Guild Wars 2

Marduh.4603:

shimmerless.4560:

yeah i don’t really see how this affects d/d to be honest

But so it is. d / d thieves practically disappeared after that pointless nerf.

D/D was already on the decline since December. It continued with the 4s reveal.
When Trickshot and Mug was nerfed, that’s when it dropped heavily. In the reveal nerf they nerfed quickness simultaneously so most just dropped more so to Sin signet D/P if they were still playing D/D or S/P outside of a committed few.. The nerfs that came in April just made is less desirable when the revamped S/D was the ‘new’ toy to play with.

4s reveal isn’t degrading S/D to 3 spam.
Nor is it discouraging D/D or D/P.
To be frank I like it.

While I understand the decrease in efficiency and even the decrease in need of us as bursters.

This post still confused the hell out of me…

Roll a Necro.
http://intothemists.com/guides/ check here if theres anything of use.

Amaterasu.6280:

evilapprentice.6379:

Amaterasu.6280:

As a thief, I can say that the sword shadow return idea is a good idea. That, or give shadow return a CD so that you can’t spam sword 2 as a engage/disengage.

If you are not able to shadow return when you are CC’d then people would actually learn to dodge instead of relying so much on shadow return saving their kitten .

I play d/p so I really only get 2 dodges, no vigor, so timing is everything. I just feel a lot of s/d thieves spam dodge mindlessly and should be punished for it.

You either do not play a thief, or have a very subpar level of understanding of your own class.
Engaging/Disengaging at will is the entire point of Sword MH- it’s what the rest of the weaponset is built around. It is the only non-stealth option thieves get that allows them to survive.

Without it, Sword MH is positively and demonstrably worse than D/P in every single way. I’m not sure how you could not understand this if you’ve ever actually played a thief – that is not an insult, just an honest observation.

Playing D/P has absolutely nothing to do with how many dodges you get, or your access to vigor – it’s all about where you spend your points. As D/P, you’re probably heavily invested in SA, and with good reason. you could put 30 points in Acro and get better endurance regen and vigor access, but you chose not to. It’d be like my complaining that my S/D thief doesn’t heal in stealth or drop conditions or get init for going into stealth…S/D has nothing to do with it, I just didn’t put the points into SA.

I have 3500 games with a thief, so I’m not going to even defend your claim of my “sub-par” understanding of my class. I am trying to give unbiased thoughts here, as I DO know the class.

Engaging and disengaging is the whole point of the sword MH, I get it, but if you have played a thief yourself or against it, you would know that sword #2 is OP. This is not a myth, but the truth.

For example, if the shadow return on #2 was limited to say, 600r, the same range that the initial hit is, then it’d be more balanced. If there was a CD on shadow return, then it would be more balanced. You don’t think that it’s a problem that sword #2 serves as a ALWAYS accessible stunbreak (even after the “nerf”) at 1200r? You arguably don’t even need shadowstep because of the above.

And how exactly would sword MH be worse than d/p if there was a nerf to sword #2? You STILL have hard hitting AOE cleave + larcenous strike, which is a evade + boon strip in itself. The fact that you think that the weapon set is totally done with a nerf to shadow return via sword #2, proves my points exactly – it’s THAT good.

On top of being able to chain 8+ dodges via traits, almost perma vigor, signet of agility + withdraw (which is also a 1200r stunbreak) , you think that there is no problem with that?

Btw, no tourney d/p thieves run 30 in SA unless you play like Cruuk. It seems like you’re not very familiar with the current tpvp meta…

I don’t think you’ve fully thought this out Kuro. You were suggesting 600 range before

Dropping the range of the two is basically going to put S/P and S/D in a constant nuke range. S/P having a wind up evade self root evade skill with our base stats and armor not encouraging that. Without the inherit stealth option as a counter measure to range fire, a ranger’s pretty much just going to keep pressing 1 on you, even the options for LoS get significantly reduced dropping SR’s range.
Prior to the april update the same held true for S/D. Flanking stab always followed flanking strike so the tell for damage was incredibly clear which meant timing was crucial (but at the time you were rewarded fairly poorly for landing that stab relative to the ease of avoiding it).

If I get shot whatever but the clearest change is to keep the new tracking and fuse the 3 back into a single skill instead of a chain.

