Guild Wars 2

Banewrath.5107:

Imagi.4561:

It’s possible that, if they ever do put them in, it will be different, and something easily accessible, like cultural armor and weapons. Maybe they could make it purchaseable with karma, since karma as a whole is relatively useless. That’s fine. And even though I think mounts are largely unnecessary, I’d probably get one. I love animals and enjoy having pets in games.

I already proposed mounts for gold, cultural mounts, and dungeon mounts. Did you read one of my previous posts or just come up with this now?

Actually, I used those examples because you had previously mentioned them.

Banewrath.5107:

Imagi.4561:

And you’re right, gem store items can technically be acquired with in-game gold, but the practicality of that is highly dependent on the cost of the item. Converting gold to gems doesn’t stretch very far. We don’t know if “poor people” would realistically be able to get it, because it hasn’t been instituted.

An average decent price for 100 gems is 5 gold. sometimes you can get more and sometimes less. the poor can easily afford it if they are willing to invest the time to get the gold for the gems. It also doesn`t have to buy an overnight buy. It could be something that people that have problems earning can work for. But I would imagine a standard ingame mount at a stable would cost around 5-10 gold. And a fancy gemshop mount would cost about 400-800 gems. which isn`t unreasonable for something that provides a function and will be used for the life of your character. Much like the harvest tools do. But I`m willing to bet if people can afford the tools, they will be able to get a fancy mount if they want one.

“If people can afford the tools” being the key phrase. Yes, it’s something that people can work towards if it is implemented that way, but then some people are setting a long-term goal for themselves that requires them to either wait a significant amount of time—getting left behind by other players in the interim—or farm gold, which is a different problem altogether.

You’re right that having speed-boost mounts only available in the cash shop doesn’t instantaneously make GW2 a pay-to-win game, but it’s a significant slide in that direction.

Banewrath.5107:

My question is simple…How exactly would that imbalance the game?…What would it actually matter?

I’ve actually answered this earlier on this page of the thread. If you ignored it, that’s fine, but I’m not going to repeat myself all day.

Banewrath.5107:

You also keep thinking that mounts are a cash shop only item. and even if they were they could still be acquired with ingame gold. So your pay to win argument is out the window. It`s not only people with jobs could afford the mount, arenanet made it so the poor people could get stuff too. So you would be able to afford one. There is no pay to win in this game.

It amuses me that you call me “thick,” but then make statements that I’ve already provided a counterpoint for, multiple times. At this point, the most likely institution for mounts is as a cash-shop only item. That’s pay-to-win, because it provides a distinct advantage to players who can afford to buy one.

It’s possible that, if they ever do put them in, it will be different, and something easily accessible, like cultural armor and weapons. Maybe they could make it purchaseable with karma, since karma as a whole is relatively useless. That’s fine. And even though I think mounts are largely unnecessary, I’d probably get one. I love animals and enjoy having pets in games.

And you’re right, gem store items can technically be acquired with in-game gold, but the practicality of that is highly dependent on the cost of the item. Converting gold to gems doesn’t stretch very far. We don’t know if “poor people” would realistically be able to get it, because it hasn’t been instituted.

Banewrath.5107:

I am going to ask you a question and I can already imagine the response I`m going to get but I wanna hear it from the horse mouth. If I had a mount and you did not. If you saw me run by you on one in malchors leap, how is that effecting or imbalancing anything? I ask this because I have asked this question numerous times in the past and not a single person has ever answered it. But I have a feeling you are the one to come with something pretty entertaining.

You’ll have to be more specific. My opinion, as I’ve previously stated, would vary greatly depending on what kind of mount we’re discussing and how it’s implemented.

The party utility for Thieves is mostly found in spammable blast finishers for Might stacks, and Shadow Refuge for an emergency res or moving the group past trash mobs.

Not to say that those can’t be valuable, but Eles can offer a variety of group buffs and combo fields, and can bring along conjures (which are enormously helpful in certain dungeon paths). I think they’re just generally more helpful.

Astralporing.1957:

It’s still possible they will introduce one in the second part of the event.

That would be nice. I’d be especially happy to see “Lunatic Courtier.”

The Lunatic Inquisition would be a great place to institute some titles, too.

