Shouldn’t be meta

[Dantheman.3589]

Skills elevated to absolutely insane cds and thief skills at such high initiative cost that they are barely usable in pvp. All utility taken from runes such as damage ones so that now just taking zerk amulet + a defensive rune does more damage than taking a damage rune with anything else. Most defensive amulets neutered or taken out. And now we just have a few builds considered “meta” at least in all circumstances and yet if you wanted to play the same class in a different way there is a chance that your build isn’t even viable, looking at thief and their absolutely atrocious 1v1 + brawler specs atm.So the question is- is this a it shouldn’t be meta meta? Stuff that excels rn probably wouldn’t be too oppressive in previous metas, does that make them good now or are they still over performing. Are these specs more fun for players or would they like to play something slightly different or ? Are these even good questions to ask or do we just keep applying blanket nerfs?At least think about it plz...

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@"Dantheman.3589" said:Are these even good questions to ask or do we just keep applying blanket nerfs?

These are precisely the questions people should be asking.

Right now the problem with Gw2 Balance, is mainly that the concept of balance is fundamentally misunderstood. I've brought this up in a number of posts, going back almost a year now, and we are seeing predictions made over a year ago play out in real-time, because those that applied critical analysis to the issues of balance at a fundamental level questioned the validity of the "nerf everything" stance that was taken by CMC, when it was announced last year, and implemented in February. The consequences you've laid out in this post, is exactly what a small minority and I predicted would happen. The reason for this is because achieving balance is very complex. There are entire branches of science that are required to even begin the discussion, and that's why we don't see it being talked about on the forums...most people don't even know what questions to ask.

I've done a lot of the digging and the dirty work, and I've been able to lay-men-ize it to the point where we can discuss it here on the forum without going too deep into the science. But at it's heart, the problem with balance is a fundamental one that starts with dispelling what balance even means.

The assumption for most people is that balance is thought of, in the sense that one can "balance" an equation, or "balance" two objects on a scale. Ability A and Ability B when put on a scale, should weight the same amount right? Turns out this assumption is fallacy, and i'll explain why.

When you put two objects on a scale, you are using a single metric to define what it means when two different things are equal to one another. For Object A and Object B, Weight is the metric we are using to determine whether those two objects have equal weight.

But the problem arises, when you require more than one metric to determine whether two objects are equal. Object A and Object B might have the same weight, but what about it's density? or it's shape? or it's refraction Index? Or it's radioactivity? The more metrics that are required in order to determine the "equality" between the two objects, mean that as each metric becomes equal, so are the description of the objects. So if you have an infinite number of metrics that are equal, it means Object A must be completely identical in every way to Object B.

Here is another way to look at the above example, where we have a bar of soap and a hammer, being related to Skill A and Skill B -

As you can see, the more metrics we add to each one to determine it's balance, the more the two skills will converge to just being the same skill... In reality, the bar of soap and the hammer can NEVER be exactly the same, and this is because if we had an infinite number of metrics, means that the quantum states (the positions and velocity vectors of individuals atoms) have to be identical...which is impossible to attain. In the same manner, Skill A and Skill B can have exactly the same attributes given an infinite number of metrics, but then they are just the same skill, where nothing differentiates one from the other.

So the generally accepted perspective on balance is actually just nonsense. Simple number tweaks to try and get two or more things to be balanced with each other in the above manner is impossible to do without annihilating diversity. This is just addressing the first issue of the multi-faceted issues on the topic, which if you follow logical analysis, you will find that the inevitable solution to the problem, is actually the reason why we can explain that the above pointed out fallacy causes balance issues in the first place, the ones we observe in gw2. The solution requires an explanation in and of itself, but to put it shortly, it's because of lack of diversity, is the reason we have poor balance. That's another post and wall of text all together. But i'll be happy to explain it in detail for those that want me to explain it in depth.

[Shao.7236]

Where's the objective fact aside personal experience? I can't take those seriously anymore given that anytime someone is unable to beat something, it's overpowered.

