Guild Wars 2

ensoriki.5789:

It’s part of the class mechanic to adapt to the opponent they’re facing.
All thief stolen abilities are strong in their own right.

LS has been nerfed for a few hours now, the forums need a new aspect of thief to demonize and complain about until its nerfed. Maybe this is it? We’ll see if it catches on.

Gwalchgwn.1659:

Destroy shadow trap: Just tested this thing out. You stunbreak on use. The enemy now actually has 1.5 seconds to stun you a second time. Not sure if I like it this way, but we’ll see.

…That seems odd. What if you hit Destroy Shadow trap for the stunbreak and immediately cancel the cast, say with a dodge roll – is the shadow trap consumed and put on CD, or is it an infinite stunbreaker now?

Galandil.9641:

Sceinna.3561:

I just tested again in sPvP standing in middle of caltrops & perma stealthing, 2 conditions every 3s (dunno where that 2nd cure came from tbh :/)

I tried it now to be sure, it seems you’re right, in sPvP we get 1 condition cleansed every 3 seconds of stealth (with 1 condition cured as soon as we enter stealth).

Bug or intended?

Tooltip Bug. More Info here.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/thief/Shadow-s-Embrace/first#post3027588

Kaon.7192:

I can’t imagine how ANet could have taken into account all the concerns raised in this thread and the other one I made in the Game Discussion forums and still decide it’s perfectly fine to go ahead and implement it as is.

Without a proper justification from ANet, it’s reasonable to assume that they simply ignored the 2 weeks worth of feedback we provided despite asking for it.

I doubt this was ever read by anyone at Anet, Kaon.

ArcTheFallen.7682:

Justin ODell.9517:

Volrath.1473:

Busy?! doing what?! too you guys 4 long month to come up with close to nothing balance wise, you only made it worse…

I love you guys

I’m busy ensuring there are no game-breaking bugs.

Honestly, it’s best to not post at all. Actions speak more than words, and let’s just say the pvp actions that have taken place haven’t done much to improve the stability of the game. So just keep up with your programming and make sure to send a mass email when we have a real pvp in this game.

This isn’t exactly fair – if devs never post in PvP forums, players complain PvP is the redheaded stepchild and Anet doesn’t care about it. When Dev’s take the time to post, you tell them to get back to work. I’m not happy with the patch, but it’s not this person’s fault specifically.

QoL Stuff is nice, if 9 months late.

“Balance” “Changes” however…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ViF6JRNjTk

Sceinna.3561:

Shadow’s Embrace works as it did before.. actually “better” for D/Ps, for some reason I’m cleansing 2 conditions every 3s at several occasions..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T26gZDGWRK8

Sounds like every time a new stealth is applied, the trait triggers immediately.

IE, if you could find a skill that would apply stealth once for 11 seconds, you’d see 2 condi removals – 1 immediately, 1 after the 10s ICD.

In SR and multiple leaps through a smoke field, the trait is considering any new application of stealth a new “instance” of stealth with its own 10s ICD.

In Short, Meld with shadows no longer allows a single stealth application to clear 2 conditions. Still a nerf, but not as severe as was thought, and does nothing against D/P with multiple leaps (which is how most thieves achieve “perma stealth” in pvp)

Fade.7658:

I just tested Shadow’s Embrace. It removes a condi every time you enter stealth. I haven’t tested the interval portion as of yet.

So the ICD resets if you leave and re-enter stealth less than 10 seconds later?

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/pvp/Patch-geussing-drinking-game/first#post2995204

Someone’s getting wasted tonight

We got mostly bug fixes.

And an LS nerf.

An a venomous aura buff that does nothing to address the fact that venoms are worthless unless you trait heavily into them.

And a very slight Lotus poison buff.

And I’m not sure how the stunbreaker portion of shadow trap is intended to work with a 1.5s cast time, unless now it’s only a stunbreaker when its been tripped.

Fletch.3572:

Curious as to what on earth made anyone think you could dodge a shout in the first place? I can’t dodge and make a guardian not gain stability from SYG

The skill can be used while a thief is already dodging/evading – it’s dumbed down to the extreme, you can’t even make a mistake via poor play. It always works, and that’s just silly.