I don’t think it’s terrible, but I’d rather see them resurrect the Dervish. The class would need to be reworked a little in terms of lore to steer them away from the Guardians, but I think they could fit the missing heavy armor mold.

Banewrath.5107:

I think you are missing the point of what a mount is supposed to be . A mount is meant for speed and if a player buys one for gold or gems then why is this an issue?

I’ve given you the issue several times now, and that is the imbalance presented by “pay to win” items. And I’m not “nitpicking,” I’m presenting you with a reasoned argument. Runes are something that players have to take over a potentially better runeset, so they require a sacrifice. Signets are given to classes with the intention of allowing them to have better inherent mobility. Neither of those are equivalent to cash-shop mounts.

Banewrath.5107:

Imagi.4561:

Many players spend money on gemstore items that have little to no practical value in the game, like hairstyle kits and skins. Some are even active collectors. Just because you, personally, wouldn’t use it doesn’t mean that no one would enjoy it—and, oddly enough, that’s almost the exact argument you’ve been making for speed-boost mounts.

No, I think you are trying to turn this around and twist my words…

You just don`t want mounts at all and only really here for the sake of argument I think. and a weak one it is. Because lets face it, if the best you can come up with is arenanet isn’t capable enough to make a hidemount option and some classes should retain speed over others always because that is a class defining factor, then I think you should probably rethink your plan of attack.

Of all the complaints people have brought up, yours are probably the weakest. I can totally understand people not wanting to see something they don`t want to be bothered with and I can understand people who can`t afford a decent gaming rig that have worries about fps loss and performance issues. But to nitpick on mountspeed because you think that class speed is the defining factor is kind of lame. it just sounds to me like you want the slow classes to remain slow and the fast classes to remain fast.

Interesting that you should bring up twisting the words of others. Please quote me where I said that “speed is a class defining factor.” You mentioned that a few times as part of my argument—I bolded those parts for your convenience—but for some reason I can’t remember saying it.

Also, I’ve said multiple times that I’m fine with cosmetic mounts, but I don’t want cash-shop mounts for a number of concerns I’ve already presented.

You should probably rethink your plan of attack.

I also dislike the overflow system. It was the worst during the heyday of the dragon zergs, when I would get kicked out of my own server by guesters and be unable to participate in Jormag or Tequatl.

Now, it’s an irritation with the Mad King’s Realm. The server design is particularly a problem with the Lunatic Inquisition, because it just sends you to a random game.

I have trouble seeing boss animations and danger circles, especially with the plethora of brightly-colored effects that Elementalists, Guardians, and Engineers can deliver. I can only imagine the difficulty if I were colorblind.

Banewrath.5107:

Imagi.4561:

I also brought up the issue of the inherent OOC movement balance each class possesses—which is set intentionally as part of mobility—and that was completely ignored..

When items already exist in game that don`t have to be cast, or a skill slot needed for it to be active, Then that pretty much destroys that argument and wouldn`t be any different then having a mount to beginwith. the only downside for mounts is that you wouldn’t be able to fight on one as you could with the runes. They might enable mounted combat but to keep things simple for now I suggested that you can`t. I didn`t ignore your comment, I just felt that since I mentioned you can use runes, I didn`t need to address that particular one.

I tried reading this multiple times, and I couldn’t make any sense out of it. Everyone can use runes, yes, but to do so means you have to sacrifice using a different and likely more advantageous runeset. Using a mount requires no in-game sacrifice at all.

Banewrath.5107:

Imagi.4561:

Being able to buy runes on the TP is not at all the same as buying mounts in a cash shop. And those runes provide a 25% speed bonus, which is the same as a speed signet. You’re talking about mounts that provide a permanent 33% bonus, which is equivalent to perma-swiftness and could outrun anyone using those runes or signets. That’s an entirely different principle..

Ok then , reduce a mounts speed to 25% like the signets have. I only used 33% because that is the speed my personal buffs give. Do you find that acceptable?

More acceptable, yes. But then a Mesmer with a mount can outpace a Mesmer without one, simply because they had the money to spend. This is still inequitable.

Banewrath.5107:

Imagi.4561:

On the other hand, mounts could be cosmetic-only, and most of these concerns would be a moot point.