I have yet to find myself in desperate situations that other things like constant stealth (DE specifically) being a problem in terms of 1v1's. Even the current meta, while EE being cringe is not gamebreaking.

Seems like there is no such thing as bad match ups anymore, or let alone evidence of why something is too good other than because..?

You catch a Thief off one blind, they have to use an utility, do it again and that's another. Those cooldowns are high enough that after 2 of those manageable feats, you basically won and they will probably back away.

To play Daredevil reliably you have to time the weakness application, it's pretty straight forward. Actually, a lot of professions do that for CQC yet it's rarely ever seen at all, instead what we get is skill facerolling with CC or Condi spam which funnily enough doesn't rely on weakness application or rarely.

I'm being called out as broken for tanking so much on zerk stats, yet have people know if they didn't use all their skills when they have weakness, they'd have them to do actual damage once it wore off.

[Downstate.4697]

Havent touched ranked in 2 seasons. Love ele. Hate support. Dont want to be flamed for running what i like. Ranked pvp is toxic and has a boner for meta and it ruins the experience for everyone.

[Ovark.2514]

@"FrownyClown.8402" said:Ranked pvp is toxic and has a kitten for meta and it ruins the experience for everyone.

And yet anet essentially says "You want to PvP? You better be playing to WIN! Fun can gtfo"

[Dantheman.3589]

@Shao.7236 said:Where's the objective fact aside personal experience? I can't take those seriously anymore given that anytime someone is unable to beat something, it's overpowered.

I have yet to find myself in desperate situations that other things like constant stealth (DE specifically) being a problem in terms of 1v1's. Even the current meta, while EE being cringe is not gamebreaking.

Seems like there is no such thing as bad match ups anymore, or let alone evidence of why something is too good other than because..?

You catch a Thief off one blind, they have to use an utility, do it again and that's another. Those cooldowns are high enough that after 2 of those manageable feats, you basically won and they will probably back away.

To play Daredevil reliably you have to time the weakness application, it's pretty straight forward. Actually, a lot of professions do that for CQC yet it's rarely ever seen at all, instead what we get is skill facerolling with CC or Condi spam which funnily enough doesn't rely on weakness application or rarely.

I'm being called out as broken for tanking so much on zerk stats, yet have people know if they didn't use all their skills when they have weakness, they'd have them to do actual damage once it wore off.

I’m not really sure what your first paragraph meant. I’ll say as an experienced pvper that saying there’s no such thing as a bad match up is very wrong, there are plenty and it would probably take too much time to list them all. As a thief player I don’t see at all how weakness application is important besides 1v1ing another thief or occasionally in bursting someone, but chances are it’ll apply every time then anyways and if they use cleanses you will already be looking for that and auto apply it again anyways.

[Shao.7236]

@Dantheman.3589

No, that's what I'm saying. People forgot that their build isn't entitled to do everything and let alone even if Anet said they wanted to give every professions an equal footing, that'll never happen without sticks.

If you're taking something that's presumably Demolisher or Marauder, you are expect to make that toughness/vitality the trade off so that you can have more offensive utilities/traits, not keeping the same X Cleanse, X Stunbreak, X Traits.

People are running Berserker not only because of damage but because most builds can be /balanced/ around those stats which is why it works so well. Damage is done straight and you only rely on utilities to survive rather than vitality or toughness.

That cycles gets disturbed by bunker builds because we have mostly glass vs glass and bunker is not glass (obviously) but then why does bunker get to break glass? That's subjective, some glass can beat bunkers, some others don't and that's where balance falls to as well as match ups.

However, in principle bunker builds are NOT supposed to be defeated because then you have no reason to ever have it and that's what people find hard to swallow, it's not complicated and not like bunkers ever gave the ability to get around so much as glass can, besides that's what focusing is.

IMO too many soreloser complains and it's never going to stop.

When there's some meta complains, it'd be nice to be objective and provide more than just experience, rather have numbers and why everything is overshadowed.

Also my point with weakness was that it's a powerful condition for berserker based builds that is rarely used. Daredevil definitely has the means to kill and survive anything with it though, not like conditions require much if people burst with it, easy to mitigate.

