Flanking/Larcenous Strike suggestion — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Flanking/Larcenous Strike suggestion

Ovark.2514Ovark.2514 Member ✭✭✭

Move at least 1 initiative from from Larcenous Strike to Flanking strike. That way thieves can't as easily spam these skills if you evade Flanking Strike.

Comments

  • Ovark.2514Ovark.2514 Member ✭✭✭

    Ah the pvp forums. . . a place where any suggestion is "whining" and everyone else has enlightened and superior opinions despite the lack of legitimization.

  • SeikeNz.3526SeikeNz.3526 Member ✭✭✭

    deleting thiefs will be the best thing to do

  • Psycoprophet.8107Psycoprophet.8107 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2, 2019

    @Ovark.2514 said:
    Ah the pvp forums. . . a place where any suggestion is "whining" and everyone else has enlightened and superior opinions despite the lack of legitimization.

    No it's just a compilation of nerf builds that annoy people and not what's actually OP. Like the posters post above being perfect example of why the devs cant take 75% of this community feedback in any way serious.

  • Dantheman.3589Dantheman.3589 Member ✭✭✭

    I think flanking strike is one of the best mechanics. I can as a dodge when detargeted and if I retarget it goes to them usually behind also if I stand still it follows target. Sword skills are only about as good as you not like playing a 1 shot d/p or rifle

  • Ovark.2514Ovark.2514 Member ✭✭✭

    @Dantheman.3589 said:
    I think flanking strike is one of the best mechanics. I can as a dodge when detargeted and if I retarget it goes to them usually behind also if I stand still it follows target. Sword skills are only about as good as you not like playing a 1 shot d/p or rifle

    The thing I dislike most about S-D 3 is that both aspects are unblockable. Because of how fast larcenouse strike is (even without quickness), I HAVE to spend my dodges on both parts of the skill even though I know the first part doesn't do much. This isn't even factoring in quickness or stealing into it. In an ideal world, the combo attack would cost the same initiative it does now, except that Flanking strike loses it's unblockable aspect, Lrcenouse strike gains a slower and/or more obvious animation (because a thief can get the skill to turn-over on one player and the do the big hit+boon rip on another), and buff how much damage or how many boons are stolen by Larcenous strike.

  • Dantheman.3589Dantheman.3589 Member ✭✭✭

    @Ovark.2514 said:

    @Dantheman.3589 said:
    I think flanking strike is one of the best mechanics. I can as a dodge when detargeted and if I retarget it goes to them usually behind also if I stand still it follows target. Sword skills are only about as good as you not like playing a 1 shot d/p or rifle

    The thing I dislike most about S-D 3 is that both aspects are unblockable. Because of how fast larcenouse strike is (even without quickness), I HAVE to spend my dodges on both parts of the skill even though I know the first part doesn't do much. This isn't even factoring in quickness or stealing into it. In an ideal world, the combo attack would cost the same initiative it does now, except that Flanking strike loses it's unblockable aspect, Lrcenouse strike gains a slower and/or more obvious animation (because a thief can get the skill to turn-over on one player and the do the big hit+boon rip on another), and buff how much damage or how many boons are stolen by Larcenous strike.

    I actually they are pretty slow and obvious as a thief main in 1v1s I have to be cautious how I use these and the damage has been nerfed to where I say it’s balanced. Ofc in some situations when in your face with steal and quickness it could obviously be obnoxious but that’s only some of the time and in team fights this just isn’t the case. You’ve got a solid argument for say make flanking blockable and larcenous getting a nice buff, but considering how it’s already fairly rough for an S/D thief in this meta I’m a little split. But trust me the thought for that change has crossed my mind many many times. So possibly yes. But the buff to larcenous would have to be pretty big and 100% give it a quicker cast time not a slower one

  • Curennos.9307Curennos.9307 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 3, 2019

    I'm all for removing the Unblockable from Flanking Strike (replace it with an extremely short cripple or blind on successful hit, maybe, to help with landing Larc strike). Then bump larc strike dmg by 10-15% - and keep the unblockable part of Larc Strike.

