Guild Wars 2

bhagwad.4281:

1. Consider thief A and thief B
2. Thief A has access to Steal
3. Thief B has no access to the steal skill at all
4. Thief A uses steal
5. Thief B has nothing
End result: Thief A is at the very least equal to thief B. Most likely he’ll be better off because of the boons, and if he lands it, then all kinds of nice things happen as well.

I can prove your analogy flawed by finding a single example of where thief A will be worse off if he steals.

Thief A is 1100 range away and has 2 health. Thief B’s steal is on CD and he has 20k health. Thief A will die if he steals, so he definitely will not be “better off” if he steals.

bhagwad.4281:

Ergo: Steal is a free additional utility with no cost.

False, it has an opportunity cost, in fact, i listed an example above where steal is bad if yo use it. If there really was no way to be worse off by stealing, then thieves would be spamming steal on CD. The reason they don’t is that they are wasting resources. They would be inflicting opportunity costs upon themselves because they are potentially ignoring some of steal’s benefits: teleport, daze, boon strip.

bhagwad.4281:

You cannot defend yourself anyway! Your insta 300k attack is not a defensive skill. It is offensive.

All offensive skills are by definition defensive. This is because all offensive skills carry the threat of being used, which is defensive. When I fight other thieves, I’m really cautious about using heartseeker through black powder because I’m worried about it being interrupted. As soon as they used steal or are blinded though, I can ignore that fear and heartseeker away because they no longer have the threat of using their offensive skill (steal/headshot).

bhagwad.4281:

Whether it misses or loses, you have the same defense you did before. Not sure how using it puts you in a worse position

Neither the US nor the USSR were willing to use their nuclear weapons due to the threat of mutual assured destruction. Nuclear weaopns are clearly offensive weapons. However, the threat of nuclear retaliation prevented one side from using their own nukes, as this would cause the other side to retaliate. That is to say, the possessing of offensive weapons prevented an attack. That is defense. The owning of offensive weapons acts as a deterrent (defense) against an enemy. The threat of my 300k skill keeps the enemy at bay. He may avoid me, might run away, might fight extremely cautiously, because one slip up and he could be dead. But as soon as my skill misses, the threat of instant death disappears and my enemy will drop his inhibitions and easily kill me as I no longer have any way of defense. A little cliched, but the best defense is a good offense.

bhagwad.4281:

Next, a necro doesn’t really lose his other skills on entering DS because he can exit death shroud at any time if he needs those skills. You might want to play necro just a little bit to understand how it works. Just create a new necro character and try out DS skills. You’ll see that a necro is not locked into DS at any time.

You misunderstand. Yes, the necro can switch out at any time, but what I mean is that the necro cannot immediately use his weapon skills. He has to leave death shroud then use them. That puts death shroud on CD. That prevents him from using his death shroud skills because he had to leave. This is another opportunity cost (Do I want to enter death shroud? Because if I do and I then need my staff skills I just screwed myself).

bhagwad.4281:

In fact, your examples of “opportunity cost” illustrate that you don’t really understand what I’m referring to. I’m saying “the act of using a class mechanic like steal” has no opportunity cost. Sure, you can choose to steal this, or you can choose to steal that. Not the point. When I say “steal itself has no opportunity cost”, what I mean is that by using it you don’t lose health, you don’t lose defence, you don’t lose power, or boons.

I see the problem. You are using the incorrect definition of opportunity cost. Opportunity cost by definition encompasses “I could’ve stolen this or that”. You’re incorrect in that steal does not cost you health or defense or power. Opportunity cost include damage that you take that you would’nt have taken had you not stolen or had stolen from someone else, and includes damage I could’ve dealt had I not stolen or stolen from someone else. If I steal and it puts me in melee range of a warrior and that warrior hits me, that is opportunity cost. I wouldn’t have taken that damage, and it is therefore an opportunity cost, it is just not expressed immediately. I’m sorry, but you need to learn what opportunity cost actually is. You are absolutely wrong when you say that

bhagwad.4281:

In economic terms, there is no opportunity cost to you using steal.

because there is choice. In any scenario given a resource and choices of what to do with it, there will always be an economic opportunity cost. I’m sorry but you are wrong—you are using the incorrect definition of opportunity cost. Please drop this idea and use the correct definition of opportunity cost.

bhagwad.4281:

In fact, every decent thief has a trait that gives might, fury and swiftness regardless of whether or not steal succeeds.

I’m pretty sure I wasn’t using that trait before 6/23

bhagwad.4281:

In your example of a 300k skill, I don’t understand how you will “certainly lose”. You could just walk away. Your health is the same. Your stats are the same. What have you lost? Your situation before you steal – alive. Your situation immediately after – still alive. Now if steal had an additional effect – “Miss steal and lose 300k life”. THAT would have been a risk. A clear gamble.

That skill is my only skill. If I miss, how am I supposed to walk away? I will certainly die if I miss. If i gave you that skill and you missed, how would you run from someone if that was your only skill? This really isn’t a hard concept. I cannot run away from someone if I have no skills.

bhagwad.4281:

“Miss steal and lose 300k life”. THAT would have been a risk. A clear gamble.

But it already is a gamble. That is my only skill. If I miss then I cannot defend myself. I will surely die. The “lose 300k” life part of you version is irrelevant—I will die to the other player if I miss. Again: I cannot possibly run or defend myself if my only skill misses.

bhagwad.4281:

Similarly when a necro enters death shroud, there is no cost associated with entering it. It is only a net benefit.

This is false in both economic and practical terms. Everything in economics has an opportunity cost. In this situation, the necro loses his weapon skills (opportunity cost+practical cost). He also gains a second healthbar, which maybe he could’ve used later and not now (opportunity cost). And once he ends it, death shroud is on CD. And he may find out afterwards that maybe he shouldn’t have used deathshroud and should’ve used it later (opportunity cost +practical cost) Stop using terms that you don’t really understand.

bhagwad.4281:

This really isn’t a difficult concept to understand. I don’t know why so many peole are getting confused by it.

Funny, because you continue to misuse a basic economic term. Stop acting like you’re some genius and you can understand something when you very clearly do not. You claim that mesmer is the only class who’s profession mechanic has an opportunity cost. This is false—everything has an opportunity cost, mesmer’s is only more direct (loss of phantasms).

1. You say that shatter has an opportunity cost associated with it: you lose your phantasms.
2. You then say that other classes do not have an associated opportunity cost for using their class abilities.
The first statement is true. The second statement, however, is definitely wrong.

I am an economics major, and you seem to misunderstand what opportunity cost means.
Opportunity cost is what you could have done with given resources instead of what you did do with them. For example, if hot dogs and hamburgers are both $1 each, and I only have one dollar, then my opportunity cost would be whatever I did not buy, e.g., If I buy the hot dog then my opportunity cost is the hamburger.

So yes, every ability has an opporunity cost. Every interrupt you use has an opporunity cost: you could have interrupted something else. My steal ,for example. Let’s say I use it to interrupt a warrior’s shield bash. That has an opportunity cost. I could have used it to interrupt eviscerate, or 100 blades. I could interrupt the shield bash and avoid let’s say 1k damage. But then i cannot avoid the eviscerate which does 8k damage (let’s say I’m out of dodges/blind/whatever). My opportunity cost there was avoiding an additional 7k damage.

I can take that to the extreme as well. Let’s say my thief has only one skill: Assassinate. Let’s say this is my only skill, and it does 300k damage and is on a 3 min CD. Now, under your own logic, my thief would be no better off or worse off if he misses Assassinate. But in this scenario that logic is obviously fallacious. If I miss, I will certainly lose, and if it lands, I will certainly win.

Every ability has this opportunity cost. Shatter has this too. In fact, by refusing to shatter, you are likely incurring higher opportunity costs onto yourself than you otherwise would have by shattering. Sometimes the burst damage right now is more important than the sustained damage. Sometimes immediately downing that one person in a group fight is more important than allowing him to run away/heal while you do more sustained damage.