It’s the thought process behind the design that concerns me, not so much the application.

Myrmidian Eudoros.4671:

Bazzoong.7145:

…
It will also prevent shadow refuge (or mass invisibility) from being used to save downed team mates, it will make downed 3 for thieves and the mesmer downed invisibility and it`s clone totally useless, the implications are far more severe than any of the previous posts indicate.

There is the actual value of this change. Stealth was the only sure stomp save in the game. It had no counter play. Really I don’t think it is that big a deal, because if you are a Ranger what are you giving up for “Sic em’”? Probably a spirit. While having a counter play for stealth is valuable the spirits are the crutch that make most ranger builds viable right now, and on the whole I think that the spirits actually carry more value.

The anti-stealth counter should have simply been “The thief is visible, even while in stealth, for 4s” – that would solve everyone’s issue without locking a thief out of their SA traits and stealth attacks.

ensoriki.5789:

Stealth is more of a class feature then a mechanic, given 3 other professions have access to it.

When they get stealth attacks that replace their auto attack which the designers took into consideration when designing how the class would play, you’ll be right.

Until then, incorrect.

Edit: Lets also note that those classes don’t have an entire trait line where every single minor trait and every single worthwhile major trait has the prerequisite “On/In Stealth”

Ryan.8367:

I don’t run spirit builds or run anything in NM, that’s a choice, much like a choice you can make not going 30 in SA as well. There are thieves that do that btw. Having a pet isn’t a choice. What I’m getting at is you’re abusing a mechanic you know doesn’t work to get an easy reward. Stealth isn’t just used to garnish the effects of SA, it’s also a disengage much like mesmers when they stealth.

If you’d like to continue this discussion, feel free to message me privately or start another thread. You’re bringing up off topic points that have nothing to do with why a undodgeable, uncleansable hard counter is a poor design choice, this conversation doesn’t belong here.

Ryan.8367:

No, but getting a free CND off on ranger pets yields all the rewards of 30 in SA. It’s your case it’s just flipped around. There’s a reason why CND has a high initiative cost, it yields a big reward – it’s supposed to be a risk in terms of getting off as you need to usually get it off on a target that can dodge it (it does have an obvious animation for a reason) , in the case for ranger pets, there isn’t one. It’s guaranteed. That’s all.

Nope, it has nothing to do with my case. CnD did not make the 30 points you put into a trait line (lets use NM as an example) completely useless.

When a CnD that hits your spirits instantly de-spawns all of them and puts them on CD, then we can talk – I mean, ranger wouldn’t be as kittened because the minor traits in NM would still function (as opposed to SA, who’s minor traits are all stealth reliant), but you’d have a valid point.

Since that is not the case, you continue to have no point.

TundraQualle.8204:

The duration is less than 1.25s, because the thief in the balance preview video had at least 30 points in Deadly Arts (+30% condition duration).

It’s almost certainly 1s base.

Ryan.8367:

evilapprentice.6379:

Kaizer.7135:

A hard counter is better than no counter at all, and whoop-de-doo, 4 second reveal isn’t going to get you killed unless you suck at Thief.

Please read all the other posts that have said this.

The CD, the length of the effect, whether or not rangers run it – NONE OF THAT CHANGES THE FACT THAT AN UNAVOIDABLE HARD COUNTER TO UP TO 42% OF CLASSES TRAIT POINTS AS WELL AS 33% OF THEIR CLASS MECHANICS IS STUPID DESIGN. It’s following on the poor precedent set by anti-stealth traps in Wvw (Like I said would happen when they announced anti-stealth traps). It’s lazy and it removes skill from the equation, because it can’t be avoided.

Just fyi, you guys get unavoidable CND’s on our pets that can’t dodge too. I guess abusing bad design only works one way.

If you’d like to make a case that pets that you chose to bring to the fight (Excluding Ranger pets, since they can’t choose to not bring their pet) are too easy to CnD, please do so, only elsewhere. It has no bearing on this conversation.

Being able to CnD a pet that can’t dodge is in no way comparable to an undodgeable, uncleansable hard counter to stealth, because a thief going stealth off your pet doesn’t have the potential to negate 30 trait points and part of your class mechanics.