With Shadow return being locked down while CC’d you you make it quite easy to punish main hand sword. In fact Rune’s of Nightmare which go through evade is going to set you up to get spiked to hell and back. Which would be fine if the options for stability became something more than dagger storm, but I don’t think that will happen.

This vendetta against S/P and S/D is cray

Bleed wasn’t a % of health. It was 6 health per second or 4 can’t remember.

Body shot is good now if that thing just had 1 or 2 seconds longer on duration it be right where it wants to be.

S/P and S/D (well not as much since April patch) feel the most….assassin like?
Both sets are strong but S/D has higher general purpose. Fs becoming a chain skill reduced the opportunity cost to be effective drastically as I see it when your follow up can be used whenever you want in 5s for the unblock able harass.

mPascoal.4258:

So S/P. Does it work in WvW? I know it does in PvE, but alsmost anything works in PvE so this is not the problem

Just don’t jump into a crowd full of retaliation and you’ll be fine.

Yo man I heard a new pokeman coming out.

Eurantien.4632:

ensoriki.5789:

Too much of ranger success is in uncontrolled AI.
It’s not that the pet needs to go away, they need more control of the pet. OP, UP whatever bottom line the more control you give rangers of the pet, the better you control ranger success as the dev.

I don’t understand this. Ranger success comes from uncontrolled AI? The better the ranger the better he/she controls that AI. The more control the ranger gets the stronger the ranger will become.

Let me rephrase it then.
A significant amount of the ranger’s offensive power is inside of the pet itself, which has minimal control options. I rather see the ranger’s offensive power transferred more from the pet to the ranger itself, but for the less power the pet has there would be more control over it.

Too much of ranger success is in uncontrolled AI.
Not to say that the pet needs to go away, they need more control of the pet. OP, UP whatever bottom line the more control you give rangers of the pet, the better you control ranger success as the dev.

Maybe I am being greedy. But while I know we have an overall rank for playing PvP and that is all fine and good (grindy as hell though)
Since the champion title doesn’t have anything past that, any considerations of a profession rank or extending that title into a series of it’s own.

Littlefeather.8623:

I use Fighter runes actually, with I believe over 3.5k Attack, right over 3k Armor. I have no issues with theives, melee warriors, melee guardians. My complain is that Power/Toughness based builds are not very viable against current Condition Spammage. Must every one make their build to counter range based conditions? If there were a small % of Condition Defense in Armor in GW2 a lot of complaints about it would go away. Or is it that Armor is weaker than Vitality? Because that is how it seems right now.

Armor. Is. Not. Supposed. To. Stop. Conditions. By. Design. Get. Vitality. Condition Removal. Or. Get. Wrecked.

Those conditions are purposefully there to eat your face.

Littlefeather.8623:

ensoriki.5789:

Armor ignoring damage is needed to circumvent armor so it doesn’t kitten on everyone.
It’s only a shame that outside of Life Steal that the direct version of Armor ignoring damage somehow didn’t make it from GW1.
Conditions as a whole among the various professions aren’t that big. Guardian and Ele condi damage isn’t very noteworthy. There isn’t any inherit need for a condi def when really the current condition situation didn’t even exist in the same capacity two months ago.

Just lastnight in SPvP, I dueled a necro. I tried to get in his face but I was slowed (among many other condition applications), I tried to cleanse (with my stand in circle to cleanse one every second utility, managed to clear 2-3) I was feared (with stability on). I leaped at him, but I was feared again, then dropped with all the conditions one me.

Is this every one’s idea of balance?

Are power/toughness based builds just intended to be sub par in PvP? I cant play my guardian the way I want to? Im not a caster, I prefer in your face, I dont like being squishy against physical attacks.

I must L2P? or is that another way of saying Power/Toughness (In your face) type based builds are not the way to go?

No one said “Ignoring damage”, I still take damage, and plenty of it. All I am saying is there should be Condition Defense in Armor.

I don’t think you understood what I’m saying.
To avoid people just straight fake tanking physical damage, their is damage that ignores armor. Life steal & conditions. Im going to assume you are in cleric runes, which means you’re fairly mismatched against the offense that is going against you. In a practical sense their is no physical counter-part to conditions which ignores armor so P/T by itself is generally offensively weak. That and your scenario sounds doesn’t sound like you put up much of a fight to begin with truth be told hombre.