Assuming ceteris paribus:
1.Let’s say a warrior is using eviscerate and if it lands it will down you and the only way to avoid it is to use distortion. Do you use distortion? If not, then you are willfully limiting yourself, and inflicting opportunity costs upon yourself.
2.Lets say your phantasms will definitely die to my AoE before they cast a second attack, and let’s assume that this is to my normal AoE, and I am not deliberately going out of my way to attack them. By not using shatters, you are willfully limiting yourself, and inflicting opportunity costs upon yourself.
3. Let’s say a ranger is low on health and has no way of avoiding mind wrack, and you do not have enough damage to down him before his heal is back up, but mind wrack does enough damage to down him before then. Do you use mind wrack? If not, you are willfully limiting yourself, and inflicting opportunity costs upon yourself.
4. Let’s say a you and a thief has 1k health left and is using using hide in shadows to heal. If he heals then he will certainly kill you, and diversion is the only way to interrupt, or mind wrack is the only way to down him right now. Do you shatter? If not, then you are willfully limiting yourself and inflicting opportunity costs upon yourself.
If you answered “yes” to any of these questions, then that would contradict what you said in your original post. Sometimes, there is little to no risk in shattering.

tl;dr You claim that shatter unfairly has an opportunity cost that other classes do not have. This is false. While shatter has an immediate and obvious opportunity cost (losing phantasms), every ability has an opportunity cost, and you are actually inflicting additional opportunity costs upon yourself by refusing to shatter, because sometimes a shatter is what is most optimal at a given moment.

fluidmonolith.3584:

I know many of us (myself included) are now accustomed to the +100 power and +250 vit. But I fail to see a compelling, non-arbitrary reason to keep it. All experienced players received this benefit, so even if my power level will decrease, everyone else’s will too.

I certainly agree with some arguments that there aren’t enough point sinks for people with lots of WvW ranks, but that is, I think, a separate issue.

I’m not sure whether or not I support the existence of guard stacks, I’m just giving alternatives to fix the issue claimed by anet other than completely removing it.

Due to granting the powerful Applied Fortitude and Applied Strength effects, the Defense Against Guards and Guard Killer lines needed to be extremely expensive, but that meant players often felt obligated to spend their first 230 points on these lines before they could begin branching out into other ability lines… This drove our decision to shorten the Guard Killer and Defense Against Guards lines to five, removing Applied Strength and Applied Fortitude.

Source: https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/upgrading-world-vs-world-upgrades/

I have never supported guard stacks for the very reason above and because it arbitrarily gives stat advantages to experienced players. However, I thought of alternative ways of handling this rather than removing it completely:

1. Guard stacks be made baseline by being added to everyone’s stats immediately upon entering WvW. Meaning that you get a 100pow 250vit buff upon entering WvW.
2. Guard stacks will be baseline by allowing everyone to obtain guard stacks without needing a point investment.
3. Guard stacks will be moved to the beginning of the guard killer and defense against guards trees for one point each.

I personally don’t like 1, and think that 2 and 3 are better ways of resolving the guard stack issue than removing it completely.

Thoughts?

Edit: Added quote

Jim Hunter.6821:

Archon.6481:

the krytan assassin.9235:

so as ele i’m gonna lose 125 vit from trait loss, (running 4 in water atm) and losing 225 power. losing another 100 power from removal of applied strength and 250 vit from applied fortitude. gonna need to compensate the loss of vitality by adding extra vitality on my armor so gonna lose another 375 offensive stats, so in the end: -325 power-475 offensive stats.

Yes lets make evry1 hit like a wed noodle, WVW is way to hard!. luckily we don’t have to bother anymore with sieging up/supplies anymore either, it’s so hard to apply tactics in wvw you know!

It looks like Anet is trying evrything to get rid of gw2 and start playing black desert when they do the western release…..

Anet has already said that stat points lost from traits will be made up for increased base stats and increased stats on armor.

Eventually they’ll move to the same stupid amulet system used in PvP so min maxing will be completely dead… yay!

IMO: A better solution would be to make guards stacks obtainable on each line with 1 point rather than remove it completely.

But I don’t see how removing it will reduce min maxing.

the krytan assassin.9235:

so as ele i’m gonna lose 125 vit from trait loss, (running 4 in water atm) and losing 225 power. losing another 100 power from removal of applied strength and 250 vit from applied fortitude. gonna need to compensate the loss of vitality by adding extra vitality on my armor so gonna lose another 375 offensive stats, so in the end: -325 power-475 offensive stats.

Yes lets make evry1 hit like a wed noodle, WVW is way to hard!. luckily we don’t have to bother anymore with sieging up/supplies anymore either, it’s so hard to apply tactics in wvw you know!

It looks like Anet is trying evrything to get rid of gw2 and start playing black desert when they do the western release…..

Anet has already said that stat points lost from traits will be made up for increased base stats and increased stats on armor.

Toxsa.2701:

In group fight rangers are useless too

Really? What makes you say that?

Toxsa.2701:

Against a zerg, ranger’s range AOEs are just too weak, too scarce, and punished too harshly by retaliation. Rangers are almost always useless in T1 zerg fight.

Really? Because when I’m in a zerg with my thief I wish I had 1500 range.

Toxsa.2701:

thieves are the most common roamers for ages

Please prove this. Don’t just say “everyone knows thieves are the most common”, no. I want evidence.

Toxsa.2701:

Good thieves have huge advantage against power ranger

And power rangers have their own advantages against thieves.

Jim Hunter.6821:

No you are complaining about being hit by a channeled skill that was activated before you were in stealth

You still haven’t explained why rapid fire should follow in stealth.

Jim Hunter.6821:

It’s a whirl finisher that grants stability and reflects projectiles from all professions. You are by no means required to run it but if you keep complaining about dying to ranged attacks when you have a skill that’s main purpose is defense against ranged attacks….

It’s main purpose is not to defend against ranged attacks. It’s main purpose is AoE damage and has ranged protection as a bonus. You made no counterarguments to any of my points, I shall reprint them here for your convenience:
1. You mean that I should be required to run an certain elite in order to properly counter a single ability of a single weaponset of a single class?
2. It’s not even a good counter: its a 90s CD elite protecting against a skill with a 10/8s CD.
3. it’s pretty bad against most other builds. It’s basically a “Kill me! I can’t protect myself!” kind of thing against most other builds that don’t have projectiles as a main source of damage.

choovanski.5462:

well considering you refuse to dodge any of the skill or slot dagger storm to fight rangers it is a L2P issue.

At what point did I say that I refused to dodge?

As for dagger storm, I have already stated my arguments that dagger storm is a bad counter above.

choovanski.5462:

also, you know pistol 4 interrupts rapid fire right? you can just use that on them and not have to stealth.

Because a skill with 900 range will always be available to counter a skill with 1500 range.

Terrahero.9358:

Beta forums got deleted before launch.

I’m not calling you a liar but without evidence I have literally no reason to believe you.

Terrahero.9358:

Your arguments are opinions, and they are either Rapid Fire is overpowered or Stealth is underpowered.

I believe neither and I have never claimed either to be true: please quote me where said those things. Rapid Fire is not OP, rapid fire following through stealth is just a bad mechanic. I do not believe that stealth is underpowered.

Fat Disgrace.4275:

Been reading a since my last post and 1 guy claims that dagger storm is worthless in a “real”?? Team fight. Ds is far from worthless as you put it, it’s pretty strong I mean an 8 second duration of reflecting all projectiles, crippling foes and bounces twice How is that worthless? Sometimes it’s a pretty good distraction “look at me spinning in front of you” ! also what good are you to a team fight if you are dead in the first few seconds From a ranger when you have more then enough tools to deal with them

Maybe I’m just biased, but in my experiences another thief using dagger storm is a bad idea because I will always immediately steal+CnD+backstab and right after that the thief is either down, almost down, or running away: he cannot defend himself while using dagger storm. I have never come across a thief that I found to use dagger storm effectively in a small team fight.