Silly anecdotal evidence that fallaciously claims that correlation implies causation is silly.

teg.1340:

Daendur.2357:

Terrahero.9358:

Engineers have stealth, Mesmers have stealth, Rangers have stealth. Any smuck that happens across a smoke-field with a leap or blast has stealth.

they don’t have a trait line + traits in other lines dedicated to stealth + specific abilities that can be used only when stealthed.

also they have other ways to keep alive.

thieves have good melee burst (not the best) and … low health, low armor, low access to boons, no immunities ….

we have stealth and they are taking it away because noobs’ endless QQ.

I wonder what will you cry for once we won’t stealth but still crush you.

QQ at its finest. Its a 4s reveal with a 40s cooldown, only one profession has access to.

Every other profession has to deal with counters, so does you:

- boons are an integral part of guardian and ele mechanics, but theres both boon stripping and boon hate
- stuns are an integral part of hammer warriors, but theres both stun breaks and stability
- blocks are an integral part of various professions, but theres unblockable
- heal is an integral part of many profession, but theres poison
- conditions are an integral part of many professions, but theres condition remover and condition immunity

What makes thieves so special that there should be no counter to stealth?

If you can’t differentiate a soft counter/game mechanic which can be dodged/blocked/cleansed/etc from an undodgeable, uncleansable hard counter, you really shouldn’t be posting – your opinion carries no worth.

Mepheles.2087:

Complaining about an ability that will most likely never be used, and even it does, it’s 4s on a 40s CD, which however does not negate the thief from dodging, shadowstepping away, blinding the Ranger, stunning the ranger, LoSing the ranger, outright killing the ranger, etc…. But you will counter with the same bull crap, “Waah, it’s not the fact that no one will use it, it’s the principle design that allowed, yadda yadda…” THE FACT IS…. This trait is extremely NICHE, and you will probably never see it used if at all and complaining about it is nothing short of ridiculous ranting that has no basis whatsoever.

Ok, for the sake of argument, I’ll agree with you. Sic Em probably won’t be used (in its current form). So let’s discuss what my point actually is

A) My problem isn’t with Sic Em specifically, its with the design process that brought about the changes to Sic Em. No one at Anet thought it was silly to put a skill in the game that was completely undodgeable, completely countered a class mechanic, and potentially completely counters all the benefits associated with 30 trait points. It follows the very poor precedent set by anti stealth traps in WvW, which is the point of my argument, not “Wah, Sic em is OP”. It removes all skill from the equation for 4s because it cant be dodged, cleansed, or countered by a build that relies on stealth.

B) Since we agree that Sic Em probably isn’t good enough to be slotted right now, how about we look to the future? Eventually, Anet is going to notice that the bump they gave to Sic Em didn’t make it playable, and give it another bump. Or maybe some BM changes will suddenly make taking Sic Em worth it. Why wait until then to address what is clearly bad design?

Terrahero.9358:

Stealth is not your class mechanic. There are far more severe, more abundant and worst counters to other professions entire traitlines.

Go tell that to the designers, who designed thief weapons with special stealth attacks, and the class in general with unparalleled access to stealth. It’s clearly a class mechnic.
Please also go ahead and point out those clear, worse counters to entire traitlines as well, because just saying things doesn’t make them so.

Seriously, this is the only counter to stealth and it basicly just gives you revealed. Its on a 40second cooldown.
Lets talk about how abusive Larcenous strike is. How easily that can shut down anyone build for boons. That is a counter.

When LS can’t be dodged, we’ll compare the two.

When other people can spam Revealed on you over and over, then i might be interested in hearing your complaints.

Why wait until then, when we can nip the problem in the bud now?

ensoriki.5789:

evilapprentice.6379:

Kaizer.7135:

A hard counter is better than no counter at all, and whoop-de-doo, 4 second reveal isn’t going to get you killed unless you suck at Thief.

Please read all the other posts that have said this.

The CD, the length of the effect, whether or not rangers run it – NONE OF THAT CHANGES THE FACT THAT AN UNAVOIDABLE HARD COUNTER TO UP TO 42% OF CLASSES TRAIT POINTS AS WELL AS 33% OF THEIR CLASS MECHANICS IS STUPID DESIGN. It’s following on the poor precedent set by anti-stealth traps in Wvw (Like I said would happen when they announced anti-stealth traps). It’s lazy and it removes skill from the equation, because it can’t be avoided.

