Analogy time, I suppose.
The power in my house goes out – I give the power company a call.
Me: “Hey, the power in my house is out. Fix it.”
Company: “Sir, we can’t come into your home and redo the wiring.”
Me: “What? No, my house has no power, fix it.”
Company: “Again Sir, we can’t fix the wiring in your house. We do see that a transformer is out in your neighborhood tho”.
Me: “Jesus, yeah, fix it.”
Company: “Well that’s not what you asked us to do, now is it?”There you go – a conversation that will never happen anywhere ever between 2 people with the barest shred of common sense.
When I said “fix the weaponskill”, I very obviously meant “Fix whatever it is that makes the weaponskill not work consistently and as intended”, just like in my analogy, I said “fix the power in my house”, I meant “fix whatever reason is behind my house not having power” not literally "Fix the power in my house by specifically fixing something in my house. that is the only way i want my power turned back on. I assumed the issue was at the weaponskill level, but my request that it be fixed was a universal one.
Perhaps you have a very literal take on the english language, but I’ve never met someone like that.
This is a case of your words against your words. I quoted what you said and you are saying something very different now.
Your analogy is flawed. Because you can easily say in a different outcome of event that you meant it to be literal.
Also by meaning “fix whatever reason is behind my house not having power” is very different from simply saying “fix the power in my house”.
By saying “fix the power in my house”, you are already providing information that the cause of power outage is in your house. You might perceive it to be that way, but that is just not the case, because using your analogy also, the transformer caused the outtage.
Now having to know that it was the transformer and not your house is causing the power outtage, an investigation would have been done prior to gaining that knowledge that it was the transformer and not you leaving a fork in the microwave.
So, all this time I have been trying to exaplain to you, who suppsed to have the “the barest shred of common sense”, that your perception is not the fact.
That’s like blaming a Tire Store for getting flat tire on your brand new tire every week when you drive over the pot hole everyday. Simply changing your tire will not solve to root problem.
And those who have “the barest shred of common sense” can understand that.
The way you perceive the English language to work is not the way the English language actually works.
Everyone but you understood what I was getting at – they know i wanted FS to work, regardless of whether or not the ability itself was the cause, or some secondary factor.
In fact, since your testing isn’t granular enough, its entirely possible its still the skill that doesn’t work properly – perhaps something in the exact way that FS is coded is the actual cause of the issues you saw in your testing. Neither of us has access to what the server is doing when the code is carried out, so we don’t know. Due to that lack of knowledge, we literally can’t know whats at fault, and have to ask the dev’s to look into any possible cause of the issue, including the ability itself.
So I’m actually right, and we can’t know if I’m your weird extremely literal context ignoring version of right.
The way you perceive the English language to work is not the way the English language actually works.
Everyone but you understood what I was getting at – they know i wanted FS to work, regardless of whether or not the ability itself was the cause, or some secondary factor.
You don’t have to speak for EVERYONE, they can simply read what you posted and make up their own mind.
In fact, since your testing isn’t granular enough, its entirely possible its still the skill that doesn’t work properly – perhaps something in the exact way that FS is coded is the actual cause of the issues you saw in your testing. Neither of us has access to what the server is doing when the code is carried out, so we don’t know. Due to that lack of knowledge, we literally can’t know whats at fault, and have to ask the dev’s to look into any possible cause of the issue, including the ability itself.
You still need to deduce any possibility that is not highly probable and identify the possibilities that has high probability.
Based on your post, you seems to believe that the skill is bugged — all I have been saying is — you don’t know that for sure.
So I’m actually right, and we can’t know if I’m your weird extremely literal context ignoring version of right.
You can claim to be right all you want. But if you really want something to be fixed, you need to be more than just “another kitten y customer demanding that they are right” and provide some evidence that can help the Devs to narrow down the source of the problem.
And reviewing this thread, there seems to be more players who has no problem with FS than those who demands that it needs to be fixed.
S/D weapon set provides the Theif access to a root skill (#2) that serves as a Lead attack and FS as a Follow-up attack. If done that way, as it is intended, it works flawlessly.
If FS doesn’t work any other way, I will not be hasty to call that a design flaw.