Toxsa.2701:

Good D/P thieves pre-stack stealth 24/7 before engaging in any battle. If you see them coming, they’re not good thieves. Those are ones that don’t even know how to use the shorten version of heart-seeker to spam leap finisher on smoke field. Unfortunately most thieves are that bad.

What? If you see a thief coming they’re bad thieves? Thieves don’t just go around running stealth with 100% uptime. You only stealth if you suspect an enemy nearby or if you see one and stealth. What you think constitutes a “good thief” is not possible, and I have never met a thief who does such a thing. Thieves are not invisible ghosts who wander the map and always get a complete surprise attack.

Toxsa.2701:

They can stack up to 15+ seconds, and keep on stacking up stealth if they want to

This can only realistically be done with shadow refuge. Stop exaggerating.

Toxsa.2701:

And for WvW roaming, thieves number are like 5 times more than other classes.

First, you cannot prove that claim.
Second, in my own experience I find rangers to be much more common that thieves; anecdotes don’t prove anything.

And glass thief is probably more risky than glass ranger. Ranger has the luxury of being able to (at least sometimes) sit in the back or use height advantage or hard to reach terrain from 1500 range to pew pew people from a distance and are actually most effective this way; in group fights this has the added benefit of having other people in front of you to protect you. Glass thief always has to go melee to be effective: their ranged damage is much less than ranger and they only have 900 range.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Archon.6481:

What?

So, “Any seasoned Thief can see what’s wrong with the OP’s suggestion.” = “this is not how you make suggestions.”?

Umm, no. Those two sentences have no relation to each other. The first sentence is clearly an appeal to experience: that only experienced players would understand why this is bad.

No, that’s you jumping to conclusion. The statement means what exactly as it is written.

Just look through this thread and you’ll read the responses coming from seasoned Thieves — then compare that to the OP’s. It’s really that simple.

Please explain how I jumping to conclusions. I have explained myself and justified it and you provide me with nothing but the claim that I jumped to conclusions? No, prove me wrong. As far as I can see those sentences have no logical connection and you must do more than just say “you’re jumping to conclusions”: you must explain how I am jumping with conclusions.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Just look through this thread and you’ll read the responses coming from seasoned Thieves — then compare that to the OP’s. It’s really that simple.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

I’m sure that the OP knows that it is bad that’s why he used the mesmer’s GM as his reasoning — and that reason isn’t good enough.

And I agree. But the OP’s logic being bad doesn’t mean his suggestion is bad. Note: I am not saying that I agree with the OP’s opinion, I’m neutral on the subject, I am only saying that your dismissal of the OP is unfair.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Any suggestion without supports is bad. Unless you can justify why it is good — it’s bad.

No, any suggestion without support is neutral unless it can be proven good or bad, or there is reason to believe it to be good or bad. Many things work like this in real life as well: people are generally considered to morally neutral unless there is reason to believe they have good or bad morals. Not the best example but I think it works.

Let’s say that OP makes suggestion X and suggestion X is a good idea, but the OP does not justify it. By your own logic, the suggestion is bad because the OP did not justify it. Do you see the problem with this logic? The suggestion is good, it only looks bad (to you). Even though you may be right to be suspect of the OP’s idea because he didn’t justify it, the suggestion is actually good, and your claims that it is bad on the basis of lack of OP justification is not valid; it should be neutrally viewed unless a reason is given to see it one way or the other.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Archon.6481:

“My statement is expressing that the OP’s opinion is lacking support.”: This statement implies that the suggestion can be good, but lacks substantiation.

Exactly!

“Any suggestion without supports is bad.” But you agree that the OP’s statement can be good, but lacks substantiation. This is not possible.

Using the above analogy of suggestion X: The suggestion is bad by your standards, but can be proven to be good? Does this mean that the suggestion will always be bad or that it is bad until proven to be good? If the former then you are being illogical: the suggestion is good so it cannot forever be bad, it is only your own perception that it’s bad. If the latter then your logic is unfair, as it treats all good ideas as bad for the sole reason as lacking an immediate justification. It makes far more sense to treat all ideas as neutral unless given a reason to believe otherwise.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

If history had taught us anything, when ArenaNet buff something, they severely nerf something else — just look at what happen to iniatives and opportunist.

While that might be a trend that doesn’t mean that it will always happen.

choovanski.5462:

you wont take skills to counter whats killing you, and you wont dodge it.

I never said that. I said that the counters were not adequate to justify the mechanic.

choovanski.5462:

your idea of counterplay is demanding nerfs on the forums

Demanding a badly designed mechanic to be changed is not the same thing as demanding a nerf. When a thief demands that last refuge be changed they are essentially asking for buffs, yet no one complains about this because it is widely accepted that last refuge is a badly designed mechanic that should be changed. The idea of changing channeled skills is in a similar category: it is badly designed and should be changed. This is not demanding a nerf, this is demanding a fix that happens to nerf rangers as a side effect. Fixing last refuge is a fix to a bad mechanic that happens to buff thief as a side effect.

choovanski.5462:

bet this guy has never seen the shadow step steal combos dang dude you play thief and can’t close 1500

I actually do use this (including against rangers), but this doesn’t do anything to change that channeled skills following in stealth is bad.

Prysin.8542:

snip

I never said that rangers were OP or that I have difficulties fighting rangers. I have only said that channeled skills following through stealth is a poor design. Now please actually read what I have said before making a fool of yourself by jumping to conclusions.

zinkz.7045:

You have offered nothing but equivocation and whining due to your inability to play.

Please do tell where I have equivocated.

You don’t seem to understand what ad hominem means. I accuse you of ad hominem, then you go and make an ad hominem remark?

ad hominem
1. directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining
Source: Oxford Dictionaries

ad hominem
1. appealing to one’s prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one’s intellect or reason
2. attacking an opponent’s character than than answering his argument.
Source: dictionary.com

Saying that my “whining” is due to my “inability to play” is an ad hominem remark. Now please refrain from making these types of remarks in the future.

zinkz.7045:

game mechanics do not follow some strict “logical” code, which is why your entire argument is simply fallacious.

I have never claimed that it did. I have explained this several times already and I will do so again because you don’t seem to listen:

“Again, i meant mechanics logic. As in: this skill was designed with this in mind.”
“When I said “logic”, i meant the reasoning behind skill design and balance, not realism and science.”
“Now next please read between the lines and realize that I did not mean fantasy logic when i said logic.”

Especially the 2nd one, I repeat it again for emphasis:
“When I said “logic”, i meant the reasoning behind skill design and balance, not realism and science.”
Example: Thief does not have weapon cooldowns because they have the initiative mechanic, which makes cooldowns unnecessary. <—— that is what I meant by logic.

Terrahero.9358:

Where it was explained that this [channeled skills following in stealth] was a deliberate design choice

Please source.

Terrahero.9358:

Working as Intented.

Even if this is true, this doesn’t change my argument. If backstab did 100k damage and anet says that it is “working as intended”, that doesn’t change that backstab would be incredibly OP. (Note: I am not saying that rapid fire is OP)

Jim Hunter.6821:

When you are stealthed they have nothing to target, you are virtually immune to projectiles at that point.

Ironic because my argument is that you’re not immune to projectiles in stealth because rapid fire follows.

Jim Hunter.6821:

And how is dagger storm worthless? Seems to me a skill that removes a weakness from your build is worth having

You mean that I should be required to run an certain elite in order to properly counter a single ability of a single weaponset of a single class? It’s not even a good counter: its a 90s CD elite protecting against a skill with a 10/8s CD. And it’s pretty bad against most other builds. It’s basically a “Kill me! I can’t protect myself!” kind of thing against most other builds that don’t have projectiles as a main source of damage. When I see an enemy thief do this I immediately open on them because they can’t defend themselves unless they cancel dagger storm.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Any seasoned Thief can see what’s wrong with the OP’s suggestion.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

The statement simply means is that, this is not how you make suggestions.

