Guild Wars 2

Leo G.4501:

I find it funny how elitists meta players are dictating what a hybrid build is and does. You point to pistol/dagger as a better option because of the extra condis but that’s not what hybrids do. You often focus on 1, maybe 2 condition sources, eek out enhanced performance from them but ultimately focus on power. You can do that with a lot of options but I feel daggers do it best because of the speed and versatility/mobility. You don’t need to condi bomb to hybrid. But you do need good fast direct damage to.

But if the devs are changing anything about the skill, removing or decreasing the pause at the end after you land would help everyone. No need to remove or change the nature of the attack. Just because you bemoan it as an unfit condi move doesn’t make it so, it’s an attrition move meant to stall.

Yeah. Humorously, it’s as if they don’t get that you do both at the same time, not just one or the other.

Kadin.2356:

I’d much rather they drop the evade frames and turn it into a thief version of warrior sword #3? Whirlwind? The one that spins you around like crazy?

The irony of course is that Whirlwind Attack has a 3/4 second evade frame.

Leo G.4501:

I find it funny how elitists meta players are dictating what a hybrid build is and does. You point to pistol/dagger as a better option because of the extra condis but that’s not what hybrids do. You often focus on 1, maybe 2 condition sources, eek out enhanced performance from them but ultimately focus on power. You can do that with a lot of options but I feel daggers do it best because of the speed and versatility/mobility. You don’t need to condi bomb to hybrid. But you do need good fast direct damage to.

But if the devs are changing anything about the skill, removing or decreasing the pause at the end after you land would help everyone. No need to remove or change the nature of the attack. Just because you bemoan it as an unfit condi move doesn’t make it so, it’s an attrition move meant to stall.

This is a reasonable and seemingly logical approach, but the problem remains that the initiative system prevents this from working well in terms of game balance; extending the effectiveness of a condition applicator via durability is one thing, but it becomes a whole other thing when that effect for a reasonable amount of time has no cooldown and there are many systems in place which can easily and instantly reset said cooldown while also retaining that mitigation during casting. The last thing we want to see is a D/D thief spamming 3 to beat people because of it’s absolutely astonishing bleed application while remaining pretty much invincible for an extended period of time with the capacity to reset its initiative and keep evading from utilities which reset and refund initiative. Do recall that teleports do not interrupt current actions; one can steal during DB’s evade frames to guarantee hits and a safe re-engage, refund initiative, etc.

That’s the inherent problem; this skill can’t just be buffed to include hybrid builds, and frankly, shouldn’t be. Meta players do not set the standard for class design, either. Meta players set the standard for balance decisions. The design comes from the developers, and only players themselves decide which approach to take when playing.

Ultimately, D/D is largely an audience of people who play exclusively for big numbers focusing on damage throughputs through power. D/P is for those who want more skirmishing, P/D is a condi set, and P/P is an attempt at hybrid.

I subsequently don’t want to face nerfs as a power player to D/D because a minority of players want some buffs to hybrid D/D, and I don’t want DB buffed because it then just makes 3spam overly-effective. Condition builds are already overly-effective in PvP environments for their risk, and that’s a consensus the top players in the world have even reached.

The problem is that there seems to be no good way to change this skill to help both groups of players of the build while retaining the difficulty of the setup in general while giving a slight boost in performance to each build in different areas.

That’s why I genuinely believe a new weapon needs to be devised with the hybrid approach applied there from its inception rather than trying to rework what is an aggressive power set at its core into something that it simply wasn’t designed to be.

DeceiverX.8361:

The last thing we want to see is a D/D thief spamming 3 to beat people because of it’s absolutely astonishing bleed application while remaining pretty much invincible for an extended period of time with the capacity to reset its initiative and keep evading from utilities which reset and refund initiative. Do recall that teleports do not interrupt current actions; one can steal during DB’s evade frames to guarantee hits and a safe re-engage, refund initiative, etc.

I’ll remember that tip.

Personally though, as a hybrid enthusiast (could be hybrid condi power or hybrid power heal and combinations of such) i just don’t think spamming DB would be effective on either a condi or hybrid build. It might be face roll and win sometimes but in those circumstances (the most basic of circumstances) does it really matter? You won’t beat a good player with just bleed nor will you take on fractal 50 with that tactic (at least I don’t think it’d work. . . Never tried).

DeceiverX.8361:

That’s the inherent problem; this skill can’t just be buffed to include hybrid builds, and frankly, shouldn’t be. Meta players do not set the standard for class design, either. Meta players set the standard for balance decisions. The design comes from the developers, and only players themselves decide which approach to take when playing.

This is why I find it interesting, because the meta consensus seems to be aimed at focusing the build set toward what works in the meta and bemoan the hybrid approach as an excuse. To me, the elitist trying to tell us that something is or isn’t a hybrid is laughable because hybrid isn’t meta or elite. It mostly has to do with making personally decided sacrifices to generalize your playstyle.

DeceiverX.8361:

Ultimately, D/D is largely an audience of people who play exclusively for big numbers focusing on damage throughputs through power. D/P is for those who want more skirmishing, P/D is a condi set, and P/P is an attempt at hybrid.

That may be but, again, hybrid is what you make of it and personally I don’t like dual pistols on my hybrid primarily for the lack of movement. And even if daggers are meant to be for power builds then what is Sword/dagger for? Or sword/pistol? Do we really need more options for power builds?

As for the rest, I really would rather no change to DB occur. For me, DB is a safe means of applying bleed to basically stall. As a hybrid, I get more damage from power and sustain from crits and conditions. I could spam 3 to win but then I’d be killing slower than I normally could not to mention I get less effective crits to help sustain me as well as less support due to spending so much initiative on DB instead of other things.

