Deaths Judgment

[juno.1840]

@Stebene.9275 said:You're probably only taking 5 stacks of malice and the plain damage bonus they provide into account. However, death's judgement gets another 15% per malice stacks, totaling the skill based damage bonus to a factor of 2.05 with another general 21% damage bonus. Assuming the DE had 7 stacks (maleficent seven), that would come done to 17,356 / 2.05 * 0.79 which is roughly about 6,8k, that is of course assuming that the bonus is multiplicative which it probably is since the 15% per malice is skill based. Still a large number but not for a skill that takes 6 initiative, especially if you have nothing else to come up with after that.

However it's true, a single shot should not be able to down you. Just to put it into perspective, a full marauder warrior has 2271 armor and 25542 HP. In that case the shot would've done 24983 damage, still almost one-shotting the class with the highest innate defense and gear suitable for roaming. Now imagine how much defensive gear you'd have to take as ele if you wanted to survive that.

Marauder's Armor is not "high defense". Also you don't have to "imagine" anything, simply do the math. A tanky build has over 3000 armor. Using your numbers, the damage would be:

25542 * 2271 / 3000 = 17k

So yeah, cut the damage down by nearly 30% -- that's huge.

[primatos.5413]

On one side ur against removing stealth:Very ignorant comment. Stealth is a core mechanic of the class and inseparable from the role.

Then:It is relevant because the source of inspiration must be nothing else than real life. Where else have you met with snipers?

Inspired by real life ? There´s no stealth mechanics in rl as far as i know ... so does it mean u agree with me ? :)

BTT: nrfplzolololkkthxbb - Just because i am struggeling with taking the pro onehit arguments serious.. sry :(

[snh.7091]

@primatos.5413 said:On one side ur against removing stealth:Very ignorant comment. Stealth is a core mechanic of the class and inseparable from the role.

Then:It is relevant because the source of inspiration must be nothing else than real life. Where else have you met with snipers?

Inspired by real life ? There´s no stealth mechanics in rl as far as i know ... so does it mean u agree with me ? :)

BTT: nrfplzolololkkthxbb - Just because i am struggeling with taking the pro onehit arguments serious.. sry :(

IRL they use camouflage and very long range, that is the equivalent of stealth in game, since in game we cannot be granted 2 or 3k range. That would start a tidal wave of complaints.

...but I'm getting used to having to explain everything.

[Solori.6025]

@Inoki.6048 said:

@primatos.5413 said:On one side ur against removing stealth:Very ignorant comment. Stealth is a core mechanic of the class and inseparable from the role.

Then:It is relevant because the source of inspiration must be nothing else than real life. Where else have you met with snipers?

Inspired by real life ? There´s no stealth mechanics in rl as far as i know ... so does it mean u agree with me ? :)

BTT: nrfplzolololkkthxbb - Just because i am struggeling with taking the pro onehit arguments serious.. sry :(

IRL they use camouflage and very long range, that is the equivalent of stealth in game, since in game we cannot be granted 2 or 3k range. That would start a tidal wave of complaints.

...but I'm getting used to having to explain everything.

camouflage =/= stealth

Now Active camouflage or the Adaptiv system would be real life stealth, with the ability to literally bend light and heat around an object to render it, to the naked eye and radar, invisible.

But, that is actually irrelevent.This is a fantasy game.The minute you start trying to bring RL arguements into the equation you have to explain the other 1000 things ingame that also have some RL influence but dont actually perform as such.Like laser beams,grenades,burning,bleeding,poison etc.

Like why dont mesmer clones do the same damage as the mesmer, they are obviously illusions built by the mind, and as such should render the same damage and possibly fear because of the instant psychological response of being overwhelmed, surrounded, and attacked all at once, and then being stabbed by the real one as your mind sends a shutdown to all of your bodies vitals because it has to comprehend being stabbed from multiple sources, and dealing with the pain.Mesmers would one shot everything with Sword AA if we went with RL influences.