There’s no amount of vehicle safety technology can prevent a bad driver from causing an accident.
And there’s no amount of design feature/fix that can prevent a bad player from failing to use the skill properly.
Flanking strike worked very well for me again last night in 1v1 duels against guildies. Stripped my guildie’s engineer of his ton of boons and then proceeded with the kill.
Without removing those boons I would’ve died to retal.
S/D weapon set provides the Theif access to a root skill (#2) that serves as a Lead attack and FS as a Follow-up attack. If done that way, as it is intended, it works flawlessly.
If FS doesn’t work any other way, I will not be hasty to call that a design flaw.
There’s no amount of vehicle safety technology can prevent a bad driver from causing an accident.
And there’s no amount of design feature/fix that can prevent a bad player from failing to use the skill properly.
If FS didn’t work any other way, that would be awful design – you might as well just make FS cost 7 init, teleport to the target, root him, then spin and stab stab. FS being more effective with IS is fine, but it still needs to work on its own as well
Every.
Single.
Time.
Not most of the time, not if my target is the right size, does or doesn’t have x conditions, isn’t moving, I’m not running a speed buff…..It has to work every time (with of course a margin of error – nothing is truly perfect, I get that).
Imagine if Hundred blades ONLY worked if you Bolo’d or Rush’d first – that would be dumb. Being MORE EFFECTIVE or EASIER TO USE after those skills is fine, but not reliably working properly without them is unacceptable.
S/D weapon set provides the Theif access to a root skill (#2) that serves as a Lead attack and FS as a Follow-up attack. If done that way, as it is intended, it works flawlessly.
If FS doesn’t work any other way, I will not be hasty to call that a design flaw.
There’s no amount of vehicle safety technology can prevent a bad driver from causing an accident.
And there’s no amount of design feature/fix that can prevent a bad player from failing to use the skill properly.
If FS didn’t work any other way, that would be awful design – you might as well just make FS cost 7 init, teleport to the target, root him, then spin and stab stab. FS being more effective with IS is fine, but it still needs to work on its own as well
Every.
Single.
Time.
This where player judgment comes into play. Would I Unload on blocking or obstructed or out of range target? Of course not. Thus, by your own definition, Unload doesn’t work every single time.
But adding player judgment into play, a player will re-position or use a utility skill to achieve a more satisfying result. Player judgment is required using FS, that’s why some players dub it a high-skill skill.
Not most of the time, not if my target is the right size, does or doesn’t have x conditions, isn’t moving, I’m not running a speed buff…..It has to work every time (with of course a margin of error – nothing is truly perfect, I get that).
Imagine if Hundred blades ONLY worked if you Bolo’d or Rush’d first – that would be dumb. Being MORE EFFECTIVE or EASIER TO USE after those skills is fine, but not reliably working properly without them is unacceptable.
HB is more effective if used as a Follow up attack after a rooting Lead attack because you would want your target to savor every single swing.
And yes, I would say HB is very unreliable especially against moving target — funny how it share the same limitation as FS.
I was landing FS easily on my engineer guildie without having to use IF. In fact, I was forced to use my skills without setting them up with IF because he quickly learned that IF was my “goto” opener for various combos.
I was landing FS easily on my engineer guildie without having to use IF. In fact, I was forced to use my skills without setting them up with IF because he quickly learned that IF was my “goto” opener for various combos.
That’s the point of other posters here. Once one learn how the skill work, the expectation changes.
I was landing FS easily on my engineer guildie without having to use IF. In fact, I was forced to use my skills without setting them up with IF because he quickly learned that IF was my “goto” opener for various combos.
That’s the point of other posters here. Once one learn how the skill work, the expectation changes.
Yep. I imagine many of the other posters complaining about IF here would’ve died to my guildie because they’d be too stubborn to change up their attack. Stubborness only gets you so far … it almost got me killed until I realized he was using IF as his cue to dodge, etc.
I was landing FS easily on my engineer guildie without having to use IF. In fact, I was forced to use my skills without setting them up with IF because he quickly learned that IF was my “goto” opener for various combos.
That’s the point of other posters here. Once one learn how the skill work, the expectation changes.
And I’ve accepted that – there was even a bunch of posts about it.