What?

So, “Any seasoned Thief can see what’s wrong with the OP’s suggestion.” = “this is not how you make suggestions.”?

Umm, no. Those two sentences have no relation to each other. The first sentence is clearly an appeal to experience: that only experienced players would understand why this is bad.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

In fact, I am demanding more of his opinion to support his suggestion.

You can do so without being so hostile to the OP.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Archon.6481:

And the non-existence information about why you think it will not break the Thief is evidence enough that you have not thought about this thoroughly.

This is another appeal to experience.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Yours is jumping to conclusion.

Well I reread the above and realized that it wasn’t an appeal to experience, but more of an unsubstantiated assertion. My apologies. However, you seem very sure that this idea is bad for thief, yet you still have not supported this other than claiming that it “will break the thief”, which is actually a reworded version of the original claim that it’s a bad idea.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

If you really gave yourself enough time to think about this, you’ll soon realize why this is not a good suggestion.

My statement is expressing that the OP’s opinion is lacking support.

“you’ll soon realize why this is not a good suggestion”: this statement implies that the suggestion is definitely bad

“My statement is expressing that the OP’s opinion is lacking support.”: This statement implies that the suggestion can be good, but lacks substantiation.

These two statements have incompatible conclusions: if the idea is definitely bad then it cannot be good, thus substantiation would be irrelevant as it cannot be proven to be good. Idk what it is you’re trying to say, nor do I think that this is an indicator that you’re wrong, but please carefully articulate your position so that it does not create ambiguities for you to prevaricate with and create confusion.

Jim Hunter.6821:

Archon.6481:

Jim Hunter.6821:

What you are complaining about is that even though you know that channeled skills track stealth targets if they are activated before you stealth (since they have worked that way for the entire history of this game) you still don’t have the common sense to dodge, interrupt, reflect, etc.

How, pray tell, do you think I should handle rapid fire once the ranger starts shooting then as a thief?

I literally gave you 3 options right there….
Every time you post it becomes that much clearer why you are having problems with rapid fire.

Dodge? Dodge is .75s long and if I double dodge that’s 1.5s. Rapid fire lasts 2.5 seconds. That 1 second will still take a respectable chunk of my health and they are still at 1500 range free to auto attack me.

Reflect with what? You mean that elite that’s worthless for any real group fight? Or should I pray I find a warrior to steal from?

Interrupt them at 1500 range? Even if I’m closer or use shadowstep they often times have rampage as one active.

The options you gave me are not realistic. Dodge leaves you incredibly vulnerable because, well, now you’re out of dodges and still at a distance. Reflect requires you to equip a worthless elite and its on a 90s CD (and you think that’s a viable counter lol), and interrupt relies entirely on being within range to begin with. And even then, it’s probably a waste of ini to interrupt unless it’s at the very start of the cast.

And I’m not having problems with rapid fire. Following through stealth is just a dumb and broken mechanic.

zinkz.7045:

you’ve offered absolutely zero of substance, and as for what I honestly think I’ve already stated it.

I have offered my argument for why rapid fire or any other channeled skills shouldn’t follow in stealth. You however, have responded with nothing but ad hominem and equivocation.

zinkz.7045:

Oh so you are a developer for Anet now, so you know how channelled skills were intended to work, oh wait you aren’t, and again are just confusing your unsubstantiated opinion, with fact.

Nice strawman. I meant that rapid fire requires a target in order to work. When an ability requires a target in order to work, then surely it would make sense that the entire ability should require a target to work right? I never claimed to be an anet developer and was merely providing a paradox of the skill requiring a target only partway through it’s use.

zinkz.7045:

There is no paradox or contradiction, game mechanics don’t follow “logic”, we’ve already established that,

Really? Where? Did you really prove it or are you just confusing your unsubstantiated opinion with fact?

zinkz.7045:

that channelled skills tracking the target make no sense to you is irrelevant.

You thinking that it does make sense is irrelevant?

Jim Hunter.6821:

What you are complaining about is that even though you know that channeled skills track stealth targets if they are activated before you stealth (since they have worked that way for the entire history of this game) you still don’t have the common sense to dodge, interrupt, reflect, etc.

How, pray tell, do you think I should handle rapid fire once the ranger starts shooting then as a thief?

Jim Hunter.6821:

I understand how that can be frustrating for you. It’s like John Wayne said, “Life’s hard. It’s even harder when you’re stupid.”

Well, you’re stupid too? Seriously, grow up kid.

zinkz.7045:

Archon.6481:

Now next please read between the lines and realize that I did not mean fantasy logic when i said logic.

‘Read between the lines’, LOL reading between the lines all I see is you came out with a nonsense argument trying to justify why rapid fire shouldn’t follow in stealth because it isn’t “logical” and now you are backtracking because you didn’t think it through properly and consider that virtually nothing about the combat is “logical”, so it was a dumb argument to make.

Archon.6481:

I agree that the logic of a fantasy game has nothing to do with with combat mechanics or balance of the game. I never said that it did.

Not to mention straight up lying through your teeth, I quote “I agree that the logic of a fantasy game has nothing to do with with combat mechanics or balance of the game. I never said that it did.”, really pretty pathetic.

I really didn’t mean that. If anything you’re being a little rude for refusing to admit that you misinterpreted my argument. I mean seriously. Do you honestly think I would’ve tried to give an argument based on lore? I’m assuming that you have a hard time understanding idioms as well? Now unless you can contribute to this discussion instead of giving ad hominem then please just go away because you’re aren’t adding anything to this discussion by insulting me.

zinkz.7045:

Not to mention straight up lying through your teeth, I quote “Logically, it makes no sense why am a ability based on aiming should be able to pinpoint track someone while their target is invisible. Because this is illogical, the burden of proof as to why channeled skills should follow in stealth falls to you.”, really pretty pathetic.

Again, i meant mechanics logic. As in: this skill was designed with this in mind.

Rapid fire was meant to have a target in order for it to properly work. When a thief stealths, rapid fire still continues to fire. This creates a paradox where the action contradicts the intent.

Toxsa.2701:

Ok, let’s make a deal.
Now RF can’t track you in stealth, but instead, it turns into a charge shot, that gathers all damage in one arrow. It takes 1 second to charge the attack, just like kill-shot Fair now right?

Do you think that we rangers even like RF being a channel skill? I rather it be like kill-shot.

No.

This does nothing to solve the problem of tracking in stealth.

zinkz.7045:

Archon.6481:

zinkz.7045:

I don’t need to justify anything, I’m not the one trying to justify one skill on “logic” or “lore” you are, logic or lore have absolutely nothing to do with it, as shown by the examples I gave that you conveniently ignored as they show how ludicrous your argument is, we’ve had people who can’t play whine about channeled skills before, guess what, nothing changed, it is a counter to stealth that provides some balance, in a game where stealth has very few, learn to play.

What examples are you talking about? You never countered anything I said.

The examples I provided in my post that demonstrate how “logic” has nothing to do with game mechanics, such as it is not logical that thief, ranger, etc can carry around an infinite supply of arrows in their quiver, it is not logical that when you are slashed by a sword you stop bleeding after a few seconds, it is not logical that when you are killed you come back to life seconds later and so on.

The “logic” of your silly roleplaying fantasies have nothing to do with combat mechanics or the balance of the game.

I agree that the logic of a fantasy game has nothing to do with with combat mechanics or balance of the game. I never said that it did. I’ll quote myself because you clearly did not read.

Archon.6481:

You are again equivocating my statements. Stealth was clearly designed to be allowed to be used in broad daylight and clearly designed to be undetectable by wind, sound, etc. When I said “logic”, i meant the reasoning behind skill design and balance, not realism and science.

Now next please read between the lines and realize that I did not mean fantasy logic when i said logic.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Can you kindly point where I made an ad hom?

