Guild Wars 2

It appears I will not be picking up my ranger again any time soon, then.

Allie, I would like to humbly suggest that the dev team attempts to simply create an archer role in some other class, then, given time. Clearly the demand is there seeing as it’s a very large basis for why people want the pet stowed, and honestly, if that isn’t happening due to the developers’ vision, then something needs to be done to accommodate for it. Warrior Longbow and thief shortbow simply are inadequate alternatives.

I believe thief currently has one less weapon combination than most classes in the game (aside from elementalists due to attunements). Perhaps room could be made there for the possibility of longbow implementation? Simply, until the archer role is established, massive populations of players will be unsatisfied with gameplay for the game fails on all fronts to achieve accommodating for such a style of play. Ultimately, it’s ArenaNet’s responsibility for catering to such large demands and simply stating that entire forms of play options are not going to be allowed due to them not being within their vision is absurd and extremely unprofessional when backed by immense demand.

There should be no complementary classes, though, is what I’m saying.

All classes would need to have access to all of the elites, changing only in aesthetics.

If say for example class X is complemented by races A and B, but I want to play race D, why should I be at an inherent disadvantage? Keeping the racial abilities underpowered prevents this kind of stuff from happening and prevents such min-maxing at the cost of ruining player experience.

Again, I’m not saying the elites don’t deserve a buff/are not underpowered, I’m stating that in order to buff them, all classes require the same elite skill pool with the only difference being their appearance/flavor to keep the game balanced and fun for everyone.

I’d prefer them underwhelming, honestly, especially when it comes to WvW.

I’d much rather see my viability not be shot based upon which race I play combined with what class I choose.

That is, unless all characters received an equal equivalent to all racial skills for their own race. When it comes down to elites, balance needs to be much more heavily considered and done so without disrupting certain characters/classes. If all classes had their own aesthetic difference to a pool of elite skills which all performed the same way, then I would totally agree they would need to be buffed up by a bit.

Of course I support the notion as demonstrated here:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/balance/Collaborative-Development-Ranger-Profession/page/35#post3710750

Again, it’s not about buffing the pet-less ranger. It’s about alternative styles of play. Do I support pet buffs? Absolutely. But even if ranger becomes the most OP class in the game, I will not enjoy playing it until pets are gone, thus why I retired mine so long ago and vouch for such changes, because archers are my favorite class to play, and nothing else even comes close.

Also, this idea IS being taken seriously by ANet as it has now been officially forwarded to the development team as a valid strategy based upon a red response from the CDI thread after getting more feedback/debate about the issue.

Again, it’s not about buffs/viability, it’s about choice and having fun. Whether or not one out-shines the other is irrelevant as long as both are equally relevant..

Bran.7425:

DeceiverX.8361:

thefantasticg.3984:

DeceiverX.8361:

As I stated, if a BM-based ranger is capable of having the pet get such bonuses to remain equal with a non-pet ranger, I don’t see the inherent problem as then the damage values remain approximately the same. Mind you, the pet ranger is also capable of applying more stacks of vulnerability and debuffs to kill the boss faster and soak aggro.

I run signets on my ranger because RoA/Signet of the Wild + QZ and a well-timed Signet of the Hunt maximizes damage potential. And that’s exactly the point I present here: I run no utilities as it stands despite the condi meta in WvW just because that’s the kind of character I want to play. My strategy, even in dungeons, is to not get hit and use heals properly. Why should dedicated BM’s have simply inadequate pets/utility or dedicated archers suffer from ridiculous damage falloff? Simply giving players the option to pick a style is much better than telling them just to play spirit bunker and like it.

Pet can only apply those vul and other stacks if it actually lands the hits… which it frequently doesn’t even against other AI mobs (unless I’m tanking for the pet).

I’ll use s+wh with RoA+QZ since I don’t run the Beastmaster signet.

Against non-moving bosses? I don’t recall my pet ever missing one of those.

Against regular mobs, yea it might miss if you don’t play properly, but is a ranger’s pet’s ability to land opening strike imperative in general PvE mobs? It certainly shouldn’t be when debating dungeon viability. A beastmaster should be utilizing F1 for initating an attack before assigning his attack as well in order to maintain aggro on the pet and not himself, so the mob will not move as pets cannot attract aggro by themselves, thus Opening Strike will always hit. This is only not the case in WvW, and even then I’m not denying that pet AI needs a fix or an increased hitbox, but that simply Jon Peters publicly announced AI will never be fixed/reworked due to software/hardware limitations per the server-client model.

I do not see how this makes beastmaster builds any less viable in dungeons, which are really the only necessary aspects of PvE to consider since rangers are outright overpowered in general PvE due to the pets being able to take so much aggro and the mobs not moving around much.

I can get a video of a Ranger setting the pet on a target and then pulling the target off the pet by walking near-by (no other actions, no attacks, no skill use) and reproduce the effect numerous times.

Sure thing. I’m pretty sure this phenomenon is can be explained through player action combined with how aggro mechanics work, though.

misterdevious.6482:

DeceiverX.8361:

It’s just so anti-ranger, though. Locusts/Swarms are like the epitome of killing nature. That’s something which honestly belongs on a necromancer (and they already have Locust Swarm as a skill as well as another Insect-based skill).

1. The Ranger already has an insect theme incorporated in his sword skills.
2. The Ranger already has abilities to summon a flock of birds or a nest of snakes to attack.
3. Insects are pretty natural when removed from any nightmarish creepy-crawly associations.
4. In Everquest Druids had abilities like Stinging Swarm and Drones of Doom. In Magic the Gathering, Black and Green shared the insects, with Green having more options to spawn tons of bonus insect tokens (Living Hive for example).

Don’t get me wrong, insects are part of nature, I was just stating that locusts and insect swarms aren’t particularly close in theme. Yes, ranger sword #2 (and only 2) has much to do with insects, which is merely a bee sting. I don’t want to get in a heated argument regarding what’s thematically fitting or not based upon the visions of the class, but simply I wouldn’t put a locust swarm on the same level as a skill called Hornet Sting or Serpent Strike or a flock of birds just being a flock of birds.

Regarding MTG, G/B is a color combination associated with undeath, infection, noxious fumes, and plagues. Green also represents all that is nature – and often does so by demonstrating its deadly side via hydras, swarms of insects, fungus, etc., not a synergistic bond between man and nature. That would be much moreso G/W which is done so through lifelink (healing, based upon the proposed Warden class in the making of Gw2), youth and growth with animals through peaceful procreation in nature (populate mechanic) like beastmastery. G/B infect is pushing it far from the norm of nature when you consider most other maindeck infect cards which have more to do with death than life. But I digress. The topic at hand is rangers.

Frankly it has a lot less to do with the aesthetics of not having a pet as much as it does mechanics. A shield’s a cool idea, but it doesn’t help resolve the damage problems and only really benefits the NM/Tank spirit bunker builds we’re finding so potent now.

Strictly speaking, the suggestions asking for pet removal want more damage/more reliable damage, and pretty much nothing else.

thefantasticg.3984:

DeceiverX.8361:

As I stated, if a BM-based ranger is capable of having the pet get such bonuses to remain equal with a non-pet ranger, I don’t see the inherent problem as then the damage values remain approximately the same. Mind you, the pet ranger is also capable of applying more stacks of vulnerability and debuffs to kill the boss faster and soak aggro.

I run signets on my ranger because RoA/Signet of the Wild + QZ and a well-timed Signet of the Hunt maximizes damage potential. And that’s exactly the point I present here: I run no utilities as it stands despite the condi meta in WvW just because that’s the kind of character I want to play. My strategy, even in dungeons, is to not get hit and use heals properly. Why should dedicated BM’s have simply inadequate pets/utility or dedicated archers suffer from ridiculous damage falloff? Simply giving players the option to pick a style is much better than telling them just to play spirit bunker and like it.