You’re nitpicking semantics while ignoring intent and continuing the argument though. TBH its my fault too, I shouldn’t be participating with you at this point any longer (and am probably done after this post.)
As you yourself tested, there is some issue (whether it lie with FS, target size, conditions on targets, the alignment of the moon with the invisible alien space station we all know nothing about) that causes FS to mysteriously bug out at times; it also doesn’t play well with speed boosts. These things should still be fixed.
Just like I know for a fact every time my shadowshot hits, i’ll be teleported to the player it hit (again, understanding there is a small margin of error with anything), I should be confident that FS works consistently, regardless of things that shouldn’t be affecting the skill itself (my facing, my target moving though still in range, any speed buffs I’ve got on, etc etc etc)
Facing affects most abilities in the game … perhaps you would be aware of this if heartseeker was on of those abilities affected.
Just like I know for a fact every time my shadowshot hits, i’ll be teleported to the player it hit (again, understanding there is a small margin of error with anything), I should be confident that FS works consistently, regardless of things that shouldn’t be affecting the skill itself (my facing, my target moving though still in range, any speed buffs I’ve got on, etc etc etc)
Evil unfortunately this sounds rather silly. The first two aren’t FS specific it’s generally how the game works when it is not baby-sitting.
Some abilities turn you around stupidly and play the game for you (Blurred Frenzy), other’s do not. Reality is those skills that play the game for you, should get flippin checked. Your target moving affecting the accuracy of your hit isn’t FS exclusive even on thief abilities for one. I’m quite confident on FS working. A random dodge will throw it off, but that is true for anything.
Just like I know for a fact every time my shadowshot hits, i’ll be teleported to the player it hit (again, understanding there is a small margin of error with anything), I should be confident that FS works consistently, regardless of things that shouldn’t be affecting the skill itself (my facing, my target moving though still in range, any speed buffs I’ve got on, etc etc etc)
Evil unfortunately this sounds rather silly. The first two aren’t FS specific it’s generally how the game works when it is not baby-sitting.
Some abilities turn you around stupidly and play the game for you (Blurred Frenzy), other’s do not. Reality is those skills that play the game for you, should get flippin checked. Your target moving affecting the accuracy of your hit isn’t FS exclusive even on thief abilities for one. I’m quite confident on FS working. A random dodge will throw it off, but that is true for anything.
That’s what I am trying to explain to him. He notices it in FS because he uses FS, but the root problem may not be FS.
His definition of “consistent” is flawed too.
There are difference between what works, what doesn’t work, what should work and what we expect to work.
Not often that intentions meets expectations. More often good intentions turns horribly bad.
The issue is heartseeker has held far too many thieves’ hands.
Facing affects most abilities in the game … perhaps you would be aware of this if heartseeker was on of those abilities affected.
Sigh
I meant facing tricks, like earlier when it was advised that I could make FS hit more reliably by turning my back to my target. I did not mean “Wah, why do I have to be facing my enemy for my sword to work.”
(edited by evilapprentice.6379)
Just like I know for a fact every time my shadowshot hits, i’ll be teleported to the player it hit (again, understanding there is a small margin of error with anything), I should be confident that FS works consistently, regardless of things that shouldn’t be affecting the skill itself (my facing, my target moving though still in range, any speed buffs I’ve got on, etc etc etc)
Evil unfortunately this sounds rather silly. The first two aren’t FS specific it’s generally how the game works when it is not baby-sitting.
Some abilities turn you around stupidly and play the game for you (Blurred Frenzy), other’s do not. Reality is those skills that play the game for you, should get flippin checked. Your target moving affecting the accuracy of your hit isn’t FS exclusive even on thief abilities for one. I’m quite confident on FS working. A random dodge will throw it off, but that is true for anything.
I clarified above my comment about facing.
I have no control over how FS moves for the first half second once activating the ability – if I’m in range and I activate the ability, the attack should path correctly (it might still miss due to a dodge, a speed boost, a teleport, etc, but that shouldn’t affect the pathing). Sometimes it doesn’t. That shouldn’t happen.