Sure.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Any seasoned Thief can see what’s wrong with the OP’s suggestion.

You said that a seasoned thief would understand why this is a bad idea, and because the OP does not, he is therefore not a seasoned thief. If he is not seasoned then he must be a new player who does not know what he is talking about. This is an appeal to experience, which means you are saying his argument is not valid because he does not have your desired experience threshold.

To use an analogy: I am a “seasoned thief”. I have ~1.7k hours as thief. If I were to say that I think the OP’s idea is a good idea, what would your argument be? You are excluding the OP’s opinion because you think he is new.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

And the non-existence information about why you think it will not break the Thief is evidence enough that you have not thought about this thoroughly.

This is another appeal to experience.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

If you really gave yourself enough time to think about this, you’ll soon realize why this is not a good suggestion.

Here you completely ignored the OP’s opinion and dismissed it bad without giving an argument as to why. That is an appeal to ridicule.

Toxsa.2701:

Nope. All channel skills works like that and you only want ranger to be the exception because it hurts your thief.
You’re the hypocritical one.

I actually think that all channel skills shouldn’t be able to do that. And it’s not because it hurts my thief, it’s because its a bad mechanic that shouldn’t exist.

Toxsa.2701:

Also complaining a “game mechanic” that’s been there for ages, applying to all classes, just so it favors your thief, that is what I called “thief favourism”.

First, changing the mechanic would also affect mesmers, engies, rangers (omg!), and actually every other class because they an be stealthed by someone else. Second, this is a personal attack against me, claiming that I have ulterior motives. That is not a real argument, that is ad hominem.

I could also just as easily accuse you of having “ranger favourism” (I think you mean “favoritism”). You’re defending a mechanic that clearly is to your benefit. Although other classes can use this mechanic to their benefit, like kill shot or magnet, ranger clearly has the most use of this broken mechanic against thieves. Therefore, you have “ranger favourism”, because it is within your best interests to allow this mechanic to exist.

And please, before anyone again misinterprets the above paragraph, I am satirizing his claim that I have “thief favourism”, and I am not accusing him of having ulterior motives, even though he might.

Toxsa.2701:

Also, I’m pretty sure most people will agree that stealth is a more broken mechanic than channel skills.

Balance is not a democracy.

Toxsa.2701:

If you want to argue me with logic, then I should be able to track stealth by sound, footprint, wind, grass movement and such in real life, why can’t I do so in GW2?

You are again equivocating my statements. Stealth was clearly designed to be allowed to be used in broad daylight and clearly designed to be undetectable by wind, sound, etc. When I said “logic”, i meant the reasoning behind skill design and balance, not realism and science.

zinkz.7045:

I don’t need to justify anything, I’m not the one trying to justify one skill on “logic” or “lore” you are, logic or lore have absolutely nothing to do with it, as shown by the examples I gave that you conveniently ignored as they show how ludicrous your argument is, we’ve had people who can’t play whine about channeled skills before, guess what, nothing changed, it is a counter to stealth that provides some balance, in a game where stealth has very few, learn to play.

What examples are you talking about? You never countered anything I said.

Toxsa.2701:

Archon.6481:

zinkz.7045:

Archon.6481:

Logically, it makes no sense why am a ability based on aiming should be able to pinpoint track someone while their target is invisible. Because this is illogical, the burden of proof as to why channeled skills should follow in stealth falls to you.

Also, stealth in this game is completely different to stealth from other games. You’re comparing apples to oranges.

LOL, because being able to “stealth” in full sight of someone, in broad daylight in an open space with no cover is perfectly logical…

Stop equivocating. That’s not what I meant. Stealth was clearly designed to be able to be used in broad daylight; it makes sense that it works that way. and FYI, lore-wise, stealth is magic, so it can be logically justified in an in game way also.

As for channeled skills, there is no clear reason why they can track in stealth: it’s not logical.

That is what I called double standard.
You try to justify your stealth being logical, so “channel” skill should logically finish their channel even if you go into stealth.

Yeah I know, you just want your candy, I know you just want ranger to be free loot bags, I know you just want easy mode, I know you just want thief dominating all classes, I get it. Thief is thief zzz.

Moving on.

Really? From my point of view you want thieves to be free loot bags for rangers by allowing a cheap and broken mechanic to exist.

zinkz.7045:

Archon.6481:

zinkz.7045:

Archon.6481:

Logically, it makes no sense why am a ability based on aiming should be able to pinpoint track someone while their target is invisible. Because this is illogical, the burden of proof as to why channeled skills should follow in stealth falls to you.

Also, stealth in this game is completely different to stealth from other games. You’re comparing apples to oranges.

LOL, because being able to “stealth” in full sight of someone, in broad daylight in an open space with no cover is perfectly logical…

Stop equivocating. That’s not what I meant. Stealth was clearly designed to be able to be used in broad daylight; it makes sense that it works that way. and FYI, lore-wise, stealth is magic, so it can be logically justified in an in game way also.

As for channeled skills, there is no clear reason why they can track in stealth: it’s not logical.

LOL, ‘lore-wise’, just pretend the same magic fairies that make stealth into invisibility give rangers magic powers when they fire their bow that lets them track “stealthy” foes.

Do you think it is logical that when someone is slashed by a sword they only bleed for a few seconds? Or that when your character dies they don’t actually die? Or that rangers/thieves never run out of arrows? Those are rhetorical by the way, as the answer is obviously they are not logical, but that is because game mechanics and balance, and your sort of “logic” do not mix.

Learn to dodge, interrupt, etc and stop making weak excuses for your failings with nonsense about “lore”.

Wow, what a strawman. The lore thing was not my argument, it was some extra information included at the end. My argument was that stealth was clearly designed to be used in broad daylight and it would be dumb if it couldn’t be. It makes sense that it works this way.

Channeled skills however, have no clear indication of why they should follow in stealth. They were clearly designed to be aimed at someone and require a target to be aimed at. Continuing to follow after the target disappeared creates a illogical paradox. Now it is up to you to justify why this strange paradox should exist.

zinkz.7045:

Archon.6481:

Logically, it makes no sense why am a ability based on aiming should be able to pinpoint track someone while their target is invisible. Because this is illogical, the burden of proof as to why channeled skills should follow in stealth falls to you.

Also, stealth in this game is completely different to stealth from other games. You’re comparing apples to oranges.

LOL, because being able to “stealth” in full sight of someone, in broad daylight in an open space with no cover is perfectly logical…

Stop equivocating. That’s not what I meant. Stealth was clearly designed to be able to be used in broad daylight; it makes sense that it works that way. and FYI, lore-wise, stealth is magic, so it can be logically justified in an in game way also.

As for channeled skills, there is no clear reason why they can track in stealth: it’s not logical.

Substance E.4852:

Archon.6481:

Toxsa.2701:

Archon.6481:

Toxsa.2701:

Archon.6481:

Toxsa.2701:

zzBlurryzz.7492:

The problem is you can still be hit by targeted skills after stealth,

The problem is on you. Ranger reacts faster than you and cast their RF BEFORE you enter stealth, deal with it. If you go to stealth sooner, he’ll lose target and couldn’t hit you.

The real problem is too many bad thieves rely too much on stealth as their “oh-kitten” bottom, and think going into stealth = invincible/ solving all problems.

L2P.

What? Are you aware that rapid Fire has an instant cast time? How do you expect the thief to stealth before the instant lock rapid fire? CnD has a half second cast time, and lol if you think d/p can stealth before he instant casts rapid fire.

Learn when to enter stealth and when to dodge, and when to dodge while in stealth…
Learn to count CD too…. Basically a L2P issue.

My point is too many thieves have the mentality of “I go into stealth = I’m safe”.

Wtf does learn to count CD mean?

It’s not a “stealth = safe” mentality. It’s that it makes NO SENSE why channeled attacks can follow someone while they’re in stealth. Even if you double dodge you will still get hit, and then you have no dodges for anything else.