I won`t spend a dime in the gemstore for an item that doesn`t have a desireable function. I`m pretty sure a lot of others won`t either. That’s like going and buying a tuxedo you`ll only wear in your bathroom. Little cosmetic items might be great for the younger kids, but to get my wallet open there has to be some value attached to it.

Many players spend money on gemstore items that have little to no practical value in the game, like hairstyle kits and skins. Some are even active collectors. Just because you, personally, wouldn’t use it doesn’t mean that no one would enjoy it—and, oddly enough, that’s almost the exact argument you’ve been making for speed-boost mounts.

Zacchary.6183:

magom.3275:

Zacchary.6183:

“Advice fall on deaf ears”? How about “Advice taken out of context, twisted around until it’s head pops off, regurgitated into a vat of acid and then placed on a topic in the form of a wall of illiterate text”?

ROLF

EDIT: I’m sorry I couldn’t help it…

You dare mock the son of a shepherd?!

But yes, it does seem that the helpful advice people try to give on Thief counterplay is either ignored, selectively read/understood, or completely misinterpreted.

The Game Slayer.7632:

Guys I’m just talking about Ride The Lightning, not anything else about the elementalist. Chill with the doom and gloom O_O

’Tis the season.

I played last Halloween and didn’t get the title, because I didn’t farm the achievements. This year I actually set out to get a title, only to discover that there’s none to be had.

It’s more like “Blood and Sadness.”

BlackBeard.2873:

The problem with RTL was that ele had really high sustain to stick in a fight, then had mobility to get out then come right back.

They nerfed the sustain significantly, and eles mostly just melt, much faster than a real bunker: like guardian. After that, they nerfed the mobility too.

X/D ele can’t stick in the fight, and can’t get out, so they are just useless. This is why you see kamikaze burst eles see play: x/d can’t do anything else better than another class. Even general utility/support is better achieved with a guard or engie.

This won’t be fixed.

This is really the crux of the problem I’ve had with the various Ele nerfs. They’ve nerfed the damage, the ability to sustain, and the mobility and then expect the class to keep up with professions that are better at all of the above.

Banewrath.5107:

-snippity snip-

You’re not giving solutions to people’s complaints, you’re giving an entirely new scenario which is incredibly unlikely to happen. For example, your reply to the concern that mounts will be a cash shop feature was “well, they can be dungeon rewards bought with tokens.” That is highly improbable, and doesn’t really address the concern at all. The most likely option is still instituting mounts as a cash shop feature—as I have mentioned multiple times—and that carries an inherent “pay to win” imbalance. Being able to buy runes on the TP is not at all the same as buying mounts in a cash shop. And the runes provide a 25% speed bonus, which is the same as a speed signet. You’re talking about mounts that provide a permanent 33% bonus, which is equivalent to perma-swiftness and could outrun anyone using those runes or signets. That’s an entirely different principle.

And a “hide mount” option might help with lag, but again, how likely is that to happen, and how quickly? It took 7 months until culling was fixed, and that’s the closest precedent. For that matter, how would mounts affect the graphics feature that is acting as the culling fix? Since you have extensive experience with modding and scripting, I would appreciate your insight.

I also brought up the issue of the inherent OOC movement balance each class possesses—which is set intentionally as part of mobility—and that was completely ignored.

On the other hand, mounts could be cosmetic-only, and most of these concerns would be a moot point.

ManekiNeko.3650:

I’m having a slightly different issue with this one. I participated (and won) 8 times, got credit, got the loot bag, ect. Then it reset and didn’t count towards the meta. Is that supposed to happen?

Yes. It’s an “infinite” achievement, so you can rinse and repeat as many times as you so desire.

I’m actually surprised Sanduskel has stayed with this conversation so long. Usually when someone brings up a valid complaint about the unhelpful nature of his posts, he skedaddles.

But as it has been said many times, a lot of the complaints about the “Sic ’Em” change weren’t so much about the reveal, but the way the reveal was being implemented as an unavoidable hard counter.