Your points are valid for the most part, however the thing is if it’s viable for hybrid building, by most players’ standards it’s viable for conditions, and in many cases, subsequently stronger in WvW due to access to dire gear. DB is not an easy case because it’s disputed territory; power players are desperate for an emphasis on the utility due to the lack of utility in any form from corresponding trait lines, and condition/hybrid players want more out of the set in general/do not want to see any nerfs/bleed removal to improve their build viability through DPS and do not wish to lose their only fom of condition application on the set (aside from poison on D/x auto chain, but poison alone isn’t killing anyone).

S/x builds are definitely power-based, but are encompassing totally different styles of play and have completely different uses. I’d like to see more diversity within the hybrid/condition build realm on the thief and thus a tone-down for P/D, but the issue is that converting any existing sets to be more focused on hybrid/condition builds is just effectively the same as removing death blossom’s bleed for a rework on the skill to favor power builds’ demands. Condition weapon application is in general lower than power builds, so also understand that when looking towards other sets. Warriors only have sword and longbow with mace if traited for interrupts, rangers only shortbow and torch, guards have no condition/hybrid sets, etc.

Ultimately, death blossom pretty much needs something for it to make D/D as a set more viable. Currently, the set itself has limited viability in PvP environments due to its absolute lack of utility for power builds and lack of widespread conditions for hybrids and condition builds. The power build is in a better state overall, is used frequently in PvE due to its high damage and cheap stabs, and Dagger offhand can’t afford condition buffs due to P/D’s excessive power. We’re left with changing heartseeker and the auto-chain, and those are two skills fiercely needed for power D/D’s viability in general, and buffing the auto-chain or stab to apply more condition pressure wouldn’t be well-received.

Thus I can think of only two options, really; either a specialization rework for the set such that it can play similarly for both builds (I.E., backstab dependency for its main damage source with aggressive damage and limited utility from 3/4), or a new weapon combination/new weapons available to thieves planning on taking the hybrid approach such that the minority of D/D hybrid/condi players can at least have something similar in style while DB gets altered to better-fit power players, as forcing the power/crit D/D majority to a new weapon is just silly seeing as well, it’s a majority with clear weapon design goals favoring towards power-based players.

Like I said, P/P is an “attempt” – and a very unsuccessful one at that. Conditions in their current state are also flawed in their design in that they inhibit the development of hybrid builds by polarizing either high scaling favoring power or large condition application/sustaining better-suited for tankier, condi-only approaches, which also benefit better from low-power-scaling skills paired with condition application since the power is meaningless, anyways.

Ferocity and condition duration effects are big culprits here, as they modify the two in a multiplicative fashion, creating bigger gaps between hybrid players and those on one extreme. Dedicated hybrids without absurd might-stacking sadly aren’t or are barely in a meta, and in the game’s current state, will never be in a meta on the basis that metagame strategies are defined by effective yields and number-crunching, which will pretty much always declare one as the victor over another. The only real “exception” I can currently think of is D/D celestial elementalist due to burning having such high condition damage scaling and overall up-time/fast re-application, and the build having so much might stacking. We already understand the intentions of ANet here by the nerf of the burning and might to help inhibit this.

DeceiverX.8361:

Conditions in their current state are also flawed in their design in that they inhibit the development of hybrid builds by polarizing either high scaling favoring power or large condition application/sustaining better-suited for tankier, condi-only approaches, which also benefit better from low-power-scaling skills paired with condition application since the power is meaningless, anyways.

This isn’t a flaw. Damage over time abilities have a natural synergy with tankier, higher sustain characters that survive long enough for those conditions to do their work, while big critical damage focused builds can substitute burst for defense. ‘Glass damage over time’ simply isn’t an archetype that makes any strategic sense.

‘Hybrid’ builds in this game are really just condition damage builds that are able to stack enough might to make the direct component of their damaging skills non-trivial. In order for D/D condition to be a real build, it would need to have oodles more defense and utility than it actually has, and reworking it to provide all of that when the direct offensive patterns are working just fine is totally unrealistic. Without simply massive changes to the way the set and the game work, D/D condition is a quirky off build that’s good at killing veteran mobs but little more.

The power focused patterns simply want to get some utility out of Death Blossom. Giving the skill pure power scaling doesn’t even help direct damage builds unless the damage scaling is simply absurd, which doesn’t make any sense as the set already has a perfectly good direct damage patterns. If Death Blossom provides some other utility, I genuinely don’t care if the damage it does comes from bleeds or a direct component, I’m using it for its purposes other than maximum damage.

Without some sort of utility it’s simply a dead skill for the set’s primary play pattern, as as much as I like supporting off builds it just doesn’t make sense to do so when it comes at the expense of the main builds.

Correct, which is what I was kind of inferring to in the regards that conditions do not allow for the existence of hybrid builds. This locking out of possibilities is what I believe is a flaw due to the fact the game could have seen DoT effects without the necessity of multiple different stats required for damage scaling. If say, critical conditions were introduced, and baseline conditions nerfed, would we see adjustments in condi builds in PvP environments? I’m frankly not sure, and DoT builds do have the right to better sustain, however that’s a bonus designed in a way to be offered by the weapon sets and traits themselves rather than defensive stats from gear.

As far as DB goes, though, absolutely. I think most people are in agreement DB doesn’t need power scaling because it would be redundant; the problem is condition builds gaining the utility D/D as a set needs on top of a crazy existing bleed source is something players as a whole (except maybe a few select D/D condi players) would believe to be overpowered on bleed builds on the basis that it would possibly offer too much reward for too little risk. Damage optimization may come from intermittent stabs depending on the target, but I would believe the damage from DB on a dedicated bleed build would offer very similar damage overall.