The stealth itself is stupid design.
Get over it.

So are clones in my opinion, but you won’t see me asking for a skill that despawns them all and prevents new ones from being created for 4s (not seriously, anyway). Just because I don’t like fighting certain mesmer builds doesn’t mean they need a targeted, unavoidable, uncleansable hard counter.

Whether or not stealth is poorly designed does not justify a poorly designed counter – in fact, it’s a very bad argument. Lets take everything players don’t like and introduce uncleansable, unavoidable hard counters to it, and we’ll see how fun the game is.

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.

No other class gains special variants on their auto-attack while in stealth – stealth is part of a thief’s class mechanic. I learned that from playing, back in October 2012.

kiwituatara.6053:

evilapprentice.6379:

kiwituatara.6053:

Most rangers wont be running sic em anyways. No worries~

Please read all the other posts that have said this.

The CD, the length of the effect, whether or not rangers run it – NONE OF THAT CHANGES THE FACT THAT AN UNAVOIDABLE HARD COUNTER TO UP TO 42% OF CLASSES TRAIT POINTS AS WELL AS 33% OF THEIR CLASS MECHANICS IS STUPID DESIGN. It’s following on the poor precedent set by anti-stealth traps in Wvw (Like I said would happen when they announced anti-stealth traps). It’s lazy and it removes skill from the equation, because it can’t be avoided.

Relax. The amount of stealth on some thief builds are ridiculous. Its pretty much a flawed counter for a flawed concept. ~shrug

The caps are to be clear – when you see the same nonsensical response multiple times, you want to be clear.

“Stealth is flawed” is your opinion, and not a provable fact. An ability that can’t be avoided which negates up to 42% of spent trait points while also locking a class out of 33% of its class mechanics is provably flawed – there isn’t another attack in this game that has a comparable effect. It can’t be dodged (like every other attack in the game), it can’t be broken (Like stuns) or cleansed (like condi’s) once it hits – it’s literally removes skill from the equation for 4s. The fact that we’re talking about stealth is irrelevant – any attack with those criteria would be stupid.

If stealth is a problem, have sic-em make thieves visible while in stealth for 4 seconds – that way you’re not locking the class out of up to 30 trait points and their stealth attacks, while satisfying the biggest complaint about stealth (“Where did he go?”). I’m fine with counters to stealth – I disagree that they’re needed, but it’s not inherently flawed to attempt to counter stealth. It is inherently flawed to due it in such a heavy handed, poorly implemented manner, especially when my suggestion is infinitely better (AND achievable – there was a recently fixed bug that made thieves appear in full view on their own screens while in stealth, which means we know the game engine can handle rendering a stealthed thief visible while still gaining the trait/attack benefits of stealth)

Imagi.4561:

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.

Exactly. It’s not about how effective Sic Em will be (against me it’ll be a waste of a slot, for example), it’s about the design principle and testing practices that allowed this to pass – Unavoidable skill that potentially locks an entire traitline, as well as 33% of thieves class 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 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.

LuRkEr.9462:

Elxdark.9702:

cyyrix.6105:

Sic’em is a 4s revealed on 40s CD.

If I were you, I’d be more worried about the Shadow’s Embrace nerf the dev accidentally showed in the tooltip (condi removal every 10s in stealth instead of 3s).

LOL, if thats true then I’m very very kittening worried.

I agree if this is true I will be very displeased as its our only way to survive all those condition builds in pvp. This will make us pretty squishy in a pvp setting.

Let’s wait until tomorrow for this one – if they toned down condi spam, then a toning down of Shadow’s Embrace makes sense. It only doesn’t make sense if condi’s remained untouched, and we don’t know anything on that front yet. This could be a testing holdover on whatever build they’re playing as well.

Burnfall.9573:

evilapprentice.6379:

Really Anet?

It’s bad enough you’ve introduced a hard counter to an entire traitline and class mechanic for people too lazy to L2P, but it’s completely unavoidable (seeing as thieves can’t go immune or block) as well?

