Guild Wars 2

Daecollo.9578:

evilapprentice.6379:

Daecollo.9578:

Cool-down reductions wouldn’t qualm the issues, but it would make them a lot more “usable.” and fun to play and a lot more practical.

The issues are always going to be there, regardless of what we do unless the skills are completely revamped.

I’m still convinced a passive/active mix would fix the issues without a complete revamp. Sans any traits, your reducing Venoms current major weakness (being very easily cleansable in Spider venoms case, stacking issues with devourers) with the passive triggers. Your leaving the power level of most traits in place (on activation and CD related traits are 100% unaffected), and making Leeching venoms an actual choice for some builds, rather than just being run by Venom Share specs. Same goes for my residual venoms trait change suggestion.

Ice Drake and Skale venoms will likely still need some tweaking, but that’s an issue with their effect being subpar – some useful effects would fix their issues (in combination with the Passive/Active mix).

Actually the effects having both active/passive effects like Turrets/Minions would be fun as well. You can use the active effects and still have the passive effects, however the active effects would be as much as just triggering one of the procs immediately.

For example, using a venom applies the venom on yourself for 5 minutes, and then when applied, a second effect is placed on the hotbar that just lets you activate that venom immediately, however depending on which venom it is, it has a shorter or longer cool-down. It has no effect on the active effect at all, the active effect still has a chance to proc.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding, but that just seems like an overcomplicated version of what I’ve suggested, which would require a change in the way Venoms were implemented entirely for almost no tangible difference from what I’ve been suggesting.

Straegen.2938:

evilapprentice.6379:

Unless you happen to be reduced to 25% of less health mid skill execution – which happens all the kitten time. If my health is hovering around 30%…I’m probably doing kitten – trying to finish the fight, running away, trying to enter stealth…etc.

Taking an inadvertent revealed debuff kind of sucks in any situation – It’s catastrophic when I’m at 25% health. Its hilariously sad when it happens mid HS out of a BP.

Even in that circumstance, it is still useful as the next attack by the enemy(s) is a complete miss and HS still lands. If a thief is down to the wire on HP, that blind is incredibly important. It is likely the difference between one HS and two. People are only focusing on the stealth but ignoring the benefits of the blindness condition.

This ability firing mid-attack will happen but it costing a player a significant number of fights is highly unlikely. I think people are just remembering those half dozen fights it cost them and are blowing over X times more often that blindness saved them because it was applied automatically.

What other class even sometimes pays a cost for their 25% trigger trait?

Also in my specific example, there’s a good chance they were already blinded by my BP, so last refuge was nothing but a hindrance. Specifically D/P relies alot on blind (and other things), so throwing another random blind in there doesn’t have the potential to help me much.

I personally (and alot of other thieves as well) don’t stealth as much as possible – I use it situationally when it’s needed. kittening up my stealth even once is a big issue, because I only use it when I need it, and I’m hovering around 25% health and I go to stealth, I probably really needed it. I don’t get protection or stability or an immune skill, so when you kitten with my stealth, it can be an extremely big deal. It also kittens with our on stealth traits, and is the first minor trait in the “on stealth traits” tree, so there’s that.

And I can’t speak for others, but I’m remembering the 95 or 100 times (rank 40, to put that number into perspective) last refuge has kittened me, not half a dozen. The amount of times in combat it’s fired and actually been useful is less than 10.

Straegen.2938:

Possible outcomes when this does or could fire:

1. Player would die with or without this skill as the incoming damage is AoE from multiple targets

2. It fires, cloaks the user and applies blinds to everything nearby giving them a couple seconds to react accordingly.

3. It fires but doesn’t cloak because the user is revealed. All nearby targets still get blinded

4. It cloaks and targets are blinded but because the player is a keyboard spam monkey or hit bad timing they inadvertently apply the reveal debuf which MIGHT cause them to die.

In case 1, doesn’t matter. In case 2 and 3, it is actually a very good ability. Only in case 4 under fairly rare circumstances does it suck. The number of times 4 hits over 1-3 for a disciplined player is really, really slim. Ultimately this skill probably saves people thanks to blinding far more than it messes them up.

Unless you happen to be reduced to 25% of less health mid skill execution – which happens all the kitten time. If my health is hovering around 30%…I’m probably doing kitten – trying to finish the fight, running away, trying to enter stealth…etc.

Taking an inadvertent revealed debuff kind of sucks in any situation – It’s catastrophic when I’m at 25% health. Its hilariously sad when it happens mid HS out of a BP.

Daecollo.9578:

Cool-down reductions wouldn’t qualm the issues, but it would make them a lot more “usable.” and fun to play and a lot more practical.

The issues are always going to be there, regardless of what we do unless the skills are completely revamped.

I’m still convinced a passive/active mix would fix the issues without a complete revamp. Sans any traits, your reducing Venoms current major weakness (being very easily cleansable in Spider venoms case, stacking issues with devourers) with the passive triggers. Your leaving the power level of most traits in place (on activation and CD related traits are 100% unaffected), and making Leeching venoms an actual choice for some builds, rather than just being run by Venom Share specs. Same goes for my residual venoms trait change suggestion.

Ice Drake and Skale venoms will likely still need some tweaking, but that’s an issue with their effect being subpar – some useful effects would fix their issues (in combination with the Passive/Active mix).

If its mixed, then every trait would need to be nerfed to compensate for over-all “good” damage, and if you cept the long CD’s it would just be trash after you activated it and waited awile.

Why? Why would every trait need to be nerfed? The traits are almost completely unaffected – I haven’t suggested making any change that effects the activation or CD of Venoms. Leeching venom (the only trait that would be effected) would actually be worth using outside a venom share focused build, which is a good thing.

Low CDs however makes it passively active, its still active, you just have to keep up the rotation and still use it when you need it. It would just be a lot harder to play since you actually need to work on it. (basicly, bringing in a faster and more skillful play-style to the game.)

I’m fine with lower CD and lower number of activations per use (thereby reducing the effectiveness of Condition cleansing), though I still don’t think that makes venoms good enough.

Signets are already in the game to be signets. I think our signets need improved a bit though, however we can’t have venoms to be almost exactly the same, the developers want more active playstyles, not more passive ones.

Though similar, they are not the same. With the exception of assassins signet, the passive and active effects of signets have nothing to do with each other. My suggestion “are like signets” in that they have a passive effect, but will play very differently.

You could have a passive/activating effect like minions/turrets do, activate to use a venom immediately, without messing with the activatable effect.

Like Summon Bone Fiend Bone Fiend Summon a bone fiend that attacks foes at range. Delivers a crippling attack once every ten seconds.

Rigor Mortis – Immobilize your bone fiend, and it will immobilize foes.

This is almost exactly what I’ve suggested – you’ve just combined my idea for passive effects (Sort of – a guaranteed effect with a long CD as opposed to a %chance with low cd on trigger) with your idea for quicker CD’s.

Daecollo.9578:

Taril.8619:

Daecollo.9578:

How would that work with the traits

Change where it says “On application” to “On use”

how would that work with Venomous Aura?

It’d just spread the activated effect on activation, I.E. Exactly what it does now (Except that it’s more likely that a Thief has gone venomshare)

The traits only work when you “use” them for the most part. Why would anyone use them when they can just have the passive effect up all the time?

Oh a number of reasons…

• To share effects to allies
• To activate traits
• To get guaranteed procs
• Because they have the suggested trait removing downsides from activating them

Problem is, since they are both procs on hit and activate, they would both suffer balance effects and be much weaker because of it.

All venoms would have to be nerfed in both passive and active effects.

The Internal Cool-downs would have to be added to some to make up for it too. Can you imagine getting lucky and landing immobilize over/over. That would be rediculous.

And then after that, you might as well just have active effects with low cooldowns. (15 seconds.) because that is just much better over all, you need to keep up your abilities.

