Jumpin Lumpix.6108 Posted March 15, 2018 Share Posted March 15, 2018 Nobody asked for staff to be nerfed from 600 range to 300 range, nobody was even complaining about it before the change occurred. why is it still implemented? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Red Arachnid.2493 Posted March 15, 2018 Share Posted March 15, 2018 I imagine that Staff is still nerfed for the same reasons that it was nerfed in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcaedus.7290 Posted March 15, 2018 Share Posted March 15, 2018 The range nerf was a bad idea. At least before-hand, if you built correctly you could use staff offensively (a condi build with permeating wrath could deal decent damage with staff or 2300+ power/50% crit/200%+ crit damage did mediocre damage with 1 spam, advantage being staying out of melee range). They pushed it towards being solely a mediocre support weapon given a very specific build.I'm still of the opinion that staff should be reworked, given new animations for certain skills and largely buffed so that it's more than just a weapon that supports allies with a short-range 3.5k heal and 12 stacks of might. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deimos.4263 Posted March 15, 2018 Share Posted March 15, 2018 I still don't know why it was nerfed. Were people actually complaining about OP staff guardians? Somebody screencap that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Etterwyn.5263 Posted March 15, 2018 Share Posted March 15, 2018 I believe it was abused in WVW pretty badly. They could have nerfed it to 3 targets instead of 5 and left the range the same. Or... since skill splits are now a thing, perhaps un-nerf it in PVE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted March 15, 2018 Share Posted March 15, 2018 @Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:Nobody asked for staff to be nerfed from 600 range to 300 range, nobody was even complaining about it before the change occurred. why is it still implemented?Because how stuff works has nothing to do with what players think. Are you honestly implying that Anet would ever revert the change, because people simply don't like it? You're new here right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shagaliscious.6281 Posted March 15, 2018 Share Posted March 15, 2018 @Etterwyn.5263 said:I believe it was abused in WVW pretty badly. They could have nerfed it to 3 targets instead of 5 and left the range the same. Or... since skill splits are now a thing, perhaps un-nerf it in PVE? This. In Hills keep in the alpine BLs, you could stand outside of lords room (to the left or right of the entrance) and cleave through the wall. Of course, instead of addressing the underlying issue, ANET just nerfs the range of the weapon that used that particular exploit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcaedus.7290 Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 @Shagaliscious.6281 said:@Etterwyn.5263 said:I believe it was abused in WVW pretty badly. They could have nerfed it to 3 targets instead of 5 and left the range the same. Or... since skill splits are now a thing, perhaps un-nerf it in PVE? This. In Hills keep in the alpine BLs, you could stand outside of lords room (to the left or right of the entrance) and cleave through the wall. Of course, instead of addressing the underlying issue, ANET just nerfs the range of the weapon that used that particular exploit.Funny because Firebrand's f1 skill 1 still has that 600 range and does way more damage (both power and condi) which opens it up to that same abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saiyan.1704 Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 "We were so concerned with Firebrand's burn potential that we had to nerf Staff to the ground. We then removed Firebrand's F1 burn potential. This was generally well received." -Anet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.