I can’t wait for my unavoidable hard counters to other classes – here are some suggestions for you

- scorpion wire ignores block/dodge and removes all adrenaline
- Needle trap ignores block/dodge and despawns ranger pet and puts them on a 4s CD
- Signet of Shadows ignores block/dodge, knocks necro’s out of DS and locks it for 4s.

Stop me when I’ve come up with a suggestion you like…

Really Thief?

Yet after 13+ months, stealth can not be countered!

Now were’re Tied.

It’s been counter-able since I learned to play, way back in 2012. An EZ mode button was bad enough, an unavoidable EZ mode button is just silly. But I know you’re a troll. I eagerly await your new excuses when Sic em does nothing to make up for your inability to adapt.

LuRkEr.9462:

Sick’em is not a threat. This is because it has to be put on before you go into stealth and will not interrupt your current stealth. This means a ranger will have to anticipate stealth or set up a burst by using it first but we will just dodge their following burst. The problem will be if they decide to buff it.

See my response directly above – I don’t even run a stealth build. I haven’t for months, and don’t plan on running one any time soon. I have no personal stake in this. It’s just dumb, dumb, dumb design.

cyyrix.6105:

Sic’em is a 4s revealed on 40s CD.

If I were you, I’d be more worried about the Shadow’s Embrace nerf the dev accidentally showed in the tooltip (condi removal every 10s in stealth instead of 3s).

Its not about the duration or the CD, its about the basic design principle.

A skill that completely locks out 33% of a thiefs class mechanics, and potentially 42% of their total trait points (if they’re 30 into SA) is kitten poor design. Making it completely unavoidable removes all skill from the equation – it doesn’t matter if I outplay the kitten out of you, you can slot a button that says “you are revealed for 4s, no matter what you do”, and that’s just dumb.

End of the twitch video, when they’re addressing questions. 45:10
It’s a 4s Reveal

Elxdark.9702:

lol come on people, we can get perma-stealth easily and you’re QQing for a skill which reveals you for 4 secs in a CD of 40 secs? come on.

It’s about principle – an unavoidable “kitten 33% of your class mechanics and up to 30 trait points” is unacceptably kittenty design. But lets not derail this thread, I’ve already thought better of posting my opinion here and started a new thread.

Really Anet?

It’s bad enough you’ve introduced a hard counter to an entire traitline and class mechanic for people too lazy to L2P, but it’s completely unavoidable (seeing as thieves can’t go immune or block) as well?

I can’t wait for my unavoidable hard counters to other classes – here are some suggestions for you

- scorpion wire ignores block/dodge and removes all adrenaline
- Needle trap ignores block/dodge and despawns ranger pet and puts them on a 4s CD
- Signet of Shadows ignores block/dodge, knocks necro’s out of DS and locks it for 4s.

Stop me when I’ve come up with a suggestion you like…

“Sic em cannot be dodged” – I didn’t get a chance to watch the whole stream earlier (stopped after thief), and I just caught this watching the vid.

An unavoidable skill that locks a class mechanic…sigh Anet, just Sigh.

Wouldn’t get my hopes up, if I were you.

A) This was only a preview. They mentioned multiple times there is alot more to the patch then what was seen.
B) The purpose of this preview was to show off cool new stuff – “Hey thieves, S/D got nerfed!” isn’t cool new stuff for thieves.

crouze.3078:

Kydar Schattendolch.6879:

2 ideas:

1. 33% chance to inflict poison (5s) and vulnerability (5 stacks) for 5 seconds. Can only Trigger once every 10 seconds.

2. 33% chance to inflict poison (5s). If your target is moving, you also inflict 2 stacks of tourment for 5s. Can only Trigger once every 10 seconds.

I think adding more then just poison would be to strong.
Looking at similar traits (100% burning on crit 4 sec with 10s ICD). (for engineer an adept trait)
And your ideas are not on crit? maybe you forgot to add that, but 33% with every hit would be very strong for condition builds without precision.

Looking at the damage of poison compared to burning, i would change my initial idea from
33% chance on crit to poison 5s with 10s ICD to
100% chance on crit to poison 5s with 10s ICD

It would be less damage then the engineer trait but the main reason to pick this trait would be to lower the healing.

But i also like the other ideas.