Thus why the debate on this is unsolvable in regards to the above suggestions/there is known solution to the dilemma of how to improve general usability to the thief, and ultimately it’s just more logical to take the minority and give them what they want stylistically on another, new weapon combination.

I don’t think replacing it functionally is a good thing. It has an implied function as an aoe condition application skill with short term defensive benefit, and that shouldn’t change.

People crowing that it has an inconsistant damage type are missing the point, Daggers are and always were a combined condition/dps set, and the skills set up on thief bars for them were done as they were specifically because initiative allows us to skip a skill if it doesn’t work with our template, and use it for rare utility cases.

DB already does that. It’s a good bleed applier for condi builds, but it’s a kittenty defensive tool for crit builds. Thus, it needs its utility upped, not a damage change.

Adding ranged reflect to it is a great idea, another might be moving the evade frame to the END of the skill (since they don’t want thieves to have spammable initiative based evades considering they nerfed them all) which would solve the current problem it has as a defensive tool (people just wait until you’re on the way down from the spin and whack you)

If it added evade to the end of the animation and a short .1 sec evade buff after it completed, it would be functional as a repositioning tool, and if timed well could actually be used to gap open or close as you could chain a dodge after.

Increasing target count to 5 doesn’t seem unreasonable, as they like to buff lifeleech style builds (and I play such a build) as it would make it a solid aoe option and help out the survivability of lifeleech/evade bunker style builds as well as a little teamfight utility.

There are points I agree with and points I don’t. The root of my disagreement though is the assumption that the meta/optimize play is the goal of balance changes. Heck, the reason the set might have the bust and utility that it has might have been granted for the less than optimized dual skill. Basically, the meta doesn’t need help. Build diversity and encounter diversity needs more help.

But like I said, hybrid builds aren’t balanced around and are usually to take advantage of alternative attributes and playstyles that are usually written off by the specialized builds. It kind of requires skills that fit that criteria. If everything was always cookie cutter into specific styles there’d be little chance to try something “creative” (and I put that in quotes because it’s not really creative but the results play different with different goals from most of the standard builds in most if the meta).

PopeUrban.2578:

I don’t think replacing it functionally is a good thing. It has an implied function as an aoe condition application skill with short term defensive benefit, and that shouldn’t change.

People crowing that it has an inconsistant damage type are missing the point, Daggers are and always were a combined condition/dps set, and the skills set up on thief bars for them were done as they were specifically because initiative allows us to skip a skill if it doesn’t work with our template, and use it for rare utility cases.

DB already does that. It’s a good bleed applier for condi builds, but it’s a kittenty defensive tool for crit builds. Thus, it needs its utility upped, not a damage change.

Adding ranged reflect to it is a great idea, another might be moving the evade frame to the END of the skill (since they don’t want thieves to have spammable initiative based evades considering they nerfed them all) which would solve the current problem it has as a defensive tool (people just wait until you’re on the way down from the spin and whack you)

If it added evade to the end of the animation and a short .1 sec evade buff after it completed, it would be functional as a repositioning tool, and if timed well could actually be used to gap open or close as you could chain a dodge after.

Increasing target count to 5 doesn’t seem unreasonable, as they like to buff lifeleech style builds (and I play such a build) as it would make it a solid aoe option and help out the survivability of lifeleech/evade bunker style builds as well as a little teamfight utility.

Adding a ranged reflect might make it too powerful, but as you stated the utility just needs to be upped. If they left the damage and bleeds the same, but changed the skill to have a 0.5 second evade with a 0.75 second total time, and a directional component like whirlwind attack (warrior’s GS #3), it would be no more powerful than flanking strike or disabling shot, but would be useful in whatever build you play. That would be about the same amount of spam at 4 initiative as the others. So I second most of your argument.

Leo G.4501:

There are points I agree with and points I don’t. The root of my disagreement though is the assumption that the meta/optimize play is the goal of balance changes. Heck, the reason the set might have the bust and utility that it has might have been granted for the less than optimized dual skill. Basically, the meta doesn’t need help. Build diversity and encounter diversity needs more help.

But like I said, hybrid builds aren’t balanced around and are usually to take advantage of alternative attributes and playstyles that are usually written off by the specialized builds. It kind of requires skills that fit that criteria. If everything was always cookie cutter into specific styles there’d be little chance to try something “creative” (and I put that in quotes because it’s not really creative but the results play different with different goals from most of the standard builds in most if the meta).

This. You have to assume that, in terms of damage, people are stacking for crit, or stacking for condition. Condition thieves suffer a bit from limited condition types, which can easily be built around with the introduction of new sigils, or compensated for with greater survivability. I think the repeated buffs to stacking lifeleech is a good indicator that anet doesn’t want condition based builds to benefit from a play pattern of DOT>Stealth>repeat, but rather wants to give more condi focused builds reasons to trade potential damage for increased survivability, which aligns with avaliable condition gear.

This is where I feel that, as an offensive tool, DB is fine. I use it, it stacks bleeds good, and on builds that focus on maximizing bleed damage it does a fine job of everything except accounting for the behavior of other players. At release it was effective at its intended role, but due to the full evade frame it was too effective, as inititative regen at the time made it too spammable. however, that evade frame was what made it useful for builds not completely focused around condition damage to use it effectively as a defensive tool.

I think if we simply return it to a usable defensive tool without it also being too effective (by altering the evade frame timing) it can return to being a valuable part of a crit build’s kitten nal similar to the way that heartseeker is used by condition builds more for its gap closing utility than its damage.

Maugetarr.6823:

PopeUrban.2578:

I don’t think replacing it functionally is a good thing. It has an implied function as an aoe condition application skill with short term defensive benefit, and that shouldn’t change.

