Magebane Tether (PvP)

[Zekent.3652]

Should prioritize players over AIs with Full Counter.

Edited November 23, 2022 by Zizekent.2398
Typo

[Hotride.2187]

Better yet make it attach to whatever I'm targeting.

If a burst connects without a target, sure prioritize players.

Edited November 22, 2022 by Hotride.2187

[eXruina.4956]

Just now, Hotride.2187 said:

Better yet make it attach to whatever I'm targeting.

even better yet make it attach to everything i hit. 🙂

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

32 minutes ago, eXruina.4956 said:

even better yet make it attach to everything i hit. 🙂

This is the way.

Also make the trigger range 240 and pull 240.

[Mungrul.9358]

Has anyone actually got a decent use-case scenario for Magebane Tether in PvE?

It's one of the few mechanics in the game that I feel just doesn't translate well between PvP and PvE, and I feel it needs a certain something-something to make it pop in PvE.

 

It's much like how Mesmer in GW1 was. Most of its skills were based around causing other players grief, and simply didn't have the same impact when used against brainless AI (although GW1's AI was actually really good, and I rank it alongside Half Life, F.E.A.R and Black & White).

The skills just didn't feel as personal in a PvE setting.

 

And Magebane Tether has the same feel. AI doesn't run away, and this mechanic relies on the victim kiting. In short, GW2's AI is too dim to make Magebane Tether work.

But that was something I noticed about the game since early access. The AI simply didn't feel as smart as GW1's, and still doesn't.

[draxynnic.3719]

Magebane Tether in PvE is about the Might stacks (which can be healing with MMR) and the percentage increase to damage when hitting a tethered target. You probably don't actually want to break it in PvE because of the extra damage it gives you.

Edited November 22, 2022 by draxynnic.3719

[Shadowpeixera.2918]

What about making Tether a AoE 240 pull, like Lan mentions, while also actually not forcing you to move out of range, instead just being a timed pull? Like Guardian GS5, but automatically pulls enemies in range after the time is over?

And then, since the might generation is important for MMR/MM, then just make it so that the skill generates might while connected, and when the pull occurs, it generates a burst of might stacks. This would make MT consistent as CC, while still keeping it's might stacking function. It would also make MT trigger traits like Stalwart Strength,  Merciless Hammer and Aggressive Onslaught without forcing us to do wonky movement in PvE.

[oscuro.9720]

6 hours ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

This is the way.

Also make the trigger range 240 and pull 240.

I’m going to disagree on this one. That would make it essentially an immediate pull vs a lot of classes and there is times that the might, damage mod, and reveal are more useful than the pull. 
I mean, FC is 300 range as it is. 

[Dr Meta.3158]

Full counter is already a mechanic thats better for a street fighter-esque game than a game where there's random damage flying around at all times. Honestly I'd prefer something more suitable for this game.

[draxynnic.3719]

2 hours ago, oscuro.9720 said:

I’m going to disagree on this one. That would make it essentially an immediate pull vs a lot of classes and there is times that the might, damage mod, and reveal are more useful than the pull. 
I mean, FC is 300 range as it is. 

One proposal I've made in the past is reworking Imminent Threat into generating a tether...and having a flipover to use the pull manually. Which could, like the guardian torch 4 skill, also flipover when a tether is generated from the trait. This would then introduce manual activation at the price of a utility slot - which is probably better than having it trigger almost right as soon as the enemy is outside of melee range.

[CalmTheStorm.2364]

1 hour ago, Dr Meta.3158 said:

Full counter is already a mechanic thats better for a street fighter-esque game than a game where there's random damage flying around at all times. Honestly I'd prefer something more suitable for this game.

Like what?

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but FC seems to serve an important role for helping warrior deal with the AoE spam and big damage other classes spew out. There's a reason why SpB is the only viable warrior pick in PvP right now, even after all the buffs to berserker. So if you were to remove/rework FC, how would you help it provide the value it needs to keep the spec viable while making it "more suitable for the game," as you put it?

[oscuro.9720]

35 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

One proposal I've made in the past is reworking Imminent Threat into generating a tether...and having a flipover to use the pull manually. Which could, like the guardian torch 4 skill, also flipover when a tether is generated from the trait. This would then introduce manual activation at the price of a utility slot - which is probably better than having it trigger almost right as soon as the enemy is outside of melee range.