[NotFound.7813]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"Dantheman.3589" said:Are these even good questions to ask or do we just keep applying blanket nerfs?

These are precisely the questions people should be asking.

Right now the problem with Gw2 Balance, is mainly that the concept of balance is fundamentally misunderstood. I've brought this up in a number of posts, going back almost a year now, and we are seeing predictions made over a year ago play out in real-time, because those that applied critical analysis to the issues of balance at a fundamental level questioned the validity of the "nerf everything" stance that was taken by CMC, when it was announced last year, and implemented in February. The consequences you've laid out in this post, is exactly what a small minority and I predicted would happen. The reason for this is because achieving balance is very complex. There are entire branches of science that are required to even begin the discussion, and that's why we don't see it being talked about on the forums...most people don't even know what questions to ask.

I've done a lot of the digging and the dirty work, and I've been able to lay-men-ize it to the point where we can discuss it here on the forum without going too deep into the science. But at it's heart, the problem with balance is a fundamental one that starts with dispelling what balance even means.

The assumption for most people is that balance is thought of, in the sense that one can "balance" an equation, or "balance" two objects on a scale. Ability A and Ability B when put on a scale, should weight the same amount right? Turns out this assumption is fallacy, and i'll explain why.

When you put two objects on a scale, you are using a single metric to define what it means when two different things are equal to one another. For Object A and Object B, Weight is the metric we are using to determine whether those two objects have equal weight.

But the problem arises, when you require more than one metric to determine whether two objects are equal. Object A and Object B might have the same weight, but what about it's density? or it's shape? or it's refraction Index? Or it's radioactivity? The more metrics that are required in order to determine the "equality" between the two objects, mean that as each metric becomes equal, so are the description of the objects. So if you have an infinite number of metrics that are equal, it means Object A must be completely identical in every way to Object B.

Here is another way to look at the above example, where we have a bar of soap and a hammer, being related to Skill A and Skill B -

As you can see, the more metrics we add to each one to determine it's balance, the more the two skills will converge to just being the same skill... In reality, the bar of soap and the hammer can NEVER be exactly the same, and this is because if we had an infinite number of metrics, means that the quantum states (the positions and velocity vectors of individuals atoms) have to be identical...which is impossible to attain. In the same manner, Skill A and Skill B can have exactly the same attributes given an infinite number of metrics, but then they are just the same skill, where nothing differentiates one from the other.

So the generally accepted perspective on balance is actually just nonsense. Simple number tweaks to try and get two or more things to be balanced with each other in the above manner is impossible to do without annihilating diversity. This is just addressing the first issue of the multi-faceted issues on the topic, which if you follow logical analysis, you will find that the inevitable solution to the problem, is actually the reason why we can explain that the above pointed out fallacy causes balance issues in the first place, the ones we observe in gw2. The solution requires an explanation in and of itself, but to put it shortly, it's because of lack of diversity, is the reason we have poor balance. That's another post and wall of text all together. But i'll be happy to explain it in detail for those that want me to explain it in depth.

Dude too much text to read

[NotFound.7813]

@Dantheman.3589 said:Skills elevated to absolutely insane cds and thief skills at such high initiative cost that they are barely usable in pvp. All utility taken from runes such as damage ones so that now just taking zerk amulet + a defensive rune does more damage than taking a damage rune with anything else. Most defensive amulets neutered or taken out. And now we just have a few builds considered “meta” at least in all circumstances and yet if you wanted to play the same class in a different way there is a chance that your build isn’t even viable, looking at thief and their absolutely atrocious 1v1 + brawler specs atm.So the question is- is this a it shouldn’t be meta meta? Stuff that excels rn probably wouldn’t be too oppressive in previous metas, does that make them good now or are they still over performing. Are these specs more fun for players or would they like to play something slightly different or ? Are these even good questions to ask or do we just keep applying blanket nerfs?At least think about it plz...

Do u want to 1 v1 as thief?