People crowing that it has an inconsistant damage type are missing the point, Daggers are and always were a combined condition/dps set, and the skills set up on thief bars for them were done as they were specifically because initiative allows us to skip a skill if it doesn’t work with our template, and use it for rare utility cases.

DB already does that. It’s a good bleed applier for condi builds, but it’s a kittenty defensive tool for crit builds. Thus, it needs its utility upped, not a damage change.

Adding ranged reflect to it is a great idea, another might be moving the evade frame to the END of the skill (since they don’t want thieves to have spammable initiative based evades considering they nerfed them all) which would solve the current problem it has as a defensive tool (people just wait until you’re on the way down from the spin and whack you)

If it added evade to the end of the animation and a short .1 sec evade buff after it completed, it would be functional as a repositioning tool, and if timed well could actually be used to gap open or close as you could chain a dodge after.

Increasing target count to 5 doesn’t seem unreasonable, as they like to buff lifeleech style builds (and I play such a build) as it would make it a solid aoe option and help out the survivability of lifeleech/evade bunker style builds as well as a little teamfight utility.

Adding a ranged reflect might make it too powerful, but as you stated the utility just needs to be upped. If they left the damage and bleeds the same, but changed the skill to have a 0.5 second evade with a 0.75 second total time, and a directional component like whirlwind attack (warrior’s GS #3), it would be no more powerful than flanking strike or disabling shot, but would be useful in whatever build you play. That would be about the same amount of spam at 4 initiative as the others. So I second most of your argument.

True, the reflect might be a bit much, but it sounds like a fun idea. I suppose one or the other needs to be the case, either a functional evade people can actually use in pvp somehow, or a reflect, both would make it have decent utility.

The 5 target limit just seems like a given. If you’re sacrificing enough to stack heals from Signet of malice and sunk deep enough in CA for invigorating precision, you’ve already traded off enough DPS traits and utility for the direct healing skills that the situational benefit of the extra heals from two more targets hit per cast seem a worthwhile tradeoff.

As a guy who likes to run such a build in zerg fights and PvE, i can say that the sustainability of these builds is decent, but it’s not nearly where it should be given what I have to sacrifice to take a CA master trait on a largely condition based build.

PopeUrban.2578:

Maugetarr.6823:

PopeUrban.2578:

I don’t think replacing it functionally is a good thing. It has an implied function as an aoe condition application skill with short term defensive benefit, and that shouldn’t change.

People crowing that it has an inconsistant damage type are missing the point, Daggers are and always were a combined condition/dps set, and the skills set up on thief bars for them were done as they were specifically because initiative allows us to skip a skill if it doesn’t work with our template, and use it for rare utility cases.

DB already does that. It’s a good bleed applier for condi builds, but it’s a kittenty defensive tool for crit builds. Thus, it needs its utility upped, not a damage change.

Adding ranged reflect to it is a great idea, another might be moving the evade frame to the END of the skill (since they don’t want thieves to have spammable initiative based evades considering they nerfed them all) which would solve the current problem it has as a defensive tool (people just wait until you’re on the way down from the spin and whack you)

If it added evade to the end of the animation and a short .1 sec evade buff after it completed, it would be functional as a repositioning tool, and if timed well could actually be used to gap open or close as you could chain a dodge after.

Increasing target count to 5 doesn’t seem unreasonable, as they like to buff lifeleech style builds (and I play such a build) as it would make it a solid aoe option and help out the survivability of lifeleech/evade bunker style builds as well as a little teamfight utility.

Adding a ranged reflect might make it too powerful, but as you stated the utility just needs to be upped. If they left the damage and bleeds the same, but changed the skill to have a 0.5 second evade with a 0.75 second total time, and a directional component like whirlwind attack (warrior’s GS #3), it would be no more powerful than flanking strike or disabling shot, but would be useful in whatever build you play. That would be about the same amount of spam at 4 initiative as the others. So I second most of your argument.

True, the reflect might be a bit much, but it sounds like a fun idea. I suppose one or the other needs to be the case, either a functional evade people can actually use in pvp somehow, or a reflect, both would make it have decent utility.

The 5 target limit just seems like a given. If you’re sacrificing enough to stack heals from Signet of malice and sunk deep enough in CA for invigorating precision, you’ve already traded off enough DPS traits and utility for the direct healing skills that the situational benefit of the extra heals from two more targets hit per cast seem a worthwhile tradeoff.

As a guy who likes to run such a build in zerg fights and PvE, i can say that the sustainability of these builds is decent, but it’s not nearly where it should be given what I have to sacrifice to take a CA master trait on a largely condition based build.

I guess I’m “meh” about the number of targets. Take engi bomb kit for example. The autoattack on bombs has 5 targets, but outside of pve, the likelihood of hitting all 5 isn’t that great, even with big ol’ bomb. So if DB had a sliding range of 300, the likelihood of connecting with up to 5 people (again,outside of pve) isn’t that great. I personally don’t think this would be overpowered (even with a 5 target cap) because D/D is trading the soft CC that D/P gets and the boonsteal and gap closers/creators that S/D gets for damage. Bringing up the dual skill would round out the set without outshining the other sets.

Edit: I guess in WvW you could hit up to 5 people with a slide, but individual damage to each would certainly not be gamebreaking.

Maugetarr.6823:

PopeUrban.2578:

Maugetarr.6823:

PopeUrban.2578:

I don’t think replacing it functionally is a good thing. It has an implied function as an aoe condition application skill with short term defensive benefit, and that shouldn’t change.

People crowing that it has an inconsistant damage type are missing the point, Daggers are and always were a combined condition/dps set, and the skills set up on thief bars for them were done as they were specifically because initiative allows us to skip a skill if it doesn’t work with our template, and use it for rare utility cases.

DB already does that. It’s a good bleed applier for condi builds, but it’s a kittenty defensive tool for crit builds. Thus, it needs its utility upped, not a damage change.