Pet can only apply those vul and other stacks if it actually lands the hits… which it frequently doesn’t even against other AI mobs (unless I’m tanking for the pet).

I’ll use s+wh with RoA+QZ since I don’t run the Beastmaster signet.

Against non-moving bosses? I don’t recall my pet ever missing one of those.

Against regular mobs, yea it might miss if you don’t play properly, but is a ranger’s pet’s ability to land opening strike imperative in general PvE mobs? It certainly shouldn’t be when debating dungeon viability. A beastmaster should be utilizing F1 for initating an attack before assigning his attack as well in order to maintain aggro on the pet and not himself, so the mob will not move as pets cannot attract aggro by themselves, thus Opening Strike will always hit. This is only not the case in WvW, and even then I’m not denying that pet AI needs a fix or an increased hitbox, but that simply Jon Peters publicly announced AI will never be fixed/reworked due to software/hardware limitations per the server-client model.

I do not see how this makes beastmaster builds any less viable in dungeons, which are really the only necessary aspects of PvE to consider since rangers are outright overpowered in general PvE due to the pets being able to take so much aggro and the mobs not moving around much.

thefantasticg.3984:

DeceiverX.8361:

thefantasticg.3984:

DeceiverX.8361:

Zardul.3952:

i just wanted to add my opinion of the class. i myself have Mained Ranger. " 450 days played 1k+ hours"

Pets are the sole purpose of our issues. i had mentioned before hand about an " aura" for stowed pets ( search my forum history) couple months back.

the problem which i have now come to realise is that if this comes to pass. everyone will Stow there pet.

wouldnt it be better if the pet provided an aura regardless if it was stowed or not, but tone it down accordingly and keep it active through Death of the pet?

for example

Jaguar Aura = the ranger does 5% more damage and every 90seconds applys Stealth for 2 seconds
Dead Jaguar = Ranger does 3% more damage and every 60seconds applys Stealth for 4 seconds

Dead pet= Defensive aura

Alive pet = Offense Aura

I address some of these here, albeit we posted very close to each other :P

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/balance/Collaborative-Development-Ranger-Profession/page/35#post3710750

I think what needs to be addressed is not the fact that stowing the pet becomes a better alternative but efforts need to be made to simply make beastmaster builds more potent. Remember, if a ranger drops his pet, he should only be compensated in damage, not utility, which causes the class to lose almost all of its real utility prowess on the field in order to kill something. If beastmasters are made more potent on the battlefield, through the means of the discussed short-term invincibility skill, through better stat modification with the BM line, better synergy with Nature Magic/support roles, etc., then a given ranger will not need to decide so much on picking the more powerful build but simply picking one which they prefer to play. Rangers are often split between either loving pets/liking to play with the pet/summon dynamic, or absolutely hating them and just wanting an archer. Making both equally viable is critical and ultimately why this divide needs to happen; both cannot exist in the same build.

That bolded part is 100% fine by me. And, I’m not in either camp of loving pets or hating them and wanting an archer. I want a petless skermishing melee Ranger.

And I believe it’s something people are mistaking when considering such a change. Having no condi clear aside from heal, no buffs, no CC, no aggro soaking, no extra effects, etc. is extremely inhibitory. Thus, all that is necessary is an increase in damage to compensate for the lost hits/RoA might stacks and the offensive bonuses which Signet of the Beastmaster provides (thus why I suggest it should be replaced with pet stowing and removed from the game as a trait), causing all remaining real utility to be forgone for the sole purpose of dealing damage. It makes both builds equally useful with some added bonuses to the BM line and potentially even more favorable for BM’s as they can revive allies/assist elsewhere while the pet fights and deals damage.

In the end all PVE/Dungeons is about is doing as much damage as you can as fast as you can while actively mitigating any damage by doding/evading. So yeah, none of that utility, unless it provides a straight damage increase, is neccessary. Only for specific situations does one need to bring utility that Rangers have and that is stability. And if you know you’re going to need more condi cleansing you run the signet… And I don’t run Signet of the Beastmaster at all because in my experience the actives on the signets are bad. I usually run QZ, condi romving signet if I need it, frost spirit, muddy terrian, and something else that is of lesser importance. I don’t run any pet aiding utilities because they can’t avoid AOE so they end up dead anyway.

As I stated, if a BM-based ranger is capable of having the pet get such bonuses to remain equal with a non-pet ranger, I don’t see the inherent problem as then the damage values remain approximately the same. Mind you, the pet ranger is also capable of applying more stacks of vulnerability and debuffs to kill the boss faster and soak aggro.

I run signets on my ranger because RoA/Signet of the Wild + QZ and a well-timed Signet of the Hunt maximizes damage potential. And that’s exactly the point I present here: I run no utilities as it stands despite the condi meta in WvW just because that’s the kind of character I want to play. My strategy, even in dungeons, is to not get hit and use heals properly. Why should dedicated BM’s have simply inadequate pets/utility or dedicated archers suffer from ridiculous damage falloff? Simply giving players the option to pick a style is much better than telling them just to play spirit bunker and like it.

Dave Pare.2069:

misterdevious.6482:

How would the anti-pet people feel about a new pet family that worked more like a Locust Swarm chain skill? I’m writing up a proposal.

• F2 would summon the swarm aura around you to defend you and hit nearby foes.
• Hitting F2 again would send the swarm to deal consistent damage over time to your target.
• Hitting it again would return the swarm to you.
• It could not be targeted, killed, or named, instead it would gradually lose health over time and disappear.

That’s actually a very good idea, very “fresh” if I may say. I would allow the swarm to be hit like any other pet though.

We should think about your proposal misterdevious, extend it and make it more specific but this is a good start indeed!

It’s just so anti-ranger, though. Locusts/Swarms are like the epitome of killing nature. That’s something which honestly belongs on a necromancer (and they already have Locust Swarm as a skill as well as another Insect-based skill).

I don’t see what’s so wrong with simply giving the option to remove pets for bonuses to damage. Obviously those begging to keep their utility skills working without the pet are in the wrong as it would defeat the purpose, but looking at my proposal above, would those who appreciate pets not prefer to be able to explore that option further and also allow others to builds more heavily into a role they wish to play rather than some kind of weird beastmaster/warden/archer failed class hybrid that the ranger class as stated by ANet is?

thefantasticg.3984:

DeceiverX.8361:

Zardul.3952:

i just wanted to add my opinion of the class. i myself have Mained Ranger. " 450 days played 1k+ hours"

Pets are the sole purpose of our issues. i had mentioned before hand about an " aura" for stowed pets ( search my forum history) couple months back.

the problem which i have now come to realise is that if this comes to pass. everyone will Stow there pet.

wouldnt it be better if the pet provided an aura regardless if it was stowed or not, but tone it down accordingly and keep it active through Death of the pet?

for example

Jaguar Aura = the ranger does 5% more damage and every 90seconds applys Stealth for 2 seconds
Dead Jaguar = Ranger does 3% more damage and every 60seconds applys Stealth for 4 seconds

Dead pet= Defensive aura

Alive pet = Offense Aura

I address some of these here, albeit we posted very close to each other :P

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/balance/Collaborative-Development-Ranger-Profession/page/35#post3710750

I think what needs to be addressed is not the fact that stowing the pet becomes a better alternative but efforts need to be made to simply make beastmaster builds more potent. Remember, if a ranger drops his pet, he should only be compensated in damage, not utility, which causes the class to lose almost all of its real utility prowess on the field in order to kill something. If beastmasters are made more potent on the battlefield, through the means of the discussed short-term invincibility skill, through better stat modification with the BM line, better synergy with Nature Magic/support roles, etc., then a given ranger will not need to decide so much on picking the more powerful build but simply picking one which they prefer to play. Rangers are often split between either loving pets/liking to play with the pet/summon dynamic, or absolutely hating them and just wanting an archer. Making both equally viable is critical and ultimately why this divide needs to happen; both cannot exist in the same build.