[Dantheman.3589]

@wevh.2903 said:

@Dantheman.3589 said:Skills elevated to absolutely insane cds and thief skills at such high initiative cost that they are barely usable in pvp. All utility taken from runes such as damage ones so that now just taking zerk amulet + a defensive rune does more damage than taking a damage rune with anything else. Most defensive amulets neutered or taken out. And now we just have a few builds considered “meta” at least in all circumstances and yet if you wanted to play the same class in a different way there is a chance that your build isn’t even viable, looking at thief and their absolutely atrocious 1v1 + brawler specs atm.So the question is- is this a it shouldn’t be meta meta? Stuff that excels rn probably wouldn’t be too oppressive in previous metas, does that make them good now or are they still over performing. Are these specs more fun for players or would they like to play something slightly different or ? Are these even good questions to ask or do we just keep applying blanket nerfs?At least think about it plz...

Do u want to 1 v1 as thief?

If your talking about the 1v1 brawler comment. I mean I’m originally a thief main and I loved the brawler esc builds. Sword/d sword/p staff even condi builds, but only like s/d DrD condi cuz it was basically a super slow s/d, were all a blast to play.If you mean like go to a duel server, idk maybe...

[Paradoxoglanis.1904]

@wevh.2903 said:

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"Dantheman.3589" said:Are these even good questions to ask or do we just keep applying blanket nerfs?

These are precisely the questions people should be asking.

Right now the problem with Gw2 Balance, is mainly that the concept of balance is fundamentally misunderstood. I've brought this up in a number of posts, going back almost a year now, and we are seeing predictions made over a year ago play out in real-time, because those that applied critical analysis to the issues of balance at a fundamental level questioned the validity of the "nerf everything" stance that was taken by CMC, when it was announced last year, and implemented in February. The consequences you've laid out in this post, is exactly what a small minority and I predicted would happen. The reason for this is because achieving balance is very complex. There are entire branches of science that are required to even begin the discussion, and that's why we don't see it being talked about on the forums...most people don't even know what questions to ask.

I've done a lot of the digging and the dirty work, and I've been able to lay-men-ize it to the point where we can discuss it here on the forum without going too deep into the science. But at it's heart, the problem with balance is a fundamental one that starts with dispelling what balance even means.

The assumption for most people is that balance is thought of, in the sense that one can "balance" an equation, or "balance" two objects on a scale. Ability A and Ability B when put on a scale, should weight the same amount right? Turns out this assumption is fallacy, and i'll explain why.

When you put two objects on a scale, you are using a single metric to define what it means when two different things are equal to one another. For Object A and Object B, Weight is the metric we are using to determine whether those two objects have equal weight.

But the problem arises, when you require more than one metric to determine whether two objects are equal. Object A and Object B might have the same weight, but what about it's density? or it's shape? or it's refraction Index? Or it's radioactivity? The more metrics that are required in order to determine the "equality" between the two objects, mean that as each metric becomes equal, so are the description of the objects. So if you have an infinite number of metrics that are equal, it means Object A must be completely identical in every way to Object B.

Here is another way to look at the above example, where we have a bar of soap and a hammer, being related to Skill A and Skill B -

As you can see, the more metrics we add to each one to determine it's balance, the more the two skills will converge to just being the same skill... In reality, the bar of soap and the hammer can NEVER be exactly the same, and this is because if we had an infinite number of metrics, means that the quantum states (the positions and velocity vectors of individuals atoms) have to be identical...which is impossible to attain. In the same manner, Skill A and Skill B can have exactly the same attributes given an infinite number of metrics, but then they are just the same skill, where nothing differentiates one from the other.

So the generally accepted perspective on balance is actually just nonsense. Simple number tweaks to try and get two or more things to be balanced with each other in the above manner is impossible to do without annihilating diversity. This is just addressing the first issue of the multi-faceted issues on the topic, which if you follow logical analysis, you will find that the inevitable solution to the problem, is actually the reason why we can explain that the above pointed out fallacy causes balance issues in the first place, the ones we observe in gw2. The solution requires an explanation in and of itself, but to put it shortly, it's because of lack of diversity, is the reason we have poor balance. That's another post and wall of text all together. But i'll be happy to explain it in detail for those that want me to explain it in depth.