What do you expect me to do? Blow all my intiative or use cooldowns every time I see a ranger in the distance? I don’t think you’ve ever actually played thief vs longbow ranger, or you would now how ridiculous a suggestion it is that to counter ranger rapid fire “learn when to enter stealth”.

Count CD of other opponent’s crucial skills like RF?
When RF is not ready, you can safely spike them. If you’re in melee range, you can cancel RF by roll through ranger/teleport to the back of ranger, and so on.
And yes, you should blow your initiative when you see RF, either to interrupt, dodge, and so on.

If all fails you, then go play that noobest build ever existed: Dire perplexity condition thief.

….none of this stuff is relevant because it ignores that rapid fire shouldn’t be allowed to follow someone in stealth.

According to whom?

Most games have at least some kind of caveat around “stealthing”. Be it moving slower, needing to stealth outside the attention of an enemy, things like being on fire or covered in jarate showing where you are etc. There’s always something to balance out the fact that you are now kittening invisible.

About the only downside to stealth in this game is it’s not “activate god mode” against channeled skills and apparently even that’s not enough.

Logically, it makes no sense why am a ability based on aiming should be able to pinpoint track someone while their target is invisible. Because this is illogical, the burden of proof as to why channeled skills should follow in stealth falls to you.

Also, stealth in this game is completely different to stealth from other games. You’re comparing apples to oranges.

Toxsa.2701:

Archon.6481:

Toxsa.2701:

Archon.6481:

Toxsa.2701:

zzBlurryzz.7492:

The problem is you can still be hit by targeted skills after stealth,

The problem is on you. Ranger reacts faster than you and cast their RF BEFORE you enter stealth, deal with it. If you go to stealth sooner, he’ll lose target and couldn’t hit you.

The real problem is too many bad thieves rely too much on stealth as their “oh-kitten” bottom, and think going into stealth = invincible/ solving all problems.

L2P.

What? Are you aware that rapid Fire has an instant cast time? How do you expect the thief to stealth before the instant lock rapid fire? CnD has a half second cast time, and lol if you think d/p can stealth before he instant casts rapid fire.

Learn when to enter stealth and when to dodge, and when to dodge while in stealth…
Learn to count CD too…. Basically a L2P issue.

My point is too many thieves have the mentality of “I go into stealth = I’m safe”.

Wtf does learn to count CD mean?

It’s not a “stealth = safe” mentality. It’s that it makes NO SENSE why channeled attacks can follow someone while they’re in stealth. Even if you double dodge you will still get hit, and then you have no dodges for anything else.

What do you expect me to do? Blow all my intiative or use cooldowns every time I see a ranger in the distance? I don’t think you’ve ever actually played thief vs longbow ranger, or you would now how ridiculous a suggestion it is that to counter ranger rapid fire “learn when to enter stealth”.

Count CD of other opponent’s crucial skills like RF?
When RF is not ready, you can safely spike them. If you’re in melee range, you can cancel RF by roll through ranger/teleport to the back of ranger, and so on.
And yes, you should blow your initiative when you see RF, either to interrupt, dodge, and so on.

If all fails you, then go play that noobest build ever existed: Dire perplexity condition thief.

….none of this stuff is relevant because it ignores that rapid fire shouldn’t be allowed to follow someone in stealth.

Toxsa.2701:

Archon.6481:

Toxsa.2701:

zzBlurryzz.7492:

The problem is you can still be hit by targeted skills after stealth,

The problem is on you. Ranger reacts faster than you and cast their RF BEFORE you enter stealth, deal with it. If you go to stealth sooner, he’ll lose target and couldn’t hit you.

The real problem is too many bad thieves rely too much on stealth as their “oh-kitten” bottom, and think going into stealth = invincible/ solving all problems.

L2P.

What? Are you aware that rapid Fire has an instant cast time? How do you expect the thief to stealth before the instant lock rapid fire? CnD has a half second cast time, and lol if you think d/p can stealth before he instant casts rapid fire.

Learn when to enter stealth and when to dodge, and when to dodge while in stealth…
Learn to count CD too…. Basically a L2P issue.

My point is too many thieves have the mentality of “I go into stealth = I’m safe”.

Wtf does learn to count CD mean?

It’s not a “stealth = safe” mentality. It’s that it makes NO SENSE why channeled attacks can follow someone while they’re in stealth. Even if you double dodge you will still get hit, and then you have no dodges for anything else.

What do you expect me to do? Blow all my intiative or use cooldowns every time I see a ranger in the distance? I don’t think you’ve ever actually played thief vs longbow ranger, or you would now how ridiculous a suggestion it is that to counter ranger rapid fire “learn when to enter stealth”.

Toxsa.2701:

zzBlurryzz.7492:

The problem is you can still be hit by targeted skills after stealth,

The problem is on you. Ranger reacts faster than you and cast their RF BEFORE you enter stealth, deal with it. If you go to stealth sooner, he’ll lose target and couldn’t hit you.

The real problem is too many bad thieves rely too much on stealth as their “oh-kitten” bottom, and think going into stealth = invincible/ solving all problems.

L2P.

What? Are you aware that rapid Fire has an instant cast time? How do you expect the thief to stealth before the instant lock rapid fire? CnD has a half second cast time, and lol if you think d/p can stealth before he instant casts rapid fire.

Aerathnor.8305:

Archon.6481:

ASP.8093:

What’s your alternative? Stand there and take it?

Again: the whole point of stealth, the big advantage of it, is to force your opponent to just guess.

You’re annoyed that it’s possible to guess right but you think it’s “skillful” or whatever when you get to freely punish them for guessing wrong? Or…?

I’m not annoyed that it’s possible to guess right. I’m annoyed that you think guessing right is a valid way to balance something.

We’ll other than timing the stealth and dodging when you think it will happen, the only counterplay that exists is to GTFO of the area with mobility skills.

Rewarding a dodge/block be revealing the thief is better than gutting stealth, unless you think there should be a tell when you’re about to backstab or that stealth should not be stackable.

I don’t want to gut thieves at all, just want to implement something that largely keeps the current mechanics in place while letting people counter it through a mixture of skill and luck.

Anyways, their not likely to change it in any meaningful way so we just have to accept that channeled abilities track through stealth and that blocking/dodging won’t reveal stealthed opponents.

This still doesn’t change that this suggestion is largely based on luck.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Gabriell.4856:

Read my prior post. That is my reason for making SoH baseline.

You mean this one?

Gabriell.4856:

When you compare Kleptomanic to 25% more daze, dps, confusion, and invul….making sleight of hand a base line trait seems justified.

That is not within the scope of reasonable only because this change will break the Thief profession. And the non-existence information about why you think it will not break the Thief is evidence enough that you have not thought about this thoroughly.

Not that I agree with SoH behind made baseline, but your ad hominem is getting annoying. You keep saying that what he’s suggesting is obviously bad and you’re using that as “evidence” that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. This is ad hominem and appeal to ridicule. If you’re not going to contribute to the discussion and just insult people then just please stop.

I wasn’t aware that Shortbow was a no brainer. I ditched it for being able to run d/d and d/p at the same time because I thought it gave more utility.

ASP.8093:

What’s your alternative? Stand there and take it?

Again: the whole point of stealth, the big advantage of it, is to force your opponent to just guess.

You’re annoyed that it’s possible to guess right but you think it’s “skillful” or whatever when you get to freely punish them for guessing wrong? Or…?

I’m not annoyed that it’s possible to guess right. I’m annoyed that you think guessing right is a valid way to balance something.

ASP.8093:

Archon.6481:

Your idea of fixing something that you think is broken with blind luck is hardly fair or balanced.

My idea? I just made a joke about subscribing to that other guy’s newsletter.

The idea that an opponent consciously deciding that now is a good time to dodge is “RNG” is silly. Do you also complain about RNG when someone guesses right and downs you with an AoE blast?