That bolded part is 100% fine by me. And, I’m not in either camp of loving pets or hating them and wanting an archer. I want a petless skermishing melee Ranger.

And I believe it’s something people are mistaking when considering such a change. Having no condi clear aside from heal, no buffs, no CC, no aggro soaking, no extra effects, etc. is extremely inhibitory. Thus, all that is necessary is an increase in damage to compensate for the lost hits/RoA might stacks and the offensive bonuses which Signet of the Beastmaster provides (thus why I suggest it should be replaced with pet stowing and removed from the game as a trait), causing all remaining real utility to be forgone for the sole purpose of dealing damage. It makes both builds equally useful with some added bonuses to the BM line and potentially even more favorable for BM’s as they can revive allies/assist elsewhere while the pet fights and deals damage.

Zardul.3952:

i just wanted to add my opinion of the class. i myself have Mained Ranger. " 450 days played 1k+ hours"

Pets are the sole purpose of our issues. i had mentioned before hand about an " aura" for stowed pets ( search my forum history) couple months back.

the problem which i have now come to realise is that if this comes to pass. everyone will Stow there pet.

wouldnt it be better if the pet provided an aura regardless if it was stowed or not, but tone it down accordingly and keep it active through Death of the pet?

for example

Jaguar Aura = the ranger does 5% more damage and every 90seconds applys Stealth for 2 seconds
Dead Jaguar = Ranger does 3% more damage and every 60seconds applys Stealth for 4 seconds

Dead pet= Defensive aura

Alive pet = Offense Aura

I address some of these here, albeit we posted very close to each other :P

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/balance/Collaborative-Development-Ranger-Profession/page/35#post3710750

I think what needs to be addressed is not the fact that stowing the pet becomes a better alternative but efforts need to be made to simply make beastmaster builds more potent. Remember, if a ranger drops his pet, he should only be compensated in damage, not utility, which causes the class to lose almost all of its real utility prowess on the field in order to kill something. If beastmasters are made more potent on the battlefield, through the means of the discussed short-term invincibility skill, through better stat modification with the BM line, better synergy with Nature Magic/support roles, etc., then a given ranger will not need to decide so much on picking the more powerful build but simply picking one which they prefer to play. Rangers are often split between either loving pets/liking to play with the pet/summon dynamic, or absolutely hating them and just wanting an archer. Making both equally viable is critical and ultimately why this divide needs to happen; both cannot exist in the same build.

BEASTMASTERS
So if the pet is removed and rangers deal the damage equivalent as if having one now, what purpose is there in using the class mechanic if it’s not very reliable/functional?

The fix revolves around actually improving Beastmastery potency within the Beastmastery line.

Beastmastery traits require a redesign along the following principles:
- The pet should be the true threat with the ranger supporting it (If you’re gonna be a beastmaster, do it right, and have a pet capable of demonstrating its power). To do so, allow for heavy traiting to significantly increase the stats of the pet. As it stands, the bonuses from the Beastmastery tree are insignificant.
- Focus on support-oriented builds/skills/traits. Implement a trait which causes the pet and the character to be the source of a shout or AoE buff to increase buff spread throughout a party, allowing for longbow-poke support rangers, thus further increasing build diversity.
- Combine elements of spirits with pets. Allow for the pet to be more than what it is via heavy traiting in Beastmastery, Nature Magic, and Survival. Remove some of the pet dependency from the Power/precision lines and place these traits here and instead switch skills into the power/precision line such as Martial Mastery, Peak Strength, etc.

Major Skill/Trait Changes

-Remorseless/Signets of the Beastmaster: One of these needs a rework. Either Remorseless needs to be built into Opening Strike and a new Power skill provided to accommodate for pet builds exclusively, or Signets of the Beastmaster needs to be reworked/removed so that it is applied when the pet is stowed. As it stands, the decision is not only too difficult to make for most power/precision builds, but the class feels as though it is lacking when missing either of these skills.

- Move Peak Strength to Marksmanship XI

-Skirmishing and Wilderness survival themes changed; Traps belong in Survival and Shouts belong in Skirmishing.

- Remove/Edit XI and XII skills in Skirmishing as they are currently not worth using.

- Implement a new Elite skill for non-pet archers, reduce cooldown on Rampage as One to 100 seconds.

-Increase default Longbow and Harpoon Gun range by 300. Remove Eagle Eye (Power X).

Risks:
-Minor complaints regarding the lack of effectiveness of pets if not properly implemented, possible overpowering of rangers due to the lack of time spent developing such fixes/alterations.

-Pet phase-out in competitive environments. Resolved through examining ranger closely through the months after changes are made to tweak the pets to be equally viable and just as useful.

-Many people switching from Warrior and Thief classes to Ranger because the Ranger will now be a functional archer but more importantly a functional character. :P

Phenn.5167:

Honestly, this has become one of the more disappointing CDIs since the project began. I understand the devs are “reading through every post,” but the concept of collaboration necessitates, well, collaboration.

As many have already said, without any sort of direction from the devs (not just community orchestrators, but those who can actually make things happen for the Ranger), this thread devolves into a prettily-formatted wishlist—of which the Ranger subforum is already full.

Those posting here deserve:

• Feedback on their ideas—what part of the profession can be changed? What areas areas are a waste of time discussing for now?
• Open discussion about the state of the Ranger in the present iteration of the game—not some idyllic future conceptualization.
• Frank conversation about the stark differences between PvP and PvE and how “balance” in one dramatically affects the other.

Until true collaboration takes place here, I worry that the initiative is failing.

Of course, and trust me, you’re not the only one. In some regards, though, it’s at the very least an attempt to make things better. Clearly, the subforum in its entirety has been ignored, and apparently this thread means more than that, so we might as well just post and hope.

Thus I will continue my post/wish list albeit with low expectations.

GAME MODE: PvX

Overview:
One of many requests for allowing the pet to be stowed during combat for a bonus to damage throughput by the ranger alone to be equal to that of other classes’; some trait/skill changes.

Goal of Proposal:
The objective of the following will resolve many issues with the following current state of the ranger:
- Poor pet performance.
- Limited valid play styles.
- Deadlocking players into particular styles of play
- Undesirable dungeon partners/expulsion from parties for simply playing a ranger.
- Improper gear scaling/No room for improvement over the base game.
- Bad character flavor/limited Roleplaying potential.

Proposal Functionality:
ARCHERS
First and foremost, the largest and arguably most-demanded change to the ranger class regarding the option to remove pets from combat for a 30% increase in damage dealt by the ranger should be implemented. This fix resolves all of the above because:
1.) A pet cannot perform poorly if it is not in combat and the player is totally in control.
2.) Removing the pet effectively doubles the options regarding play styles in it of itself. A ranger with a longbow with a pet will be far different from a ranger with a longbow, thus increasing options.
3.) Players are no longer forced to use the class mechanic. Every other class in the game is not required to use theirs (aside from Thief Initiative, but that system does not detriment the thief and acts like a cooldown system unique to all classes); thieves can build without steal, mesmers do not need to shatter, warriors do not need or even often use adrenaline skills, engineers do not require extensive kit use, etc. Players become free to play with or without a pet based on preferred style.
4.) The ranger now becomes much more viable in dungeon runs, for he can now deal sufficient damage to match other classes and also provide solid aoe healing/condition clear through healing spring and vulnerability stacking.
5.) Since pets do not scale on gear, and ascended releases have drastically changed stats since release, a modifier to damage/attack when stowed allows for ranger to scale better and deal his proper damage.
6.) A ranger is forced into a pet identity. Players interested in RP’ing either must compensate (never a good thing) or pick another class, overall making all RP-based ranger characters have seemingly the same background/flavor to them.