    Some help to the other skills would be nice, but I haven't a clue what to do with those.

    Edit: Tactical Strike should daze(1 sec)regardless of position

  • Ovark.2514Ovark.2514 Member ✭✭✭

    @Curennos.9307 said:
    I'm all for removing the Unblockable from Flanking Strike (replace it with an extremely short cripple or blind on successful hit, maybe, to help with landing Larc strike). Then bump larc strike dmg by 10-15% - and keep the unblockable part of Larc Strike.

    Some help to the other skills would be nice, but I haven't a clue what to do with those.

    Edit: Tactical Strike should daze(1 sec)regardless of position

    The main reason to remove unblockable from Flanking Strike is so that a dodge doesn't need to be spent to evade it. Adding a daze or blind just makes dodging a requirement again.

  • Curennos.9307Curennos.9307 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 3, 2019

    @Ovark.2514 said:

    @Curennos.9307 said:
    I'm all for removing the Unblockable from Flanking Strike (replace it with an extremely short cripple or blind on successful hit, maybe, to help with landing Larc strike). Then bump larc strike dmg by 10-15% - and keep the unblockable part of Larc Strike.

    Some help to the other skills would be nice, but I haven't a clue what to do with those.

    Edit: Tactical Strike should daze(1 sec)regardless of position

    The main reason to remove unblockable from Flanking Strike is so that a dodge doesn't need to be spent to evade it. Adding a daze or blind just makes dodging a requirement again.

    Tactical Strike is the from-stealth skill. That's what I'm suggesting having the daze on. It's currently 2 sec daze, but only from behind. Positional requirements rarely (if ever) work in this game - TS is basically a stealth attack that blinds and vulns.

    And note the other option of a cripple and 'extremely short' part concerning Flanking Strike.

    You don't need to spend a dodge to evade Flanking Strike. It's AA-levels of damage anyway.

  • Ovark.2514Ovark.2514 Member ✭✭✭

    @Curennos.9307 said:

    @Ovark.2514 said:

    @Curennos.9307 said:
    I'm all for removing the Unblockable from Flanking Strike (replace it with an extremely short cripple or blind on successful hit, maybe, to help with landing Larc strike). Then bump larc strike dmg by 10-15% - and keep the unblockable part of Larc Strike.

    Some help to the other skills would be nice, but I haven't a clue what to do with those.

    Edit: Tactical Strike should daze(1 sec)regardless of position

    The main reason to remove unblockable from Flanking Strike is so that a dodge doesn't need to be spent to evade it. Adding a daze or blind just makes dodging a requirement again.

    Tactical Strike is the from-stealth skill. That's what I'm suggesting having the daze on. It's currently 2 sec daze, but only from behind. Positional requirements rarely (if ever) work in this game - TS is basically a stealth attack that blinds and vulns.

    And note the other option of a cripple and 'extremely short' part concerning Flanking Strike.

    You don't need to spend a dodge to evade Flanking Strike. It's AA-levels of damage anyway.

    Oh whoops sorry. I had assumed you were still talking about the dual skill.

  • Highlie.7641Highlie.7641 Member ✭✭✭

    Sure, but first remove Blocks from every POF and Hot spec first. As that was the reason it was power creeped to begin with.

  • reikken.4961reikken.4961 Member ✭✭✭

    Flanking strike needs to be unblockable because otherwise it can't chain into larcenous strike.

    You may as well straight up delete larcenous strike if you make flanking strike blockable.
    Dunno why people want to delete one of the most well designed skills in the game. Yes, if you're playing a class with a lot of blocks, you have to play differently against S/D thief, but that doesn't make it OP.
    And to the guy who said he has to spend his dodges on both parts of the skill... if you dodge the first part, there is no second part. You can avoid larcenous strike by dodging either part of the skill.