~

Also, let’s not forget the true purpose of this thread: to laugh at thieves who get owned by a single point-blank Rapid Fire because all they know how to do is combo and stealth. This is just a pointless distraction.

Let’s say I am in shadow refuge and someone decides to AoE it. That is essentially luck on whether or not they down me. Not entirely, but it plays a large role. I could easily have dodged at the exact moment of their AoE, but they have no way of knowing that.

Consciously making the decision to dodge against a thief in stealth is RNG. Against something like eviserate you have a clear indicator that now is a good time to dodge. Against kill shot you have a clear is indicator that now is a good time to dodge. When dodging vs a stealth thief there is no clear indicator of when a good time to dodge is. I have fought people who double dodged while I was in stealth. And you know what? I simply cloak and dagger’d him after stealth ended and backstabbed him. He had no indicator that I was going to backstab him (I didn’t) and went off of blind luck that I might backstab now, and I didn’t. This is pure luck and blind intuition. It’s dishonest to call this skillful.

Johje Holan.4607:

Archon.6481:

Johje Holan.4607:

zzBlurryzz.7492:

My proposed change is to actually make a change to thieves. Make it so when you stealth, targeted skills on you STOP hitting. Currently if they cast their rapid fire on you and you stealth, every shot of it will still hit you. WHY?!

I will agree to this change if you agree to the following change:

Get rid of all damage bonuses for attacking from stealth.

There are no damage bonuses for attacking from stealth.

Deal.

Skills: Backstab, Sneak Attack, Tactical Strike, Surprise Shot

Traits: Hidden Killer, Hidden Assassin

Stealth skills are an integral part of thief. That’s like removing ranger pets.
Hidden killer increases crit chance. You can crit in stealth without the trait.
Hidden assassins gives might. You can recieve might outside of stealth.

I don’t think you understand what “damage bonus” means

ASP.8093:

Archon.6481:

So your solution to counter stealth is blind luck?

Got it.

Hi. You’re complaining that it’s “blind luck” when a player dodges an attack they literally can’t see.

What kind of reply do you expect, besides “Duh?” and “Deal with it?”

Your idea of fixing something that you think is broken with blind luck is hardly fair or balanced.

How about we remove all armor ratings from thief and give him a 90% chance to evade damage?
How about we give eviscerate a random chance to miss?
How about we give kill shot a random chance to misfire?
How about we give grenades a random chance to blow up in your hand?
How about we give stealth a random chance to cause you to trip, revealing yourself?

All of these are equally bad ideas because they are entirely based on RNG. RNG should be used as little as possible in balance. The current implementation of dodging vs a stealthed thief is fine. I suggest you come up with a realistic idea for balancing stealth, because blind luck is not good for anyone.

ASP.8093:

If you take away your opponent’s ability to actually SEE you do anything, then, yeah, they’re going to have to “guess” and use a bit of “blind luck” to avoid your attacks. How else do you expect this to work, really?

This exact situation is what you signed up for when you picked thief.

So your solution to counter stealth is blind luck?

Got it.

Aerathnor.8305:

Archon.6481:

Aerathnor.8305:

Archon.6481:

Aerathnor.8305:

zzBlurryzz.7492:

You can play a ranger? I’m talking in WvW. Rangers currently are VERY tanky, long range, safe thieves. There is no risk in playing them. They have just as much burst and can easily beat a power build thief in second.

I find myself roaming on my D/D powerbuild thief and often coming across a ranger. Basilisk venom, backstab and nuke down to 20% health or so, only to be pushed away by their longbow and rapid fired to death. 20k damage from one skill that cant miss?

My proposed change is to actually make a change to thieves. Make it so when you stealth, targeted skills on you STOP hitting. Currently if they cast their rapid fire on you and you stealth, every shot of it will still hit you. WHY?!

Please do something, make thieves more useful then sharing venoms.

We’ll trade, when I block/evade your attack from stealth you get revealed and I lose my ability to RF you to death in stealth.

Both are cheesy mechanics that basically ruin counterplay.

Backstab would be far too hard to land with your changes; it would need to be buffed with something to compensate.

I’d be fine with it being unblockable from behind, block should not be an immunity. Evade would still cause the reveal as it would reward perfect timing on the evaders part.

It’s not really perfect timing so much as it is blind luck at guessing when in a 4 second timespan the thief decides to backstab.

Not necessarily, there certainly is a modicum of luck involved, but judging by the distance the thief went into stealth you can fairly reliably know how long it will take to reach you compared to time on their stealth and dodge fairly accurately.

If they extend their stealth you get to see the smoke ring and can start timing again and gage distance by the ring. Of course I’m talking about a D/P setup and the thief can get around that by using an alternate stealth source.

So there is some skilled timing and some luck involved in a dodge, not so much in pushing your block button without having to face the direction of the attack.

Fighting condi mesmers is boring. They basically have this revealed on evade thing because when they dodge they leave a clone. So if you backstabbing while they dodge then you backstab the clone.

These duels take far too long because it’s just a waiting game for dodges. Often times, I backstab hem and they dodge a fifth of a second after it lands. While here certainly is some skill involved in this it’s mostly just luck. I think your suggestion is good in theory, but in reality it’s just far too based upon luck.

Runewolf.8456:

I would agree that something akin to the treatment mesmers are getting should be tossed our way, sleight of hand though IMO should not be base line. However something like hidden killer (100% crit chance while stealthed) would be snazy since pretty much every power build for thieves needs it, this would leave some options open. where as SoH i feel would no open up new builds but just make current ones more powerful versus how is is as a GM trait which is a “sacrificial” decision through loosing some raw offensive power you get some CC to balance it out.

Ehhh, I think hidden killer as baseline would be too OP. I only run critical strikes for hidden killer and the crit damage, so I could basically run an additional trait line for free. It would also make Valkyrie and cavalier armor way too strong for thieves

Aerathnor.8305:

Archon.6481:

Aerathnor.8305:

zzBlurryzz.7492:

You can play a ranger? I’m talking in WvW. Rangers currently are VERY tanky, long range, safe thieves. There is no risk in playing them. They have just as much burst and can easily beat a power build thief in second.

I find myself roaming on my D/D powerbuild thief and often coming across a ranger. Basilisk venom, backstab and nuke down to 20% health or so, only to be pushed away by their longbow and rapid fired to death. 20k damage from one skill that cant miss?

My proposed change is to actually make a change to thieves. Make it so when you stealth, targeted skills on you STOP hitting. Currently if they cast their rapid fire on you and you stealth, every shot of it will still hit you. WHY?!

Please do something, make thieves more useful then sharing venoms.

We’ll trade, when I block/evade your attack from stealth you get revealed and I lose my ability to RF you to death in stealth.

Both are cheesy mechanics that basically ruin counterplay.

Backstab would be far too hard to land with your changes; it would need to be buffed with something to compensate.

I’d be fine with it being unblockable from behind, block should not be an immunity. Evade would still cause the reveal as it would reward perfect timing on the evaders part.

It’s not really perfect timing so much as it is blind luck at guessing when in a 4 second timespan the thief decides to backstab.

Aerathnor.8305:

zzBlurryzz.7492:

You can play a ranger? I’m talking in WvW. Rangers currently are VERY tanky, long range, safe thieves. There is no risk in playing them. They have just as much burst and can easily beat a power build thief in second.

I find myself roaming on my D/D powerbuild thief and often coming across a ranger. Basilisk venom, backstab and nuke down to 20% health or so, only to be pushed away by their longbow and rapid fired to death. 20k damage from one skill that cant miss?

My proposed change is to actually make a change to thieves. Make it so when you stealth, targeted skills on you STOP hitting. Currently if they cast their rapid fire on you and you stealth, every shot of it will still hit you. WHY?!

Please do something, make thieves more useful then sharing venoms.

We’ll trade, when I block/evade your attack from stealth you get revealed and I lose my ability to RF you to death in stealth.

Both are cheesy mechanics that basically ruin counterplay.