Adding ranged reflect to it is a great idea, another might be moving the evade frame to the END of the skill (since they don’t want thieves to have spammable initiative based evades considering they nerfed them all) which would solve the current problem it has as a defensive tool (people just wait until you’re on the way down from the spin and whack you)

If it added evade to the end of the animation and a short .1 sec evade buff after it completed, it would be functional as a repositioning tool, and if timed well could actually be used to gap open or close as you could chain a dodge after.

Increasing target count to 5 doesn’t seem unreasonable, as they like to buff lifeleech style builds (and I play such a build) as it would make it a solid aoe option and help out the survivability of lifeleech/evade bunker style builds as well as a little teamfight utility.

Adding a ranged reflect might make it too powerful, but as you stated the utility just needs to be upped. If they left the damage and bleeds the same, but changed the skill to have a 0.5 second evade with a 0.75 second total time, and a directional component like whirlwind attack (warrior’s GS #3), it would be no more powerful than flanking strike or disabling shot, but would be useful in whatever build you play. That would be about the same amount of spam at 4 initiative as the others. So I second most of your argument.

True, the reflect might be a bit much, but it sounds like a fun idea. I suppose one or the other needs to be the case, either a functional evade people can actually use in pvp somehow, or a reflect, both would make it have decent utility.

The 5 target limit just seems like a given. If you’re sacrificing enough to stack heals from Signet of malice and sunk deep enough in CA for invigorating precision, you’ve already traded off enough DPS traits and utility for the direct healing skills that the situational benefit of the extra heals from two more targets hit per cast seem a worthwhile tradeoff.

As a guy who likes to run such a build in zerg fights and PvE, i can say that the sustainability of these builds is decent, but it’s not nearly where it should be given what I have to sacrifice to take a CA master trait on a largely condition based build.

I guess I’m “meh” about the number of targets. Take engi bomb kit for example. The autoattack on bombs has 5 targets, but outside of pve, the likelihood of hitting all 5 isn’t that great, even with big ol’ bomb. So if DB had a sliding range of 300, the likelihood of connecting with up to 5 people (again,outside of pve) isn’t that great. I personally don’t think this would be overpowered (even with a 5 target cap) because D/D is trading the soft CC that D/P gets and the boonsteal and gap closers/creators that S/D gets for damage. Bringing up the dual skill would round out the set without outshining the other sets.

Edit: I guess in WvW you could hit up to 5 people with a slide, but individual damage to each would certainly not be gamebreaking.

That’s what I’m saying. it seems like a “gimme” change that’s only situationally useful but doesn’t remarkably overpower the skill at all, so while being a straight up buff it only reinforces the AOE function of the skill’s implicit design, and only greatly benefits specific builds in the very situations that they need it (lifeleech and bleed scaling better in larger fights, when you need more lifeleech and bleed)

Maugetarr.6823:

I guess I’m “meh” about the number of targets.

Think of it this way. There are two audiences that you want to make happy with a set of changes. First, you have people using the set for its primary play pattern of high burst, that want to see Death Blossom be a defensive tool to compliment that pattern and don’t really care about its damage. Second, you have people who like the secondary pattern of balling up enemies in Caltrops and using it to stack a bunch of bleeds, who really care about how much bleeding it can put out and care much less about any defense on the skill.

To keep the skill at an appropriate power level, the more damage the skill does, the less room for utility there is in its power budget, which fundamentally puts these two patterns at odds over what to do with the skill.

The advantage of a higher target cap and larger AoE is that it adds substantial power to the secondary pattern but essentially no power to the primary pattern. If you raised the AoE and target cap, but lowered the bleeding duration, it would still be a substantial buff to the skill for the players who like stacking bleeds on targets in Caltrops, who will hit the bleed cap anyway – but a big nerf to it in dueling situations; it would also be a much larger nerf to builds without +condition duration, as the bleeds would be more likely to expire before the target does, while on a dedicated condition thief with stacked bleed duration the nerf would be more muted, allowing for even bigger cuts in condition duration without substantially harming the secondary pattern.

That damage nerf in a dueling situation leaves more PvP power budget for additional utility – more evasion, projectile reflection, etc – which is what the primary pattern needs if the set is going to be a niche set in competitive play.

Essentially, the per-target damage is what is holding the skill back from getting the changes it needs. If that can be lowered, while adding tools to both sides that don’t impact the other as much (more targets in a higher area for PvE bleed stackers, evasion for PvP), then I think both patterns can be happy with a set of changes that enhance their specific role without making the skill crazy overpowered.

Ensign.2189:

Maugetarr.6823:

I guess I’m “meh” about the number of targets.

Think of it this way. There are two audiences that you want to make happy with a set of changes. First, you have people using the set for its primary play pattern of high burst, that want to see Death Blossom be a defensive tool to compliment that pattern and don’t really care about its damage. Second, you have people who like the secondary pattern of balling up enemies in Caltrops and using it to stack a bunch of bleeds, who really care about how much bleeding it can put out and care much less about any defense on the skill.

To keep the skill at an appropriate power level, the more damage the skill does, the less room for utility there is in its power budget, which fundamentally puts these two patterns at odds over what to do with the skill.

The advantage of a higher target cap and larger AoE is that it adds substantial power to the secondary pattern but essentially no power to the primary pattern. If you raised the AoE and target cap, but lowered the bleeding duration, it would still be a substantial buff to the skill for the players who like stacking bleeds on targets in Caltrops, who will hit the bleed cap anyway – but a big nerf to it in dueling situations; it would also be a much larger nerf to builds without +condition duration, as the bleeds would be more likely to expire before the target does, while on a dedicated condition thief with stacked bleed duration the nerf would be more muted, allowing for even bigger cuts in condition duration without substantially harming the secondary pattern.