I suggest making them either one thing or the other, completely passive, or completely active and base them on skills.

Why would the active effect need to be nerfed at all? Nothing has changed as far as the active effect is concerned.

Also, I suggested that the passive effect be a neutered version of the activated effect (which feels roughly fair, some playtesting required of course). Aaaaaaaaand I suggested an internal CD to passive venom triggers.

Completely passive would be garbage – if you take the ability to choose exactly when my venoms go off, they instantly become crap IMO. Completely active also has its weaknesses in the current meta (Condition cleansing). I think the mixed approach is best.

Edit: Forgot to mention basilisk venom – passive effect would have to be minimal (.25 second daze or something) to keep it from being OP, but non-trivial.

Daecollo.9578:

evilapprentice.6379:

Daecollo.9578:

Dasorine.1964:

tbh I always expected venoms to be more of a continual buff style thing like other games use the skill you get a buff for x amount of time and during that time your attacks apply/have a chance to apply the effects.

I mean that sort of venom still technically exists in this game as consumable.

I mean look at skale venom for thieves: for 3 hits you apply weakness and vulnerability for 5 seconds

Compared to the consumable: For 10 minutes your attacks have a chance of applying weakness and vulnerability

The way we get it at the moment just doesn’t fit, you don’t give someone that attacks rapidly something that only lasts a few attacks and in some cases doesn’t even stack.

Granted 10 minutes would be silly (as it would have to lock the utility for that long to prevent abuse) but still, a 45 second skill that when used gives you a chance to apply those conditions on every hit for 30 seconds would, in my eyes, be much superior.

Yeah, but then that dillutes active gameplay. I want to be able to apply venoms at the right time when I need them, not randomly just get them. Imagine immobilizing an opponent (Since its Immobilize, it will probably only happen every 10 seconds since its so powerful as a proc.) at the wrong time when you didn’t want it.

Or Poisoning the mob or player randomly when he wasn’t healing.

Its good to save it for when you need it.

Set up venoms like signets – X% Passive chance (lets say 20%) to apply some nuetered version of the effect (4s of poison for Spider, 1s Immob for Dev, 3s weak/vuln for skale, 1s for ice drake) while the skill is not on cooldown on a five second internal CD (per venom) – keep the active skill as is.

Change residiual venoms to “Passive effect persists even when skill is on CD” and up the chance to trigger by some amount (Say, +15% for a total of 35%).

Edit: kitten This kitten language filter has gone insane. you cant say a, then 5, then s – seriously.

How would that work with the traits and how would that work with Venomous Aura? The traits only work when you “use” them for the most part. Why would anyone use them when they can just have the passive effect up all the time?

The same way it works now – everything triggers On use.

You use them to guarantee the effect goes off – passive poison is nice, but if I see my target is using their heal and I can’t interrupt it, I still have the option to activate spider venom and have my next 5 swings apply poison guaranteed. The passive is there to give venoms that little “umph” they need to be worth slotting – otherwise they work exactly the same.

Edit: I think there might be some confusion here – the passive effect is from slotting the venom in the first place, it does not persist through CD or once you’ve activated the Venom (Unless you take my proposed Residual Venoms)

Daecollo.9578:

Dasorine.1964:

tbh I always expected venoms to be more of a continual buff style thing like other games use the skill you get a buff for x amount of time and during that time your attacks apply/have a chance to apply the effects.

I mean that sort of venom still technically exists in this game as consumable.

I mean look at skale venom for thieves: for 3 hits you apply weakness and vulnerability for 5 seconds

Compared to the consumable: For 10 minutes your attacks have a chance of applying weakness and vulnerability

The way we get it at the moment just doesn’t fit, you don’t give someone that attacks rapidly something that only lasts a few attacks and in some cases doesn’t even stack.

Granted 10 minutes would be silly (as it would have to lock the utility for that long to prevent abuse) but still, a 45 second skill that when used gives you a chance to apply those conditions on every hit for 30 seconds would, in my eyes, be much superior.

Yeah, but then that dillutes active gameplay. I want to be able to apply venoms at the right time when I need them, not randomly just get them. Imagine immobilizing an opponent (Since its Immobilize, it will probably only happen every 10 seconds since its so powerful as a proc.) at the wrong time when you didn’t want it.

Or Poisoning the mob or player randomly when he wasn’t healing.

Its good to save it for when you need it.

Set up venoms like signets – X% Passive chance (lets say 20%) to apply some nuetered version of the effect (4s of poison for Spider, 1s Immob for Dev, 3s weak/vuln for skale, 1s for ice drake) while the skill is not on cooldown on a five second internal CD (per venom) – keep the active skill as is.

Change residiual venoms to “Passive effect persists even when skill is on CD” and up the chance to trigger by some amount (Say, +15% for a total of 35%).

Edit: kitten This kitten language filter has gone insane. you cant say a, then 5, then s – seriously.

avilo.1942:

Nilgoow.1037:

The biggest problem with ‘boon hate’ is that so many classes have boons on procs that are relatively unavoidable or core to their defensive spec. You can never make ‘boon hate’ good because there is such little player input involved on either side. Turrets and Minions have the same problem. You can’t create a competitive system where one player can punish another when the mechanics involved are side-effects of other ubiquitous elements like dealing or taking damage.

Boon hate is indeed a very bad idea because what they are going to do is create a cluster…you know what.

If they go through with this…they are essentially gutting their own boon system, making it bad for you to have boons…which is entirely contradictory to the concept of applying a boon to yourself.

A new player, or even veteran, expects that if you apply a boon to yourself you are getting stronger, not being suddenly opened up to being damaged more. It’s completely unintuitive and goes down the slippery slope of, “oh so we added boon hate, what’s next, we have to add in boon love?”

“Boon Love” – this has been added into the game, we are planning to add traits/abilities that allow players with boons to not take as much damage from players with boon hate.

So you see the problem anet? The concept of boon hate is unnecessary and going to make your balance design overly complicated for no reason.

Instead of doing this, let’s be real here. Address the actual balance problem instead of trying to avoid the issue. And that of course currently is the d/d elementalist with lots of boons for the most part.

I honestly do not think the d/d ele is a problem overall yet, but if they believe it to be they should tone down the d/d ele’s boon, or obvious things like the arcana trait that gives 5 seconds lingering attunement bonuses..etc.

You get the picture – address the issue of the d/d boon ele instead of introducing a concept that’s adversely going to affect your entire class system.

They can go one of 2 routes.
1) Take a long, in depth look at every class that can currently “Boon Spam” (Read: Keep a plethora of boons up during average length combat, even through boon stripping). They would have to take into account all traits, utilities, abilities and rune sets that grant access to and lengthen the time of said boons, and then take into consideration current boon stripping options, and whether or not they need to be expanded, and then make adjustments.
2) Add Boon hate (or boon stripping, targeted or otherwise) so that players can’t just blindly throw up boons anymore. They’ll have to make choices, only using boons that apply to the fight at hand, and not just blindly re-applying over and over again because they can. A thief or warrior will be scary not because “Oh kitten, they can do alot of damage in 3 seconds”, but instead because “Oh kitten, I can’t just blindly keep stacking duration on 6 different boons (only 3 of which are really helping me in this fight atm anyway) anymore, I actually have to apply those boons when they’ll be most useful.” This has the added benefit (if done correctly) of making thieves and warriors a more fun class to fight against – no more burst fest fights between non-bunkers. Instead, we’ll have some give and take, more opportunities for counter play, all without compromising the ability to deal with bunkers.

I absolutely do not trust anet to do 1/10th of the work that option 1 entails correctly. Option 2 is much simpler (though admittedly IMO still beyond their ability to properly implement) and carries less overall work to implement, and less complexity to take into account.