I’ve been getting assorted 503 errors too, specifically when I was trying to log on to the forums. I got several variations:

Login Error: Portal returned error: Service Unavailable HTTP Error 503. The service is unavailable.
— l_c.rb 94 (fangamer:-1).

Login Error: Portal returned error: invalid_grant: Grant is invalid, expired, revoked, or already consumed {"error":“invalid_grant”,“error_description”:“Grant is invalid, expired, revoked, or already consumed”} — l_c.rb 94 (fangamer:-1).

Assorted, random 503 errors as I would try to view threads.

And then suddenly it logged me on as I was browsing, without any prompting after all the errors. Wat.

I played 6 games so far today, and only got credit for 3. Even though I’m consistently getting top stats, I’m not getting reward chests or credit for completing some of the games.

I would have loved to see the story done in a cutscene in the first event with Tassi and the Bloody Prince.

Once you start throwing candy corn at the Bloody Prince: “Candy corn! I hate candy corn, almost as much as I hate my twisted, traitorous father! You don’t know him, you don’t know what he did to me!” -cue cutscene-

Something like that would be a fascinating bit of lore, and also fit well into the existing game.

I agree. The fact that skill is spammable, and either does damage or makes you do an incredibly long emote is ridiculous.

Edit: I just noticed a typo, so I fixed it.

Chopps.5047:

Imagi.4561:

Just name all of your pets something like “Sparky,” and it’s a non-issue.

You mean just paste the same name in and keep it on the clipboard? That’s an incredibly awkward workaround.

Edit: Reinterpretting your question, if you mean “sparky” because it’s easy to remember I will reach through the screen and slap your face with molten guantlets. We know our pets names because we made them up. That’s not the issue.

The annoyance—yes, the bug—is making us type it in every time we switch pets. Oh I need a new pet in between dungeon phases, well, good luck typing that in without falling behind. Lol good grief

As entertaining as your comment was, I think you missed the idea of my post. Naming all your pets “Sparky” is an awkward and immersion-breaking workaround, and that’s the point. We shouldn’t have to do that just so the current naming system makes sense.

It was sarcasm.

Just name all of your pets something like “Sparky,” and it’s a non-issue.

Banewrath.5107:

Oh and by the way everyone, while everyone is on the topic of balance and how they don`t want edges over others.

Superior Rune of the Traveler
1 +10 to all stats +2% crit damage
2 +15% boon duration
3 +10 to all stats +2% crit damage
4 10% condition damage
5 +10 to all stats +2% crit damage
6 25% movement increase

Holy Moly! runes that give a player permanent speed! How unbalanced! How overpowered! These should be removed! My dear lord how will the game ever be the same again! Oh yeah, it`s the same as it was yesterday.

You mean runes that I can buy easily with in-game money?

Banewrath.5107:

Imagi.4561:

“Wouldn’t be hard”? Lol. I’m not saying it’s a completely impossible feat, but I’m willing to bet it’s remarkably hard.

Even if it’s just OOC movement speed—which I already addressed, in terms of potential balance problems—if Guild Wars 2 starts implementing things into the gem store that give you a distinct in-game advantage (permanent OOC swiftness is a good example), then the game is completely switching directions. Permanent gathering is nice, but not that big of a deal. Being unable to keep up with a mounted zerg because I can’t afford to buy a mount? To me, that’s unacceptable. My real-life economic status shouldn’t affect my ability to succeed in a game.

You are the one who said it would be nigh impossible. And now that you see that it`s been done before on a dinosaur game engine your best response to that is “lol”

Your issues have remedies. I`m also pretty sure a mount wouldn`t be any huge investment. I mentioned they could have some for dungeon rewards gained with tokens. If you couldn`t pull yourself away from wvw long enough to get the tokens for a mount, then I don`t know what to tell you. Also the basic mounts would most likely be inexpensive so everyone could access them. The flashy cultural mounts would be the expensive ones. You get out of a game what you put into it. If you don`t want to put any investment into getting a mount then don`t. But don`t use that an excuse for people not being able to get them if they want.

I mean if you really want to, then have mounts unavailable in wvw. Problem solved along with angering any pvper that would want one. But just for you I`ll add in this rule to see what you respond with next.

Still no valid reasons or arguments besides warcraft, I`m too poor, and balance issues that are already addressed. Keep them coming.