That damage nerf in a dueling situation leaves more PvP power budget for additional utility – more evasion, projectile reflection, etc – which is what the primary pattern needs if the set is going to be a niche set in competitive play.

Essentially, the per-target damage is what is holding the skill back from getting the changes it needs. If that can be lowered, while adding tools to both sides that don’t impact the other as much (more targets in a higher area for PvE bleed stackers, evasion for PvP), then I think both patterns can be happy with a set of changes that enhance their specific role without making the skill crazy overpowered.

Just to be clear, I’m not against increasing the number of targets, i just don’t care either way as long as the utility of the skill is improved to make it useful for both types of builds.

As for lowering the damage if they increased the number of targets, i dont think that its really necessary for something that costs 4 initiative. If you look at bomb engi again, it has a 1.25 multiplier on it for those 5 targets. That’s pretty decent for how quickly it happens. Cross class comparisons aren’t always good to make, so I’ll come back to the thief. On lotus strike, you get a 0.85 multiplier and 4 seconds of poison (roughly 2 bleeds) On 2 targets. That’s pretty decent In terms of utility and damage. DB get a 0.6 multiplier and 3 bleeds for 10 seconds and a negligible evade. If you’re condition, that 0.6 is nothing, and if you’re power, those 3 bleeds are nothing (about equal to a sigil of air proc across 10 seconds). So if we look at changing it to a 0.5 second evade and 0.6 damage to 5 targets, that’s an outgoing of 3.0 damage total (assuming everything hits max targets) for 4 initiative. If we compare that to pistolwhip, the slashing portion has ~3.0 multiplier and hits up to 3 targets for 5 Initiative. That’s a total of 9.0 multiplier damage going out, or 1.8 multiplier damage per initiative which is more likely to all land because that is divided amongst 3 targets. DB would only be 0.75 multipler damage per initiative (+bleeds). I know I’m failing to take DPS into account, but it think initiative pool limitations are a bigger factor here.

In short, it don’t think they need to reduce damage after improving utility, but if that became the case, they could always lower damage as long as they left a viable skill in terms of utility.

I picked PW for comparison because the damage and evade take place in close combat simultaneously and doesn’t have a rollover skill, similar to deathblossom as opposed to other skills

Ensign.2189:

Maugetarr.6823:

I guess I’m “meh” about the number of targets.

Think of it this way. There are two audiences that you want to make happy with a set of changes. First, you have people using the set for its primary play pattern of high burst, that want to see Death Blossom be a defensive tool to compliment that pattern and don’t really care about its damage. Second, you have people who like the secondary pattern of balling up enemies in Caltrops and using it to stack a bunch of bleeds, who really care about how much bleeding it can put out and care much less about any defense on the skill.

To keep the skill at an appropriate power level, the more damage the skill does, the less room for utility there is in its power budget, which fundamentally puts these two patterns at odds over what to do with the skill.

The advantage of a higher target cap and larger AoE is that it adds substantial power to the secondary pattern but essentially no power to the primary pattern. If you raised the AoE and target cap, but lowered the bleeding duration, it would still be a substantial buff to the skill for the players who like stacking bleeds on targets in Caltrops, who will hit the bleed cap anyway – but a big nerf to it in dueling situations; it would also be a much larger nerf to builds without +condition duration, as the bleeds would be more likely to expire before the target does, while on a dedicated condition thief with stacked bleed duration the nerf would be more muted, allowing for even bigger cuts in condition duration without substantially harming the secondary pattern.

That damage nerf in a dueling situation leaves more PvP power budget for additional utility – more evasion, projectile reflection, etc – which is what the primary pattern needs if the set is going to be a niche set in competitive play.

Essentially, the per-target damage is what is holding the skill back from getting the changes it needs. If that can be lowered, while adding tools to both sides that don’t impact the other as much (more targets in a higher area for PvE bleed stackers, evasion for PvP), then I think both patterns can be happy with a set of changes that enhance their specific role without making the skill crazy overpowered.

You’re correct in why they’re at odds, but again the big problem is that it seems simply impossible to really adjust utility/defensive options of the skill to favor power builds while not overly-buffing condition/hybrid ones. Giving DB more utility with no trade-off in terms of damage output for condition users only makes the skill even more overly-rewarding and pushes condi/hybrid players to playing even more condi-heavy due to its crazy performance for them. Buffing the utility makes spamming 3 just more viable while not diversifying the way the set is played, and ultimately doesn’t leave a lot of room for power-based utilitiy buffs since that utility gain needs to be considered when buffing DB at all. It’s basically kind of like a condi player asking for backstab to give distortion since the evade frame on DB is poor and condition players want to build aggressively and use DB safely for condition bursting. The problem then is that backstab also becomes just way too strong on power builds by giving it unnecessary amounts of utility.

There’s a limited budget on both ends and they’re both conflicting in both demands and that the styles themselves have pretty much opposite strengths/weaknesses making any kind of adjustment extremely difficult.

Except they’re not at odds because it isn’t about the power budget of a single skill, it’s about the power budget of the entire skill bar.

DB underperforms on condition builds due to its single condition type, which is one of the most common proc cleanses. Condition D/D builds also have a severely hampered stealth attack, but marginally better control from dancing daggers. In PvE they suffer compared to other condition specs due to their target limitations. Sure, you can reach the cap with caltrops, but other condi specs can reach that cap on far more targets with far more conditions, and do it tons better, and often with better survivability to boot.

Finally, adding two targets without functionally changing the duration or parameters of the bleed at all, and increasing its utility doesn’t overpower or even over-incentivize spamming 3. You’re still make an opportunity cost decision between spamming out initiative for more condition application, or save some for using an evade, and your performance is still unchanged in duels aside from having some much needed survivability against thinking humans, and the option of better survivability against massive mob hordes.