They also made boons to integral to bunkering – in most games, buffs or boons are helpful, but aren’t the thing that make or break a tank. In this game, the difference between a bunker and easy prey is heavily dependent on the boons they have access to, how often they can be applied, and how long they last – perfectly balancing boon access, boon duration, and boon stripping would be a nightmare for any company.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Normalizing the damage will make your hard hitting swing mediocre and less important. :/

But the “flashy” 3rd swing is normal across the board for the different main hand weapons.

AA is bullkitten attack, bullkitten attack, attack you need to dodge. Instead, each attack should have some reason for it to be worth dodging it – in my example above (mid damage + weakness->mid damage +cripple->big damage with no conditions), a conditions spec doesn’t really care about weakness, a spec with alot of escapes might not care about the cripple, and a large HP pool spec might choose to eat the big damage swing to keep fighting back. Just like dagger, each swing has something that makes it unique, there isn’t a clear dodge priority that’s universal regardless whatever your targets spec and class is.

I see what you’re saying, thus I agree that each swing need to offer something.

What boggles my mind is Warrior deals bleeding on the first and second swing using a sword, but a Thief for some reason cannot cause bleeding. I guess our sword is dull. :/

FS is still tricky – like I said in an earlier post, on paper the first swing should clearly be dodge priority for most opponents- it strips a boon, you’re evading for the entirety of the execution, and it ignores block – if it weren’t for the current meta, FS would perfectly fit my criteria; each swing has different characteristics that make them unique, and choosing which one to dodge is actually a tough decision (influenced by your targets spec). Unfortunately due to the current meta, a single boon strip and kittenty damage is generally less problematic for a player than straight up heavy damage. The design of FS is sound (stripping a boon -should- be a big deal), but the current meta makes the choice trivial.

I’m starting to see that now also and Bountiful Theft is hardly the solution.

Yeah, this is how my posts tend to run –
1) Make a suggestion no one likes to fix an issue that most agree actually exists
2) Eventually talk about the actual issue.

We’re at 2) now, talking about how most of swords swings give you no incentive to dodge them, making it a complete no-brainer to dodge the 2 big swings. Normalizing damage might not be the answer, but there needs to be something. If you look at other classes they have alot of unique AA’s (though some do have the same setup as sword) but thief current has the narrowest weapon selection – half of our melee weapons have AA with no unique swings except on the finisher, which automatically prioritizes it for dodge.

As for boon removal, I agree – bountiful theft is meh. If you run burst and FS->steal->Hope for Nullification proc, you can open a small burst window on a boon dependent target, but you sacrifice alot – 20 points in trickery can be a hard sell, and its on a 32-36s CD. Doesn’t help that most boon dependent specs will have those boons back up in less than 5 seconds.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

evilapprentice.6379:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

evilapprentice.6379:

Short and to the point – currently in PvP, S/D’s hardest hitting moves (Crippling strike, second swing of FS) are extremely easy to see coming- even with AA off and attempting to time my swings, I tend to watch players dodge these attacks whenever they can afford to. They do this because its a big chunk of sword DPS, and you can see them coming a mile away.

For both AA and FS, the other swings have the same timings, so why not just average the damage across all the swings?

Sword swings are too slow that you can perform FS in between swings to be less predictable…oops, I said too much.

I fail to see how using FS in the middle of Sword AA (Which in effect delays or sacrifices crippling strike entirely) would make the second swing of FS any less predictable – I suppose you could FS Mid crippling strike (after they’ve dodged), but that doesn’t really change much.

I think you got things mixed up. The second strike of FS is not Crippling Strike since Crippling Strike is the 3rd attack of Sword AA.

My point was, you need to faint your attacks to be less predictable. If you purposely interrupt your own AA with FS, your target will reserve their dodges/evades for FS then you can AA away having your 3rd AA (Crippling Strike) hit all the time.

Your suggestion is generic – “If you get your opponents to dodge other moves, your AA will hit” works for nearly any spec. It doesn’t touch on the fact that of swords 2 best hits are telegraphed, slow, and scream “Dodge me” every time they’re used, in addition to the fact that there’s little reason to dodge the other swings (slice, slash, the first strike of FS) because they’re so clearly inferior. You haven’t given an opponent any reason to dodge slice, slash or the first swing of FS.

AA is bullkitten attack, bullkitten attack, attack you need to dodge. Instead, each attack should have some reason for it to be worth dodging it – in my example above (mid damage + weakness->mid damage +cripple->big damage with no conditions), a conditions spec doesn’t really care about weakness, a spec with alot of escapes might not care about the cripple, and a large HP pool spec might choose to eat the big damage swing to keep fighting back. Just like dagger, each swing has something that makes it unique, there isn’t a clear dodge priority that’s universal regardless whatever your targets spec and class is.

FS is still tricky – like I said in an earlier post, on paper the first swing should clearly be dodge priority for most opponents- it strips a boon, you’re evading for the entirety of the execution, and it ignores block – if it weren’t for the current meta, FS would perfectly fit my criteria; each swing has different characteristics that make them unique, and choosing which one to dodge is actually a tough decision (influenced by your targets spec). Unfortunately due to the current meta, a single boon strip and kittenty damage is generally less problematic for a player than straight up heavy damage. The design of FS is sound (stripping a boon -should- be a big deal), but the current meta makes the choice trivial.

There’s a number of ways last refuge could suck less – There is definitely no way to fix the stealth functionality, it should just be completely scrapped and replaced.

It could throw down a trap (discussion pending about which trap would be best, but probably needle or tripwire), it could summon a short duration (think 8-10s) version of the ambush trap thief, it could grant a few seconds of fury/might/swiftness (although in a defensive tree, thief is a pretty “offense is the best defense” style class, and feel it would be fitting), there are a number of possibilities. Why this trait which almost always actively hinders a thief still exists is beyond me.

Look at dagger – there’s some conceivable reason to dodge each and every strike from AA – Double strike does the best damage, Wild Strike restores 10% endurance, and lotus strike poisons (and with 15 DA, weakens). For the most part, you’ll probably want to dodge lotus strike, but there are conceivable reasons to dodge any part of the AA Chain.

With sword, there’s absolutely no incentive to dodge anything but crippling strike – its far and above the best. Maybe damage normalization isn’t the answer, but there should be some reason to dodge slice and slash – maybe put the weakness on slice, the cripple on slash, and keep Crippling strike (now a poorly named skill, since it doesnt cripple or weaken in this proposed version) as the big damage finishing swing to AA rotation.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

evilapprentice.6379:

Short and to the point – currently in PvP, S/D’s hardest hitting moves (Crippling strike, second swing of FS) are extremely easy to see coming- even with AA off and attempting to time my swings, I tend to watch players dodge these attacks whenever they can afford to. They do this because its a big chunk of sword DPS, and you can see them coming a mile away.

For both AA and FS, the other swings have the same timings, so why not just average the damage across all the swings?

Sword swings are too slow that you can perform FS in between swings to be less predictable…oops, I said too much.

I fail to see how using FS in the middle of Sword AA (Which in effect delays or sacrifices crippling strike entirely) would make the second swing of FS any less predictable – I suppose you could FS Mid crippling strike (after they’ve dodged), but that doesn’t really change much.

WyldKat.4712:

I mean, I think dodge rewards the people who stay level-headed, can see what weps you’re packing, and see your moves coming, by letting them dodge the burst hits.

I agree in most cases, except sword doesn’t have any other options. You try to dodge big burst moves (HB, Unload, Blurred Frenzy)… but sword doesn’t have big burst moves – it just has swings that hit harder to give the weapon set decent consistent damage, and are extremely easy to see coming.

Players will still have incentive to dodge crippling strike (It’ll still apply crippled and weakness). For FS, the incentive to dodge really -should- be on the first swing (unblockable, evade during use, removes a boon), but sadly in the current meta, most classes would rather eat the lesser damage and boon strip then the big swing that comes afterwards. Perhaps FS doesn’t need normalization, and instead some other balancing that makes it a more difficult choice between dodging the first and second swing.

