Please, give me a rational explanation why I should slot the Thumper Turret for the stun break tool belt skill, when that skill gets replaced by “detonate turret” the second I place the kitten thing.
That’s easy. You traited well so you have knockback on turret explosion and static discharge. You eat a long stun because you missed a dodge. It’s all right, happens to the best of us.
Next instant, you have knocked your enemy back, dealt damage from the explosion, dealt damage again from the static discharge, and can either break the stun and deal damage two more times or wait it out, since you just used a knockback.
Your stunbreaker knocks your opponent back and deals 3k-6k multiple target damage. What’s the problem, again? Oh, you also got 20% of your endurance back. I know you’re a PvEer more than a PvPer so let’s say you’re also standing on some combo fields (pretty likely if you’re stacked up on a boss or something). Boom—two blast finishers. On your stunbreak.
Seriously, turrets have been broken for a while but they’re about to become pretty good with the new targeting patch.
Translation; turrets and their effect on the tool belt is complete and utter, indefensible crap unless you heavily trait for a specific turret play style that by its very nature undermines the whole point of placing a turret in the first place.
That is the other reason I left the thief; the profession was only really viable if you made heavy use of steal, and that only worked if you traited heavily for the bonus effects of steal. That sort of thing really limits build diversity no matter if you want to admit it or not. At least the thief could say it was their profession’s primary mechanic that needed to be so heavily traited, engineers can’t say that.
Well, first of all, I would consider that playstyle an excellent utilization of turrets; they don’t have to be “drop and forget.” I would even argue that it’s better to have detonation as an important mechanic, since it encourages more proactive play.
Second, you have to trait heavily to get the maximum impact out of any build, in any class. Otherwise, what is the point of having traits at all?
i play a thief and I agree that stealth is poorly designed. it’s op’d to be able to remain stealthed the entire time while attacking. that’s while I don’t spec permastealth. it’s for easymode scrubs.
You keep using that word but I don’t think it means what you think it means.
I forget who originally linked this a month or so ago, but I would say your constant attacking of other thieves is a projection of what you are onto someone else.
It’s bad form to ask for feedback and then belittle or discount the feedback you do receive. Also, Stx did give you an opinion on traits: he said he wouldn’t choose Ricochet.
In my opinion, you’d be far better off with Combined Training (X) in the Deadly Arts line to help your Unload spam, instead of Sundering Strikes (VI). I’d also look at skills to benefit signets, since you’re running a signet build.
I think if they begin granting stealth detection to multiple classes, then Thieves are going to be buffed in some other substantial way. Stealth is a main survival mechanic, so if that becomes unreliable they will have to rely on evasion and/or teleportation.
But you need the other parts of the trinity just as much, if not more so. A team composed entirely of defending monks in FA would often lose simply because they had no means to kill the opposing team.
PvP in this game is much the same; you absolutely must have a certain amount of all parts of the new “trinity” Anet has come up with or you will fail, and certain professions are much more adept at these roles than others.
Removing the old trinity does nothing but create a game that is harder to balance from a PvP perspective. You only really gain something when you achieve a perfect level of balance, which is nigh impossible.
What you are saying is that role-requirements ruin games, but this was not exclusive to the gw1 monk, and it’s not even close to be fixed in gw2.
I never said that role requirements ruin games. I said that Monks are a crutch in gameplay, which is true. And you’re right that other roles are just as necessary; I said as much when I mentioned the 3-Monk group in RA. However, a DPS role can be filled by a variety of classes, including smiting Monks. A healing role is much more difficult to fill.
Removing the trinity can make balance more difficult, but to me that only means the gaming industry is more used to balancing around the trinity dynamic. It’s possible that, with time and the release of more games that lack the trinity, balancing will be equally smooth for both types of games. I am looking forward to that era of games.
My point is that, as Sunshine stated earlier, in Guild Wars your team was often crippled without a good healer. You’re quite right in saying that this was not true across all areas of Guild Wars, or under all circumstances. But, generally, it was true. Objectively, that means Monks “ruined” Guild wars as much as healing classes have “ruined” any other game.
Could you record a short video of this in action? I’m really interested to see how well it works.
So am I. I admit to being skeptical because I think Thieves aren’t the class to bunker with—at this point in time, anyways—but if you can do it successfully, I think it would be great fun. The surprise factor alone might make it a carnival.
GW1 had one of the best-executed healers that I’ve seen, and it didn’t even come close to ruining the game.
In Random Arena, pug groups often got one of two things: a group without any Monks, in which case players would often quit before a match could even get underway; or a group with 3 Monks, in which case players would often quit before a match could even get underway.
Monks were also a necessity in Fort Aspenwood, dungeons, and end-level PvE content. Even if this Monk was a Hero or a henchman, you had to have one to avoid a complete party wipe. In many cases, you had to have multiple Monks.