Dude too much text to read

The issue with gw2 pvp isnt balance, its class and combat design which is a much more complex topic.

[Enduronex.4865]

@Dantheman.3589 said:Skills elevated to absolutely insane cds and thief skills at such high initiative cost that they are barely usable in pvp. All utility taken from runes such as damage ones so that now just taking zerk amulet + a defensive rune does more damage than taking a damage rune with anything else. Most defensive amulets neutered or taken out. And now we just have a few builds considered “meta” at least in all circumstances and yet if you wanted to play the same class in a different way there is a chance that your build isn’t even viable, looking at thief and their absolutely atrocious 1v1 + brawler specs atm.So the question is- is this a it shouldn’t be meta meta? Stuff that excels rn probably wouldn’t be too oppressive in previous metas, does that make them good now or are they still over performing. Are these specs more fun for players or would they like to play something slightly different or ? Are these even good questions to ask or do we just keep applying blanket nerfs?At least think about it plz...

I don't know dude, all thieves I see doing is popping stealth, backstabbing, dodging, and going back into stealth so that you cannot hit them. IMO, they have TOO MUCH stealth access for the dmg and mobility they have.

[Dantheman.3589]

@memausz.7264 said:

@Dantheman.3589 said:Skills elevated to absolutely insane cds and thief skills at such high initiative cost that they are barely usable in pvp. All utility taken from runes such as damage ones so that now just taking zerk amulet + a defensive rune does more damage than taking a damage rune with anything else. Most defensive amulets neutered or taken out. And now we just have a few builds considered “meta” at least in all circumstances and yet if you wanted to play the same class in a different way there is a chance that your build isn’t even viable, looking at thief and their absolutely atrocious 1v1 + brawler specs atm.So the question is- is this a it shouldn’t be meta meta? Stuff that excels rn probably wouldn’t be too oppressive in previous metas, does that make them good now or are they still over performing. Are these specs more fun for players or would they like to play something slightly different or ? Are these even good questions to ask or do we just keep applying blanket nerfs?At least think about it plz...

I don't know dude, all thieves I see doing is popping stealth, backstabbing, dodging, and going back into stealth so that you cannot hit them. IMO, they have TOO MUCH stealth access for the dmg and mobility they have.

I never said anything about stealth builds, yes they are good rn. I did mention the weak brawler specs- s/d s/p and staff which yeah you can do ok sometimes with, but for those to be really top teir in their role as alittle more of a 1v1er- they absolutely need acro as an option; unfortunately the majority of acro has been completely neutered to where it is only taken for a GM trait that they could, to a much better degree, get on shadow arts.I leave it up to users to think whether or not this is a problem, but I’m assuming anyone that wanted to play idk s/p, de, s/d or staff would probably already not like the decision to increase initiative cost and cds to extremely high levels. Which is also partly why I’m specifying it in my post.

[SoftFootpaws.9134]

This is a problem with sPvP in general, and WvW doesn't suffer from it as badly. You can't have perfect balance, and the more you try to achieve it the more simplified the game gets, and thus the worst the balance gets since there's no unpredictability and everyone knows exactly what to do and how to beat everyone else in a fairly reliable manner, only excepting the chance of making mistakes.

This creates situations where, for example, if you're the wrong class, you should just log off instead.

If you run into another player, you should be thinking "I have no idea what this player is going to do, I best be prepared for anything", not "hm, this class only has one meta build and they're probably running it, I'll use my muscle memory to beat them".

True balance is noise, randomness, things to worry about other than ping or twitchiness. Diversity, increduility. A chance for every player to win even if they're outmatched, and it has to be a significant chance.

Its easy to say "if I'm a good player, good gear, good build, and seasoned, I should win 90% of my matchups". But that's not how it works. if you're two players fighting each other then the other player has to win at least 50% of the time or its not balanced, its lopsided. And then when you come up against someone you can't win against, its the same problem, but they're just overpowered.

When you create a game design where risk can be mitigated into purely quantifiable factors, the battle is already lost.

