Shade Duration makes the scourge a chore to play.

[Drizzly.4562]

Just now, Obtena.7952 said:

That's true, most people are bad, which is why the change makes sense for those players and for Anet. 

No they don't.  How does making the rotation stiffer make sense when a GM trait that already existed that could perfectly fill the proposed need of fewer targets?  A GM trait that literally serves no purpose now.

I see you've given this as much thought as the devs.

[Obtena.7952]

1 minute ago, Drizzly.4562 said:

 How does making the rotation stiffer make sense when a GM trait that already existed that could perfectly fill the proposed need of fewer targets?  A GM trait that literally serves no purpose now.

The rotation isn't stiffer because the recharge count hasn't changed. The rotation is LITERALLY spam on CD, which it ALWAYS has been. You still spam shades at the same rate. If the GM trait serves no purpose, that can be changed but having traits result in no purpose isn't a reason for Anet to not change the duration of shades. 

Edited July 15, 2023 by Obtena.7952

[Drizzly.4562]

Just now, Obtena.7952 said:

The rotation isn't stiffer because the recharge count hasn't changed. You still spam shades at the same rate. If the GM trait serves no purpose, that can be changed but having traits result in no purpose isn't a reason for Anet to not change the duration of shades. 

 

Ok.  Why not?

 

[Obtena.7952]

Just now, Drizzly.4562 said:

 

Ok.  Why not?

 

Well, it's obvious ... it didn't prevent Anet from making this change did it? Again, if the trait has no use, Anet can change it. Having established traits will never be a reason that would prevent Anet from making changes they want to make. Things can change however they see fit. 

Edited July 15, 2023 by Obtena.7952

[Drizzly.4562]

Just now, Obtena.7952 said:

Well, it's obvious ... it didn't prevent Anet from making this change did it? Again, if the trait has no use, Anet can change it. 

Nope, defend your position.  Why is changing shade duration a superior choice to putting alac duration on Sand Savant.

[Obtena.7952]

Just now, Drizzly.4562 said:

Nope, defend your position.  Why is changing shade duration a superior choice to putting alac duration on Sand Savant.

I just did .. Anet controls the game. That's not position. That's just how it works. I didn't make these changes, they did. 

Edited July 15, 2023 by Obtena.7952

[Drizzly.4562]

1 minute ago, Obtena.7952 said:

I just did .. Anet controls the game. That's not position. That's just how it works. I didn't make these changes, they did. 

Then I'm glad we agree that their understanding of the game lead to an unnecessary change and a dead grandmaster trait, and that it's very representative of their expertise and familiarity with the class.

Edited July 15, 2023 by Drizzly.4562

[Obtena.7952]

2 minutes ago, Drizzly.4562 said:

Then I'm glad we agree that their understanding of the game lead to an unnecessary change and a dead grandmaster trait, and that it's very representative of their expertise and familiarity with the class.

No, I didn't agree to that at all. It's obtuse to think I would agree to such a thing, considering I already told you I can understand why they made the change. There can't be a sustained healing situation with multiple scenarios. It's not possible for Anet to balance healing performance with that. 

Edited July 15, 2023 by Obtena.7952

[Drizzly.4562]

Just now, Obtena.7952 said:

No, I didn't agree to that at all. It's obtuse to think I would agree to such a thing, considering I already told you I can understand why they made the change. 

You understood the change to be because shades generating "healing", the comment you edited and covered up.

Meaning Sand Savant would have taken care of that.  Meaning you agree.  Thanks, bye.

[Obtena.7952]

3 minutes ago, Drizzly.4562 said:

You understood the change to be because shades generating "healing", the comment you edited and covered up.

There is no cover up ... If Anet is to be able to balance healing output, their can't be multiple healing shade stacking scenarios in a sustained shade-use situation. There might be other ways to address that like Sand Savant or anything else. They choose this way. I don't know why they choose this particular way, but I can understand that having made this choice, why the duration is nerfed. 

 

Edited July 15, 2023 by Obtena.7952

[Drizzly.4562]

Just now, Obtena.7952 said:

There is no cover up ... If Anet is to be able to balance healing output, their can't be multiple scenarios where healing stacks on a shade in a sustained use situation. There might be other ways to address that like Sand Savant or anything else. They choose this way. 

Correct.

[Drizzly.4562]

6 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

No, I didn't agree to that at all. It's obtuse to think I would agree to such a thing, considering I already told you I can understand why they made the change. There can't be a sustained healing situation with multiple scenarios. It's not possible for Anet to balance healing performance with that. 

Not empty quoting.