Don’t like it behind an “On Crit” barrier – thieves are already forced to go very bursty if they want to remain effective, more traits that encourage taking a high crit % aren’t necessary, and the fact that this trait is in DA doesn’t help.

I like Ensoriki’s “10% more crit against poisoned targets” trait the best so far – it gives a thief a way to get more crit (as I said above, something important) outside the normal CS/Precision path.

The only real problem is it still doesn’t compete with Mug – nothing competes with Mug. Mug isn’t OP, it’s just so generally useful.

People will cry “evade spam” even more, IMO.

D/D is far from P/P – comparing the two is downright silly.

From a PvP standpoint, D/D’s big weakness is /D – The nerf to CnD and DD damage was a bit heavy handed, and DD’s inability to hit things that so much as sneeze while you’re launching the attack is frustrating. Lets also note that it only inflicts a 3s cripple, rather than the listed duration.

D/D can be strong in some situations – if there are pets/AI of any kind in your range, or static structures that can be hit, CnD is amazing – its a 6 init stealth (more realistically 4 init, since you’re probably running Infusion) , compared to D/P’s 9(7).

The problem is D/P ends up being much more versatile in the current meta (and most of the last few meta’s, tbh). The dual skill being condition focused while the rest of the set is clearly direct damage focused doesn’t help. Comparing it P/P is inaccurate tho – P/P is extremely poorly designed, while D/D just needs some minor tweaks.

Steal CD already got a big buff recently, and It’s in a fairly solid place right now – I still think steal could use some tweaking (untraited it’s meh, properly traited it’s amazing, the 2 extremes could use a bit of narrowing). a CD reduction isn’t necessary.

I’ve suggested in the past making CnD unblockable – People hate this idea because they hate thieves, but its not such a bad suggestion. All it does is allow a thief access to their defensive mechanics (invisiblity, SA traits) against a blocking opponent since none of the stealth attacks are unblockable – it doesn’t open up some insane world of hurt, it just allows a D/D thief access to stealth against block.

crouze.3078:

It just forces you to prepare your stun breaker = more skillful play
while gaining more mobility because of the shorter cooldown.

You seem to think limiting the functionality of a skill = Better play.

There’s nothing wrong with shadow step as it stands. Turning shadow step into an opener isn’t necessary, because thief already has access to strong opening skills.

As a class in the lowest HP pool, with no prot/stability/aegis, no immune skills and no blocks, having to prepare my stunbreaker in advance is an unnecessary hurdle, especially when there’s absolutely nothing wrong with shadowstep as it is.

Edit: You are trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. Thief already has plenty of gap closing openers, and shadowstep isn’t such a strong/brainless stunbreaker as to necessitate a nerf.

crouze.3078:

If you engange the fight with shadowstep, you will still have a stunbreaker for the next 20 seconds with shadow return.

Why would I bother? I’ve got inf strike, shadow shot, and sometimes HS to engage with, and the currently superior form of Shadow step that breaks stuns to disengage with if need be.

I like Shared weakness – it feels unique and useful, without being OP.

crouze.3078:

Gwalchgwn.1659:

^I personally would like his option more. Except for the loss on stunbreak on use. It’s a great skill for escaping when you get surprised. This kind of forces us to take another stunbreaker just to compensate (for example if a basilisk BS thief attacks you). In my current build this would I have to run with 3 stunbreakers (since two of them will only work after placing them, with one having a potentive use of 20 seconds)

So in regard of the stunbreaking part, i’d prefer having 3condi clear on 50 sec then 2 condi clear on 30 sec

The point of my idea is to use it to engange into a fight and use the shadow return to disengage. Removing the stun break on the first shadowstep prevents you from using it when getting caught off guard.

In return for the remove of stun breaker you can use it more often and have more mobility.

You’ve removed what is hands down Thief’s most functional, versatile stunbreaker.

Haste is a poor choice for hopefully obvious reasons.

Inf Sig isn’t a bad skill, but teleporting to your target to break a stun can have negative consequences.

RFI would be fine if it worked. All too often, you’ll hit it 10 times in the span of 2 seconds before it goes off (eating damage you should have been evading while you wait), and among those times it DOES go off, it’s random whether or not you’ll actually evade away, or do an evade roll in place for 80% of the animation.