“Nigh impossible” means “nearly impossible,” not “completely impossible.” And the “lol” was in reference to you saying that kind of programming wouldn’t be hard, as most people with reading comprehension skills would have been able to deduce. Because it was done in a different game with a different engine doesn’t mean it would be a simple matter for ArenaNet.

“If I couldn’t pull myself away from WvW”? How is that even relevant to this conversation? I explicitly mentioned ArenaNet only offering mounts as gem store items—which, given the precedent set so far, seems to be the most likely possibility.

I’ve given you several valid reasons as to why mounts should be cosmetic-only, if they are even instituted. Dismiss or ignore them if you want, but then don’t claim that the only reasonable arguments are the ones being presented by people who agree with you.

Stolen.2045:

Only because you steal one boon instead of two it is completly useless and you can’t kill anything? Or did i miss some other changes?

The change they did to stun rounding hit Pistol Whip really hard. The stun used to last through the first two sword swings, but now it’s over before the first blow even hits.

Carpboy.7145:

Has anyone ever tried a heavy stealth build with S/D? With Mesmer runes, we can bring the daze on tactical strike up to 2.66 seconds. ( Correct me if im wrong) Then you could either precast CnD or use flanking strike to evade. Could keep them from ever hitting you. I did go 30 in SA with this one.

http://gw2skills.net/editor/?fYAQRAsY4alYmiO3eS+E/5Ey2jdqC5JuHJlR1UdF4KA-jEyAYrBRTWCNVIQJPl1sngYJtIas6aMtLRUtQAmnAA-w

Feels risky without shadows embrace, but that blind will be just another way they can’t hit you. With basilisk, you could literally stun/daze lock people to death.

I think stealth-heavy stun/dazelock builds for S/D are unpopular not because it’s bad, but because it’s inherently more evasive as a set with the 2 and 3 skills. And frankly, S/P can do it better.

Well, it could before the patch. They said they’re looking into a fix, though.

Banewrath.5107:

Imagi.4561:

If mounts were instituted in this game, I would want them to be cosmetic-only.

Having mounts that provide a speed boost would destroy the innate mobility (or lack thereof) that classes are supposed to have. Mesmers, for instance, are designed without much OOC mobility, but Thieves have quite a lot. Mounts would render that completely moot. And creating a “hide mounts” option for mounts that not only change player height and movement position, but also provide a speed boost? I can’t even fathom the programming that would require, but I’m willing to bet it’s nigh impossible.

Also, the lag that would be caused by hundreds of mounted players in a single location—like, say, a zerg—is unimaginable. My computer already runs hot in world events; I really don’t need it melting because 2,000 people are riding dolyaks or pandas or obese Mongolian turtles.

All of that aside, however, I’d much rather see ArenaNet working on the plethora of bugs and balance issues in this game than spend hundreds upon hundreds of hours on unnecessary mounts.

Sony did it with everquest 2, the hidemounts option that makes people appear to be on foot. You could play the game and never see a single mount ever. Pretty much anything you could possibly think of could be added to the game engine. These guys are professionals and something like that wouldn`t be hard for them to do at all. Think of how much they made possible to happen in the game already, then think about a small option like that and you think it`s impossible?

The speed boost is only really going to be beneficial out of combat. even on a mount if you were hit, it would put you into the slow running combat speed just like any other boost already does. I even mentioned a casting time so a mount couldn`t be abused in wvw with no combat allowed on it. Those two options make a mount on equal ground with any other speed buff in the game pretty much.

I`d like arenanet to fix bugs too but a lot of the raw material to make them are already ingame, so why not use them. If all devs ever did fulltime was fix bugs and balance issues, we would never get any new content or new options added to the game.

“Wouldn’t be hard”? Lol. I’m not saying it’s a completely impossible feat, but I’m willing to bet it’s remarkably hard.

Even if it’s just OOC movement speed—which I already addressed, in terms of potential balance problems—if Guild Wars 2 starts implementing things into the gem store that give you a distinct in-game advantage (permanent OOC swiftness is a good example), then the game is completely switching directions. Permanent gathering is nice, but not that big of a deal. Being unable to keep up with a mounted zerg because I can’t afford to buy a mount? To me, that’s unacceptable. My real-life economic status shouldn’t affect my ability to succeed in a game.