  • Flandre.2870Flandre.2870 Member ✭✭✭

    Thief is a strictly meta class and doesn't need any help. The changes that should happen is removing quickness/resistance from glob and nerfing range of sword2.

  • Psycoprophet.8107Psycoprophet.8107 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Buff teef!

  • Curennos.9307Curennos.9307 Member ✭✭✭

    @reikken.4961 said:
    Flanking strike needs to be unblockable because otherwise it can't chain into larcenous strike.

    You may as well straight up delete larcenous strike if you make flanking strike blockable.
    Dunno why people want to delete one of the most well designed skills in the game. Yes, if you're playing a class with a lot of blocks, you have to play differently against S/D thief, but that doesn't make it OP.
    And to the guy who said he has to spend his dodges on both parts of the skill... if you dodge the first part, there is no second part. You can avoid larcenous strike by dodging either part of the skill.

    I'm not sure describing the function of a skill is sufficient.

    Which is what you've done. That's exactly how it works - without hitting flanking strike, it doesn't chain into larc strike. Without unblockable on flanking, you can't hit a blocking target and chain into larc strike. That's not a reason to keep it the way it is, that's literally a description of how it works and what the change would do.

    A skill that evades, does damage (not massive damage, true), and can serve as mobility probably shouldn't be unblockable as well. That's a lot to cram into one skill. Nobody is saying to remove the unblockable on larc strike, either. And I do think the lesser used/more niche skills on sword/dagger should get some help, but removing the unblockable on the first place most certainly will not 'delete' the skil in any capcity. It'll still be a decent evade with a small chunk of damage attached with a powerful follow up attack that either does decent damage or steals boons.

    What would this change? Not....much. Classes that don't really rely on blocks will be fought in the same way. Classes that do have blocks can always be Daredevil'd, Larc strike will still be unblockable, and/or you can just time your strike at the end of their block (or attack something else with flanking to proc Larc, then hit the blocker with larc).

    Thief just wouldn't have an all-in-one skill anymore. And that's fine. Seriously, it is an all in one skill. Evades, damage, movement, boonstrip, entrely unblockable. The skill will survive having unblockable removed from Flanking, especially if the dagger whatsit and stab -> stealth skill get some love.

  • ZDragon.3046ZDragon.3046 Member ✭✭✭✭

    That skills is not the issue with the sword the issue is on sword 2's escape being so free. I think if you miss the initial strike on going in against your target you shouldn't get the ability to return skill.

    If you go in and miss you are stuck in and cant just ez out if someone properly reads your actions. This makes it closer to other targeted ports that double as gap closers or initiation tools.

    The power of being able to ez out at the first feeling that something might go wrong is what makes sword super strong its not the 3 skill in anyway.

    LOL also mesmer wanting plasma nerfs.... NOOOOOOO leave plasma alone its fine. Just dont let them steal from you just like you want everyone else to "just dodge" your burst.

  • saerni.2584saerni.2584 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @ZDragon.3046 said:
    That skills is not the issue with the sword the issue is on sword 2's escape being so free. I think if you miss the initial strike on going in against your target you shouldn't get the ability to return skill.

    If you go in and miss you are stuck in and cant just ez out if someone properly reads your actions. This makes it closer to other targeted ports that double as gap closers or initiation tools.

    The power of being able to ez out at the first feeling that something might go wrong is what makes sword super strong its not the 3 skill in anyway.

    LOL also mesmer wanting plasma nerfs.... NOOOOOOO leave plasma alone its fine. Just dont let them steal from you just like you want everyone else to "just dodge" your burst.

    This would turn the sword into a massive long distance teleport.

    900 port, miss, use 900 port skill again, miss, use 900 port again.

    Basically until you caught up to someone you could freely spam a gap closer.

    The better option option would be to change the flip skill to a slower casting more expensive version if you miss the strike, and a faster casting version if you hit.