[Downstate.4697]

Lots of things they can polish up for runes and sigils.

Warrior suffers alot from too long cd on utilities. They are pidgeon-holed to use greatsword because no other weapon offers mobility. Physical skills and certain stunbreaks are the only thing that feels impactful enough for their cooldowns. Playing warrior feels like you dont have any sustain, but doing damage requires you to be in their face. Give them some swiftness on traits too.

[Arheundel.6451]

@"FrownyClown.8402" said:Lots of things they can polish up for runes and sigils.

Warrior suffers alot from too long cd on utilities. They are pidgeon-holed to use greatsword because no other weapon offers mobility. Physical skills and certain stunbreaks are the only thing that feels impactful enough for their cooldowns. Playing warrior feels like you dont have any sustain, but doing damage requires you to be in their face. Give them some swiftness on traits too.

I cry every time somebody put "buffs" and warriors in the same sentence , the class it's basically an easier version of power herald to play and such is balanced accordingly with less reward for the "effort" which I believe strongly it's the right way to go.....if you wrongly buff that we end up with a far easier to play version of power rev. You need to be very careful here, warrior is certainly not the only class forced to play a certain weapon set to obtain mobility and it's not the only class with a bunch of useless utilities outside the ones everybody plays. The class has already access to sustain lines like Defense and tactics maybe you may to tweak something there ok but....we don't want something having too much sustain while playing 3 offensive traitlines as it was with warrior in the past...do we?

You certainly would laugh at somebody asking to have huge sustain on ele while playing Air/Fire....in the same way we can't have too much sustain on Wars playing Discipline/Strength, regardless of the range a class supposed to be played...they all must follow same rules

[Arheundel.6451]

"Thief is weak in 1v1...."

I go...and read again the description of skills like : https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Infiltrator%27s_Strike ; https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Infiltrator%27s_Returnthat 1200 range GTFO teleport on demand.........https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Infiltrator%27s_Arrow ; https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Shadowstep .....I am left speechless

[Tayga.3192]

@FrownyClown.8402 said:Warrior suffers alot from too long cd on utilities. They are pidgeon-holed to use greatsword because no other weapon offers mobility.I disagree, it's just that greatsword is the best choice for power warrior (the most common build). You won't see greatsword in heal warrior or in condi warrior.

[Downstate.4697]

@Tayga.3192 said:

@FrownyClown.8402 said:Warrior suffers alot from too long cd on utilities. They are pidgeon-holed to use greatsword because no other weapon offers mobility.I disagree, it's just that greatsword is the best choice for power warrior (the most common build). You won't see greatsword in heal warrior or in condi warrior.

Dunno. I was trying an axe/dagger dagger/axe build the other night and the numbers were great. I was just too slow to secure kills reliably or move between points. I just felt like a reaper with no shroud.

[Dadnir.5038]

@"Dantheman.3589"Thief, like other professions, have been designed in a way that leave little room for "diversity" with an overwhelming ability to burst damage and generally poor ability to do anything else. The fact is that such design isn't healthy but it's set in stone since release and it would be pretty demanding to "fix". Thus it's bandaid fixed like everything in the game in order to soothe the complains within this sPvP subforum.

The high cool down on traits giving invuln frames or generally frame of extra survivability come from the complains in this very subforum from players that somehow couldn't manage to one shot other players with their glassy builds. Obviously the the high CD on survival traits and fram of invulnerability didn't do them any good since they came along with the 30% general cut of base damage coefficient of almost every skill in game. I find it quite ironic, thought.

As for why the thief have high initiative cost on it's weapon skillsets, it's because these skills do not have CD otherwise. Afterall there are weapon skills in game with up to 40s CD while even if the thief were to spend all it's initiative it would take him less than 20 seconds to refill it completely. The main issue of this design is that it leave little to room for some of the thief's weapon skills to see some use since players naturally seek efficiency in their use of skills and the ability to just spam your most efficient skill just strangle the "less" efficient skills. It's a design issue that can only be solved by putting on CD on thief's weapon skills which would defeat the purpose of the intitiative mechanism (it's the snake that eat it's own tail).