Conditions on the necro are likely to be slightly adjusted so don’t trip but if you’re bring toughness to a condition fight, you dun goof’d.

Pandabro.8743:

Burning is just simply too much.

The problem is that the Devs decided it was better to give us a massive amount of damage and THEN fixing DS instead of the opposite. Honestly if they had just fixed DS in the big balance patch I would have been very happy.

Burning needs to be changed to something that supports the power builds not something that is so valuable that condi necros HAVE to spend 30 points into a tree for very little other than it (Seriously, if burning wasn’t a GM trait there would be almost 0 reason to going into Spite for condimancers).

This isn’t really a problem that is specific to necros either because burning is just so ridiculously powerful. It turns attrition (Which is what conditions should be about) into burst for every class that has it.

Personally I feel burning needs to be brought down a bit, perhaps make it deal less damage per tick but have a longer duration across the board. This would bring it in line with the attrition nature of conditions but be much more manageable and not such an immediate threat. I realize that this is a significant nerf to other classes as well so they would need to be compensated for it somehow, but as a whole condition builds lean on it so heavily that I think it needs to be brought down a bit.

Our damage before the June patch was fine, it was never the issue, if you let us stand and free cast we could inflict a ton of pressure on the other team. Then they gave us the ability to do it even better, still without survivability, now we have survivability. Just take back the damage and we’ll be in a good spot.

For Guardian and Elementalist and Warriors (well war less now) that burning pretty much is the extent of their damage as they don’t have poison, and confusion backing it up. Burning itself is fine, it’s who has it and how they put it out.

It’s good that their is a condition trait in Spite, it ideally creates reasons for everyone to go in a line and mix things up, but burning is too powerful for that role.

Armor ignoring damage is needed to circumvent armor so it doesn’t kitten on everyone.
It’s only a shame that outside of Life Steal that the direct version of Armor ignoring damage somehow didn’t make it from GW1.
Conditions as a whole among the various professions aren’t that big. Guardian and Ele condi damage isn’t very noteworthy. There isn’t any inherit need for a condi def when really the current condition situation didn’t even exist in the same capacity two months ago.

The meta exists deal with it brah.

The improvements given outside of Dhuumfire should be enough.
If condi variety is that necessary put a confusion when critically hit trait instead like the warriors retaliation trait so that the necro isn’t blowing you up straight out of the box.

Vena.8436:

This is pretty much verbatim what hammer warriors were in GW1. Do you know how you shut them down to avoid them stun-locking you into oblivion? You blinded them.

GW2 blind even after update doesn’t hold a candle to GW1 blind. IF GW1 blind came into this game, melee would be wiped be completely wiped out.

Throw stabil up to deal with a hammer warrior, if you don’t have it. Then you’ve got to pressure him or drop one of his teammates quick enough to divert focus.

Sepreh.5924:

Two ideas to help balance condition pressure:
1. Change dhuumfire to proc chill instead of burning – I know this is controversial and know that I am not the first one to propose it but posted a thread in the necromancer forum to discuss the pros/cons of a change like this

2. Make Close to Death apply only to direct damage and not condition damage. Do the same for thieves executioner

They don’t work on condition damage lol wtf.
They’re direct damage boosts. Same with the elementalist 33% health dmg buff.
Condition damage is unaffected by %dmg modifiers.

Remove or change dhuumfire.
Activates when the target is <50% hp or just replace it with something else to tone the damage.

Lol 18 stacks of might pistol whip felt like it barely drained death shroud. Somewhat irate.
Wouldn’t even care if it wasnt for how kitten hard they hit.

Gandarel.5091:

ensoriki.5789:

Rank isn’t meant to be a display of skill. It’s for personal progress. It’s the same as levels in PvE only it takes 1000 times longer.

While on the forums everyone agrees, nobody will take r9 guys to an r40+ team, and there’s a reason they are looking fo r40+ to play with.