Put a condition thief in perspective with aoe condition builds of any other class and you’ll find they seriously underperform already. Adding two targets will increase their aoe potential and possibly their survivability, but will not measurably increase their damage output in PvP whatsoever.

The problem, right now, with the skill is not that it’s good in one spec and bad in the other. It’s that it underperforms in a condition spec and is absolutely useless in a power spec, and this is true in both PvE and all forms of PvP.

What it needs is a buff that makes it worth using in both without overpowering either. Get that balance right and people can hybrid all they like, as the game is not balanced around hybrids, as hybrids are a composite of sub-optimal damage that are made viable by the combination of that damage.

DeceiverX.8361:

You’re correct in why they’re at odds, but again the big problem is that it seems simply impossible to really adjust utility/defensive options of the skill to favor power builds while not overly-buffing condition/hybrid ones. Giving DB more utility with no trade-off in terms of damage output for condition users only makes the skill even more overly-rewarding and pushes condi/hybrid players to playing even more condi-heavy due to its crazy performance for them. Buffing the utility makes spamming 3 just more viable while not diversifying the way the set is played, and ultimately doesn’t leave a lot of room for power-based utilitiy buffs since that utility gain needs to be considered when buffing DB at all. It’s basically kind of like a condi player asking for backstab to give distortion since the evade frame on DB is poor and condition players want to build aggressively and use DB safely for condition bursting. The problem then is that backstab also becomes just way too strong on power builds by giving it unnecessary amounts of utility.

There’s a limited budget on both ends and they’re both conflicting in both demands and that the styles themselves have pretty much opposite strengths/weaknesses making any kind of adjustment extremely difficult.

The thing is though that D/D has a limited types of conditions on the set, so I would argue that that overall it wouldn’t be overwhelming. Look at the other condi-centric classes or P/D. Their strength relies on a diversity of both damaging and utility conditions. Yes, you could burst up to 9 stacks of bleed at the cost of 12 initiative, but a single condi clear would remove the whole stack. Now consider that a lot of cleansing is averaging 1 condition removed every 4-5 seconds, but the sheer number and reapplication is what eventually drags you down. I know i keep picking on engi (and I’m not commenting or complaining about the state of that class whatsoever), but consider getting hit with autos and pistol #2 (poison dart volley). If they have incindiary powder, all those together (~2 bleeds, poison, burning with no condi extenders) that’s roughly equivalent to 9 bleeds worth of damage, but removing any one condition only partially cuts their output, which would probably be the case with a 3 condition removal skill due to the cover conditions also applied. With D/D bleeds, once you’ve stacked those 9 bleeds and covered them with the other conditions on the set (cripple, vuln, poison), a 3 condi removal skill has a 75% chance of removing the vast majority of your damage output, not just a piece of it. Necro, mesmer, and ele are capable of similar condition diversity without using utility skills. That’s why I don’t think the direct damage needs to be toned down for the utility to be increased, because D/D thief will still be a very all-or-nothing set whether using a direct damage or bleed burst.

So what i guess I’m saying is that I see this strong burst with lack of diversification as fine on the D/D set as both playstyles would be limited by the fact that they are both a burst or die proposition at that point. DB thieves would have a little bit of protection in their evade frames, but it would be able to be countered by keeping calm and using condi cleanses and dodges as you would blocks and dodges against its power variant. You would also be able to see that burst coming as well with the thief sliding back and forth through your character. The addition of aiming the trail would keep it somewhat in check as well.

I think we’re just going to have a difference of opinion on this point though.

PopeUrban.2578

The problem, right now, with the skill is not that it’s good in one spec and bad in the other. It’s that it underperforms in a condition spec and is absolutely useless in a power spec, and this is true in both PvE and all forms of PvP.

This sums up why I think just upping the utility won’t be overwhelming, because it’s not as if D/D LDB unicorn is slightly underperfoming, it’s barely there. With a little tweaking to the skill though, both camps could be satisfied.

While condition diversity is definitely important, a DB rotation can stack 15 bleeds versus 9, and with uncatchable and caltrops in the mix paired with immob like panic strike, Devourer, SB stealth #1, and cripple from Dancing Dagger, there’s a ton of disabling conditions which can help lock down those bleeds easily to 25. Upping the target cap could be acceptable, though as far as directional targeting goes, I’m not sure if I agree it’s necessary; the skill does cause you to travel exactly the direction you’re facing just like using HS for mobility purposes. It lets the caster cut down on APM/potential casting delays with minimal impact on performance. I’d personally rather have the system handle that stuff for me due to the many instances of lag I’ve had where the different actions of targeted casting have caused bugs or problematic delays. That’s just me, though, and I think that’s very much personal preference at that point. On-crit sigils and rune effects, be it krait frequently working with BV or perplexity depending on the mode, paired with CnD’s vuln stacks can allow for substantial condition diversity overall. It’s not like what engineers bring, but those are arguably a lot more powerful as a class to the point where nerfs pretty much anywhere to the class are pretty justified.

Of course, from a vanilla perspective and DoT point of view, yes, the set is lacking for condition players, and frankly, this is something that I believe cannot be resolved without substantial changes to how the class plays; ultimately more condition diversity is tied to having condition access to multiple skills, which is usually included with the explicit implementations of condition damage-based sets. From this standpoint, anything necessary to make DB a potent condi build skill would make the skill too powerful in it of itself if the rest of the build requires none of the other skills on the bar to function, which makes the set under a condition build be too effective in terms of APM : damage/usability and/or providing an excess of utility reducing the skill component of the build.