Implementation Strategy/Why this works
Prevent pet stow/release to be toggled while in combat. This prevents rangers from building exclusively raw damage in both themselves and through pets to open with a power series of attacks while utilizing Rampage as One/utilities/pet skills and then stowing their pet to deal absurd amounts of damage. This coheres to the current vision for Rangers by allowing for the pets to retain their vital utility if not specialized into for damage, while forcing quick and smart decision-making for the ranger as to whether or not he should use a pet or not. This punishes rangers who are unprepared for an encounter but also allows them to gain distinct advantages when assessing a situation and planning around it beforehand, such as one would do with an animal companion – a strategy should be necessary before simply entering combat as to avoid killing one’s pet, etc.

Going to have to state that due to Aegis’s availability and high uptime I don’t think adding in revealed is a good idea. It’s already the single best hard counter to stab builds in the game, especially when you look at D/D.

D/P is a problem build as mentioned above due to the fact it can stealth on its own without needing CnD. Its abundant blind access and extremely easy stealth access make the build simply better than most of the other build combinations. D/D is very much a fair build for it’s countered almost exclusively by player skill and timing disregarding aegis spam, whereas D/P finds a lot more loopholes while still maintaining said damage throughput and added CC/blindness.

As someone mentioned, balancing these two builds is difficult due to the weapon skill mechanics. Hard to nerf the strong build and not nerf the fair one.

Depends on the policy agreed to in the Terms of Service. I understand many games, including a different one which I moderate for, have policies which will case permanent account suspension upon the first instance of using a third party program which on any level accesses or modifies game content in any way shape or form.

If the ToS dictates that a bot is to be banned permanently on the first offense, and he was indeed doing such a thing, then the penalties are correct as they stand. Bottom line is that the ToS is supposed to be read, and failing to do so and expecting other than what one expected were the contents of a legally-binding agreement is unfortunately the user’s fault and not company policy.

Frankly, I support the notion of permanent bans upon first offense. Having an enforcing a zero-tolerance policy removes a lot of player toxicity in the atmosphere and creates a sense of who’s in charge. Games which fail to do so often find themselves rampant with cheaters.

Your friend will be able to appeal the case to a GM through the support feature. While the first penalty for using illicit software may be a permanent ban, it is not necessarily something which can’t be re-investigated and revoked by a staff member. This happens more frequently than you might think due to potential system inadequacies, an incorrectly-filled form, typo, etc., and investigations normally don’t take very long, although it varies on support quality and the scope of the investigation.

Travlane.5948:

Kadin.2356:

Fun fact: the 10% less DPS is from a maxed out party, that means 25 might, 25 vuln, warr banners, frost spirit, and spotter. That will hardly have ANY impact on pvp and WvW.

Anyone got a source for this? I watched the live stream and all they said was it would around a 10% damage decrease for berserker wearing classes. They never said anything about buffs/stacks or anything line that. I’ve been attributing that interpretation to wishfull thinking but I could be wrong.

let me quote

“….. it is about a 10% reduction in dmg across the board….(all classes too)”

that isnt a reduction in high end or crit or zerk gear…. but dmg in totality.

So on a full-exotic character, say a thief, running 30 in precision/crit damage traits using all Berserker’s gear and Ruby Orbs on all armor and accessories, we see the following stats:
3020 power
56% crit chance
104% crit damage.
For the assassin’s set:
2685 power
71% critical chance
104% crit damage
So we’ll now calculate a sample damage output of 100 hits to accommodate for more precise measurements of critical damage with no sampling of damage per hit.
Berserker – Calculating overall DPS and calculating the reduction of ferocity:
[Critical hits] = (3020 * (1.04 + .50) * 56)
= 260444.8
[Non-critical hits] = 3020 * 44
= 132880
[260444.8 + 132880] = 393324.8
So a 10% reduction would be 39332.48 which is 15% of 260444.8, thus creating a 15% reduction in critical damage from ferocity.
Seeing as this 15% reduction is coming solely from ferocity, it is a constant we can apply towards assassin’s wearers:
Assassin – Calculating overall DPS and the percent reduction from ferocity:
[Critical hits] = (2685 * (1.04 + .5) * 71)
= 293557.9
[Non-critical hits] = 2685 * 29
= 77865
[293557.9 + 77865] = 371442.9 overall damage throughout without ferocity penalties.
So now we take the 15% reduction and apply it to critical hits to calculate the overall reduction in damage:
Critical change: 293557.9 * .85 = 249524.215
Add 77865
= 327389.215 overall
Now take a fraction of the overall reduction:
327389.215 / 371442.9 = 88% or still a 12% reduction in overall damage.

Thus a stab thief with a 100% critical hit rate from HK will see a 15% reduction in damage upfront with said further reductions.

Of course, this also compounds on the fact that Assassin’s users already deal strictly less DPS than Berserker wearers.
And of course, again, this is the light penalty interpretation. Ones which involve stat scaling like precision and have point thresholds prove to have this effect lean closer to 30% deficiency per critical strike.

Effectively what we’re seeing is stricter nerfs to precision builds than power builds.

Ergo berserker remains the best option despite the intentions being to nerf it the hardest of the sets.

I think it has more to do with implementation strategy and the social context more than whether or not the change has a significant effect on gameplay mechanics regarding accessibility to key merchants and services.

ANet could have avoided some flak by selling the airship pass earlier, taken it off the market, and then placed it back on due to the destruction of LA. It’s a superior service which could have attracted some customers before, and would reduce complaints/the possibility in public opinion that this was intended to be a money-grabber.

That said, I do not believe such changes are positive for the social community. For many players, such destruction effectively ended their “home” (I don’t think ANYONE is happy about the Kryta changes caused by this event chain, for the rolling foothills and centaur conflict which is supposed to be relevant in Human backstory is no longer relevent, the mobs difficult due to low-level condition-dealers, powerful bosses, etc.), not to mention just how critical LA plays into the personal story that I don’t believe it was a prime candidate for such destruction. Especially when there’s no form of LS defense or something (say again on Claw Island or other surrounding outposts) which would have allowed this to be preventable. Frankly, aside from interest in the Achievement points, aesthetic benefits and actual interest in the living story, there’s no incentive for players to actually care about it. Allowing players to have an incentive far beyond the scope of boasting their aesthetics and creating a sense of community unification at a cost if people were to fail would lead to significantly better participation and interest.

While the lack of convenience is there, it’s not so prominent to the point where performing errands becomes so much more difficult, but the implementation of the patch (and in my honest opinion, all of the LS elements) is blatantly poor in design.

Excalibur.9748:

it’s good, zerk meta needs to die

It’s funny, because of all the offensive gear sets now, berserker becomes the undisputed best choice regardless of how you argue it.

I haven’t had too many issues with survival, and I find that I usually end up beating thieves on my ranger much easier and more frequently than on my thief main. I think a lot of people underestimate as well-timed dodge, proper kiting techniques, skill conservation on longbow 3 and 4, knowing 2 is stealth-tracking, and utilizing bird blinds after the encounter begins.

Rangers’ naturally-higher base hp, impressive healing through regen, as well as burst heal and solid condi cleanse through spring make them resilient enough to eat the first part of a thief combo and dodge out of the stab and reset the fight. I find the ranger’s weakness is about its damage due to the unreliability of pets/no scaling/no burst skills and not so much being able to survive.

Rangers aren’t always the best roamers, however they work amazingly in large groups due to enemy incapability of getting close. I think that’s also equally worth noting.

Yep. A lot of people seem to be overlooking this.

Yay for illogical nerfs.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/balance/Ferocity-doesn-t-nerf-berserker-builds/first

Skill cap is higher on thief, but consequently also is the peak performance.