So what does that change?
Slowing down the accumulation of glory just means that r9 takes longer to climb up. If he just wants to play the game and get new armors his progress to that goal slows down. If he’s looking to jump on a tournament scene, his rank stays low longer anyways. If tournament rewards more glory, than he still needs to either solo que up the tourney either way because apparently no one will group with him…which isn’t really true since GW2 is a lot easier to get a group in than say Hall of heroes was.

Rank isn’t meant to be a display of skill. It’s for personal and aesthetic progress. It’s the same as levels in PvE only it takes 1000 times longer. Rank grinding already slows to the pace of a korean grinder.

It’s interesting to see how there is a group that feels rank progression in later on takes forever and then another post that feels the accumulation of glory should take even longer. Rank progression isn’t meant to highlight specifically good players. Thats why a leaderboard was established to begin with, and why one is coming with the solo que.

Myrmidian Eudoros.4671:

2) PvE’ers won’t like to hear this, but they are irrelevant to the Character side balance of the game. PvE IS BALANCED BY ADJUSTING CONTENT, NOT SKILLS. That is the ONLY way that PvE and PvP balance can coexist.

Honestly don’t know how many times this has been said since Guild Wars 1 and it has stopped clicking over there.

When devs added Skeleton of Dhuum to the underworld to PvE that was changing the content to get some balance and dissuade farmers in end-game content. That is what you’re supposed to do. When they changed Afflicted so that Assassin’s and Warriors stop getting blown up to the same extent that made sense. PvE is well known for being a DPS race atm, the nuances of the professions that make them have “purity of purpose” gets widely ignored because the encounters do not take this into account. You have to stop looking at PvE for balance because the main issue for PvE balance is that it doesn’t give a kitten about half of the things classes bring to the beginning.

Moving on.
You pretty much have to balance around top-level players but you have to design with the casual player in mind. Instantaneous burst from Mesmers, Arcane Eles and Scepter 2? You can’t tell a new player “you’re going to want to dodge this because it’s instant” because you can’t knowingly dodge something that is instant. You infer it based on other actions leading up to it such as seeing the earthquake animation, the professions efficiency should be based on the top-level of play but the design on how they’re achieving success is frankly ridiculous at times.

Oh also. Why the hell does Runes of nightmare hit through evade frames. Annoying as all hell.

Geiir.7603:

This should be in the thief forum, not the sPvP forum. You also fail to mention that you speak about thieves, which may confuse some people here.

You could say that about multiple threads here. But I digress.

I think I alluded that it’s not so much as horrible but that there isn’t enough justification to take it. This weapon set is apparently in a far better standing in PvE. If anything it be just as alienating in the thief forum.

Jzaku.9765:

We nerf mesmer’s other survivability mechanics (such as phase retreat, blurred frenzy) in exchange for giving them more condition cleanse

Maybe then they’d actually be balanced

Why the hell do they need more condition cleanse?
Mesmers have Plenty of condition cleanse.
They do not feel it is worth taking the ones they have.
Why implement more stuff to fit the same purpose of the stuff that is already being ignored.

By Terrible I mean, It’s been forever since Launch and this is still a really…really tough squeeze into the second slot. S/P + D/x works well, S/D + S/D, works well S/x + Sb works fine, D/P + Sb works fine. Can’t comment on P/D right now since it’s been updated and I’ll give it a fair whirl. If we can talk about an individual skill in Rush, can we talk about this entire weapon set?

It’s not like it’s beyond repair there are good foundations here. The body shot change was good if it was longer than after shooting some pistol shots I could capitalize with a melee set. Can do that now but the window of opportunity is extremely small. That being said just changing body shot doesn’t necessarily give this set precedence over P/D which can pull off the same swap.

JonathanSharp.7094:

But actually, thinking about it more, Arcing/Rush/100b. All those could be moved, but what would it do?

What if the CD on 100B was reduced and it moved to 5? WHat would happen if 100B went to burst and Arcing went main bar?

You are proposing two different scenario’s?
One of Arcing burst, with a lower CD 100b? and one of 100b as burst and arcing on mainhand?
Arcing might get used. but you’ll remove a lot of the set up possibilities for 100b in the first place and skull crack + 100b disappears as does Flurry + 100b.

Take the medium of the two.
Necro’s are eating up quite a bit of damage, and putting out a significant amount that well still feels somewhat absurd for how long they’re maintaining themself with shroud.