Master of Timespace.2548:

Yeah, and personally I think they should also “normalise” KS. Make it instant cast because it’s so stupid people just dodge it.

Split the damage into 3 shots, each with a 1/2 second cast time, the last of which does 60% more damage than the first 2, and you’ll have a point.

Edit: Oh! Also reduce the range to 130 and give it a really hard to miss animation, so people can see it coming a mile away. Also reduce the overall damage by 33%, since you’re talking about a burst damage skill, and I’m talking about a weaponset that relies on consistent damage to win fights.

WyldKat.4712:

So you have something to dodge, that’s why.

So normalize them and let people dodge one of the swings to take 1/3 (or 1/2) less damage – sword already completely lacks burst (which is fine, but still a fact). Making its only hard hitting abilities easy to see and slow to execute seems silly on top of that fact.

Short and to the point – currently in PvP, S/D’s hardest hitting moves (Crippling strike, second swing of FS) are extremely easy to see coming- even with AA off and attempting to time my swings, I tend to watch players dodge these attacks whenever they can afford to. They do this because its a big chunk of sword DPS, and you can see them coming a mile away.

For both AA and FS, the other swings have the same timings, so why not just average the damage across all the swings?

Adaneshade.2409:

Did not mean it childishly in the least. If fluidity is such a big deal, and they want to decrease the time we spend in stealth…..that’s the next logical step.

If you ignore the fact that a 6s reveal would utterly ruin most thief specs in both PvE and PvP, not to mention ruining the SA tree almost entirely, I suppose that could count as “logical”.

There are ways to say “I disagree” without being a snarky kitten about it though. Please look into them.

Something tells me the easiest solution is for WvW players to roll a thief for 5 minutes and try this silly CnD chaining on a target dummy.

The entire idea of “Infinite stealth” is hilarious – in SPvP, you can generally tell where a thief is going to go when he stealths by what weaponset he’s using, and what your respective healths are. It takes a bit of practice, but you get pretty good at guessing locations/countering stealth almost entirely via just a little bit of experience.

If a thief -has- to be in melee range every 3-4 seconds for CnD…countering them (if you call stopping someone from using a single ability ever 3-4 seconds something that needs to be countered) should be laughably easy. L2P has a negative connotation, but I don’t mean it that way – some of these people really need to learn how to play.

Med.6150:

evilapprentice.6379:

Not that I’m defending Haste, but its “insane” to defend you using
- an elite
and
-a utility
against a
-low hp
-paper armor wearing glass cannon
-without its stunbreak up
while you’re playing
-the burstiest class in the game.

That’s an awful lot of qualifiers.

Haste probably needed a nerf (and the classes that use haste needed some compensation for it, tooled for damaging bunkers and being less effective against non-bunkers), but your example is a poor one.

This was not an example to show how awesome a thief can be by applying these elaborate tactics or to encourage somebody to find a counter, so please refrain from analyzing every single ability used in the context in order to paint a different picture of what I am saying or just for the sake of arguing.

Here are the basics, which you should be taking away from what I posted above:

I press a button, I proceed to stand next to a guy that is full HPs and 2 seconds later he’s dead. I just killed somebody by standing next to them for 2 seconds. If you think that’s fine (which you obviously don’t, as you actually agree that haste needed to be nerfed), then, well, I don’t know .

I don’t need the Basilisk Venom (call that elite, if you wish, fact is I can make somebody stand still or in melee range of my toon for 2 seconds by using vast amount of skills that are not elites).

Without context, your example is misleading. “Killing someone in 2 seconds” is way different than “Killing someone running a GC spec with your GC spec’d thief (remeber, king of burst damage) using a skill that enhances burst damage by 100% while he sits there and takes it despite having a plethora of skills at his disposal to avoid it.”

Killing a low hp low armor target who stands still is really, really easy – Haste isn’t even required in your scenario, it just makes it trivial.

I’m actually happy Haste got a nerf – but again, haste was a necessary evil to keep bunkers from being nigh invincible (in a “winning the game” sort of sense, not a “they absolutely can’t be killed” sense). A reduction to haste should have been accompanied with the addition of a bunker-busting toolset for said classes.

I’m not mourning the loss of haste, I’m mourning the inadvertent (and quite plain to see) buff to bunkers that the haste change has put into effect. I honestly would have preferred haste to exists as it did pre-patch for another month or 2, and only change when they were ready to roll out additional changes to shore up the loss of burst dps.

Med.6150:

As a thief with haste, it meant that in the 2 seconds of basilisk venom, I’d pretty much kill any glass cannon with autoattacks alone. I never had to press a single button.

Defending that is insane.

Not that I’m defending Haste, but its “insane” to defend you using
- an elite
and
-a utility
against a
-low hp
-paper armor wearing glass cannon
-without its stunbreak up
while you’re playing
-the burstiest class in the game.

That’s an awful lot of qualifiers.

Haste probably needed a nerf (and the classes that use haste needed some compensation for it, tooled for damaging bunkers and being less effective against non-bunkers), but your example is a poor one.

DiogoSilva.7089:

With the removal of 100% haste, pvp should be much funnier now.

Yes, pvp warriors and bunkers will need more fixing than ever now, but it was a change for the better.

I agree – I don’t lament the loss of haste, I’ve never actually slotted the ability tbh (though I do use the crit haste trait because, well, why wouldn’t you?). I lament the ability to quickly deal with a bunker. Haste should have been nerfed, and there should have been the addition of effects that primarily target bunkers – Boon hate, boon stripping (targeted or otherwise), maybe armor pen…you know, stuff that will allow DPS classes to have fun fights based on skill (IE, less overall burst and damage), but still actually threaten bunkers.

What happened to boon hate?

What happened to boon stripping?

Where did the Bunker busters go?

I never liked haste, and tbh I’m glad to see it nerfed, but not giving the classes anything in recompense is just…whats the phrase I’m looking for – short sighted? poorly thought out? bad design? Dumb? Come on, seriously – how could you not see how this would effect play against bunkers?

Here’s a suggestion btw – stop doing SotG’s in the middle of your patch cycle. You talk and talk and talk about all these things that sound amazing, but never show up in the next patch. Keep your SotG’s to the very beginning of the cycle, and talk about kitten you’re planning on releasing in the next patch.

Elusive.3065:

the trait is probably not meant to aid stealth from combo fields
as it doesn’t work with blast finisher either

It would also be silly to have a game with a trait that extends stealth AND combo field interactions that PRODUCE stealth and not have them interact.

Piogre.2164:

evilapprentice.6379:

The only thing I’ve yet to see someone mention in regards to this change (and maybe I’ve just missed it) is now stealth is the only positive “buff” style effect that carries a negative consequence when applied automatically/through no action of the player.

Forgive me if I’m missing something here, but unless I’m mistaken, all “revealed” does is prevent immediate re-application of the buff that initiates it.

If I have a cake, and then I eat it, I would no longer have a cake, at least not until I make another one. Now, if the cake were to have been poisoned or drugged, or if it gave me diabetes, that would suck. But in this case, it does none of those things. I just don’t have a cake anymore. You can’t eat your cake and have it too.

Revealed may technically be a “debuff”, but it functions like a cooldown. Yes, a cooldown. Thieves don’t have to deal with nearly as many cooldowns as the rest of us, but you surely understand how it works. After you exit stealth, you need to wait a couple seconds to be able to use it again. And you can still prolong stealth by stacking duration- you can keep eating cake as long as you have it. But once you exit stealth, either by wearing it out or attacking, you need to wait a meager 3 seconds. Sorry.

when applied automatically/through no action of the player.