Burnfall’s just a hater who’s been killed by a few thieves a little too much and refuses to counterplay/L2P/do anything but QQ on the forums, so don’t take his word on anything :P

Eh. The build seems alright, but I believe mine functions a little better.

The DPS is still bad, though, when compared to guard/thief/war/necro/mesmer.

http://gw2skills.net/editor/?fMAQFATjEVR2JWCWsWCg1DC7bwWBO5MOkRvgBkA-jECBYLAUBAJPFRjtNoIasKkYKXRV7SI2erIa1SBExyI-w

I’d wait. I’m personally waiting on all forms of ascended/legendary/major gear choices until after the upcoming patch. With the additional major nerf to crit damage via ferocity (hopefully you’ve seen the math), all crit builds might lose their viability in general.

csquirrelrun.3108:

Just want to check that this is actually the thread in which to post CDI feedback for the Ranger and Fractals etc or if each topic will be getting its own thread.

The initial post seemed more like an announcement for such a thread, but I haven’t seen any yet.

I assume this is it as Ms. Murdock stated to keep such discussion on this thread relevant to said topics.

Playtime: Post-level 80 approximately 75% WvW, 25% PvE, 0% PvP.

Most-played class: Thief

The ranger struggles across the board in PvE/WvW due to several mechanical problems which plague the class. I will focus mostly on the most disputed topic regarding the class, the Longbow Archer concept, for the rest of the class appears relatively balanced.

The issue which inhibits the success of rangers solely relies on the burden which is the class mechanic: The pet.

Pets are a nice idea, and have been proven to be a very valid class concept in the MMO genre. The problem lies in GW2’s implementation of the pet.

The ranger, as admitted by the developers in “The Making of Guild Wars 2” is a culmination of failed classes: Archer, Warden, and Beastmaster. While combining these is a good idea logically due to flavor reasons as opposed to other classes, the Ranger class is really the only class which successfully fills the role of the Archer in GW2. Simply, bow/longbow are not viable weapon sets due to a resounding number of gap-closing skills all classes possess, the lack of escapes the ranger has, and the pet’s damage throughput and unreliability negatively affect a given archer-based ranger drastically.

Combined with poor pet AI, impossible-to-implement speed/action increases, etc. as admitted by other staff members like Jon Peters, the ranger not only faces less diversity in play styles, but also suffers from what is actually known and admitted by the developers as being an outright broken mechanic which can only be “fixed” by increasing raw stat values.

Ultimately, rangers should be able to choose, as per many other classes based upon their mechanics, whether or not they wish to utilize their class mechanic (the pet), and should not take extreme penalties in attempting to not do so.

To solve such problems, pets need to become OPTIONAL, and players should receive a bonus to their damage values if the pet is stored. Pets should not be allowed to be stored/summoned in combat as to prevent bonus damage juggling with pet aggro in PvE as well as pet DPS/abilities. The ranger should know to enter a fight prepared with a goal in mind. Notice I did not regard heal or utility bonuses. Simply doubling the effects or applying them to the ranger exclusively would be overpowered and render the pet useless and only burdensome. Pets should apply utility, such as mob aggro management and the ability to hit other targets/apply conditions, etc., not be an agent of damage to the extent they are now.

Thus, the trait lines also need extensive rework. Fewer traits outside of the Beastmastery and Nature Magic should be exclusive to pet mechanisms and/or more traits should be applicable only to the ranger with the pet stowed, possibly slightly compensating for such losses in utility.

The beastmastery line should have more potent GrandMaster tier pet benefits and should possibly detract from solo-archer style gameplay as to prevent players from running builds which capitalize on high damage from both pets AND players.

Remorseless/Signet of the Beastmaster need to be reworked exclusively. As it stands, a power/crit ranger would require both of these skills to be considered somewhat viable. Either remorseless needs to be added onto the 25-point trait effects such that signet of the beastmaster is an option for signet builds running power/DPS with another power trait functioning for other builds, or Signet of the Beastmaster needs to be removed entirely and signets should simply apply to either the pet if it is out, or the ranger if the pet is stowed. Because of this exclusivity, signets subsequently need to be buffed.

Rangers then also need another ultimate skill, for Rampage as One is the only viable one for power/crit builds using pets. RoA’s dependency on the pet’s attacks is simply poor design, and immobilize proves very ineffective in WvW or AOE-based encounters due to their easy destruction, as well as requiring very close proximity to the foe (600 range).

Rapid Shot also needs a change, for the DPS it grants has been proven multiple times to be strictly lower than that of attacking regularly, even when taking into account vulnerability stacking.

It wasn’t feminine before. It was over-exaggerated cutesy bordering on pathetic schoolgirl.

Been playing exclusively humans since beta.

The new one looks much better in my eyes. Less helpless-little-girl and more of someone who is actually trying to make an effort to kick some kittens.

Bazzoong.7145:

FLiP.7680:

Protection on CnD? Yeah, that would be awesome for P/D condi thieves

But no, seriously, this will break D/D builds.

One point is to make CnD useful for non-power/crit builds not just P/D also S/D would profit.

D/D would not be broken the damage will just be moved a bit, even the one-shot signet build will still work as it does now since that one is overkill anyway, if you eat the full Mug CnD BS combo with my suggestion in wvw you`d still be KITTENED (yeah I typed that out).

It already is, though. High-uptime stealth is a win for any build on a #5. It might not be a feature for other builds, but it’s stil a very good skill. Nerfing it doesn’t help the builds that don’t rely on it; it just hurts the builds that do.

Mug doesn’t need a reduction. It already doesn’t hit for a ton of damage and has a long cooldown comparatively as it’s tied to steal.

These would totally kill d/d thieves which are already considered fair/“meh” builds while it would buff the builds more commonly complained about such as s/d or force people into playing d/p heartseeker which nobody likes fighting against to remain competitive even in the WvW scene.

I find its usefulness by far superior to Dagger storm’s just because it allows you to take better utilities. Strictly speaking, Dagger Storm’s cooldown is far too long and the effects far too mediocre given the condi/melee meta to justify it.

For the cooldown, I believe Basilisk is fine as it is as an engage skill. Applying weapon poison shouldn’t be instant-cast-capable. For the cooldown, the skill is pretty solid.

I think thieves just need a more diverse pool of elite skills that have actual effects on gameplay. Dagger storm is far too unreliable and overall not very useful while Basilisk only really works in some situations on some builds.

“Insane mobility?” Warriors, rangers, and eles have better access to mobility, strictly speaking. If a thief backs away, you should pursue him. He’s resetting the fight because he can’t win otherwise. To let him do so or to then blow cooldowns if he does is asking for death.

Stealth is accessible only if you use utilities for it outside of d/p and x/d sets. HiS is used so universally only because it’s the best heal and condi clear, not just because of stealth. Frankly, I’d love to run four signets on my signet build and play without stealth, but highest burst heal + condi clear is strictly better than the other spells for this slot.

@OP:
Even as a thief I support the idea. it allows for some means of skilled counterplay/pseudo-tracking and requires thieves to really get out of the way if they wish to reset a fight. Would also solve a lot of QQ and makes more sense from a combat/simulation perspective.

Carighan.6758:

That is true, and I wasn’t talking much about Thieves as they are in GW2 right now, just about how an Assassin (the concept of a stealth class in a MMORPG) works in general.

And yes I am aware that it’s a rock/paper/scissors model, but you subscribe to that with stealth. Stealth’s underlying idea as a video game mechanic is the trade-off, giving up straight fighting chance for guaranteed or near-guaranteed victory if having the initiative, and then basically guaranteeing it.
As a result of it being difficult to re-acquire afterwards, you then automatically specialize into hunting a single target.

This was more directly visible in older games where you could only stealth out of combat, and hence would automatically start disadvantaged against any foe after the first (whom you can overpower).

