sebrent.3625:

I don’t think flanking strike removing 2 boons instead of 1 would be too overpowered.

If you made it easier to hit with flanking strike, however, I think its damage would need to be lowered as it is barely below the damage of backstab.

Its a 3/4 second activation ability (compared to 1/4), it does (If I recall correctly, can’t test atm) around 20% less damage, and you’re vulnerable (the evasion is no longer in effect) while waiting for the second strike to land. Its also broken into 2 swings, meaning the second strike can be dodged, and you always see it coming – BS is all or nothing, and done from stealth.

FS

Damage: 756

BS

Front damage: 403
Back damage: 806

FS is 188% of a frontstab, and 94% of a backstab.

Edit:

Whoops, what the hell did I click to get 571??

Aside from my complete inability to click and read correctly, yeah it looks like it does most of a backstab, with one caveat: if you press consecutive FS’s too quickly, you can cut off the second strike and lose the damage.

If you combine the damage of the two hits, I don’t believe it’s 20% less.

I concede that your other points are good though.

It could be possible for it to stay the same, I’m just wary of it becoming the new “noobseeker” spam button. I’d hate to see sword go that way.

Sebrent.3625:

If you combine the damage of the two hits, I don’t believe it’s 20% less.

I concede that your other points are good though.

It could be possible for it to stay the same, I’m just wary of it becoming the new “noobseeker” spam button. I’d hate to see sword go that way.

Right, I don’t want any initiative-based skills in the S/D set to become default dps spam. I’ve played S/D as my primary build since launch and am perfectly happy with where it is. I’m afraid any changes, no matter how good the intent, will simply either break it, or make it too accessible to less experienced players.

Laika.8795:

Adaneshade.2409:

Refer to my post above for the shadowstep/steal less solution.

It’s pretty asinine to require you to about-face to accomplish what it’s supposed to do. No matter how much you want to say it’s a L2Play issue, the fact is, if I press 3 when I’m behind my target, and my toon attempts to “flank” by rolling to the front, it’s a failure to adhere to what the tool-tip suggests.

It may be a work-around, yes, but it is something that should be addressed.

This is my beef with this skill also, but it is not “a failure to adhere to what the tool-tip suggests” in as much as the tool-tip’s failure to describe the skill properly.

The skill is an “attempt” to flank your target, thus it has a chance to fail if your target is mobile, or huge, or you have a speed buff, or you’re slowed.

To be honest, I have no problem with the mechanic of the skill, but it should be renamed as Evading Strikes, or Spinning Strike.

I think that it’s a bit laziness in Anet side to name this skill Flanking Strike given that there’s also a trait with similar name.

Anet could just give us a weapon set of Fox Fangs, Nine Tail Strike, Golden Fox Strike and/or original Wild Strike. Lotta unblockable Assassin skills in GW1.

Thieves already have a huge advantage. They don’t break stealth after getting blocked. Idk if this will change but atm, it’s nonsense. A thief can try his backstab a couple of times, even if the other person blocked and dodged.

I think the mechanics are fine the way they are – we could suggest an ability that makes the next attack unblockable but that would be far too much. When I see a guardian blocking and I’m able to, I’m waiting for the right time to use my attacks. Although many think they must use D/D because backstab is the biggets hitter I think there are lots of ways a thief can be played and don’t feel we need anything additional like striking through blocking. Stealth is there and we can wait for opportune attacks – like a thief. I feel in Warhammer Online the % mechanics such as parry and the “can not be blocked” Pocket Items just dumbed down the playing greatly. GW2 is a much more fluid and fun game.

Elmuerto.9840:

I think the mechanics are fine the way they are – we could suggest an ability that makes the next attack unblockable but that would be far too much. When I see a guardian blocking and I’m able to, I’m waiting for the right time to use my attacks. Although many think they must use D/D because backstab is the biggets hitter I think there are lots of ways a thief can be played and don’t feel we need anything additional like striking through blocking. Stealth is there and we can wait for opportune attacks – like a thief. I feel in Warhammer Online the % mechanics such as parry and the “can not be blocked” Pocket Items just dumbed down the playing greatly. GW2 is a much more fluid and fun game.

The whole point of my post (and I admit, I could have been way clearer on this)was to reduce Thief burst (All burst actually, but thief is the class I’m most familiar with) without reducing the ability to kill bunkers.

I’d like to see all burst reduced – I want more 15-30s fights, not a 5s “Who got who” burst fest between 2 glassily spec’d players. You can’t blame the glass (not everyone has to be squishy burst, but at least some players need to go that route to counter bunkers), you can’t blame the bunkers (all they’re doing is what Anet designed their class to do in PvP – cap a point and be tough to kill).

I’d like to see traits and abilities done so that a thief heavily invested in Power/crit does good (but not overwhelming) damage generally, and his method of dealing with bunkers is something that primarily affects bunker classes (boon stripping/hate, ignoring block, ignoring armor, etc). There’s some degree of collateral damage in any of these applications (EX -not only bunkers rely on boons, and if you give a thief enough boon stripping/hate to affect a bunker, its going to maul non-bunkers who rely on boons), I suggested ignoring block because it felt like the option with the least collateral damage – yes, non-bunkers do block, but it can be a major component of bunker survivability AND it’s not as universal to non-bunkers as say boons or armor is.