(edited by evilapprentice.6379)
If there were classes that could just debunk bunkers (hah!) what would be the point of having bunkers at all? So you’re telling me that thieves should do full damage even if I hold my gear shield up?
THERE IS NO MIDDLE FINGER BIG ENOUGH!
If there were classes that could just debunk bunkers (hah!) what would be the point of having bunkers at all? So you’re telling me that thieves should do full damage even if I hold my gear shield up?
THERE IS NO MIDDLE FINGER BIG ENOUGH!
Nope. The post specifically said “some % of damage, assigned on an ability by ability basis not just some blanket number for all abilities, probably very low for most abilitites”
The point wasn’t to completely neutralize bunkers – it was about forcing bunkers to fight a thief different than they would fight a warrior – force them to choose strengths and weaknesses, adopt a different playstyle, etc…
If there were classes that could just debunk bunkers (hah!) what would be the point of having bunkers at all? So you’re telling me that thieves should do full damage even if I hold my gear shield up?
THERE IS NO MIDDLE FINGER BIG ENOUGH!
Nope. The post specifically said “some % of damage, assigned on an ability by ability basis not just some blanket number for all abilities, probably very low for most abilitites”
The point wasn’t to completely neutralize bunkers – it was about forcing bunkers to fight a thief different than they would fight a warrior – force them to choose strengths and weaknesses, adopt a different playstyle, etc…
That’s already what I have to do as an engineer… I can’t just stand and tank a glass thief, no bunkers can do that, I can however block, evade, and push away, and heal up rapidly. Does that make me a Healgineer and a Rollgineer rather than a bunker? Well, YOLO!
If there were classes that could just debunk bunkers (hah!) what would be the point of having bunkers at all? So you’re telling me that thieves should do full damage even if I hold my gear shield up?
THERE IS NO MIDDLE FINGER BIG ENOUGH!
Nope. The post specifically said “some % of damage, assigned on an ability by ability basis not just some blanket number for all abilities, probably very low for most abilitites”
The point wasn’t to completely neutralize bunkers – it was about forcing bunkers to fight a thief different than they would fight a warrior – force them to choose strengths and weaknesses, adopt a different playstyle, etc…
That’s already what I have to do as an engineer… I can’t just stand and tank a glass thief, no bunkers can do that, I can however block, evade, and push away, and heal up rapidly. Does that make me a Healgineer and a Rollgineer rather than a bunker? Well, YOLO!
My suggestion encompassed changes that made it different for warriors and thieves.
Against a warrior, boons would become a liability (boon hate), and you could rely on blocking. Against a thief, you’d have to be careful with what boons you used and when (boon stripping), and couldn’t totally rely on block to save you. This was coupled with an overall burst damage reduction – the idea being, reduce the overall burst damage in the game while allowing thief and warrior (and other classes too, but my suggestion was about thieves with warriors thrown in for comparison) the tools to still threaten bunkers. This way fights between “burst” classes could be more a bit slower and more varied (think 15-25 seconds instead of 5), and there wouldn’t be any need to tune bunkers down along with burst (since you’re giving those burst classes a different toolset to hurt bunkers that isn’t just reliant on overall damage and stuns, and is less effective against non-bunkers)
I suggested block penetration because it seemed the have the smallest “non-bunker” impact (yes, I know non-bunkers block, but every bunker in the game relies on blocking). Someone else suggested armor penetration (which again hurts everyone, but is much more devastating for bunkers than non-bunkers)
(edited by evilapprentice.6379)
If there were classes that could just debunk bunkers (hah!) what would be the point of having bunkers at all? So you’re telling me that thieves should do full damage even if I hold my gear shield up?
THERE IS NO MIDDLE FINGER BIG ENOUGH!
Nope. The post specifically said “some % of damage, assigned on an ability by ability basis not just some blanket number for all abilities, probably very low for most abilitites”
The point wasn’t to completely neutralize bunkers – it was about forcing bunkers to fight a thief different than they would fight a warrior – force them to choose strengths and weaknesses, adopt a different playstyle, etc…
(1) That was not my advise to you on how to get flanking strike to hit
(2) I don’t have to face 180 degrees from my opponent to hit them with flanking strike.