    Northern Shiverpeaks (NSP)
    Deadeye (Thief)
    Commandant of P/D and Apex Predator

  • ZDragon.3046ZDragon.3046 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 3, 2019

    @saerni.2584 said:

    @ZDragon.3046 said:
    That skills is not the issue with the sword the issue is on sword 2's escape being so free. I think if you miss the initial strike on going in against your target you shouldn't get the ability to return skill.

    If you go in and miss you are stuck in and cant just ez out if someone properly reads your actions. This makes it closer to other targeted ports that double as gap closers or initiation tools.

    The power of being able to ez out at the first feeling that something might go wrong is what makes sword super strong its not the 3 skill in anyway.

    LOL also mesmer wanting plasma nerfs.... NOOOOOOO leave plasma alone its fine. Just dont let them steal from you just like you want everyone else to "just dodge" your burst.

    This would turn the sword into a massive long distance teleport.

    900 port, miss, use 900 port skill again, miss, use 900 port again.

    Basically until you caught up to someone you could freely spam a gap closer.

    The better option option would be to change the flip skill to a slower casting more expensive version if you miss the strike, and a faster casting version if you hit.

    I mean they could put a range limit on the skill so that you couldnt repeatedly use like, it wouldnt work unless you were in range of that target, but your idea works too. I just think thats were most of the frustration around sword comes from its not the Flanking/Larcenous Strike or even Pistol whip. Its the power to just leave x distance away which most other targeted ports dont allow. Once you go in you are in.

  • Ragnar.4257Ragnar.4257 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 3, 2019

    @Ovark.2514 said:

    @Dantheman.3589 said:
    I think flanking strike is one of the best mechanics. I can as a dodge when detargeted and if I retarget it goes to them usually behind also if I stand still it follows target. Sword skills are only about as good as you not like playing a 1 shot d/p or rifle

    The thing I dislike most about S-D 3 is that both aspects are unblockable. Because of how fast larcenouse strike is (even without quickness), I HAVE to spend my dodges on both parts of the skill even though I know the first part doesn't do much. This isn't even factoring in quickness or stealing into it. In an ideal world, the combo attack would cost the same initiative it does now, except that Flanking strike loses it's unblockable aspect, Lrcenouse strike gains a slower and/or more obvious animation (because a thief can get the skill to turn-over on one player and the do the big hit+boon rip on another), and buff how much damage or how many boons are stolen by Larcenous strike.

    Why are you so adamant that you have to dodge both parts? The first part does the same damage as an auto-attack, do you also "HAVE" to dodge those?

    Easiest thing in the world to duel a s/d thief that just wants to spam 3333333. Let them hit with flanking strike, then dodge or interrupt larcenous. Repeat.

  • reikken.4961reikken.4961 Member ✭✭✭

    @Curennos.9307 said:

    @reikken.4961 said:
    Flanking strike needs to be unblockable because otherwise it can't chain into larcenous strike.

    You may as well straight up delete larcenous strike if you make flanking strike blockable.
    Dunno why people want to delete one of the most well designed skills in the game. Yes, if you're playing a class with a lot of blocks, you have to play differently against S/D thief, but that doesn't make it OP.
    And to the guy who said he has to spend his dodges on both parts of the skill... if you dodge the first part, there is no second part. You can avoid larcenous strike by dodging either part of the skill.

    I'm not sure describing the function of a skill is sufficient.

    Which is what you've done. That's exactly how it works - without hitting flanking strike, it doesn't chain into larc strike. Without unblockable on flanking, you can't hit a blocking target and chain into larc strike. That's not a reason to keep it the way it is, that's literally a description of how it works and what the change would do.

    A skill that evades, does damage (not massive damage, true), and can serve as mobility probably shouldn't be unblockable as well. That's a lot to cram into one skill. Nobody is saying to remove the unblockable on larc strike, either. And I do think the lesser used/more niche skills on sword/dagger should get some help, but removing the unblockable on the first place most certainly will not 'delete' the skil in any capcity. It'll still be a decent evade with a small chunk of damage attached with a powerful follow up attack that either does decent damage or steals boons.