The class was well-executed, but it was still a crutch in the gameplay. The success of a group revolved often around whether or not you had a competent Monk.
“Not only is bunkering a complete opposite to that playstyle, but every other class can do it better.”
The point is I am a Thief, and I want to play Thief.
There’s a quote feature at the bottom of every post, which allows you to caption people like this. It’s the little arrow.
Right. But “bunker Thief,” is, at least right now, an oxymoron. And every other class can perform that function better and more easily.
“That being said, this build has the potential for a lot of survivability. However, your damage will be poor, likely poor even by bunker standards. "
Did you see Sigils on daggers? 1+1=2, you think it will be poor anyway? It works, ofc not with the current Power, it works with might
On your Cleric’s daggers? Yes, I did. But even a 100% critical chance will do disappointing damage with a 23% critical damage rating and 0 points in Critical Strikes. And as those crits are dependent upon weapon swap, by the time you can switch weapons again to deliver another critical Backstab, the player will likely have healed themselves.
I think that trying to create a bunker Thief is an interesting idea and could be fun in practice, but possibly very frustrating. In my mind, the entire Thief class is centered around guerilla warfare. Not only is bunkering a complete opposite to that playstyle, but every other class can do it better.
That being said, this build has the potential for a lot of survivability. However, your damage will be poor, likely poor even by bunker standards. Survivability will let you troll those 5-10 players zergs you want to solo, but if you don’t have enough damage to kill anyone, the inevitable conclusion of every engagement is that you will run or die.
As the game stand now, Elementalists have out-of-combat weapon swap. It just takes an extra 3-4 seconds to open the H panel and manually switch them.
Being able to do it by pressing the ` key would be slightly more convenient, but there’s a multitude of other problems with the class that I’d rather see them address.
I’m not sure why the Engineer kits and Elementalist attunements weren’t implemented more similarly in practice. As a designer, I would have found that more logical and easier for players to understand.
And I was under the impression that elixir builds were still best with one utility reserved for a kit.
Well sure, since kits give Engineers the diversity of skills outside of the main weaponset. This was actually the intent from the devs’ perspective very early on – that kits provided the multi-skill diversity implicit in other professions’ weapon set swaps.
Elixir builds without a kit in a slot would be like equipping signets/banners/etc and not switching between 2 weapon sets. As far as I have understood the class since I’ve been here, that’s WAI.
I see your point, but I think I have see kit-less elixir builds on the forums before. I could just be hallucinating, though. I am rather tired at the moment.
I’m also not as familiar with Engineer as the other classes I’ve played; my public school education isn’t enough qualification to understand it properly.
When I’ve run S/D in sPvP, I used a combination of Withdraw, Signet of Agility, and Shadow Return to cure conditions as needed. I didn’t think it was too terrible to manage.
No, they are not passive statistical buffs. If you narrow the terminology down enough, you can exclude anything to prove a point. Yet, as a friend says, if you only watch the finger, you won’t see it pointing at the moon and you shall miss out on all the moon’s wonder and glory.
So you’re suggestion we ignore an established pattern set forth by the developers, refuse to use it as a baseline for judgment, and use the wrong terminology all so that we can pretend something is what it objectively isn’t?
Perhaps I had an extra dose of stupid in my breakfast this morning, but you lost me, Arkham. I thought this was a general point about semantics, using comparisons with other classes as foundation.
No one is challenging your right to have an opinion. I’ve also played the game since betas, and I’ve played a S/D Thief as my main since the beginning—even back when it was considered bad, and my tournament group would mock me for not using a Backstab build. But I stubbornly stayed with it, because I enjoyed the aesthetics and playstyle.
In my opinion, the build is fine. It was weak before, from being nerfed multiple times as collateral damage in updates that were intended to nerf other builds. The boon stripping made it viable again.
I would consider kits one of the primary profession mechanics for Engineers, since they are unique to the class and are a core component of many Engineer builds.
dude if you dont’ see how this thief build is somewhat too strong then it’s your opinion and mine is that it’s too strong and even the devs agree otherwise they wouldn’t nerf it right? :>
ArenaNet has reversed or negated changes in the past.
First, I would to Thank You! Op for being an Honest Thief.
Second, I would like to Appreciate you for coming forward in revealing S/D Op mechanics.
Third I would like to Encourage more Bold thieves to continuing coming forward in revealing thief OP broken mechanics.
Fourth, the rest lies in Arena.net to either fix this class or continue stripping the Fun factor in Gw2 World in resulting in more committed players quitting the game.
My Verdict;
Guilty
End Favoritism
-Once and For All-
And bring back your Forefather Visions to Realty
—————————-Guild Wars———————————————
I’m rather amused by the implication that the Thief is shown “favoritism.” It seems to me that every time the class develops a competitive build, it gets almost religiously persecuted by other players and then nerfed sometime thereafter.