(3) You have argued against the capability to turn during the using of flanking strike, including in between the first and second strike of it
If there were classes that could just debunk bunkers (hah!) what would be the point of having bunkers at all? So you’re telling me that thieves should do full damage even if I hold my gear shield up?
THERE IS NO MIDDLE FINGER BIG ENOUGH!
Nope. The post specifically said “some % of damage, assigned on an ability by ability basis not just some blanket number for all abilities, probably very low for most abilitites”
The point wasn’t to completely neutralize bunkers – it was about forcing bunkers to fight a thief different than they would fight a warrior – force them to choose strengths and weaknesses, adopt a different playstyle, etc…
(1) That was not my advise to you on how to get flanking strike to hit
(2) I don’t have to face 180 degrees from my opponent to hit them with flanking strike.
(3) You have argued against the capability to turn during the using of flanking strike, including in between the first and second strike of it
1) I dont recall saying you told me to. You responded to and quoted the poster who suggested it, so it’s not like you are unaware that it was suggested
2) It really does improve the pathing for some reason. Not all the time, but sometimes.
3) I don’t recall saying that, or why I would. I’ve always been aware that you can reposition during the entire second swing. My complaint has always been about the poor pathing on the initial strike, where the player has no control. If I did say that, I apologize.
If there were classes that could just debunk bunkers (hah!) what would be the point of having bunkers at all? So you’re telling me that thieves should do full damage even if I hold my gear shield up?
THERE IS NO MIDDLE FINGER BIG ENOUGH!
Nope. The post specifically said “some % of damage, assigned on an ability by ability basis not just some blanket number for all abilities, probably very low for most abilitites”
The point wasn’t to completely neutralize bunkers – it was about forcing bunkers to fight a thief different than they would fight a warrior – force them to choose strengths and weaknesses, adopt a different playstyle, etc…
That’s already what I have to do as an engineer… I can’t just stand and tank a glass thief, no bunkers can do that, I can however block, evade, and push away, and heal up rapidly. Does that make me a Healgineer and a Rollgineer rather than a bunker? Well, YOLO!
My suggestion encompassed changes that made it different for warriors and thieves.
Against a warrior, boons would become a liability (boon hate), and you could rely on blocking. Against a thief, you’d have to be careful with what boons you used and when (boon stripping), and couldn’t totally rely on block to save you. This was coupled with an overall burst damage reduction – the idea being, reduce the overall burst damage in the game while allowing thief and warrior (and other classes too, but my suggestion was about thieves with warriors thrown in for comparison) the tools to still threaten bunkers. This way fights between “burst” classes could be more a bit slower and more varied (think 15-25 seconds instead of 5), and there wouldn’t be any need to tune bunkers down along with burst (since you’re giving those burst classes a different toolset to hurt bunkers that isn’t just reliant on overall damage and stuns, and is less effective against non-bunkers)I suggested block penetration because it seemed the have the smallest “non-bunker” impact (yes, I know non-bunkers block, but every bunker in the game relies on blocking). Someone else suggested armor penetration (which again hurts everyone, but is much more devastating for bunkers than non-bunkers)
Still, what’s the point on overthrowing the class system like this? Things are functional now, even if they still require a lot of work.
If there were classes that could just debunk bunkers (hah!) what would be the point of having bunkers at all? So you’re telling me that thieves should do full damage even if I hold my gear shield up?
THERE IS NO MIDDLE FINGER BIG ENOUGH!
Nope. The post specifically said “some % of damage, assigned on an ability by ability basis not just some blanket number for all abilities, probably very low for most abilitites”
The point wasn’t to completely neutralize bunkers – it was about forcing bunkers to fight a thief different than they would fight a warrior – force them to choose strengths and weaknesses, adopt a different playstyle, etc…
That’s already what I have to do as an engineer… I can’t just stand and tank a glass thief, no bunkers can do that, I can however block, evade, and push away, and heal up rapidly. Does that make me a Healgineer and a Rollgineer rather than a bunker? Well, YOLO!
My suggestion encompassed changes that made it different for warriors and thieves.