The only thing I could think of would be to allow for the addition of a condi applicator skill from stealth not tied to stab or HS to avoid conflicts with power builds, but with P/D being so strong, I have to question whether or not it’d be a good idea due to how absolutely faceroll easy P/D already is for its ridiculous effectiveness. Giving Dancing Dagger a PBAoE bleed applicator on top of its cripple from stealth to compete with Sneak Attack might be reasonable, but then it just begs the question as to why not just play P/D since there’s already more diversity and better bleed/torment stacking in general, or if too effective, would just be a straight up buff to P/D.

No.

Yours sincerely
Anet

DeceiverX.8361:

While condition diversity is definitely important, a DB rotation can stack 15 bleeds versus 9, and with uncatchable and caltrops in the mix paired with immob like panic strike, Devourer, SB stealth #1, and cripple from Dancing Dagger, there’s a ton of disabling conditions which can help lock down those bleeds easily to 25. Upping the target cap could be acceptable, though as far as directional targeting goes, I’m not sure if I agree it’s necessary; the skill does cause you to travel exactly the direction you’re facing just like using HS for mobility purposes. It lets the caster cut down on APM/potential casting delays with minimal impact on performance. I’d personally rather have the system handle that stuff for me due to the many instances of lag I’ve had where the different actions of targeted casting have caused bugs or problematic delays. That’s just me, though, and I think that’s very much personal preference at that point. On-crit sigils and rune effects, be it krait frequently working with BV or perplexity depending on the mode, paired with CnD’s vuln stacks can allow for substantial condition diversity overall. It’s not like what engineers bring, but those are arguably a lot more powerful as a class to the point where nerfs pretty much anywhere to the class are pretty justified.

Of course, from a vanilla perspective and DoT point of view, yes, the set is lacking for condition players, and frankly, this is something that I believe cannot be resolved without substantial changes to how the class plays; ultimately more condition diversity is tied to having condition access to multiple skills, which is usually included with the explicit implementations of condition damage-based sets. From this standpoint, anything necessary to make DB a potent condi build skill would make the skill too powerful in it of itself if the rest of the build requires none of the other skills on the bar to function, which makes the set under a condition build be too effective in terms of APM : damage/usability and/or providing an excess of utility reducing the skill component of the build.

The only thing I could think of would be to allow for the addition of a condi applicator skill from stealth not tied to stab or HS to avoid conflicts with power builds, but with P/D being so strong, I have to question whether or not it’d be a good idea due to how absolutely faceroll easy P/D already is for its ridiculous effectiveness. Giving Dancing Dagger a PBAoE bleed applicator on top of its cripple from stealth to compete with Sneak Attack might be reasonable, but then it just begs the question as to why not just play P/D since there’s already more diversity and better bleed/torment stacking in general, or if too effective, would just be a straight up buff to P/D.

They could always separate the cooldown lengths of the venoms and make skale/spider venom have 20 second CD’s, skelk 25 seconds, and leave the others where they are. That might be an alternative to just attaching more condis to weapon skills.

Skelk is probably better off at 30-40s as a leech venom thief would be able to heal for like 10k every 16s which is crazy :P

As for that substantial of cooldown reductions… I’m not sure if it’s practical. The utility spots are pretty important for effects like SS and for many people, refuge, so I’m unsure if they’d get used or would really contribute to the builds themselves since poison is currently readily available on D/x and shortbow, devourer is overall way better, and P/D already has torment stacking which still begs the question as to why not play P/D at that point?

That’s kind of just my view on it, though. It would be a crazy buff to vshare, which I’m not sure needs it as it has such binary representations of effectiveness (either incredibly good or useless).

My Call:

Transform D/D in a Counter:

How it works: Once button 3 is pressing the Thief will start channeling like any other counter. Once attacked the DB will trigger, dodging the next 3/4 seconds like the current skill already does.

And why: As far as Thieves vs Thieves goes, D/D is by far the inferior set. They simply can’t deal with D/P blinds and can’t keep up on distance with S/D thieves.
A counter with AoE damage would remedy it in a certain way.
It could also be used to counter other classes skills.

What would change: Spammable counter is a bad idea, so the initiative cost would need to be raised. Transforming it on a full power skill would be interesting as far as the D/D set goes but I would be indifferent about it. Anything goes.

DeceiverX.8361:

Skelk is probably better off at 30-40s as a leech venom thief would be able to heal for like 10k every 16s which is crazy :P

As for that substantial of cooldown reductions… I’m not sure if it’s practical. The utility spots are pretty important for effects like SS and for many people, refuge, so I’m unsure if they’d get used or would really contribute to the builds themselves since poison is currently readily available on D/x and shortbow, devourer is overall way better, and P/D already has torment stacking which still begs the question as to why not play P/D at that point?

That’s kind of just my view on it, though. It would be a crazy buff to vshare, which I’m not sure needs it as it has such binary representations of effectiveness (either incredibly good or useless).

I had a 16 second cd in mind actually because mesmer’s “Main the Disillusioned” trait as well as their illusionary counter. Comparitively speaking, using utility slots for a 20(16) second cooldown application of 3 stacks of torment/vuln or 5 stacks of poison doesn’t seem unreasonable.

Skelk venom can be dodged and has a cast time, so 25 doesn’t seem unreasonable.

Ice drake could use a 30 second CD.

DV and BV actually have a decent CD for their utility.

Part of my thinking is that you have to invest so many traits into your build that venoms end up being the only thing worth putting on it (I agree with your assessment of losing SS and others). If you could have 1 or 2 that could more frequently, you could afford to have more on your bar. Maybe VShare could be changed to share the number of stacks -1 (with a minimum of one) to allies. So skale would only share 2 (3 with RV) and BV would only ever share 1 stack.

Would probably need to be tested. I don’t think it’d really break anything, but not really sure if it’d fix much, either.