In my mind, I had a lot of problems compromising the idea of an Engineer with the innate natural qualities of Sylvari. That is, until I met a Sylvari standing on the parapet in one of the Charr fortresses (perhaps in the Blazeridge Steppes?) who explained the contradiction by saying that machines essentially work like a force of nature, or something to that effect.
I wish I remember more about the NPC and the exact dialogue she had, but I really loved that little bit of the game lore.
Balthazar: Fire
Dwayna: Air
Melandru: Earth
Grenth: Ice
Lyssa (Formerly Abbadon): Water
But I agree that I think of humans when Elementalists come up, sylvari coming in second. Their magic is flashy and wondrous, definitely something I can see humans and Sylvari appreciating
I forgot about Abbadon being the ye olde God of Water. But Grenth, as the God of Ice and Death, was the patron god of water Eles in the original Guild Wars. Water magic just included ice as part of the package.
If it’s moved over to Lyssa now, I think that’s rather weird and unnecessary in terms of lore, but I’m not a developer.
I have to say that humans make a lot of sense for elementalist, given the five True Gods and all that. Balthazar, Grenth, Dwayna, Melandru = fire, ice, water, earth. Not entirely sure which would fit air… maybe Lyssa? Dunno. The kittenin’ coffee is wearing off, so I’m sleepy. xD
Just my thought, though. Kinda fits, no?
Well, in terms of lore I’m relatively sure that Balthazar was the patron of fire Eles, Dwayna for air, Melandru for earth, and Grenth for water.
I think it is unlikely that Eles will get a regular option for any of the weapons they already have as conjures.
Also, I think certain weapons are strongly associated with different fantasy archetypes—bows, for instance, are usually paired with archers. It might be difficult to reimagine these weapons in a way that is unique to mages but still true to the “spirit” of the weapon.
Arrows made of fire, blah blah blah. Done before many times.
I was using a bow as an example. Also, “fire arrows” sounds like a rehash of traditional archer preparations. In my opinion, that really isn’t changing the weapon to fit the style of a nontraditional class, but I suppose it’s a difficult balance to strike.
I think the point remains that Eles are unlikely to get weapons they already receive in conjures. Otherwise, conjures would be rather pointless.
I think it is unlikely that Eles will get a regular option for any of the weapons they already have as conjures.
Also, I think certain weapons are strongly associated with different fantasy archetypes—bows, for instance, are usually paired with archers. It might be difficult to reimagine these weapons in a way that is unique to mages but still true to the “spirit” of the weapon.
There are other thief players right here who just said they can survive without stealth.
They = can
You = cant
I dont have to say anything else, everyone can clearly see the difference in skill level.
I think the point that raahk is trying to make is that stealth is one of the major—if not the major—survival mechanic for Thieves. It is used both offensively and defensively, and as group support with moves like Shadow Refuge.
A lot of of counters for stealth exist indirectly, within proactive play. Traps, wells, and other ground-based effects; aoe and/or condition damage; blocking; invulnerability; channeled skills (which continue to hit a thief after they have stealthed, revealing their position); shatter/chain burst; immobilize; daze; stun (or stunbreaks, as the case may be); and dodging—all of these can prevent stealth, down a Thief during stealth, and/or prevent a stealth spike. Adding more anti-stealth measures may end up crippling the class, particularly within the varieties of the Backstab meta.
Personally, I’m fine with the class being moved away from hinging on stealth—and I think this could be a good first step—but it does need compensation for it, as I stated in my earlier post in this thread.
Skills that apply “Revealed”
…What about stealthed characters getting a “semi-revealed” visual effect while standing on enemy’s water fields? This would open up space for a water trait that would do that. Likewise, Ranger’s Muddy Terrain could do the same.
I find that idea fascinating. Also, I think making stealth less of a get-out-of-jail-free card is fine, but I would like to see Thieves get compensated for the nerfing of their primary survival mechanic (and possibly a nerf of the entire Shadow Arts trait line). A revamp of venoms and traps would be a large step in the right direction. I’d also love to see more synergy with P/P, and perhaps other general buffs to Thief like higher endurance regen and access to block or invulnerability.
I think that halving the boon-stripping capacity of S/D in the same turn as a significant change to stealth is also going to really hurt some S/D thieves in PvP, and I think it might be better to make one of those changes before proceeding with the other.
If I recall correctly, S/D was originally nerfed hard as collateral damage when they were trying to nerf BS builds. Then it was buffed so that it was more viable.
I’m a little confused as to why people are suggesting High and Very High population servers, when the logic for using a low population server was explained earlier in the thread.
This is an interesting idea, though. At the very least it would be a fun outing.