All that to basically say.RL influences is not a valid argument as to why something does, did, or should be doing massive damage

[snh.7091]

@Solori.6025 said:

@Inoki.6048 said:

@primatos.5413 said:On one side ur against removing stealth:Very ignorant comment. Stealth is a core mechanic of the class and inseparable from the role.

Then:It is relevant because the source of inspiration must be nothing else than real life. Where else have you met with snipers?

Inspired by real life ? There´s no stealth mechanics in rl as far as i know ... so does it mean u agree with me ? :)

BTT: nrfplzolololkkthxbb - Just because i am struggeling with taking the pro onehit arguments serious.. sry :(

IRL they use camouflage and very long range, that is the equivalent of stealth in game, since in game we cannot be granted 2 or 3k range. That would start a tidal wave of complaints.

...but I'm getting used to having to explain everything.

camouflage =/= stealth

Now Active camouflage or the Adaptiv system would be real life stealth, with the ability to literally bend light and heat around an object to render it, to the naked eye and radar, invisible.

But, that is actually irrelevent.This is a fantasy game.The minute you start trying to bring RL arguements into the equation you have to explain the other 1000 things ingame that also have some RL influence but dont actually perform as such.Like laser beams,grenades,burning,bleeding,poison etc.

Like why dont mesmer clones do the same damage as the mesmer, they are obviously illusions built by the mind, and as such should render the same damage and possibly fear because of the instant psychological response of being overwhelmed, surrounded, and attacked all at once, and then being stabbed by the real one as your mind sends a shutdown to all of your bodies vitals because it has to comprehend being stabbed from multiple sources, and dealing with the pain.Mesmers would one shot everything with Sword AA if we went with RL influences.

All that to basically say.RL influences is not a valid argument as to why something does, did, or should be doing massive damage

But then again what do you want? By definition this class should be lethal. Atm. it is. Take away its damage what will it be? Right, useless. Because it already has no mobility, weak cleanse, it's glass, no stability, no reflects, condi builds make no sense with the rifle and if it won't be high caliber there really is no point in even touching it.

But right, let's just talk fantasy and leave any logic out of the equation.

PS: about real life stealth, a properly camouflaged sniper could be crouching close to you in a jungle or similar environment, wouldn't need special technology to bend light and most definitely you wouldn't even notice him being there.

[Turk.5460]

@Inoki.6048 said:But then again what do you want? By definition this class should be lethal. Atm. it is. Take away its damage what will it be? Right, useless. Because it already has no mobility, weak cleanse, it's glass, no stability, no reflects, condi builds make no sense with the rifle and if it won't be high caliber there really is no point in even touching it.

But right, let's just talk fantasy and leave any logic out of the equation.

By whose definition? The GW2 description uses the word snipe. By definition, snipe only means shooting from long range. Not killing. Just to shoot. And yes, please, for the love of entertainment, please, leave logic out of it. It has no place here where I can turn into a walking candy-corn golem, or by killing a keep lord and standing in a circle for 20s automatically builds up previously broken walls or gates. How far are you willing to take this real-life logic charade? Would you like to have to manually repair all the damage you did to an objective after you successfully capture it? Would you like to have to spend 6 months in the spawn-infirmary because you got lacerated by a rusty sword?

You are playing the profession wrong if you think it has no mobility and weak cleanse.

[Sobx.1758]

@Bish.8627 said:Things like the lazer don't show when you are around a busy fight

It does show and if you can't notice it, it's your problem. It can be said about literally any other skill in the game, so stop trying to use it as an argument about a specific skill, because it's not valid.

[Chaba.5410]

@Turk.5460 said:

@Inoki.6048 said:But then again what do you want? By definition this class should be lethal. Atm. it is. Take away its damage what will it be? Right, useless. Because it already has no mobility, weak cleanse, it's glass, no stability, no reflects, condi builds make no sense with the rifle and if it won't be high caliber there really is no point in even touching it.

But right, let's just talk fantasy and leave any logic out of the equation.