Though moot now, my point was if someone or something else stealthed me without my consent, I was paying the price via the revealed debuff. Imagine that cake, only someone forced it down your throat instead of you choosing to eat it – now you don’t have any cake AND you didnt have a choice in eating it – maybe you didn’t want cake now, and you wanted it later? Well too kittening bad. That’s the idea I didn’t like

Are you getting the hidden killer buff when you are in stealth?

Dasorine.1964:

evilapprentice.6379:

The only thing I’ve yet to see someone mention in regards to this change (and maybe I’ve just missed it) is now stealth is the only positive “buff” style effect that carries a negative consequence when applied automatically/through no action of the player.

If a target is given regen,stability,vigor,retal,might,fury,swiftness,protection or haste by a secondary means that they did not choose to initiate (another player, a combo field, etc), there is no downside. Now, every time a thief is granted stealth (smoke field AoE, mass invis, blinding powder, last refuge, instinctual response), they are going to take revealed – meaning if I’m too close to another thief using blinding powder, he might have screwed me by giving me stealth when I specifically didn’t want/need it.

Instinctual response becomes nearly worthless IMO (if I’m taking revealed for every stealth, I’m not interested in any stealth effect I don’t willingly initiate), and last refuge (a source of much frustration for thieves atm, since it sucks,can’t be turned off, and is at the very beginning of our best defensive trait line) gets even worse

It’s not the biggest deal in the world, and probably won’t come up so often (though I foresee that when it does happen to screw you, you will be annoyed), but its important to note – stealth is now the only buff in the game that carries a downside in situations where the player did not willingly apply it – that seems a dirty way to fix stealth spammers IMO. An easy fix (conceptually, maybe not programming wise) would be to cause stealth effects applied automatically (Instinctual response, Last refuge) or by another player (mass invis, AoE in a smoke field, etc) to not carry the revealed penalty if no ability is used.

Its also the only buff that penalizes you for having multiple utilities giving it equiped.

Kind of true, but since ANets position is “Stealth should always result in a revealed debuff”, it’s understandable – they’re trying to narrow down the use cases for stealth – you use it knowing you’ll get the revealed debuff, so you’re either going for the kill, or really need to escape/access something in your SA’s tree. You’re still in control of those uses of stealth, you make the decision of whether its worth it or not.

The only thing I’ve yet to see someone mention in regards to this change (and maybe I’ve just missed it) is now stealth is the only positive “buff” style effect that carries a negative consequence when applied automatically/through no action of the player.

If a target is given regen,stability,vigor,retal,might,fury,swiftness,protection or haste by a secondary means that they did not choose to initiate (another player, a combo field, etc), there is no downside. Now, every time a thief is granted stealth (smoke field AoE, mass invis, blinding powder, last refuge, instinctual response), they are going to take revealed – meaning if I’m too close to another thief using blinding powder, he might have screwed me by giving me stealth when I specifically didn’t want/need it.

Instinctual response becomes nearly worthless IMO (if I’m taking revealed for every stealth, I’m not interested in any stealth effect I don’t willingly initiate), and last refuge (a source of much frustration for thieves atm, since it sucks,can’t be turned off, and is at the very beginning of our best defensive trait line) gets even worse

It’s not the biggest deal in the world, and probably won’t come up so often (though I foresee that when it does happen to screw you, you will be annoyed), but its important to note – stealth is now the only buff in the game that carries a downside in situations where the player did not willingly apply it – that seems a dirty way to fix stealth spammers IMO. An easy fix (conceptually, maybe not programming wise) would be to cause stealth effects applied automatically (Instinctual response, Last refuge) or by another player (mass invis, AoE in a smoke field, etc) to not carry the revealed penalty if no ability is used.

I only made this post to bring attention to S/D. For the longest time, I was convinced that the spec was a holdover “control” spec from the days when Tac Strike could nearly perma-daze a target.

That is not the case.

Between IS (which I’ve always known was an amazing skill), FS (stripping boons hurts nearly every spec at this point, with boons being so insanely strong), and the option to switch to D/P (with its strong burst), you’ve got all the tools you need for small scale engagements. You’ve just got to avoid the large scale kitten-fests that thief generally has no role in anyway, and give up a bit of mobility.

Haste is kind of dumb to begin with. I can’t accurately judge its effects from other classes, but from a thief’s perspective, its a guaranteed win or a guaranteed loss when you hit it – either your target can’t defend and you win (because as a thief you have great burst as a base; made unbelievable by haste), or your target hits some kind of immune/block/evade skill, and you’re boned (even if you manage to escape between shadowstep and stealth, you’re still useless for nearly a minute).

I’ve never been a fan of the binary play style (which is why I’ve never gone instagib) – “I hit this combo/this ability so I either win or I lose”; that’s exactly what haste is.

While I agree thief takes the harshest penalties for haste, we’re also the most benefited from it – a warrior or ranger doesn’t have steal to re-close with their target instantly if they try to escape (as a base skill btw, and Inf sig in addition, if you’re running it). We hit hard (extremely so when spec’d as a glass cannon), so we take the biggest penalties for upping our Burst by 100%.

Its only fair.

Edit: Everything in this post is from a SPvP viewpoint – I don’t PvE, so my comments don’t reflect that at all.

In the past, I’ve wondered why someone would go S/D – D/P. I’ve even derided the spec.

I always try to be fair and courteous (and fail at times, like any human). Having run S/D for a few days though, I can honestly see how and why I was wrong.

Losing SB sucks a bit for those big group fights a thief has no business inserting himself into the middle of, and of course a bit lost mobility will always sting, but aside for that, the 2 compliment each other very, very well. S/D offers control, elusiveness, strong boon stripping, and strong out-of-stealth burst with FS (even if it can be a bit tricky to get to path correctly.) D/P brings the burst you need when you need a target down and your target is too focused on mobility for FS/IS to cut it. The only downside is having to avoid big AoE centric fights that with SB, you used to be able to contribute to meaningfully.

I know this probably isn’t news to some of you, but I only thought it fair to come to the boards I express my opinions on semi-frequently and correct myself on something I’ve derided (at weak moments, condescendingly) on the boards.

Chaos Archangel.5071:

I know I’m setting myself up to be flamed to death but..

Couldn’t you just.. idk, dodge sideways or away and thus be out of the way of the attack?

1) Some classes have positional requirements, and being able to get behind a player for mis-judging a skill and using it incorrectly is a fair consequence.

2) Even if you don’t care about positional skills, auto-facing clears players out of melee range -when blurred frenzy is done, you will not be in melee range of the mesmer (since if you were, they’d have been hitting you with blurred frenzy), giving him a a slight edge when combat restarts (read : when he can be hit again)

Adaneshade.2409:

Oxstar.7643:

If there were classes that could just debunk bunkers (hah!) what would be the point of having bunkers at all? So you’re telling me that thieves should do full damage even if I hold my gear shield up?

THERE IS NO MIDDLE FINGER BIG ENOUGH!

Actually, you might want to take this one up with the devs. They’ve already stated they want warriors and thieves to be “bunker busters”. In fact they plan to implement measures towards this in this patch. The O kitten imply suggesting the do a different mechanic for thieves than they have planned for warriors.

Which was the point behind the entire post – people seemed to -really- hate the block penetration idea, and then there was snark (on both sides), but the main point i was trying to make was “Lower burst, give thief/warrior bunker busting tools to compensate, and make each classes tools different so as to foster a more robust meta with longer fights based more on counterplay and less on huge chunks of damage on the slightest mistake”

Also, I love reading the phrase “The O Kitten” and understanding that the overzealous language filter saw the naughty word for urine in there.

Oxstar.7643:

evilapprentice.6379:

Oxstar.7643:

evilapprentice.6379:

Oxstar.7643:

If there were classes that could just debunk bunkers (hah!) what would be the point of having bunkers at all? So you’re telling me that thieves should do full damage even if I hold my gear shield up?

THERE IS NO MIDDLE FINGER BIG ENOUGH!