If all the devs ever did full-time was fix bugs and balance issues, GW2 might be a much more polished game than it is currently.

If mounts were instituted in this game, I would want them to be cosmetic-only.

Having mounts that provide a speed boost would destroy the innate mobility (or lack thereof) that classes are supposed to have. Mesmers, for instance, are designed without much OOC mobility, but Thieves have quite a lot. Mounts would render that completely moot. And creating a “hide mounts” option for mounts that not only change player height and movement position, but also provide a speed boost? I can’t even fathom the programming that would require, but I’m willing to bet it’s nigh impossible.

Also, the lag that would be caused by hundreds of mounted players in a single location—like, say, a zerg—is unimaginable. My computer already runs hot in world events; I really don’t need it melting because 2,000 people are riding dolyaks or pandas or obese Mongolian turtles.

All of that aside, however, I’d much rather see ArenaNet working on the plethora of bugs and balance issues in this game than spend hundreds upon hundreds of hours on unnecessary mounts.

Vile.5678:

Any dev word on a fix for this? Or even an acknowledgment it’s a problem?

Yes. They said there were a lot of unintended consequences as part of the stun nerf and they’re looking into it.

Volrath.1473:

Zacchary.6183:

I only use it for the endurance refill.

so in your opinion its fine if they stealth nerf our profession as long as it doesn’t affect you particularly?!

That’s a good attitude!

He didn’t say it was fine, just that the precision value doesn’t affect him. I also use it for endurance refill.

Also, it might have just been a tooltip change. Is there a different in your actual precision value/crit chance?

Justin ODell.9517:

I play Mesmer (Flux) and Engineer (Latch).

I’m usually up for solo arena if anyone cares to join me.

Your character names make me jealous.

Einlanzer.1627:

But in the last patch, wasn’t the time gap between the stun and the flurry reduced? Do you think it’s worse than it was before the last patch?

As an aside, I actually thought it was kind of weird that the stun and the evade overlapped so much after that patch. I think they just need to buff its damage back up 15% to remove that misguided nerf from a long time ago.

I agree. Thieves have been saying that since the Haste nerf, though, since Haste in combination with Pistol Whip was what led to the PW nerf in the first place.

You realize that “kitten” is the ArenaNet filter, right? It’s what they use to censor what they deem to be “foul language.”

baylock.1703:

ok now explane me how its useless beacose I play mesmer and I use blurred frenzy every day without eny stun or immobilize and do it very effectevly and blurred frenzy is just weaker werison of pistolwhip without eny stun.? explane

…What?

Ryan.8367:

Imagi.4561:

Honestly, the issue isn’t with the skill, it’s the premise for this change—as several people have stated. I don’t even use a stealth-based build, and I think it was a bad design decision.

Mainly, I feel that Rangers getting a skill that applies an instant, unavoidable Revealed is the first step to all classes having some form of instant Reveal, making stealth useless as a survival mechanic in PvP. And if it spreads out to PvE via mob/NPC skills, then stealth will be significantly less viable there, as well.

This in and of itself is fine, if Thieves are compensated in some other fashion. Given the way that balancing has been over the past year, I’m afraid that stealth will be removed and Thieves won’t receive anything to replace it.

They’ve already said, when implementing sic em to rangers that rangers will be the only class to get this debuff. I don’t think they’ll extend , if they extend to more classes then I’m sure thieves will be compensated for it. Sic em was given to rangers as a group utility, it’s to keep thieves from picking off people in group combat , it effectively renders them useless in this fashion for 4 seconds then they can get back into the group play once the 4 seconds is up.

I was under the impression that “Sic ’Em!” was much more useful in a 1v1 scenario.

Honestly, the issue isn’t with the skill, it’s the premise for this change—as several people have stated. I don’t even use a stealth-based build, and I think it was a bad design decision.

Mainly, I feel that Rangers getting a skill that applies an instant, unavoidable Revealed is the first step to all classes having some form of instant Reveal, making stealth useless as a survival mechanic in PvP. And if it spreads out to PvE via mob/NPC skills, then stealth will be significantly less viable there, as well.