Without that lifeshroud however it’s not really a biggie and they go down fairly quickly. So sure at the beginning of the fight they’ll go down easily after that it’s a pain.

For high damage?
Either S/P for cleave or take a Dagger mainhand for a single target.

JonathanSharp.7094:

We want all weapon sets to have their uses, but it’s not necessary that all weapon types be equally viable in all given scenarios. In Starcraft, League, any shooter, etc., it’s not expected that ALL units/weapons/heroes be equally strong in ALL scenarios.

As different game types demand different “tools” from the classes, it stands to reason that some “toolsets” will perform better than others in a given game type.

:)

For sure not every weapon set will be an equal choice at the same time.
but
If tier 1 is the typical pick the main weapon choice of a profession in tpvp because it fits it’s role well, and is a good general choice.

Tier 2 is the more situational pick, it has solid strengths, but you need to
a) work a bit harder
b) make tweaks to the team to bring out it’s full strength
c) use it as a counter-pick to a tier 1 weapon-set/prof
so it’s fine because it’s still fairly solid or even an “anti-meta” comp in some occasions.

Tier 3 is extremely situational or just generally a poor choice.

Weapons in tier 1 or 2 are obviously fine, as though tier 2 isn’t as picked as tier 1 it’s still good.

If something is tier 2 in PvE but tier 3 in PvP, is that something that you feel needs to be changed in PvP? I mean P/P is the typical answer I can think of. It’s more or less a tier 2 for PvE dungeons. Some thieves rely on it’s range to help them out there. In PvP it’s more or less a Tier 3 where you can generally always do right by taking something else. Is it fine because it’s a tier 2 in another game type or is it not fine to you because it’s a tier 3 here?

Dhuumfire is still stupid.

Pyriall.5027:

JonathanSharp.7094:

than “nerfing it from orbit”. Are all Ele specs equally viable in all game types? No. Is this ok? Yes. Staff can see play in one game type while D/D or S/D see play in others.

Wow, when did this change in design philosophy change? Almost every SOTG or conversation in HoM (when weapon sets were brought it); it was stated the design goals was to bring up all weapon sets.

Was wondering the same thing. They may as well remove certain weapons from formats if that is the case to prevent people from running knownly poor weapon sets. Not seriously I mean, but that’s how it comes across.
After-all wasn’t part of the explanation for having skills tied to the weapon in that it reduces the amount of poor build choices?

Xeph.4513:

Lordrosicky.5813:

Israel.7056:

Reikou.7068:

Dropouts don’t get invited to an Ivy, plebeians aren’t consulted by presidents, and those in poverty don’t get invited to Davos.

Keep it simple. If you’re not in the top X00 (a rank/rating that is respectable) of the PvP leaderboards for your respective region, you cannot post on the locked board.

End of story.

I don’t think Anet should make an elitist restricted forum.

This game is not just for the top 100 it’s for everyone who plays it, newcomer and experienced player alike. If Anet takes an obviously elitist approach and refuses to cater to their more casual players they risk alienating them entirely.

Yeh, plus “elite” players are more subject to bias because their views are inevitably shaped by what they want/need to be good. Because the game means alot to them.

This is mostly incorrect, fact is people who want to play this game competitively need this game to succeed in order for them to succeed, so they are more likely to throw bias aside in order for this game to become better; what we have here is not a flourishing game, but rather a game that is struggling, so there is no real reason for players that are taking this game seriously to try and derail balance.

As for the casual player, he will always have opinions on what little experience he has, plus the fact that his skill level might not allow him to judge situations correctly, meaning that most of the time they don’t see the bigger picture.
I am in no way saying that their opinion isn’t valuable, but I think that the casual ’s opinion is a lot more subjective to bias, because of their limited understanding / knowledge of the class match ups and overall balance that is required to remedy the problems.

If anet is watching top-player games foremost, clearly does speak to tournament players and looks at forum and in-game feedback. They vocally state they watch most tournaments.

Whatever feedback they get whether casual or not they have to evaluate regardless. If it’s biased they should see through it. If they do not any changes based off that feedback has to be tested. Straight-up. If we’re not happy at what’s going on, then really there isn’t any reason for this discussion that is segrating the community and visibly fostering and revealing resentment.