[Gaeb.2837]

16 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

That's true, most people are bad, which is why the change makes sense for those players and for Anet. Anet needs to be able to balance Scourge heals. They can't do that if there are multiple shade stacking scenarios they have to deal with. 

This can be true and an 8 second duration can still be viewed a bad solution from the perspective of most Scourge players.  

No one's asking for longer duration because we want to be able to go over the 5 target cap for alac. We're asking for longer duration because the 8s requirement is constraining. Contrary to your belief, you didn't have to spam shades every 8 seconds before (you could place them in groups, with 20s/8s you had a LOT of flexibility) - but now we are forced to. This is generally viewed as a bad thing.

[Obtena.7952]

13 minutes ago, Gaeb.2837 said:

This can be true and an 8 second duration can still be viewed a bad solution from the perspective of most Scourge players.  

No one's asking for longer duration because we want to be able to go over the 5 target cap for alac. We're asking for longer duration because the 8s requirement is constraining. Contrary to your belief, you didn't have to spam shades every 8 seconds before (you could place them in groups, with 20s/8s you had a LOT of flexibility) - but now we are forced to. This is generally viewed as a bad thing.

Sure ... there are LOTS of solutions to this and there are always going to be players that don't like WHATEVER solution is put in place. There simply isn't a silver bullet solution here that doesn't make everyone happy but don't pretend there is some majority of Scourge players opposing this. 

There is some misunderstanding here. I'm saying that I can see why Anet made this change and I didn't claim you HAVE to spam shades every 8 seconds, because that's a nonsense thing to say. What I did say (or imply maybe, not going to check it) is that I believe the optimal way to play shades is to spam them on CD, ... 8 seconds based on the count recharge ... or whatever it will be with Alacrity if it affects it. 

Now, hot take here: You aren't actually forced to spam shades every 8 seconds with a 8 second count recharge; that's something you do if you want maximum value from shades. BUT ... if you believe you are being forced to do that, then you already accepted shade spamming on CD in your rotation, regardless of duration ANYWAYS.

Edited July 15, 2023 by Obtena.7952

[Drizzly.4562]

Just now, Obtena.7952 said:

Sure ... there are LOTS of solutions to this and there are always going to be players that don't like WHATEVER solution is put in place. There simply isn't a silver bullet solution here that doesn't make everyone happy but don't pretend there is some majority of Scourge players opposing this. 

There is some misunderstanding here. I'm saying that I can see why Anet made this change and I didn't claim you HAVE to spam shades every 8 seconds, because that's a nonsense thing to say. What I did say (or imply maybe, not going to check it) is that I believe the optimal way to play shades is to spam them on CD, ... 8 seconds based on the count recharge ... or whatever it will be with Alacrity if it affects it. 

Now, hot take here: You aren't actually forced to spam shades every 8 seconds with a 8 second count recharge; that's something you do if you want maximum value from shades. BUT ... if you believe you are being forced to do that, then you already accepted shade spamming on CD in your rotation ANYWAYS.

Every comment you make you subtly reveal another aspect of the class you don't understand.

I think we're all done here, thanks.

[Gaeb.2837]

Just now, Obtena.7952 said:

There is some misunderstanding here. I'm saying that I can see why Anet made this change and I didn't claim you HAVE to spam shades every 8 seconds, because that's a nonsense thing to say. What I did say (or imply maybe, not going to check it) is that I believe the optimal way to play shades is to spam them on CD, ... 8 seconds based on the count recharge ... or whatever it will be with Alacrity if it affects it. 

Now, hot take here: You aren't actually forced to spam shades every 8 seconds with a 8 second count recharge; that's something you do if you want maximum value from shades. BUT ... if you believe you are being forced to do that, then you already accepted shade spamming on CD in your rotation ANYWAYS.

Misunderstandings happen, but let me react to your hot take:

1- Before, you could pretty easily keep up your 15% condition duration / boon duration without having to push shade every 8 seconds on the dot. You had flexibility.
2- Now, that is not possible. You must recast every 8 seconds or you lose a decent chunk of your damage and/or boon duration.

You seem to be missing a lot of experience playing Scourge.

[Obtena.7952]

1 minute ago, Gaeb.2837 said:

Misunderstandings happen, but let me react to your hot take:

1- Before, you could pretty easily keep up your 15% condition duration / boon duration without having to push shade every 8 seconds on the dot. You had flexibility.
2- Now, that is not possible. You must recast every 8 seconds or you lose a decent chunk of your damage and/or boon duration.

You seem to be missing a lot of experience playing Scourge.