Shadow step is far more reliable, and can break 2 stuns if they happen within 12 seconds of each other ( a reality in team fights and against the current meta stunlock warriors).

Even though I don’t think we should bother dissecting our functioning skills at all until we bring under-performing skills to the same level, you would need to propose another stun breaker to replace shadowstep before you could seriously consider any changes to it that remove stunbreaker.

Source: I run RFI, Inf Sig and Shadow Step, and have for a while now – I’m very aware of their strengths and limitations.

Zacchary.6183:

IDGAF I haz prufe

I remember being excited for all the “Coming soon” and “On the radar” changes the dev’s were talking about…. back in 2012.

Potentially good news, I’ll believe it when I see it though.

There’s nothing wrong with Shadow step at the moment.

We should be focusing on bringing sub-par skills up to par with the rest of our options – once we have a rich pool of functioning, useful skills to judge it against, we can talk about whether or not Shadow step needs to be changed.

- Whenever you apply poison to your target, they take X damage (think like leeching venom without the heal, with a properly tested number)

- Poison you apply reduces healing by an additional 17%
Or
- Poison you apply does 100% more damage (poison is a utility condition, the damage itself is pitiful – dont let 100% more damage fool you)
I Don’t know exactly how Anet tracks multiple different sources of a time stacking condition like this, so I don’t know how feasible this is.

crouze.3078:

I disagree that the thief is a “really good 1v1 dueler”.
The main advantage in a 1v1 is that he can reset the fight really easy.

But other then that the thief does not have a real advantage fighting other 1v1 specced professions

1 word – positioning.

The most popular thief weaponsets (S/D, D/P, SB) all have amazing options for gaining superior positioning. Positioning matters a lot in 1v1, and generally less so in team fights. Thief clearly has strengths that are more effective in 1v1 fights than they are in team fights.

crouze.3078:

Olba.5376:

crouze.3078:

Olba.5376:

I don’t think that’s a good idea.

I mean, who would use it for 5 stacks anyway? That’s kitten weak compared to the benefits you can get from staying in stealth with points in Shadow Arts.

+5% damage for everyone who attacks the taget isn’t that bad. And when changing heartseeker to work with vulnerability stacks, it would give you a benefit for using more then only 1 of your skills.

The damage would not be done instant like with the current backstab.
You would have to build up for your good damage making it more interesting to play and others wouldn’t complain about getting to much damage with a single hit.

5 Stacks of vulnerability would be useless for PvP. And with Backstab useless, no one would play D/D and D/P would be reduced into a troll/chase spec. Enjoy your masses of evade-spamming S/D thieves.

If you are talking about 1vs1 i totally agree.
It is weaker then the current backstab.

But in a teamfight those vulnerability stacks can help alot when you focus a target.

I knew that backstab and heartseeker would be the most difficult topics to discuss.

Not every fight is a group fight – In fact, thieves are fairly weak in group fights. If you want to completely redesign the class and then suggest a backstab change, by all means (I likely still won’t agree, but at least you’d have a more solid base). But as it stands, you’re nerfing thief under the guise that “It will be more fun” and “it’s great for team fights” – you know what’s great in a team fight? Forcing the other team to carefully choose their positioning or else a scary BS thief might down them unexpectedly.

crouze.3078:

evilapprentice.6379:

crouze.3078:

Daendur.2357:

crouze.3078:

The damage would not be done instant like with the current backstab.

That’s exactly the point of BS.

Thats not fun and anet knows that.

Using it to surprise someone to put him into a vulnerable spot is way more fun i think.
Not only for the thief that has to use more of his skills to be effective, but also for the enemy that get at least a chance to react.

Whether or not its fun is a matter of opinion.

Whether you find it fun or not, a PvP game needs burst classes, or everyone will roll sustain/attrition builds.

I dont say anything against burst.
But bursting someone down in 3 seconds or in 10 seconds makes a big difference in gameplay.

And you can allways burst no matter what if you coordinate your group and focus a target with your strongest skills.

A) Nobody is getting bursted down in 3 seconds, unless you’re talking about Glass cannon Vs Glass cannon, in which case what did you expect?