Any change (I would assume) has to be tested. If whack changes are coming out, than the testing phase internally has to be scrutinized. Why worry about where they get external feedback. They’re going to read things regardless, they just need to be checked well in testing.

Allie Murdock.8152:

Batmang.5421, I think it is in everyones best interest that all players consider the implications of what they are saying when they say it, regardless of their status in the scene.

mordran.4750, I appreciate your feedback, and understand your feelings. While I’m not entirely happy with the sense of entitlement I’m getting from your post (I could be completely wrong about that – internet makes it hard to read people, so sorry if I am), I don’t disagree with what you’re saying. If you have any specific ideas as to how you would like to see this, I’m all ears. I will say that information on design philosophy with patch notes is something we have discussed internally, and something we do want to do eventually.

Thanks for the feedback!

http://guildwars.com/gameplay/developer_updates/
A similar format. While you don’t need to speak on all changes.
I think you guys are aware of some that will certainly be better off when explained. Especially when there is no forewarning in an sotg.

Don’t feel 2h weapons need 2 sigils, they’re fine 2h weapons are serving us well just fine without the 2nd sigil slot.

Definitely condi sigils need to be more appealing.
Sigil of Paralyzation isn’t going to work like that. It’ll more or less mean 2s Pistol whips for instance, which I do not believe anyone really wants to run into. As a % increase it lets them keep that whole 1/2, 1/4th useage of dazes and stuns to keep them from going over.

Anyone who wants to stack on-kill sigils can certainly go ahead. There isn’t really much reason to, unless you have issue getting initial kills.
If I could I’d change sigil of speed to 1% movement speed increase per stack. Considering 25 stacks, it would be a replacement for movement speed sigils, warriors sprint (and other traits like it) and swiftness, which could be an interesting choice for professions like the Guardian and Necrormancer.

Oh and that Sigil of Strength is far too strong, especially considering 1) multi hit abilities, 2) multi hit cleave/aoe and 3) Might stacking runes. It requires an ICD.
Frailty is probably similar.

Sigil of water needs to straight out heal more, because it heals for peanuts bud. It be nicer to see this on Supportive roles who have Healing power, but for that it needs higher crit chance given that they likely do not crit, and better scaling with healing power if not a higher base.

Oh and is there an ICD on that Flesh reaver? Though either way it still dies abnormally fast and needs some kind of sustain boost so you don’t have to get 30 charges to lose the thing in 2s. The few times I tried it, I could not tell if it did damage because it was dead so quickly. Even if it spawned faster if it’s dying that fast, the increased summon rate won’t change the non-existent presence.

Allie Murdock.8152:

Please try to consider this, and think about how you would feel if you dedicated most of your time to something that people constantly bash.

Word.
So in that case -This bash has been removed for feedback-
Body shots vulnerability could be a second or two longer so in exchange of taking shortbow or double melee, you could set-up vuln with P/x more practically for your melee or team spike. Even better if you eventually increase the vuln duration increase given by sigil of peril to 15 or 20%. At present the window of opportunity is incredibly low after a body shot, and at anything outside of preparations 15 ini bonus, you will lose your first strikes bonus from CS without popping another sort of ini management mid-combo, which is obviously a trade off of another skill to make-up that 3 ini + the ini of whatever melee skill you use. Would just be more appealing at a higher vuln that can also trigger exposed weakness for longer.
K thanks.

I think this just makes sense on shadow strike.
I still think 5-1 play on P/D should be redirected.

Vena.8436:

JETWING.2759:

This skill could have his cd increased to 15 or 20 seconds.

The ranger isn’t getting any sort of damage buff off of his stealth. Its entirely for repositioning and target dropping, which is something the longbow could actually greatly use to allow to maintain distance. I don’t know how much of a nerf the skill needs (when traited) when the ranger isn’t just going to sit in stealth for its full duration (25% uptime) unless we wants to accomplish nothing at all.

Can’t cap.
Can’t deal damage.

You forgot that pets deal damage bud.
Though I don’t think this is going to be problematic but we’ll see.