Nope. The post specifically said “some % of damage, assigned on an ability by ability basis not just some blanket number for all abilities, probably very low for most abilitites”

The point wasn’t to completely neutralize bunkers – it was about forcing bunkers to fight a thief different than they would fight a warrior – force them to choose strengths and weaknesses, adopt a different playstyle, etc…

That’s already what I have to do as an engineer… I can’t just stand and tank a glass thief, no bunkers can do that, I can however block, evade, and push away, and heal up rapidly. Does that make me a Healgineer and a Rollgineer rather than a bunker? Well, YOLO!

My suggestion encompassed changes that made it different for warriors and thieves.
Against a warrior, boons would become a liability (boon hate), and you could rely on blocking. Against a thief, you’d have to be careful with what boons you used and when (boon stripping), and couldn’t totally rely on block to save you. This was coupled with an overall burst damage reduction – the idea being, reduce the overall burst damage in the game while allowing thief and warrior (and other classes too, but my suggestion was about thieves with warriors thrown in for comparison) the tools to still threaten bunkers. This way fights between “burst” classes could be more a bit slower and more varied (think 15-25 seconds instead of 5), and there wouldn’t be any need to tune bunkers down along with burst (since you’re giving those burst classes a different toolset to hurt bunkers that isn’t just reliant on overall damage and stuns, and is less effective against non-bunkers)

I suggested block penetration because it seemed the have the smallest “non-bunker” impact (yes, I know non-bunkers block, but every bunker in the game relies on blocking). Someone else suggested armor penetration (which again hurts everyone, but is much more devastating for bunkers than non-bunkers)

Still, what’s the point on overthrowing the class system like this? Things are functional now, even if they still require a lot of work.

If you disagree you disagree, but I don’t see how I’m overthrowing the class system. Lots of people kitten about burst in this game – I’m not saying its OP, but its certainly less fun to play against then say, a balanced fight that goes on 20-30 seconds, rather thekitten10 second fight. If you lower damage output, you’ll have to lower bunkering too – rather than that, I’d like to switch up the way power/crit builds deal with bunkers. Instead of doing overwhelming damage, I’d like to see them attack the underpinnings of what makes a bunker (Boons, blocking, high armor, heals). You could keep the capabilities deep in the DPS trait lines (crit, power) so that only “burst” builds have access.

It’d be a change in tactics, but not a change in playstyle.

Sebrent.3625:

evilapprentice.6379:

Oxstar.7643:

If there were classes that could just debunk bunkers (hah!) what would be the point of having bunkers at all? So you’re telling me that thieves should do full damage even if I hold my gear shield up?

THERE IS NO MIDDLE FINGER BIG ENOUGH!

Nope. The post specifically said “some % of damage, assigned on an ability by ability basis not just some blanket number for all abilities, probably very low for most abilitites”

The point wasn’t to completely neutralize bunkers – it was about forcing bunkers to fight a thief different than they would fight a warrior – force them to choose strengths and weaknesses, adopt a different playstyle, etc…

(1) That was not my advise to you on how to get flanking strike to hit

(2) I don’t have to face 180 degrees from my opponent to hit them with flanking strike.

(3) You have argued against the capability to turn during the using of flanking strike, including in between the first and second strike of it

1) I dont recall saying you told me to. You responded to and quoted the poster who suggested it, so it’s not like you are unaware that it was suggested

2) It really does improve the pathing for some reason. Not all the time, but sometimes.

3) I don’t recall saying that, or why I would. I’ve always been aware that you can reposition during the entire second swing. My complaint has always been about the poor pathing on the initial strike, where the player has no control. If I did say that, I apologize.

Could just split it between PvP and PvE – they’ve done it before.

Oxstar.7643:

evilapprentice.6379:

Oxstar.7643:

If there were classes that could just debunk bunkers (hah!) what would be the point of having bunkers at all? So you’re telling me that thieves should do full damage even if I hold my gear shield up?

THERE IS NO MIDDLE FINGER BIG ENOUGH!

Nope. The post specifically said “some % of damage, assigned on an ability by ability basis not just some blanket number for all abilities, probably very low for most abilitites”

The point wasn’t to completely neutralize bunkers – it was about forcing bunkers to fight a thief different than they would fight a warrior – force them to choose strengths and weaknesses, adopt a different playstyle, etc…

That’s already what I have to do as an engineer… I can’t just stand and tank a glass thief, no bunkers can do that, I can however block, evade, and push away, and heal up rapidly. Does that make me a Healgineer and a Rollgineer rather than a bunker? Well, YOLO!

My suggestion encompassed changes that made it different for warriors and thieves.
Against a warrior, boons would become a liability (boon hate), and you could rely on blocking. Against a thief, you’d have to be careful with what boons you used and when (boon stripping), and couldn’t totally rely on block to save you. This was coupled with an overall burst damage reduction – the idea being, reduce the overall burst damage in the game while allowing thief and warrior (and other classes too, but my suggestion was about thieves with warriors thrown in for comparison) the tools to still threaten bunkers. This way fights between “burst” classes could be more a bit slower and more varied (think 15-25 seconds instead of 5), and there wouldn’t be any need to tune bunkers down along with burst (since you’re giving those burst classes a different toolset to hurt bunkers that isn’t just reliant on overall damage and stuns, and is less effective against non-bunkers)

I suggested block penetration because it seemed the have the smallest “non-bunker” impact (yes, I know non-bunkers block, but every bunker in the game relies on blocking). Someone else suggested armor penetration (which again hurts everyone, but is much more devastating for bunkers than non-bunkers)

Oxstar.7643:

If there were classes that could just debunk bunkers (hah!) what would be the point of having bunkers at all? So you’re telling me that thieves should do full damage even if I hold my gear shield up?

THERE IS NO MIDDLE FINGER BIG ENOUGH!

Nope. The post specifically said “some % of damage, assigned on an ability by ability basis not just some blanket number for all abilities, probably very low for most abilitites”

The point wasn’t to completely neutralize bunkers – it was about forcing bunkers to fight a thief different than they would fight a warrior – force them to choose strengths and weaknesses, adopt a different playstyle, etc…

ensoriki.5789:

evilapprentice.6379:

Just like I know for a fact every time my shadowshot hits, i’ll be teleported to the player it hit (again, understanding there is a small margin of error with anything), I should be confident that FS works consistently, regardless of things that shouldn’t be affecting the skill itself (my facing, my target moving though still in range, any speed buffs I’ve got on, etc etc etc)

Evil unfortunately this sounds rather silly. The first two aren’t FS specific it’s generally how the game works when it is not baby-sitting.
Some abilities turn you around stupidly and play the game for you (Blurred Frenzy), other’s do not. Reality is those skills that play the game for you, should get flippin checked. Your target moving affecting the accuracy of your hit isn’t FS exclusive even on thief abilities for one. I’m quite confident on FS working. A random dodge will throw it off, but that is true for anything.

I clarified above my comment about facing.

I have no control over how FS moves for the first half second once activating the ability – if I’m in range and I activate the ability, the attack should path correctly (it might still miss due to a dodge, a speed boost, a teleport, etc, but that shouldn’t affect the pathing). Sometimes it doesn’t. That shouldn’t happen.

Sebrent.3625:

Facing affects most abilities in the game … perhaps you would be aware of this if heartseeker was on of those abilities affected.

Sigh

I meant facing tricks, like earlier when it was advised that I could make FS hit more reliably by turning my back to my target. I did not mean “Wah, why do I have to be facing my enemy for my sword to work.”

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Sebrent.3625:

I was landing FS easily on my engineer guildie without having to use IF. In fact, I was forced to use my skills without setting them up with IF because he quickly learned that IF was my “goto” opener for various combos.

That’s the point of other posters here. Once one learn how the skill work, the expectation changes.

And I’ve accepted that – there was even a bunch of posts about it.