Is it a good idea? Sure is.
Might just not be what players want. But then, I think sPvPers want a very different thing here. In fights above solo/duo, plain 1-to-1 balance actually leads to imbalance in groups. It’s odd, but things don’t add up linearly. Anyhow the thing is that in a larger team you need imbalance, strengths and weaknesses to promote good play and most importantly fun play.

Take TF2 as an example here. Played at pro-level for a long time, the classes are insanely imbalanced. Some classes nearly auto-win against other classes. Yet when you pit team against team, things are very very balanced.

And that’s the balance you need to aim for in PvE and WvW. Because while you could balance 1v1, it’d lead to fights which aren’t fun to play, and not even balanced, once people stop fighting in smallscale battles.

Precisely, which is why the thief complaints in this thread are neither justified nor helpful to the game. They excel in 1v1. The class is made for it for crying out loud.

I see two very different complaints here:
-Sword being too strong in sPvP
-Stealth being too strong as a mechanic.

Neither are simply pointing towards nerfing burst damage. If sword/dagger is too strong due to combined burst/evade, then nerf THAT damage. If stealth is proving too difficult, discuss how that can be changed, not about how they deal too much damage in general.

Thief players do not want to facetank combat situations. That’s the whole purpose of playing the class and the role they wish to fulfill. This is also why the complaints are not justified; in 1v1 scenarios, they can reset the fight as any class can, ready up again, and then have back at it. In WvW/GvG, thieves are almost sitting ducks which just wait for a zerg to break up after losing and pick off the remaining stragglers.

One can also not equate sPvP and WvW. The class balance/build order and damage values are FAR different. I highly doubt your warriors are hitting 17k Arcing Arrows in sPvP, your necros being invincible tank machines no matter what build, and mesmers being arguably the single best class for WvW.

The sPvP problem regarding thef viability/mesmer non-viability is the meta. The designated role currently is a roamer with high burst to kill squishies/stragglers. Thief simply does this better because that’s what thief does. It cannot, however, take on the role of any other class.

And many thief players are totally okay with this. We’re harshly restricted in what we can do, but in what we can do well, we excel in. To simply demand this be taken away or replaced with a totally different style of play by reducing damage across the board is absurd to many of us and makes no logical sense. This is especially applicable to D/D which by almost all players is considered a totally balanced build.

Was a post made about how backstab should be nerfed and the rest of d/d d/p skills buffed. As a D/D stab player, going to have to disagree with this notion on the basis that I play the build for the sole purpose of burst via stab damage.

I love the rest of the utility this set provides, notably the evades on 3, 4 for a cripple/AoE, 5 for CnD/stealth, and heartseeker is just a good engage skill.

Some people like to play burst builds, so forcing people out of this position is just kind of insulting to demand for without consent of players who do. I’d love to see more build variety, but the problem lies in that the other builds simply do not perform in the sPvP meta not because a given build works better, but because the meta is shaped a certain way which asks for qualities which are done well via a stab/burst thief.

A combination of the metagame due to desired play strategy and simply meta-role builds of other classes put the other thief builds in less desirable positions. This also contributes to why mesmers are not as desireable in the scheme of things. I think those other classes are what need to be examined first before we can simply ask for nerfs or changes to given playstyles.

Einlanzer.1627:

Leviathan.9850:

Engi Flamethrower kit. Such a sad weapon when it could be good.

Also, Warrior Longbow – even though it’s effective situationally, the #1 skill is pathetic (it needs a dramatic reduction to its aftercast), which makes it really clunky and feeble in general usage.

To be fair, some of the skills on longbow are particularly strong for the warrior, and the skill in its entirety SHOULD feel clunky seeing as you’re a heavy using a longbow trying to shoot more arrows than rangers and thieves while also lighting them ablaze. :\

It still does more damage than ranger longbow, though. Consequently, ranger longbow/non-pet power/precision builds need more attention to begin with.

Both thief and ele could use more, honestly.

Would be nice to see ele have the ability to focus on an attunement with a given weapon as a primary means of fighting and switching into the other attunements for desired utility effects. Of course, that’s asking or immense class rework that we all know well ANet will never do because the only implementations regarding classes are “low-hanging fruit” fixes despite the fact these are often caused by larger, looming problems.

It would, however, be nice to see offhand sword or longbow. Longbow would likely resolve more overall issues seeing as it would address the archer community’s problems, for it would fix a major problem with the ranger playstyle in a low-hanging fruit fix (woah), but it would also give thieves a means of longer-range combat for WvW’s sake in regards to tower offense/defense. The fact we can no longer hit players except when spamming cluster bomb/gas at max range is kind of disappointing.

Both would work well for flavor, too, seeing as offhand sword would work well with the whole pirate/swashbuckler theme the armor presents, and bows are both quiet and mobile.

Swagg.9236:

DeceiverX.8361:

The real problem is permastealth or stealth continuity.

While stealth is indeed a problem in and of itself, front-loading huge amounts of damage onto every Thief skill is probably its biggest sin. Even without stealth, it’s tough to deal with a thief because of its constant instant-cast abilities, teleports, blind spam, evasion spam all combined with high damage on every attack. The whole class is a mess of issues that must be dealt with carefully.

This whole paragraph is just factually wrong.

I’m sorry, where is this front-loading occurring? Last I checked, the powerful burst skills the thief has are backstab and pistol whip. I’ve already clarified why backstab is justified, seeing as it is also less bursty than the aforementioned skills/builds, and of course, it’s so easy to counter with proper character pivoting, which the others again cannot be countered by. And pistol whip isn’t front-loaded with damage at all. It’s such a pathetically scrubby skill that the only people who die to this are either just strictly bad players or ones who got caught with no utilities, heals, impairment breakers, and low health, a mix which under any circumstances is justified with being killed by any class.

Instant-cast abilities? Like you mean the initiative resource mechanic for no cooldowns or the fact that the utilities have no cast animation/time? Initiative is supposed to not have cooldowns, hence the resource pool, and the lack of casting time exists for all classes depending on the type of utility skill used.

Teleports? Okay, I see steal. Unless that is, you want to sacrifice your utility skills, traits, and stealth to run two or three teleports, all of which are on 25+ second cooldowns.

Blind spam exists solely on pistol offhand. Again, this is a D/P and S/P problem only, which as it appears, you buffed S/P. If the blind spam is a problem, complain about that. This has nothing to do with stab damage throughput and ultimately by reducing it will force people out of D/D into D/P blindspam because that’s just about the only viable build you left them with to use.

Of course, D/P permastealth is also a problem because blind spam grants near permastealth. Oh looky, more problems with a given weapon and not the class itself, nor the damage it deals.

Evasion spam? I see a thief can get four consecutive dodges once every 30 seconds or so. You said combat should be legible through the use of dodges and mitigation, right? Well, as it stands, the thief has no mitigation, and thus must also occupy a utility slot to have more dodges. Even building acrobatics doesn’t yield dodge spamming but simply a faster endurance regeneration speed effect. How about instead of crying about a thief dodging your hits, you play such a strategy by blowing the thief up after he consumes such dodges, or toss AoE’s which are located at the end of his dodge frames, funnel his positioning elsewhere, etc.? Again, if they’re so predictable, why is this a problem?

High damage on every attack? Sorry, more incorrect statements. Thief DPS is strictly lower than most of the other class’s when you run the numbers. Ultimately I think you’re mistaking getting scrubbed by heartseeker noobs or getting gibbed by thieves happily running 11k hp with 30/30/x/x/x builds in berserker gear who blow their utilities to focus you down.

Swagg.9236:

DeceiverX.8361:

Backstab builds in their entirety are used to blow up squishies and finish enemies at say 50% hp. Nobody should be killing another class at full health when beginning the fight at 50% hp.