I'm not missing anything ... I'm quite aware of how these changes will affect using shades on Scourge. Again, this discussion isn't about me or trying to convince me the change is bad or not. It's about people claiming the devs have no clue what they are doing in these changes when it's actually the opposite; if people understand the game, they can understand why Anet choose this 8 second duration. 

[Gaeb.2837]

1 minute ago, Obtena.7952 said:

if people understand the game, they can understand why Anet choose this 8 second duration. 

And disagree with it, which is what the majority of posts here are doing. The rationale makes sense but the cost is a massive change to playstyle and a new forced 8-second rotation.

If you're fine with it, that's great, most are not. This is a feedback forum, after all. Ed: And there are other solutions proposed in both this and the Professional forums to alleviate the issue. Really not sure what you're campaigning for.

Edited July 15, 2023 by Gaeb.2837

[Degs.5148]

2 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Again, this discussion isn't about me or trying to convince me the change is bad or not. It's about people claiming the devs have no clue what they are doing in these changes when it's actually the opposite; if people understand the game, they can understand why Anet choose this 8 second duration. 

 

32 minutes ago, Drizzly.4562 said:

Then I'm glad we agree that their understanding of the game lead to an unnecessary change and a dead grandmaster trait, and that it's very representative of their expertise and familiarity with the class.

 

[Gaeb.2837]

Just now, Degs.5148 said:

(quotes)

Plus a hastily rolled out set of changes like a Scourge tool-tip that reflects NEXT patches changes. They were in a rush, and I don't think they put the time or effort into the scourge changes they could have.

[Obtena.7952]

5 minutes ago, Gaeb.2837 said:

And disagree with it, which is what the majority of posts here are doing. The rationale makes sense but the cost is a massive change to playstyle and a new forced 8-second rotation.

If you're fine with it, that's great, most are not. This is a feedback forum, after all.

Sure. I don't have a problem with people not liking this change. There are going to be some people that are actually impacted how they play with these changes. That's a small price to pay for enabling Scourge to heal in a team setting, which is actually something LOTS of players have been asking for a long time. 

Edited July 15, 2023 by Obtena.7952

[Gaeb.2837]

Just now, Obtena.7952 said:

Sure. I don't have a problem with people not liking this change. 

You're probably in the wrong thread then? (checks title)

[Obtena.7952]

3 minutes ago, Gaeb.2837 said:

You're probably in the wrong thread then? (checks title)

No, I'm in the right thread. Again, people can disagree all they like but make no mistake, the change being made isn't because devs have no clue how the game works. That 8 seconds was CHOSEN for a reason and if people don't understand it, that's not because Anet doesn't know how it will work. It's because players don't think about why the changes were made. 

I mean, if people don't understand why the change was made or why certain parameters are chosen,  what relevant basis are they using to claim the change is bad?

I get it's not flexible like 20 seconds. Honestly, I think that's the POINT of the change because having the 'flexibility' to play Scourge in an effectively PASSIVE style to heal, etc ... is highly likely to be something Anet is NOT cool with. 

Edited July 15, 2023 by Obtena.7952

[Degs.5148]

Just now, Obtena.7952 said:

No, I'm in the right thread. Again, people can disagree all they like but make no mistake, the change being made isn't because devs have no clue how the game works. That 8 seconds was CHOSEN for a reason and if people don't understand it, that's not because Anet doesn't know how it will work. It's because players don't think about why the changes were made. 

I mean, if people don't understand why the change was made or why certain parameters are chosen,  what relevant basis are they using to claim the change is bad?

You just keep repeating the same thing when it was made clear to you people understand why 8 seconds was chosen.  The disconnect that has been pointed out to you repeatedly is that there were other, better, more elegant options that didn't kitten with anything.

All you have accomplished here is to make me *more* annoyed with the devs for missing the same kitten someone like you misses.

[Gaeb.2837]

3 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

the change being made isn't because devs have no clue how the game works. That 8 seconds was CHOSEN for a reason and if people don't understand it, that's not because Anet doesn't know how it will work.

You're assuming several things are true at the same time:

• Anet fully understands how their game works and is completely on top of balance changes (patently false, it's a very complex game)
• Anet had strong rationale for why they made this 8s change (true in my eyes, the rationale is logical even if the outcome is suboptimal)
• Players must* hold both of the above opinions at the same time or they're wrong (fixed)

Really what are you crusading for here? The change was made, there's logic to it, it resulted in several other illogical issues/questions about Scourge traits, it was rushed out half-baked, and the feedback is we'd like a better solution. 

Edited July 15, 2023 by Gaeb.2837