You’re nitpicking semantics while ignoring intent and continuing the argument though. TBH its my fault too, I shouldn’t be participating with you at this point any longer (and am probably done after this post.)

As you yourself tested, there is some issue (whether it lie with FS, target size, conditions on targets, the alignment of the moon with the invisible alien space station we all know nothing about) that causes FS to mysteriously bug out at times; it also doesn’t play well with speed boosts. These things should still be fixed.

Just like I know for a fact every time my shadowshot hits, i’ll be teleported to the player it hit (again, understanding there is a small margin of error with anything), I should be confident that FS works consistently, regardless of things that shouldn’t be affecting the skill itself (my facing, my target moving though still in range, any speed buffs I’ve got on, etc etc etc)

Sir Vincent III.1286:

S/D weapon set provides the Theif access to a root skill (#2) that serves as a Lead attack and FS as a Follow-up attack. If done that way, as it is intended, it works flawlessly.

If FS doesn’t work any other way, I will not be hasty to call that a design flaw.

There’s no amount of vehicle safety technology can prevent a bad driver from causing an accident.

And there’s no amount of design feature/fix that can prevent a bad player from failing to use the skill properly.

If FS didn’t work any other way, that would be awful design – you might as well just make FS cost 7 init, teleport to the target, root him, then spin and stab stab. FS being more effective with IS is fine, but it still needs to work on its own as well

Every.
Single.
Time.

Not most of the time, not if my target is the right size, does or doesn’t have x conditions, isn’t moving, I’m not running a speed buff…..It has to work every time (with of course a margin of error – nothing is truly perfect, I get that).

Imagine if Hundred blades ONLY worked if you Bolo’d or Rush’d first – that would be dumb. Being MORE EFFECTIVE or EASIER TO USE after those skills is fine, but not reliably working properly without them is unacceptable.

There’s a list of issues at play here

A)Body shot – It’s currently worthless. It needs to change in a manner that makes it useful for P/P without stepping on the toes of anything in P/D. P/D is obviously a pretty dedicated conditions set – Pistol OH is pure utility, the autoattack is a condition ability, and the dual skill is an escape (its not designed to take advantage of condition OR Power/crit builds)

B)P/P in general – the set has no escapes, no access to stealth, and a very poor “identity”. Its AA and Dual skill are entirely at odds with one another, and Body shot being useless doesn’t help. So, in addition to Body shot needing to be changed for the better (while not being redundant for P/D), it also needs to give P/P direction – should body shot be a condition based move? If so, you’ll probably need to update Unload. Should it be a power/crit based move? If so, now 2 and 3 are in direct odds with your AA (which does poor direct damage even in a GC build). Should it be a utility? Even if you find a way to make the skill a utility that caters to both P/D and P/P without being redundant, you still have the issue of AA and Dual skill being mutually exclusive.

I’ve suggested making Body shot a small blast finisher that would give X seconds of swiftness to the thief for each target hit – while it doesn’t fix all the issues, I think it does a decent job. It’ll be useful in P/D (everyone likes swiftness), and it will be amazing for P/P – a defensive option via stealth and a speed boost for kiting (2 things P/P desperately need.) The defensive option doesn’t NEED to be stealth, but at the moment it seems the only viable option that doesn’t step on P/D’s functionality (since P/D already has a retreat skill AND a cripple).

The way you perceive the English language to work is not the way the English language actually works.

Everyone but you understood what I was getting at – they know i wanted FS to work, regardless of whether or not the ability itself was the cause, or some secondary factor.

In fact, since your testing isn’t granular enough, its entirely possible its still the skill that doesn’t work properly – perhaps something in the exact way that FS is coded is the actual cause of the issues you saw in your testing. Neither of us has access to what the server is doing when the code is carried out, so we don’t know. Due to that lack of knowledge, we literally can’t know whats at fault, and have to ask the dev’s to look into any possible cause of the issue, including the ability itself.

So I’m actually right, and we can’t know if I’m your weird extremely literal context ignoring version of right.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

evilapprentice.6379:

You’re kidding, right? Did anyone else think I meant “Fix FS by literally only changing FS”, or that maybe I meant “fix FS by fixing whatever the reason it bugs out is”
What would I have to gain by being so granular? I just want to the skill to work consistently correctly- whatever it is thats preventing it, fix that thing. Jeez.

Have you forgotten this already?

evilapprentice.6379:

Oh cool, I’ll specifically dedicate a utility to make one of my poorly designed and poorly functioning weapon skills work! That’s much easier than expecting Anet to fix the ability so it works in and of itself, with no outside help, like every other single weapon skill in the game was designed to do.

If you don’t like my suggestion, feel free to express your opinion without being condescending or an kitten. If you can’t do that, do not bother.

Link: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/thief/Thieves-should-ignore-block/first#post1654232

I say, you became unconfortable in that position that you have to change your stance.

Analogy time, I suppose.

The power in my house goes out – I give the power company a call.
Me: “Hey, the power in my house is out. Fix it.”
Company: “Sir, we can’t come into your home and redo the wiring.”
Me: “What? No, my house has no power, fix it.”
Company: “Again Sir, we can’t fix the wiring in your house. We do see that a transformer is out in your neighborhood tho”.
Me: “Jesus, yeah, fix it.”
Company: “Well that’s not what you asked us to do, now is it?”

There you go – a conversation that will never happen anywhere ever between 2 people with the barest shred of common sense.

When I said “fix the weaponskill”, I very obviously meant “Fix whatever it is that makes the weaponskill not work consistently and as intended”, just like in my analogy, I said “fix the power in my house”, I meant “fix whatever reason is behind my house not having power” not literally "Fix the power in my house by specifically fixing something in my house. that is the only way i want my power turned back on. I assumed the issue was at the weaponskill level, but my request that it be fixed was a universal one.
Perhaps you have a very literal take on the english language, but I’ve never met someone like that.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

evilapprentice.6379:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

evilapprentice.6379:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

evilapprentice.6379:

Laika.8795:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

One noticeable reason to have caused you to slingshot to the side is having a speed buff when using FS. If that is caused by something else other than that, then it might be a bug. But to validate a bug, the alledge bug must be easily replicated, if not, then it might be caused by some other unknown factor.

So did ANet intend to have speed buffs work against this skill as they do? If not, it’s hardly working as intended.

I’m not trying to be snarky or argumentative, but you’re coming at me running with the assumption that I’ve no idea what I’m doing.

Speed buff aids in the effectiveness of most skills, but can send you careening off path (and thus is a liability) with this skill. Perhaps this is my problem, but I’m not going to change my utilities because something they don’t want to correct.

I’m not saying it doesn’t hit ever, but for fear of losing my target should I roll off course, I’d much rather spend my initiative elsewhere. If that was fixed, perhaps I’d use it more often.

There’s also the issue that Vincent is just running off assumptions as well. The fact that it hasn’t been fixed means nothing. Look at shadow shot – it was a gap closer that rooted the user for MONTHS before it was fixed. It was obviously really dumb to have a gap closer root the user on hit, but it remained that way for a while – it wasn’t a technical limitation (the game already had a dozen skills that teleported a player and DIDNT root them), so what was the hold up?

Maybe some player assumed that it was (for some godawful reason) intended. There were some who assumed it wasn’t. As far as FS is concerned, I’m still assuming that it’s not working as intended, and hopefully it will one day soon be fixed.

Yes, I am running under the assumption that it is working as intended in comparison to what is expected.

The intention of the skill is to evade by spinning then stab-stab. That is accomplished.

Other factors like slingshotting, missing, wrong direction, speed factor, etc. is something else outside the main intention of the skill.

That is why, trying to “fix” FS may not be the fix that is needed.

Your definition is extremely literal and stifling, to the point where its hard not to think there’s some willful disbelief involved.