Backstab would be far too hard to land with your changes; it would need to be buffed with something to compensate.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

It would have been a better topic if the premise of the topic has backing of a very reasonable and applicable suggestion. Unfortunately, using “me too” to support your suggestion doesn’t really opens up a really good discussion.

If you really gave yourself enough time to think about this, you’ll soon realize why this is not a good suggestion.

I think the premise behind his suggestion is very clear: several traits (including a grandmaster) that were used in a popular mesmer build have become baseline. Considering that this will allow mesmers to run what is essentially half a build in addition to whatever they will run after these changes, should thief be granted similar baseline changes?

I think this a reasonable question. But you go and say that you think this would be better if it had the backing of a reasonable and applicable suggestion, yet you don’t justify yourself when you say this idea is obviously had.

Johje Holan.4607:

zzBlurryzz.7492:

My proposed change is to actually make a change to thieves. Make it so when you stealth, targeted skills on you STOP hitting. Currently if they cast their rapid fire on you and you stealth, every shot of it will still hit you. WHY?!

I will agree to this change if you agree to the following change:

Get rid of all damage bonuses for attacking from stealth.

There are no damage bonuses for attacking from stealth.

Deal.

glock.6590:

It looks like an L2p issue to me. I never used shadow arts so I dont know how it feels like but even then if you die to this trait , you should look into your own gameplay .

If you had actually died to this trait before, then you would know how frustrating it is. It is badly designed that can cause you to kill yourself. You shouldn’t have to monitor your health and then suddenly “stop attacking” just as you near 25% of your health just to avoid dying. Traits should not give you a death sentence.

In my experience there is no class that I cannot beat with my build. Some are definitely harder than other though. Condi builds are harder, specifically engie and Mesmer, but they’re not impossible. I would not recommend trying to do a glass build vs a backstab thief because it’s easier for a thief to burst you than it is for you to burst them. Low mobility builds have a harder time to kill thieves because they simply can’t catch up. Bunker guards can be annoying but their damage isn’t very good.

IMO, I find condi Mesmer to be the absolute hardest thing to fight IF thy are exceptionally skilled.

What are you thieves talking about? If GS + S/W warrior wants to run away you can’t really stop him. If he’s pure glass you might be able to kill him first, but if he’s a bunker and at high health he’ll eventually outrun you. Thieves will generally beat warriors in quick sprints, but not distance running.

Wow too many zergers here. Try roaming sometime

I have it opposite of you guys, sentry, dolyak and camps were some of the first I got. I didn’t like tower/keep achieves because I had to go out of my way to get those.

domo.4067:

lordkrall.7241:

I think the elitism comment was due to the: “People with higher ranks should get priority”. Which is more or less the definition of elitism. Giving people advantages due to them being “better”.

people with ranks 200+ are a lot less likely to be rally bots unlike a john doe with rank 5.

So bad players have no right to play the game they payed for because you don’t like it? I’m R68. 95% of that is from roaming. And after doing it as long as I have, rank 200s usually tend to be free kills.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Archon.6481:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

If you failed to kill a Thief, you failed to win a fight, therefore you don’t deserve a reward.

And why is that a problem? Warriors can disengage and run away faster than a Thief and they don’t even need stealth.

Again, what’s the problem with stealth?

Umm, no. Thieves can stealth + run (shadowstep if you want) in any direction they want. Many attacks are unusable against a stealthed thief, and many more are very difficult to use against the thief.

So the problem here is not stealth, rather it’s your inability to find them. I got it. Thanks.

Those problems do not apply to warriors running away. In fact, they can still be CC’d. Many CC options against thieves, even if they land, aren’t as effective because you dont know if they land (dodge in stealth), and usually don’t even know the thief’s exact location.

lol, have you tried to CC a running away Warrior before? Of course you have not. Otherwise you wouldn’t even post some thing like that. Let’s stay honest here and leave your speculations out of the discussion.

I have over 1000+ hrs in my Thief. I have seen first hand how each profession tuck their tails between their legs and run. I know what skills they use to run away.

So for you to say of Warriors, “they can still be CC’d”, is based on your naivete.

I have over 1k hours on my thief too? Even if I didn’t, it doesn’t make my argument invalid. Lets stop with the fallacies.

Warriors can be CC’d. The only time they can’t is when they have the -97% condition reduction and stability. Back when I roamed, I would always roam with another thief, sometimes 3. You won’t get away before you die to 3 glass cannon thieves. If you don’t have neither of those things then his shouldn’t even be a discussion.

I had many hours of personal experience that shows that you can infact CC warriors. I you cannot then they will die before they get away. If they’re tanky enough to survive me solo and run away, then I can ignore them because they’ll never kill me by themselves with the pitiful damage they do.

EDIT: Forgot this part
What’s your point with it being difficult to find stealthed characters? It accomplishes the same goals (running away) as the warrior, albeit easier and more reliable.

Victoitor.2917:

I built one against a thief we were trying to gank and he re-stealthed back much less than 30s after he was caught in it. All players there were: WTF?!?! Anyone know if it’s even working properly?

And it’s too expensive on badges and lacks heavily on mobility. We need other counters to stealth.

I once saw a ranger and he killed me from 10k range. All the player there were: WTF?!?! Anyone know if it’s even working properly?

Demonts.4593:

hey. im a rank 40 thief in spvp and i can tell you that your argument has flaws.
1. A burst build (which is what almost every d/p and d/d thief uses) really does not usually have enough stealth to get away from a fight.

2. In pvp when a thief stealths it is basically a 4v5 in the other teams favor for the stealth duration.

3. If you win a fight on point versus a thief and he stealths away. YOU WON BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE POINT.

as far as WvW goes i dont know but a perma stealth thief will not do much harm to u unless you are full glass. Even if you are just damage him when he reveals himself and when he stealthes then run. This is part of the L2P aspect. If he runs perma stealth just pressure him and ignore him cuz he wont do much damage. I understand how you want your rewards but thats just the way the mechanics are in that aspects. In teamfights perma stealth thieves are close to useless.

I used to play spvp (R30) and let me tell you how these arguments do not apply to WvW. I’m assuming a backstab build.

1. First off, i can tell you from firsthand experience that backstab thieves have more than enough stealth to run from a fight.

2. The thief’s job isn’t to stay in the fight, it’s to burst opponents quickly and finish them. He’s just a glass cannon that you can’t kill because of stealth.

3. There are no points in WvW fights, unless you count keeps/towers but those are zergs and thieves are irrelevant in that scenario. In a open world fight, I’m only there as a thief to kill you. Me stealthing does not inhibit my ability to kill you, nor do i lose a point for my server by doing so. I will permastealth when i deem it necessary in the fight.

Since you seem to only play spvp and wvw, you need to understand that thieves do far more damage in wvw with backstab builds than they do in spvp. You can see what i run in my sig. I still hit 7k backstabs on 3k armor. That’s not low damage. I’m not full glass either.

You’re just used to thieves relatively low damage in spvp even with full glass. In wvw, thieves don’t need to go full glass to do good damage.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

If you failed to kill a Thief, you failed to win a fight, therefore you don’t deserve a reward.

And why is that a problem? Warriors can disengage and run away faster than a Thief and they don’t even need stealth.

Again, what’s the problem with stealth?

Umm, no. Thieves can stealth + run (shadowstep if you want) in any direction they want. Many attacks are unusable against a stealthed thief, and many more are very difficult to use against the thief.

Those problems do not apply to warriors running away. In fact, they can still be CC’d. Many CC options against thieves, even if they land, aren’t as effective because you dont know if they land (dodge in stealth), and usually don’t even know the thief’s exact location.

Dark Catalyst.1028:

Archon.6481:

In wvw it’s a big deal. I’ve been in many, many fights where I won or lost by only a few hundred health.

I thought we were all supposed to be equal in any sort of PvP.

Are you new to this game? WvW uses ascended gear, therefore people with ascended > people without