Finishing a foe at 50% hp from stealth personifies poor combat legibility.

This game is founded on the principles that combat should be legible because there are no healers/damage-mitigation classes constantly monitoring hp bars to make sure nobody gets vaporized in an instant. Legible combat provides an individual player a means of countering an opponent through the use of positioning, dodges or a damage mitigation skill (all of which typically have long cool-downs and limited durations).

So again, you’re stating that because a thief can burst on par with most other classes, but can do so because he gets to surprise the person, the damage needs to come down. Your problem again lies in permastealth/chain stealth which I just offered a very insightful fix to resolve.

You’re also stating that the thief class should not be capable of bursting a squishy who is at half health while also running a dedicated burst build and is inherently squishy as well. I don’t know if you even play thief, but I’m going to tell you now that thief burst isn’t very good in sPvP and even dedicated builds still under-perform the burst of a lot of other strictly better combat classes.

You also stated that the thief class is so predictable in your original post. If they’re so predictable, why is this burst such a bad thing and why is it not countered with skilled play?

Unless you’d like to also tell me that at 50% hp you expect to fight off the thief for an extended period of time but are content with ultimately losing every time due to the health difference. This makes no sense seeing as all you’re doing at this point is just being useless until you die/respawn, anyways and admitting there’s not inherent flaw with the class itself but that you shouldn’t be able to fight off a full hp target at half hp if both are of equal skill.

Swagg.9236:

DeceiverX.8361:

I still to this day don’t understand the backstab hate. Yes the damage is big, but it’s less than burst rangers, axe or longbow warriors, zerker guards, and shatter mesmers.

Meanwhile also remaining less survivable than all of those builds, requires positioning skills and resource management.

Thirty points into Trickery and [Infiltrator’s Signet] typically take most any “resource management” out of a Thief’s worries.

Furthermore, I’m already increasing Thief survivability and sustainability across the board. That’s why damage can afford to come down.

I’m sorry but giving us 50% more hp is going to accommodate for massive nerfs in every skill, burst damage reduction that as I already stated is not even the biggest burst damage, and of course adjust us into being a competitive class? I’m sorry but you’re absolutely incorrect here. I’d also like to point out that backstab builds that actually hurt, notably ones in sPvP, are full class cannon, and are played by people skilled enough to do well with glass cannon. All of the above builds which strictly have better burst damage have more survivability, teamfight utility, and are overall more impactful in a given fight than a thief. Your gripe is with stealth, not with damage.

I’d also like to point out that any build running 30 trickery is going to have pathetic damage throughput and shouldn’t be bursting people down even remotely well.

I still to this day don’t understand the backstab hate. Yes the damage is big, but it’s less than burst rangers, axe or longbow warriors, zerker guards, and shatter mesmers.

Meanwhile also remaining less survivable than all of those builds, requires positioning skills and resource management.

Backstab builds in their entirety are used to blow up squishies and finish enemies at say 50% hp. Nobody should be killing another class at full health when beginning the fight at 50% hp.

The real problem is permastealth or stealth continuity. I’d much rather see the following done to stealth to balance out its play much better:

Upon entering stealth, applies a debuff timer for what should be the duration of the stealth skill used. After this timer expires, the revealed debuff is applied to the thief both removing him from stealth and preventing him from entering stealth again until revealed expires.

This simply prevents thieves from running 20 seconds of consecutive stealth and appearing from nowhere and instead requires they initiate from a visible distance while also preventing chain-stealth escapes/mid-fight resets/engages while still giving them an edge in positioning every few moments on the battlefield with both engage and disengage possibilities.

It can’t be exploited while still keeping stealth a relevant and useful tool in the hands of skilled players.

All I see in this is more heartseeker spam and signet build nerfs across the board.

So no thank you.

spoj.9672:

Escadin.9482:

So yea, after some thinking, I couldn’t come up with a reason why the ferocity change should hit any precision based prefix harder than berserker. The math provided by Deceiver doesn’t really nail it for me.

Could somebody explain to me why this should be the case? (indepth math preferred)

Think of it logically. Best example is assassin gear. If you are trying to maximise dps and lets assume assassin and beserker are about equal at the moment. If you reduce the crit damage on both which has a greater loss in dps? Obviously it is the gear which relies on crits more. Beserker doesnt get hit as hard because power scales up your damage when critting or not critting. But for heavy precision gear the idea is too maximise crit chance to utilitize that crit damage as much as possible. With lower crit damage, maxing precision becomes much less beneficial compared to boosting power.

Essentially with lower crit damage, precision is weighted as less important and power remains unchanged.

Nike also explains it in this video: http://youtu.be/AYX4f5pehSU

Exactly this.

Not to mention of course that assassin’s gear specs already suffer from lower DPS throughputs than berserkers and will suffer moreso after such nerfs.

I think it’s because they want to secretly make all classes deal low-medium damage hits and have medium-high armor and health pools to draw out long fights.

Seeing as the past changes and the upcoming ones appear to be emphasizing the nerf of burst and buffing long, passive gameplay.

I’d like to just comment on Jack’s first statement as I did on another thread regarding a very similar subject.

When it comes to sPvP, mesmers and elementalists simply just do not perform in the roaming roles as well as thieves do. The drawback is that the thief in general is more vulnerable in any situation outside of 1v1, making its role EXCLUSIVELY for roaming.

The problem is not about the thief class but it is with the current metagame and some issues pertaining to mesmers and eles in sPvP.

While on the contrary, mesmers can hold a point and even aggress far better than thieves. Ultimately, mesmers shouldn’t be running backdoor roaming stealth builds on par with thieves seeing as that’s literally the niche role the class is designed to fulfill.

Thief, when compared in combat ability to other classes like guardian, engineer, warrior, and ranger, actually doesn’t have too much going on for it. Nothing’s inherently overpowered about the class so much as it is the lack of usefulness mesmers have in the current sPvP meta and the obvious underpoweredness of elementalists.

Ultimately, traveler runes need to be accessible in sPvP to make the mesmer more mobile and subsequently more viable. And of course, eles just need a rework so that the class can fulfill a chosen role if built for it instead of just being bad at everything and being required to run a particular build for semi-viability.

I’m going to ask players to yell about class power in another thread or making their own “warrior OP” threads in another section.

This is to discuss ferocity’s affects on gameplay and raise awareness. While solutions are always good, I would like more discussion about ferocity and less loudmouthing about x class being overpowered.

Thanks.

Exactly. Condis are weak when cleansed, but isn’t that the point? Condis are actually one of the few things in this game that are countered by builds and not by player skill.

Of course, this also means that condis counter builds which do not build to counter them. Condis are the WvW meta right now BECAUSE they can so easily be applied by multiple people and each person lacks a number of clears to remove all conditions from themself for an extended period of time. Because they’re so spammable and ignore toughness, builds are forced into hard-countering conditions because it’s the only way to deal with them.

So what simply needs to happen is allow per-player stacking on mobs/bosses to accommodate for the slower runs condi builds face, and all problems are solved. Simply, the ferocity change fails to actually accomplish any of the gameplay resolutions it is attempting to and makes gameplay worse for everyone not running condition damage.

Escadin.9482:

DeceiverX.8361:

Escadin.9482:

DeceiverX.8361:

The opposite. I’ll be speccing zerker gear now more than before seeing as the nerfs affect it less than every other crit damage set.

The 10% applies to berserkers. For the rest, the damage reduction is an upwards of 20-30%.

I’m curious where did you get that number?

ANet stated the overall DPS decrease will be about 10%.

The problem is that key word overall

One can evaluate this change on two assumptions:
Assume Ferocity scales similarly like precision in that it has a 21 point/1% ratio. Based on the current calculation and how gearing works, you’ll be looking at something like 30% less critical damage per critical hit if it is treated like a minor stat.