This in and of itself is fine, if Thieves are compensated in some other fashion. Given the way that balancing has been over the past year, I’m afraid that stealth will be removed and Thieves won’t receive anything to replace it.

The focus didn’t get any much-needed attention in this latest patch. I can’t say I’m surprised, but it is disheartening.

Some simple cooldown reductions would go a long way in making it more competitive, and making focus users happier.

If they nerfed the Arcane utilities under the table or just fixed the tooltip, I’d just like to be told in an official statement. I prefer making educated decisions about the utilities I use.

Mbelch.9028:

Glad to see some support here.

I saw one good elementalist (Thibash) mention leaning towards thinking positively on the patch.

I can’t say the same. I appreciate the quality of life changes, but they helped everybody. Warrior-buff Guardian-Buff Thief-Buffed and let’s not even mention Mesmer 18k/Sec falling Chaos Storm. (Yes a glitch but it runs salt in the wounds we have)

I’d just like to mention that Thieves aren’t all sunshine and rainbows right now. Pistol Whip is now unviable in PvP, Rangers were given a hard-counter to stealth, and Larcenous Strike was nerfed. Also, many of the “buffs” were just bug fixes, and the actual buffs were fairly mediocre.

Everyone seems to feel that the balancing priorities are skewed, especially when they’re taking “baby steps” in nerfing Warriors, when they seem to be the most universally OP profession.

Doomdesire.9365:

Pretty ridiculous earlier today I had 12seconds of revealed from multiple rangers spamming this crap. Needless to say, melted in less than a second.

You can’t even target against D/P users, why add it? It hurts the good builds who rarely rely on stealth. This is a mistake anet. You should have given a passive pet signet that lets pets attack thieves in stealth, not any revealed skill.

I think many thieves realize that ranger is a weak class, but you shouldn’t nerf another class as a “buff” to rangers. You should buff rangers and leave the other classes alone. All this is doing is fixing one problem by adding another.

I wasn’t aware that Revealed could stack.

histerico.6153:

To be fair how did you expect to dodge an instant cast shout to begin with. It’s not like sic’ em has any huge tells as it is now so you still probably wouldn’t anticipate it’s use very well.

Well, I assumed that the Revealed would take effect on the pet’s first attack after the shout. Even in team fights, you can hear when someone shouts “Sic ’Em!” (If you have your sound turned on, that is.)

Poxheart.2845:

It will be an inconvenience at best, not a class destroying skill as being portrayed in this thread.

I don’t think anyone is saying it will be “a class destroying skill,” just ranting over how poorly this “counterplay” is being implemented.

Redscope.6215:

FYI thief-onlies, stealth isn’t the thief’s class mechanic. It’s a game mechanic.

Initiative is the thief’s class mechanic.

L2P <—Just thought this was appropriate for the thief forum. I dunno why but its thrown around everywhere so I figured, why not.

If you’re going to play the semantics game, then technically Steal is the Thief “class mechanic.” Many people who dislike Thieves are quick to point this out. However, initiative and stealth are mechanics that are essential to the class.

evilapprentice.6379:

Imagi.4561:

The tooltip for Shadow’s Embrace—condition removal every ten seconds—smacks of Smiter’s Booning. “Nerf that trait so hard that it will be practically useless, and no Thief will ever dream of bringing it along.” This was especially disappointing, since Roy Croncher specifically mentioned that they wanted to take baby steps in balancing to avoid over-nerfing—at least in regards to the Warrior.

Color me surprised.

They didn’t mention this – maybe it’s a holdover from testing that didn’t make it into the patch, maybe there’s a corresponding reduction in condi spam (which would make a Shadow’s Embrace nerf make sense), etc etc etc – lets wait til the patch on this one.

I agree; it might not be as bad as it seems because of the changes to conditions, or it might not even make it into the game. We can only hope.

But if it is as bad as it seems, then I’ll stand by what I said. That type of balancing needs to stop.

I’m not overly-concerned about it because, as many Rangers have pointed out, “Sic ’Em!” is still a lackluster skill that would require them sacrificing another, better utility. However, the fact it’s an unavoidable counter to an entire traitline was a kitten design.