All in all, the design is wrong but since ANet can't fix the design they try to make it somewhat bearable by tweeking "numbers" and sometime it lead to some prohibitively high "numbers".

[Dantheman.3589]

@Dadnir.5038 said:@"Dantheman.3589"Thief, like other professions, have been designed in a way that leave little room for "diversity" with an overwhelming ability to burst damage and generally poor ability to do anything else. The fact is that such design isn't healthy but it's set in stone since release and it would be pretty demanding to "fix". Thus it's bandaid fixed like everything in the game in order to soothe the complains within this sPvP subforum.

The high cool down on traits giving invuln frames or generally frame of extra survivability come from the complains in this very subforum from players that somehow couldn't manage to one shot other players with their glassy builds. Obviously the the high CD on survival traits and fram of invulnerability didn't do them any good since they came along with the 30% general cut of base damage coefficient of almost every skill in game. I find it quite ironic, thought.

As for why the thief have high initiative cost on it's weapon skillsets, it's because these skills do not have CD otherwise. Afterall there are weapon skills in game with up to 40s CD while even if the thief were to spend all it's initiative it would take him less than 20 seconds to refill it completely. The main issue of this design is that it leave little to room for some of the thief's weapon skills to see some use since players naturally seek efficiency in their use of skills and the ability to just spam your most efficient skill just strangle the "less" efficient skills. It's a design issue that can only be solved by putting on CD on thief's weapon skills which would defeat the purpose of the intitiative mechanism (it's the snake that eat it's own tail).

All in all, the design is wrong but since ANet can't fix the design they try to make it somewhat bearable by tweeking "numbers" and sometime it lead to some prohibitively high "numbers".

Thief at released was and still is defined as a “deadly dueling class”. Thief diversity isn’t supposed to be limited to its pitiful diversity, which for a meta class is actually incredibly low.

[Dadnir.5038]

@"Dantheman.3589" said:Thief at released was and still is defined as a “deadly dueling class”. Thief diversity isn’t supposed to be limited to its pitiful diversity, which for a meta class is actually incredibly low.

I think you don't understand what I wrote. To put it simply the thief have been designed around using the stealth attack which is in itself a toxic design. And ANet's devs can't do anything about it now. In itself the thief isn't a "deadly duelling class" it's an "ambush class" by design. Which make anything like support, sustain damage, tanking or proper "duelling" extremly awkward to add to it's kit. Because, no, dealing damage on unsuspecting foes from stealth isn't "duelling".

[Dantheman.3589]

@Dadnir.5038 said:

@"Dantheman.3589" said:Thief at released was and still is defined as a “deadly dueling class”. Thief diversity isn’t supposed to be limited to its pitiful diversity, which for a meta class is actually incredibly low.

I think you don't understand what I wrote. To put it simply the thief have been designed around using the stealth attack which is in itself a toxic design. And ANet's devs can't do anything about it now. In itself the thief isn't a "deadly duelling class" it's an "ambush class" by design. Which make anything like support, sustain damage, tanking or proper "duelling" extremly awkward to add to it's kit. Because, no, dealing damage on unsuspecting foes from stealth isn't "duelling".

I did not misunderstand what you wrote. You seem to forcing your idea of what thief is as to why it should be the way it is now, which isn’t really what this post is about. Also the idea of thief that you 1.) may not be what others want, and I now a lot of players that don’t like it 2.) is actually wrong based on gw2s own definition for thief. So how is that accurate at all? This post is all about the big picture too and many of these changes were part of a big picture change which in the end only lowers build diversity ( in this case) to insanely low numbers.

[Elrond.9486]

Take a shot everytime someone in these balance threads say diVeRsITy

[Bast.7253]

I mean, it’s kind of a sad state when there is an entire build dedicated solely to spam knocking people off nodes. Like, that’s not even pvp. Referring to decap engi. I tried the build out the other day and it’s kind of ridiculous how nasty this build is. Not undefeated or insane damage, just incredibly annoying and doesn’t really provide counterplay. I guess that’s the good thing about deathmatch mini seasons.