Against a warrior, boons would become a liability (boon hate), and you could rely on blocking. Against a thief, you’d have to be careful with what boons you used and when (boon stripping), and couldn’t totally rely on block to save you. This was coupled with an overall burst damage reduction – the idea being, reduce the overall burst damage in the game while allowing thief and warrior (and other classes too, but my suggestion was about thieves with warriors thrown in for comparison) the tools to still threaten bunkers. This way fights between “burst” classes could be more a bit slower and more varied (think 15-25 seconds instead of 5), and there wouldn’t be any need to tune bunkers down along with burst (since you’re giving those burst classes a different toolset to hurt bunkers that isn’t just reliant on overall damage and stuns, and is less effective against non-bunkers)I suggested block penetration because it seemed the have the smallest “non-bunker” impact (yes, I know non-bunkers block, but every bunker in the game relies on blocking). Someone else suggested armor penetration (which again hurts everyone, but is much more devastating for bunkers than non-bunkers)
Still, what’s the point on overthrowing the class system like this? Things are functional now, even if they still require a lot of work.
If you disagree you disagree, but I don’t see how I’m overthrowing the class system. Lots of people kitten about burst in this game – I’m not saying its OP, but its certainly less fun to play against then say, a balanced fight that goes on 20-30 seconds, rather thekitten10 second fight. If you lower damage output, you’ll have to lower bunkering too – rather than that, I’d like to switch up the way power/crit builds deal with bunkers. Instead of doing overwhelming damage, I’d like to see them attack the underpinnings of what makes a bunker (Boons, blocking, high armor, heals). You could keep the capabilities deep in the DPS trait lines (crit, power) so that only “burst” builds have access.
It’d be a change in tactics, but not a change in playstyle.
(edited by evilapprentice.6379)
“since you’re giving those burst classes a different toolset to hurt bunkers that isn’t just reliant on overall damage and stuns, and is less effective against non-bunkers”
To me that translates to taking away from the latter to give to the other or vice versa, and I’m not sure what the pupose of that is.
I think he’s saying he’d like for fights to last at least 10 seconds.
If so, I agree with that sentiment.
I wish ArenaNet had looked at the highest burst potential of each class in full glass cannon and tweaked the numbers such that if one glass cannon just stood there, it would take another glass cannon 5 seconds to kill them. 5 seconds is not a long time but it is long enough to prevent insta-gib garbage.
Oh well … another oversight …
If there were classes that could just debunk bunkers (hah!) what would be the point of having bunkers at all? So you’re telling me that thieves should do full damage even if I hold my gear shield up?
THERE IS NO MIDDLE FINGER BIG ENOUGH!
Actually, you might want to take this one up with the devs. They’ve already stated they want warriors and thieves to be “bunker busters”. In fact they plan to implement measures towards this in this patch. The O kitten imply suggesting the do a different mechanic for thieves than they have planned for warriors.
If there were classes that could just debunk bunkers (hah!) what would be the point of having bunkers at all? So you’re telling me that thieves should do full damage even if I hold my gear shield up?
THERE IS NO MIDDLE FINGER BIG ENOUGH!
Actually, you might want to take this one up with the devs. They’ve already stated they want warriors and thieves to be “bunker busters”. In fact they plan to implement measures towards this in this patch. The O kitten imply suggesting the do a different mechanic for thieves than they have planned for warriors.
Which was the point behind the entire post – people seemed to -really- hate the block penetration idea, and then there was snark (on both sides), but the main point i was trying to make was “Lower burst, give thief/warrior bunker busting tools to compensate, and make each classes tools different so as to foster a more robust meta with longer fights based more on counterplay and less on huge chunks of damage on the slightest mistake”
Also, I love reading the phrase “The O Kitten” and understanding that the overzealous language filter saw the naughty word for urine in there.
Also, I love reading the phrase “The O Kitten” and understanding that the overzealous language filter saw the naughty word for urine in there.
Learn 2 Play Issue (acronym form) is by far the most common, based on the filter’s ire for the slightly harsher word for PEEPEE!
Not affiliated with ArenaNet or NCSOFT. No support is provided.
All assets, page layout, visual style belong to ArenaNet and are used solely to replicate the original design and preserve the original look and feel.
Contact /u/e-scrape-artist on reddit if you encounter a bug.