The tooltip for Shadow’s Embrace—condition removal every ten seconds—smacks of Smiter’s Booning. “Nerf that trait so hard that it will be practically useless, and no Thief will ever dream of bringing it along.” This was especially disappointing, since Roy Cronacher specifically mentioned that they wanted to take baby steps in balancing to avoid over-nerfing—at least in regards to the Warrior.

Color me surprised.

cyyrix.6105:

Imagi.4561:

The fact that the Revealed on “Sic ’Em!” can’t be avoided seems like the developers just ran out of ideas for how to handle stealth/improve the Ranger.

The immobilize for Body Shot is an improvement, though, and I was surprised to see it.

Relax. It’s a 4s revealed on a 40s CD. It’ll only be effective at clutch moments, and if wasted (e.g., as an opener) the long CD will impede the ranger more than the thief.

I didn’t say it would kill the class. I said it was poorly designed.

The fact that the Revealed on “Sic ’Em!” can’t be avoided seems like the developers just ran out of ideas for how to handle stealth/improve the Ranger.

The immobilize for Body Shot is an improvement, though, and I was surprised to see it.

Rym.1469:

Leap on such strong ability is a bad idea and been since the release. Thief already has way too many easily-spammable nice gapclosers, absolutlty no reward for smart play, no counter for builds utilizing range, thieves are hardly kiteable, just spam one button most of the times and you’ll be on target regardless how dumb you are.

Many Thief gapclosers are utilities, or skills that require a target in order to move you anywhere. Heatseeker is “spammable,” by contrast, making it usable for general mobility.

If you want to take away the leap, that’s all well and good, but Thieves would need a “spammable” mobility skill elsewhere. Shortbow—which is already a crutch as a utility weapon—would be a necessity otherwise.

Rym.1469:

I would be after more control, setting combos to deal greater damage not by spamming one key but in longer period, finishing combo with really deadly abilities.

The old GW Assassins used long combo chains, and it was fun to play. However, if you missed one link in that chain for whatever reason, you had to begin all over again. In today’s dodge-happy meta, which also contains an abundance of mitigators like blind and block, a long skill combo would never reach it’s conclusion without being interrupted.

Rym.1469:

That’s said, Thief gapclosers bounded with brainless key spamming has to be changed. Give thieves more blocks, control and utility, but take away perma evade/perma stealth.

How would you recommend doing this? Stealth and evasion are the core aspects of two Thief traitlines: Shadow Arts and Acrobatics.

Rym.1469:

Make them strong in active melee if they choose so, but give kiters some breathing room and ability to counterplay, punishing thieves for brainless spam and rewarding for predicting and playing to it’s strenghts. Like right now, I can’t see thieves using any cripples like Dagger 4 to keep on the enemy. They don’t need that. There’s always some imba leap or teleport, ready to be spammed.

Dancing dagger used to be used often, as a kiting ability and an aoe burst. However, this was before the November nerf that cut the skill’s damage by 50%. This was the same “balance patch” that nerfed the damage of CnD by 33% in an attempt to control Backstab burst builds, and ended having a negligible effect on them. Instead, it castrated the offhand dagger in general.

I would be all for renovating it.

Reif.9234:

I guess you haven’t ever fought a good S/d thief. Because they are way way more annoying. You can still hit/damage/kill thiefs in stealth.

I hope Sanduskel reads this, since he “never” sees complaints about evasion Thieves on the forums.

Kaizer.7135:

Imagi.4561:

Kaizer.7135:

Imagi.4561:

Kaizer.7135:

I don’t know of any sane thief player that uses a utility spot for solely for rezzing allies and honestly, only a bad thief would. Because enemies know EXACTLY where you are since you’ll be rezzing.

lul

Shadow Refuge denies finishing moves, as long as the downed person doesn’t keep attacking through it. I use it for that purpose fairly often if I bring it along.

And people that are finishing should cancel the animation and lay down damage, thieves are squishy. You’d be dead before you can rez, unless the enemy player is just stupid.

Shadow Refuge is situational, like most support skills, but it’s phenomenal under the right circumstances.

Most utilities are situational lol

EDIT: Spelling

…And?