Well hopefully a couple of people have found some use for it.
I was thinking Ele, Ranger and maybe Engi would make best with it with the heightened vital on Celestial compensating the Ele.
I assume naturally that since it’s a mixed bag that it isn’t supposed to excel at anything but give you solid foundations in everything. Considering the flexibility of the above three and that they can take advantage of all forms of damage relatively well…maybe they have something. but I’m not sure of any situations where the stats are really practical to begin with, let alone if it is sub-par. Maybe it’s meant for longer-battles and edges out on damage that way, but not sure if it’s worth pulling math out for.

dovrak.4376:

ArcTheFallen.7682:

Compared to thieves—it isn’t OP at all. And you have to land it to stealth right?

1200 range…… like I don’t know if this weapon is viable or not, that’s not the point. They’re introducing new stealth mechanics like if it wasn’t enough to deal whit the stealth we already have. I mean I don’t understand the ‘’stealth hate’’ a.k.a revelead, and then we have to deal whit a ranged nearly spammable stealth. I’m kinda lost.

Stealth is completely fine in 3s intervals. Which is what this is, without extention. Rangers originally had a stealth utility to begin with. It’s not like this is a profession that is foreign to the effect from infancy.

It is literally 3s without extension of any sort. The threat is incredibly low and is stealth in it’s most balanced iteration. Stop tripping until the patch goes out. Stealth in itself doesn’t need a counter when it lasts for small duration. It’s when it gets stacked, and extended that there is no counter-play or sense of pace that a defender can work around.

Nope.

Looking to see the kind of builds that pull it off.

Necromancer, as anet said, is an attrition class and it was made to outlast opponent. Yet the reality is different – necromancer lacks stability, regeneration and all the other boons that make a class truly an attrition one. Devs told us that DS is there to compensate these lacks, because it is like a third weapon set, since previous to the nerf you could swap weapons in it, and it has its own HP bar, so you can outlast someone a bit longer. So overall necromancers did not need a buff in damage it needed it in mobility, boon generating, etc.

Outlast an opponent for what? If someones on a point you don’t need to outlast them you need them off the point, preferably because they’re dead. The offensive gain they gave necro’s as well as this patch make me think attrition is not the goal, but a straight out more offensive necro than they were in the past. They increased the base size of marks so you don’t have to worry about aim and can still get more targets in than you could before at base. Which means Greater Marks is less necessary to begin with and you can slot into soul reaping for more life force or shroud benefits.

Empathetic Fighter.2065:

I appreciate your engagement for this game to succeed, I really do. Also your argumentation and over explanation is pretty objective and reasonable.
However, this would really bring a big gap between PvP and PvE. Especially for condition classes (they’re allrdy in a bad state there). I think this is something that scares A-Net to actually renew their whole concept, as it is now. Wheter it’s good or not is another question.

All in all E-sport at the moment is just not possible and I hope A-Net will realize if they stay on the same train, it will never be. Therefore some points are a MUST to get into the right direction. However these are huge changes, so this won’t likely happen this or next year.

Reducing the stacks you output but increasing the damage per stick actually helps condi classes a lot one would think.
In pve conditions max out at 25 which means with classes that can put up 18s of bleeding themself in pve they’re already dropping the synergy with other players. If they could stack up to 5 for instance, than 5 other players could come in and stack 5. That helps condi classes in pve get more recognition when their individual stacks are worth more, but they have less. Also should save Anet money on bandwidth considering they track each stack and an individual now puts out less.

Use pistol whip. I haven’t seen it but I would not be surprised if a focus ele can win that fight either.

sorrow.2364:

I completely agree with Pyrial

First off, people sometimes forget about the fact that Guild Wars 2 is a game, after all.
The “top tier” players aren’t even the 0.1% of the player base and, considering that the last important tournament of GW2 had only about 1000 spectators while Guild Wars 2 has sold 3 million copies, I think that there is an issue which can’t be solved by listening only to top players, which seems what ArenaNet is doing in the last period.

I think you’re conjuring some negative presumptions of what they’re saying to anet to begin with. While players do get turned off because of balance, do you really think the balance is the main reason players vanished? That is primarily where the distinction between top player input and everyone elses gets segregated but it’s the least impactful to population numbers at this current moment.
Listening to other players isn’t what caused the population to drop.