    What would this change? Not....much. Classes that don't really rely on blocks will be fought in the same way. Classes that do have blocks can always be Daredevil'd, Larc strike will still be unblockable, and/or you can just time your strike at the end of their block (or attack something else with flanking to proc Larc, then hit the blocker with larc).

    Thief just wouldn't have an all-in-one skill anymore. And that's fine. Seriously, it is an all in one skill. Evades, damage, movement, boonstrip, entrely unblockable. The skill will survive having unblockable removed from Flanking, especially if the dagger whatsit and stab -> stealth skill get some love.

    it would "delete" the skill because it would no longer be possible to use larcenous strike on a blocking target.

    When the way to avoid getting hit by an unblockable attack is to block, that's a problem.

  • Curennos.9307Curennos.9307 Member ✭✭✭

    @reikken.4961 said:

    @Curennos.9307 said:

    @reikken.4961 said:
    Flanking strike needs to be unblockable because otherwise it can't chain into larcenous strike.

    You may as well straight up delete larcenous strike if you make flanking strike blockable.
    Dunno why people want to delete one of the most well designed skills in the game. Yes, if you're playing a class with a lot of blocks, you have to play differently against S/D thief, but that doesn't make it OP.
    And to the guy who said he has to spend his dodges on both parts of the skill... if you dodge the first part, there is no second part. You can avoid larcenous strike by dodging either part of the skill.

    I'm not sure describing the function of a skill is sufficient.

    Which is what you've done. That's exactly how it works - without hitting flanking strike, it doesn't chain into larc strike. Without unblockable on flanking, you can't hit a blocking target and chain into larc strike. That's not a reason to keep it the way it is, that's literally a description of how it works and what the change would do.

    A skill that evades, does damage (not massive damage, true), and can serve as mobility probably shouldn't be unblockable as well. That's a lot to cram into one skill. Nobody is saying to remove the unblockable on larc strike, either. And I do think the lesser used/more niche skills on sword/dagger should get some help, but removing the unblockable on the first place most certainly will not 'delete' the skil in any capcity. It'll still be a decent evade with a small chunk of damage attached with a powerful follow up attack that either does decent damage or steals boons.

    What would this change? Not....much. Classes that don't really rely on blocks will be fought in the same way. Classes that do have blocks can always be Daredevil'd, Larc strike will still be unblockable, and/or you can just time your strike at the end of their block (or attack something else with flanking to proc Larc, then hit the blocker with larc).

    Thief just wouldn't have an all-in-one skill anymore. And that's fine. Seriously, it is an all in one skill. Evades, damage, movement, boonstrip, entrely unblockable. The skill will survive having unblockable removed from Flanking, especially if the dagger whatsit and stab -> stealth skill get some love.

    it would "delete" the skill because it would no longer be possible to use larcenous strike on a blocking target.

    When the way to avoid getting hit by an unblockable attack is to block, that's a problem.

    If by 'delete' you mean' change', then yes. That's exactly what would happen. You would no longer be able to use Flanking Strike on a blocking target to activate Larc Strike, even though Larc Strike would still be unblockable.

    Larc Strike being unblockable does not instantly require Flanking to also be unblockable for no other reason than that Larc is unblockable.

  • reikken.4961reikken.4961 Member ✭✭✭

    @Curennos.9307 said:

    @reikken.4961 said:
    it would "delete" the skill because it would no longer be possible to use larcenous strike on a blocking target.

    When the way to avoid getting hit by an unblockable attack is to block, that's a problem.

    If by 'delete' you mean' change', then yes. That's exactly what would happen. You would no longer be able to use Flanking Strike on a blocking target to activate Larc Strike, even though Larc Strike would still be unblockable.

    Larc Strike being unblockable does not instantly require Flanking to also be unblockable for no other reason than that Larc is unblockable.