This is quite an interesting idea. Very different from what we have but offers a lot more control. What would the tether range be under this format in your opinion? Also what would happen if tether range is exceeded (does it break or does it auto pull)?

[draxynnic.3719]

38 minutes ago, oscuro.9720 said:

This is quite an interesting idea. Very different from what we have but offers a lot more control. What would the tether range be under this format in your opinion? Also what would happen if tether range is exceeded (does it break or does it auto pull)?

Probably about the same as it is now, just with the option to trigger the pull manually if you have the utility slot loaded.

[Dr Meta.3158]

2 hours ago, CalmTheStorm.2364 said:

Like what?

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but FC seems to serve an important role for helping warrior deal with the AoE spam and big damage other classes spew out. There's a reason why SpB is the only viable warrior pick in PvP right now, even after all the buffs to berserker. So if you were to remove/rework FC, how would you help it provide the value it needs to keep the spec viable while making it "more suitable for the game," as you put it?

Honestly I would replace full counter with magebane tether but you actually have to launch it like a DH, tools kit pull, or spectral grasp. Then design traits around customizing mage bane tether. I could even see a grandmaster trair making it an 5 target tether. That way it fits thematically, has counterplay within the opponents control, and better fits this game. Spellbreaker is supposed to be a wizard hunter essentially and mage bane tether fulfills that archetype whereas full counter doesn't. Full counter is better against other melee fighters thematically and practically. Counters work well in fighting games where every input is controlled but in a game where people have lingering field effects, pets, incidental ages, etc. Its just a free skill thats especially punishing in certain side noding matchups. Its not as terrible of a design as stone heart in invalidating entire builds but it treads that same water. And invalidizating builds is design space we don't want to be in.

[oscuro.9720]

33 minutes ago, Dr Meta.3158 said:

Honestly I would replace full counter with magebane tether but you actually have to launch it like a DH, tools kit pull, or spectral grasp. Then design traits around customizing mage bane tether. I could even see a grandmaster trair making it an 5 target tether. That way it fits thematically, has counterplay within the opponents control, and better fits this game. Spellbreaker is supposed to be a wizard hunter essentially and mage bane tether fulfills that archetype whereas full counter doesn't. Full counter is better against other melee fighters thematically and practically. Counters work well in fighting games where every input is controlled but in a game where people have lingering field effects, pets, incidental ages, etc. Its just a free skill thats especially punishing in certain side noding matchups. Its not as terrible of a design as stone heart in invalidating entire builds but it treads that same water. And invalidizating builds is design space we don't want to be in.

This would make spell markedly worse. 

[draxynnic.3719]

8 hours ago, Dr Meta.3158 said:

Honestly I would replace full counter with magebane tether but you actually have to launch it like a DH, tools kit pull, or spectral grasp. Then design traits around customizing mage bane tether. I could even see a grandmaster trair making it an 5 target tether. That way it fits thematically, has counterplay within the opponents control, and better fits this game. Spellbreaker is supposed to be a wizard hunter essentially and mage bane tether fulfills that archetype whereas full counter doesn't. Full counter is better against other melee fighters thematically and practically. Counters work well in fighting games where every input is controlled but in a game where people have lingering field effects, pets, incidental ages, etc. Its just a free skill thats especially punishing in certain side noding matchups. Its not as terrible of a design as stone heart in invalidating entire builds but it treads that same water. And invalidizating builds is design space we don't want to be in.

You've kinda just explained why full counter is an anti-spellcaster ability - because those lingering fields tend to be more common on magical than martial professions.

[Dr Meta.3158]

2 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

You've kinda just explained why full counter is an anti-spellcaster ability - because those lingering fields tend to be more common on magical than martial professions.

The short range aoe that goes off easily off pets and lingering fields effects of the martial classes of Guardian, longbow warrior, revenant, engineer, ranger vs the fewer spellcasters of elementalist, specter, mesmer and necromancer. Until the defense traitline rework, elementalist, necromancer, specter, and especially daredevil toyed with spellbreakers. It took a rework to enforce in more build invalidating mechanics to bring up the lesser skilled players to feeling effective on warrior while pushing the top end to almost uncontested levels to which high burst dps, speed, and CC spam counters them since it otherwise ignores resistance and takes advantage of the lack of nonlinear mobility. Otherwise, spellbreakers did't even threaten these classes... until they traited in magebane tether.