B) No, you can’t always burst someone down with coordination, it’s spec dependent, especially if we consider your proposed changes. You are trying to push the meta toward sustain/attrition. Nobody will have burst, because it wont be worth it, and having 3 attrition spec’s whaling on you is not “Burst”.

crouze.3078:

Daendur.2357:

crouze.3078:

The damage would not be done instant like with the current backstab.

That’s exactly the point of BS.

Thats not fun and anet knows that.

Using it to surprise someone to put him into a vulnerable spot is way more fun i think.
Not only for the thief that has to use more of his skills to be effective, but also for the enemy that get at least a chance to react.

Whether or not its fun is a matter of opinion.

Whether you find it fun or not, a PvP game needs burst classes, or everyone will roll sustain/attrition builds.

Dee Jay.2460:

Shadows Embrace – cleaning a Condition every 3 seconds while in stealth is kitten powerful, arguably overpowered. It makes Thieves virtually impervious to Condition builds unless they can spam them at an excessive rate. This largely stems from the fact though that Thieves want to stealth as much as possible.

Which literally every condition build in the current meta can do. Prior to the current meta, there might have been a discussion about this (realize that there are high costs associated with sitting in stealth), but currently shadows embrace is more of a band-aid then the condition immunity you’re calling it.

Infusion of Shadows is really the trait that enables all the “perma stealth builds”. Without it Initiative regeneration just couldn’t keep up. I’d rather see the trait reduced to 1 point of Initiative and real stealth abilities like Cloak and Dagger reduced by 1 point as well.

BP->HS is the “problem”, not infusion. Don’t mess up every single stealth builds initiative management to address the specific interaction of 1 skill and a smoke field. If you really feel this is OP, then suggest a small ICD (2s?) to Leaps through a smoke field or something.

I think Cloaked in Shadows is arguably overpowered as well since it makes Cloak and Dagger spam nearly untouchable in certain situations. Given the power of Condition spam though this trait has been somewhat neglected by most. But trying to kill a Thief with this trait using a melee weapon is very tough.

Now you’re just messing with us…right? Cloaked in shadows has it’s uses, but “arguably overpowered”? That’s a stretch any way you look at it, IMO.

Justin ODell.9517:

evilapprentice.6379:

Why was this a possibility at all?

I understand where you are coming from, it’s frustrating, it bothers me as a player and bothers me even more as a developer. The upcoming changes should significantly improve things, but either way we will continue working to improve the experience.

Brutal Arts.6307:

Does that refer to the following balance patch on the 15th of October or does this refer to some in house as of yet to be determined date?

Sorry for the confusion, I was not referring to the skills and balance patch, but a drop some time after that. I do not know if we have a strong date for that or not.

I appreciate the candor, but unfortunately “the future” isn’t a timeframe that sets my mind at ease. The world promised me flying cars and hoverboards by now, and we still haven’t seen them. As thrilled as I am to hear that the issues we care about are being worked on, a big part of the PvP communities gripe is the time frame in which PvP changes/upgrades are delivered. The fact that matchmaking is still dysfunctional is a point of contention, and as nice as it is to hear that it’s being worked on, the nebulous “in the future/when its ready” response has exhausted its good will and trustworthiness. This isn’t your fault, I’m just pointing it out.

Krayiss.4926:

Could you explain the process of how hard it would be to server program a PTR and test MMR?

A public test realm is something on our radar, and many of us would like to see it, but it’s far beyond the scope of the SPvP team.

It really shouldn’t be beyond the scope of the PvP team. I don’t mean to tell your higher ups how they should run things, but as far as I can tell, PvE doesn’t need a test realm – PvP does. PvP is constantly borked at patch time (maybe PvE is too? I don’t know, I don’t PvE), and PvP is sorely in need of more thorough QA and testing – that’s what a PTR is for. As I’ve said before, I appreciate and understand that Anet does not ask a monthly sub from me to play this game – if access to the PTR costs 5 bucks a month, I’ll gladly pay it, because it fulfills all my wildest fantasies as far as this game is concerned – it will help deliver more balanced, well tested patches (in a more timely manner, hopefully), and best of all, myself and other serious PvP players will be involved in the process – that is literally a dream come true, as far as I’m concerned.