    Yes, a change that makes it useless. What good is an unblockable attack that can't be used against a blocking target?

  • Curennos.9307Curennos.9307 Member ✭✭✭

    @reikken.4961 said:

    @Curennos.9307 said:

    @reikken.4961 said:
    it would "delete" the skill because it would no longer be possible to use larcenous strike on a blocking target.

    When the way to avoid getting hit by an unblockable attack is to block, that's a problem.

    If by 'delete' you mean' change', then yes. That's exactly what would happen. You would no longer be able to use Flanking Strike on a blocking target to activate Larc Strike, even though Larc Strike would still be unblockable.

    Larc Strike being unblockable does not instantly require Flanking to also be unblockable for no other reason than that Larc is unblockable.

    Yes, a change that makes it useless. What good is an unblockable attack that can't be used against a blocking target?

    It would be a nerf. Yes. See other posts suggesting buffs for the skill. sword/dagger thieves would no longer have an entire skill that totally negates blocks. You could still use Flanking against a diff target, then back to whoever is blocking, or save the skill after getting it, and so on.

    The problem with your reasoning is that the skill would continue to be extremely useful against literally everything else.

  • Dantheman.3589Dantheman.3589 Member ✭✭✭
    edited 12:57AM

    @Curennos.9307 said:

    @reikken.4961 said:

    @Curennos.9307 said:

    @reikken.4961 said:
    Flanking strike needs to be unblockable because otherwise it can't chain into larcenous strike.

    You may as well straight up delete larcenous strike if you make flanking strike blockable.
    Dunno why people want to delete one of the most well designed skills in the game. Yes, if you're playing a class with a lot of blocks, you have to play differently against S/D thief, but that doesn't make it OP.
    And to the guy who said he has to spend his dodges on both parts of the skill... if you dodge the first part, there is no second part. You can avoid larcenous strike by dodging either part of the skill.

    I'm not sure describing the function of a skill is sufficient.

    Which is what you've done. That's exactly how it works - without hitting flanking strike, it doesn't chain into larc strike. Without unblockable on flanking, you can't hit a blocking target and chain into larc strike. That's not a reason to keep it the way it is, that's literally a description of how it works and what the change would do.

    A skill that evades, does damage (not massive damage, true), and can serve as mobility probably shouldn't be unblockable as well. That's a lot to cram into one skill. Nobody is saying to remove the unblockable on larc strike, either. And I do think the lesser used/more niche skills on sword/dagger should get some help, but removing the unblockable on the first place most certainly will not 'delete' the skil in any capcity. It'll still be a decent evade with a small chunk of damage attached with a powerful follow up attack that either does decent damage or steals boons.

    What would this change? Not....much. Classes that don't really rely on blocks will be fought in the same way. Classes that do have blocks can always be Daredevil'd, Larc strike will still be unblockable, and/or you can just time your strike at the end of their block (or attack something else with flanking to proc Larc, then hit the blocker with larc).

    Thief just wouldn't have an all-in-one skill anymore. And that's fine. Seriously, it is an all in one skill. Evades, damage, movement, boonstrip, entrely unblockable. The skill will survive having unblockable removed from Flanking, especially if the dagger whatsit and stab -> stealth skill get some love.

    it would "delete" the skill because it would no longer be possible to use larcenous strike on a blocking target.

    When the way to avoid getting hit by an unblockable attack is to block, that's a problem.

    If by 'delete' you mean' change', then yes. That's exactly what would happen. You would no longer be able to use Flanking Strike on a blocking target to activate Larc Strike, even though Larc Strike would still be unblockable.

    Larc Strike being unblockable does not instantly require Flanking to also be unblockable for no other reason than that Larc is unblockable.

    I think fundamentally to implement this change we’d have to make larcenous a non-dual wield attack like repeater shot. Which is possible, might hurt condition thief a lot. But hey if they do that give larcenous a giant buff on the level that it would bring power S/d back into the meta

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.