Or, one can evaluate the approximate losses overall and the current crit damage multiplier based on crit rate from berserker gear, causing that difference to equate to approximately 15% on the minimum number.

This means that PRECISION/Assassin gearset builds get shafted, seeing as they lose the modifier and already suffer from already lower base power. This of course also applies to the common valkyrie stab thief and other classes running fury/precision/crit chance builds.

By reducing the damage throughput on critical strikes by such a large margin, the ONLY viable option now is to move to berserker gear due to its inherent power and subset precision/ferocity stats.

It’s why this nerf makes absolutely no sense; it doesn’t just decrease crit damage by 10% or hinder berserker builds by 10%. It hits precision builds by 15-30%+ and forces everyone into berserker or tank roles.

And of course, this also gives a ton of thieves no home to due the inherent problems they face when building tankier roles outside of condition damage/permastealth.

And of course the side effects will be even more exclusive parties and an overall more toxic pug/lfg environment across the board, while wiping a lot of builds from WvW due to the inherent gear and base hp discrepancies between classes suffocating a lot of diversity beyond condition builds.

Simply put, this change is outright negative across the entire board.

I fail to understand the reason behind this. Is anet really that stupid or is it my fault? :/ I may have underestimated this patch, up until now I thought it leaves too many issues untouched – but it actually makes quite a few of them worse…
Perhaps it’s just my sense for balance and priority being completely different to their’s

Right, and at first I was merely a little bit upset with the fact I would be facing a slight damage reduction until I looked at the phrasing and numbers more closely.

The last few patches have demonstrated a real lack of understanding. Of all of the upcoming changes, this particular one is by far the most detrimental to gameplay as a whole and is extremely concerning. It’s particularly why I’m posting so much lately about this topic now: I want the messages near the top of the boards, because in the livestream, ANet stated these changes are coming strictly from forum feedback. Assuming they continue to pay attention, it’s absolutely critical they get the message about this change.

It’s not even that, though. The movement is strictly restricting players on build choice, while NOT opening any real opportunities elsewhere. Not only is build diversity and design going to be inhibited on top of deserved nerfs, but the compensation for classes building healing builds is almost non-existent, and of course, as mentioned, even if it were addressed, would be going against the vision ANet had at launch.

Metas should not be determined by class/stat changes, nor should they be by the company making the game, especially one that is trying so hard to makes its competitive scene relevant. Metas are established by players because they are effective win strategies. Companies should be searching for ways to make non-meta play viable against these win strategies, but not simply by forcing players out of relevance or capability via the current ones.

ANet’s vision was to allow players to play as they pleased. The problem is that many players LIKE to play a particular role at an extreme. I’m certainly in this boat, and have been since second grade when I started playing Runescape in 2002. I leveled specific skills that interested me all the way to the end just because I wanted my character to play a certain way, and continue to do so. I do so in Dungeons and Dragons locally, and also do so in every other game I play that gives me the slightest bit of choice.

While I’m all for trinity-busting, because honestly, it DOES make finding parties a more strenuous and exclusive task which only promotes toxicity in play, active damage mitigation, all classes having a heal and some form of defensive play option allow for us to not need the trinity as individuals to some extent. This doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea to let people take on such roles, though. Build diversity should be encouraged, and everyone plays at different levels. Yes, a full DPS party with good players can kill a boss strictly faster and more efficiently than one with a healer, a tank, and so on, however such a party requires immense levels of individual skill for a given operation to succeed, instead of breaking the roles down into an overall group effort. If each individual is so skilled to not die and perform at maximum consistently, then the reward of killing faster is deserved, unlike a party which has a more diverse composition that is more flexible and kills slower.

This thread is kind of funny in the context of things, though.

We’re discussing role identities based upon an existing meta in which the role of a mobile backdoor capper is being discussed. I’d like to ask those making accusations about thief being “overpowered” to take a look at every class’s description again, examine greater design philosophy, and then compare that to what role is trying to be fulfilled. Yup, looks like this “role” in sPvP is spot-on to what the thief was specifically designed to fill across all aspects of the game. Simply, a sneaky thief SHOULD be more sneaky than a sneaky mesmer. It isn’t the class being overpowered but the class doing its overall designed role better than a class which shares some elements.

Now, if a thief did a better job at facetanking and plowing throw enemies than warriors and guards, I’d concede this argument on the spot. Reality is that they simply do not.

Certain thief builds work very well in sPvP. Others do not. S/D is prevalent and pretty strong in the meta right now. Many of the other common builds found on thieves are simply lackluster in sPvP or outright bad. The irony is that these roles when compared to WvW and other content totally reverse.

Mesmers are not “viable” in sPvP due to a lack of mobility and condi cleanse. I think it has more to do with the former, honestly. That said, putting mesmers into such a position such that they could gain mobility at no expense would place them in a very precarious position in that they would only have one counter: conditions. Consequently, this would also escalate the class from not being a top-tier class in WvW on the level of warriors, but would simply makes the class THE BEST at every role in WvW.

Shatter builds do strictly more damage in every other area of the game than thieves except sPvP. Another very relevant problem which would have immense side effects outside of sPvP and would put thieves lower than they already are on the list in terms of viability elsewhere (hint: they’re third from the bottom at the moment).

So what appears to be the problem is both a combination of the metagame not letting mesmers by design fulfill the roles of certain players, not so much as the thief class being overpowered. Ultimately, what appears to be necessary is a meta shift or some slight compensation for mesmers to allow for a meta shift to happen and find both necessary and viable roles in sPvP. Like I said, thieves are abundant because they play the roamer role well; the problem lies in that this is the ONLY role they can properly maintain without having an immense skill advantage, in which case the argument is nullified to begin with.

And of course, the new class changes and crit damage adjustmnts are simply nerfing thieves everywhere they aren’t overpowered while letting such existing prevalence continue to exist, while not addressing the actual problems at hand.

So there’s nothing to actually cry about here regarding thieves, but asking for some form of mesmer compensation in sPvP. I suspect first asking for traveler runes in the sPvP vendors would be a good place to begin.

Thus further emphasizing my point about why this change is totally silly and acomplishes none of the goals ANet was trying to achieve while simply shafting people in WvW.

Agreed Dee. From a stab thief perspective, it makes more sense to run valk/zerk in PvP/WvW environments than it does soldier, especially because most pvp-baed damage is condi-based which ignores toughness. The valk offsets condis while similarly reduces the chances of death on taking burst impact, all while further increasing DPS values across the board.

Ultimately you shouldn’t be running a D/D stab thief in zergs, so EHP is kind of useless. Be a good roamer or simply get good at damage avoidance and all should be fine. I don’t even run a stealth thief and have few problems with the build I use when it comes down to survivability. Know when to pop signets, when to engage, and most importantly, know when to reset fights and run away.

For example, my personal burst build runs an effective power of 8094.11 before adding in the 15% damage modifier with an EHP of 15708. Frankly, I believe my build strictly works better than ones running solider gear with only ~6k effective power.

It has its merits. Ultimately I believe it’s to prevent skill combos from killing people instantly from up/fighting to dead and skipping the downed state. It also allows people to have a fighting chance to rally in such situations.

I’ve also been in a lot of PvE situations in which having multiple aggro/knockback etc. would force the character to ragdoll infinitely without such frames.

I wouldn’t also be surprised with Dee’s statement. Loading new skills and sending a message to the server may take a brief period of time, however I believe such frames exist for the purpose of utilizing the downed state feature to keep he battles a little more fair and making combinations take a little more skill and timing to execute.

While I can imagine it frustrating, and I personally have missed some pretty big downed-state hits in the past due to it, I don’t think it should be removed due to its oddly convenient bonuses which reward skilled play/combing in pvp situations and also preventing insta-deaths in some areas in PvE.