I doubt Anet designed the skill to simply “Spin and stab stab”, because it’d be useless against moving targets. There has to be some consideration for “target and user are both moving”, since standing still in PvP is a death sentence, and experienced players don’t stand still.

Like I said. That moving target factor may not be directly caused by FS. I suspect that it is something else outside the scope of the skill itself, thus “fixing” this skill may not be fixing the root problem.

Run these tests;
- FS to a Dummy
- FS to an Asura size target
- FS to a Human size target
- FS to a Norn size target
- FS to a Oakheart size target

Add speedbuff, repeat
Then test on target of same size that gives CC (i.e. Norn size Icebrood)

You’ll find that certain target meet the expectations and other targets do not. Since that is the case, I have concluded in my own testing that this issue is beyond the skill itself.

When I say “fix the skill”, I do not literally mean “examine the code that comprises the skills functions (und only that code!) and make it work right”.

I mean “fix whatever the underlying issue is that causes FS to bug out.”

That’s different from what you have been saying, now that you are presented with facts, you change your stance.

As I’ve been saying, you might see that “FS bugs out” but it’s not really FS that bugs. And to prove that is running the test I’ve suggested.

You’re kidding, right? Did anyone else think I meant “Fix FS by literally only changing FS”, or that maybe I meant “fix FS by fixing whatever the reason it bugs out is”
What would I have to gain by being so granular? I just want to the skill to work consistently correctly- whatever it is thats preventing it, fix that thing. Jeez.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

evilapprentice.6379:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

evilapprentice.6379:

Laika.8795:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

One noticeable reason to have caused you to slingshot to the side is having a speed buff when using FS. If that is caused by something else other than that, then it might be a bug. But to validate a bug, the alledge bug must be easily replicated, if not, then it might be caused by some other unknown factor.

So did ANet intend to have speed buffs work against this skill as they do? If not, it’s hardly working as intended.

I’m not trying to be snarky or argumentative, but you’re coming at me running with the assumption that I’ve no idea what I’m doing.

Speed buff aids in the effectiveness of most skills, but can send you careening off path (and thus is a liability) with this skill. Perhaps this is my problem, but I’m not going to change my utilities because something they don’t want to correct.

I’m not saying it doesn’t hit ever, but for fear of losing my target should I roll off course, I’d much rather spend my initiative elsewhere. If that was fixed, perhaps I’d use it more often.

There’s also the issue that Vincent is just running off assumptions as well. The fact that it hasn’t been fixed means nothing. Look at shadow shot – it was a gap closer that rooted the user for MONTHS before it was fixed. It was obviously really dumb to have a gap closer root the user on hit, but it remained that way for a while – it wasn’t a technical limitation (the game already had a dozen skills that teleported a player and DIDNT root them), so what was the hold up?

Maybe some player assumed that it was (for some godawful reason) intended. There were some who assumed it wasn’t. As far as FS is concerned, I’m still assuming that it’s not working as intended, and hopefully it will one day soon be fixed.

Yes, I am running under the assumption that it is working as intended in comparison to what is expected.

The intention of the skill is to evade by spinning then stab-stab. That is accomplished.

Other factors like slingshotting, missing, wrong direction, speed factor, etc. is something else outside the main intention of the skill.

That is why, trying to “fix” FS may not be the fix that is needed.

Your definition is extremely literal and stifling, to the point where its hard not to think there’s some willful disbelief involved.

I doubt Anet designed the skill to simply “Spin and stab stab”, because it’d be useless against moving targets. There has to be some consideration for “target and user are both moving”, since standing still in PvP is a death sentence, and experienced players don’t stand still.

Like I said. That moving target factor may not be directly caused by FS. I suspect that it is something else outside the scope of the skill itself, thus “fixing” this skill may not be fixing the root problem.

Run these tests;
- FS to a Dummy
- FS to an Asura size target
- FS to a Human size target
- FS to a Norn size target
- FS to a Oakheart size target

Add speedbuff, repeat
Then test on target of same size that gives CC (i.e. Norn size Icebrood)

You’ll find that certain target meet the expectations and other targets do not. Since that is the case, I have concluded in my own testing that this issue is beyond the skill itself.

When I say “fix the skill”, I do not literally mean “examine the code that comprises the skills functions (und only that code!) and make it work right”.

I mean “fix whatever the underlying issue is that causes FS to bug out.”

Sir Vincent III.1286:

evilapprentice.6379:

Laika.8795:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

One noticeable reason to have caused you to slingshot to the side is having a speed buff when using FS. If that is caused by something else other than that, then it might be a bug. But to validate a bug, the alledge bug must be easily replicated, if not, then it might be caused by some other unknown factor.

So did ANet intend to have speed buffs work against this skill as they do? If not, it’s hardly working as intended.

I’m not trying to be snarky or argumentative, but you’re coming at me running with the assumption that I’ve no idea what I’m doing.

Speed buff aids in the effectiveness of most skills, but can send you careening off path (and thus is a liability) with this skill. Perhaps this is my problem, but I’m not going to change my utilities because something they don’t want to correct.

I’m not saying it doesn’t hit ever, but for fear of losing my target should I roll off course, I’d much rather spend my initiative elsewhere. If that was fixed, perhaps I’d use it more often.

There’s also the issue that Vincent is just running off assumptions as well. The fact that it hasn’t been fixed means nothing. Look at shadow shot – it was a gap closer that rooted the user for MONTHS before it was fixed. It was obviously really dumb to have a gap closer root the user on hit, but it remained that way for a while – it wasn’t a technical limitation (the game already had a dozen skills that teleported a player and DIDNT root them), so what was the hold up?

Maybe some player assumed that it was (for some godawful reason) intended. There were some who assumed it wasn’t. As far as FS is concerned, I’m still assuming that it’s not working as intended, and hopefully it will one day soon be fixed.

Yes, I am running under the assumption that it is working as intended in comparison to what is expected.

The intention of the skill is to evade by spinning then stab-stab. That is accomplished.

Other factors like slingshotting, missing, wrong direction, speed factor, etc. is something else outside the main intention of the skill.

That is why, trying to “fix” FS may not be the fix that is needed.

Your definition is extremely literal and stifling, to the point where its hard not to think there’s some willful disbelief involved.

I doubt Anet designed the skill to simply “Spin and stab stab”, because it’d be useless against moving targets. There has to be some consideration for “target and user are both moving”, since standing still in PvP is a death sentence, and experienced players don’t stand still.

Laika.8795:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

One noticeable reason to have caused you to slingshot to the side is having a speed buff when using FS. If that is caused by something else other than that, then it might be a bug. But to validate a bug, the alledge bug must be easily replicated, if not, then it might be caused by some other unknown factor.

So did ANet intend to have speed buffs work against this skill as they do? If not, it’s hardly working as intended.

I’m not trying to be snarky or argumentative, but you’re coming at me running with the assumption that I’ve no idea what I’m doing.

Speed buff aids in the effectiveness of most skills, but can send you careening off path (and thus is a liability) with this skill. Perhaps this is my problem, but I’m not going to change my utilities because something they don’t want to correct.

I’m not saying it doesn’t hit ever, but for fear of losing my target should I roll off course, I’d much rather spend my initiative elsewhere. If that was fixed, perhaps I’d use it more often.

There’s also the issue that Vincent is just running off assumptions as well. The fact that it hasn’t been fixed means nothing. Look at shadow shot – it was a gap closer that rooted the user for MONTHS before it was fixed. It was obviously really dumb to have a gap closer root the user on hit, but it remained that way for a while – it wasn’t a technical limitation (the game already had a dozen skills that teleported a player and DIDNT root them), so what was the hold up?

Maybe some player assumed that it was (for some godawful reason) intended. There were some who assumed it wasn’t. As far as FS is concerned, I’m still assuming that it’s not working as intended, and hopefully it will one day soon be fixed.