But thats one of the issues with warrior. Like thief, there is a very high skill floor and skill ceiling where much of the warrior and thief players are ineffective and voice their opinions on the matter whereas a small minority of thief and warrior players dominate. With that in mind it may be difficult to understand these concepts until that level of skill is attained.

But overall really I'm putting down ideas for the devs to read since they "should" have a better understanding on the game's mechanics and are the ones who ultimately decide changes on the game; not the players on the forum of varying skill, intelligence, and levels of understanding. 

[Shadowpeixera.2918]

Quote

But thats one of the issues with warrior. Like thief, there is a very high skill floor and skill ceiling where much of the warrior and thief players are ineffective and voice their opinions on the matter whereas a small minority of thief and warrior players dominate. With that in mind it may be difficult to understand these concepts until that level of skill is attained.

I guess? Teapot last AT cast had some Hammer Spellbreakers but they weren't nearly as effective as you make them seem to be, and they were top tier players. That might be one of the issues of Warrior, but i don't know if i agree with it. If anything, the Warrior's issue is that they have a extremely predictable pattern of combat where whatever spec you play, you're needed to engage in melee and you can be corrupted/ragdolled to death because your boon output is mediocre. Which is why several builds in PvP are experimenting with banners and any stunbreaks that offer whatever utility can benefit us for those small windows of opportunity.

I would argue to compare Warrior with Garen in LoL: There are several great Garens in the game that know the intricasies of the character to minute details, like small powerspikes that completely change the lane. Yet, all of them put Garen's predictability of play as a con to the character: There's really little ways of do much with the character because it's skill kit is limited. It does have a high skill ceiling, but what you can do with that skill ceiling is lesser than what you can do in other classes, i would say.

Quote

But overall really I'm putting down ideas for the devs to read since they "should" have a better understanding on the game's mechanics and are the ones who ultimately decide changes on the game; not the players on the forum of varying skill, intelligence, and levels of understanding. 

This is a weird concept: Devs aren't necessarily good players, and not everything works the same as out of concept, several things they design end up being played differently in practice. That AND the class/game should embrace all sorts of skill levels and feel good to play throughout the spectrum. Dismissing opinions because of skill level is a terrible way to design a game.

[draxynnic.3719]

41 minutes ago, Dr Meta.3158 said:

The short range aoe that goes off easily off pets and lingering fields effects of the martial classes of Guardian, longbow warrior, revenant, engineer, ranger vs the fewer spellcasters of elementalist, specter, mesmer and necromancer. 

I consider guardian and to a lesser extent revenant to be hybrids, leaning towards the magic side even, rather than being characterised as martial, particularly when they're laying down fields (and ranger fields possibly tend towards being magical as well, although ranger as a whole is more martial and setting the ground on fire is one of the easiest field types to explain without needing magic). Engineer is essentially replicating magic with technology (this is exactly the reason why the non-Flame charr went so heavily on technology in the first place), so unless ArenaNet actually made a mechanical distinction between magic and non-magic like there was in GW1, you can expect anything that's good against casters to also be good against engineers as well. I don't think it's possible for an elementalist not to have any damaging fields at all on their bar - some builds they're relatively few and an elementalist might not choose to use them when fighting a spellbreaker, but that's them choosing not to give you that opportunity. Necromancer potentially has fields in the form of wells (keeping in mind the fluff, Awakened casters seem particularly fond of well-like area effects), CPC, Plaguelands, greatsword skill 4, and the scourge shroud skill (not technically a field, I guess, but still pulsing area damage that's predictable enough to guarantee a FC goes off). Mesmer is relatively light on them (chronomancer and virtuoso have a couple), but if you've got a clone or two on you, FC is virtually guaranteed. And spellbreakers had no idea that spectre was a thing when they were developing their skillset.

So I think my statement stands - FC being something you can trigger deliberately by walking into a field or similar effect does fit the anti-spellcaster theme. A caster might be able to limit the effect by choosing not to use those skills, but at that point the spellbreaker has already forced them to leave out one of the tools in their toolbox.

None of which, I should point out, should be considered an observation on the balance state of spellbreaker or warrior in general, merely that "oh, hey, I'm going to take advantage of your field to trigger a full counter in your face!" absolutely fits the "I'm out to punish spellcasters" theme.