By whose definition? The GW2 description uses the word snipe. By definition, snipe only means shooting from long range. Not killing. Just to shoot. And yes, please, for the love of entertainment, please, leave logic out of it. It has no place here where I can turn into a walking candy-corn golem, or by killing a keep lord and standing in a circle for 20s automatically builds up previously broken walls or gates. How far are you willing to take this real-life logic charade? Would you like to have to manually repair all the damage you did to an objective after you successfully capture it? Would you like to have to spend 6 months in the spawn-infirmary because you got lacerated by a rusty sword?

You are playing the profession wrong if you think it has no mobility and weak cleanse.

Perhaps he's throwing in the "real life" argument to avoid discussing actual game design and mechanics objectively? Games can indeed take inspiration from real life. What we're saying is that there's a difference between inspiration and implementation. I feel that Inoki is just completely missing this point. Anet has in the past nerfed one-shot-one-kill builds in other classes (rip 100nades, rip pve consumables in wvw) because it breaks balance. No difference here. It has nothing with how players personally play a class, whether they exploit a bug or not (building malice on a gate), etc., and everything to do with game design. If there's a bug or something unintended, that has to be fixed, just like Epidemic was fixed to not work off oil. There is also still no clear answer to the question of whether DJ was intended to be affected by the malice stacks against targets that were not marked.

[Solori.6025]

@Inoki.6048 said:

@Solori.6025 said:

@Inoki.6048 said:

@primatos.5413 said:On one side ur against removing stealth:Very ignorant comment. Stealth is a core mechanic of the class and inseparable from the role.

Then:It is relevant because the source of inspiration must be nothing else than real life. Where else have you met with snipers?

Inspired by real life ? There´s no stealth mechanics in rl as far as i know ... so does it mean u agree with me ? :)

BTT: nrfplzolololkkthxbb - Just because i am struggeling with taking the pro onehit arguments serious.. sry :(

IRL they use camouflage and very long range, that is the equivalent of stealth in game, since in game we cannot be granted 2 or 3k range. That would start a tidal wave of complaints.

...but I'm getting used to having to explain everything.

camouflage =/= stealth

Now Active camouflage or the Adaptiv system would be real life stealth, with the ability to literally bend light and heat around an object to render it, to the naked eye and radar, invisible.

But, that is actually irrelevent.This is a fantasy game.The minute you start trying to bring RL arguements into the equation you have to explain the other 1000 things ingame that also have some RL influence but dont actually perform as such.Like laser beams,grenades,burning,bleeding,poison etc.

Like why dont mesmer clones do the same damage as the mesmer, they are obviously illusions built by the mind, and as such should render the same damage and possibly fear because of the instant psychological response of being overwhelmed, surrounded, and attacked all at once, and then being stabbed by the real one as your mind sends a shutdown to all of your bodies vitals because it has to comprehend being stabbed from multiple sources, and dealing with the pain.Mesmers would one shot everything with Sword AA if we went with RL influences.

All that to basically say.RL influences is not a valid argument as to why something does, did, or should be doing massive damage

But then again what do you want? By definition this class should be lethal. Atm. it is. Take away its damage what will it be? Right, useless. Because it already has no mobility, weak cleanse, it's glass, no stability, no reflects, condi builds make no sense with the rifle and if it won't be high caliber there really is no point in even touching it.

But right, let's just talk fantasy and leave any logic out of the equation.

PS: about real life stealth, a properly camouflaged sniper could be crouching close to you in a jungle or similar environment, wouldn't need special technology to bend light and most definitely you wouldn't even notice him being there.

I never talked about taking the damage away in that post. . . .I do agree it will eventually be toned downed, but I do not think it should not do high damage, and I don't think it should be nerfed untill EVERY bug is fixed with rifle.

Secondly it will be far from useless, you have a lot of utility using rifle and fortunately it doesnt all revolve around DJ, and in 1v1 or 2v2 scenerios DJ IS useless. If you measure the rifles performance strictly on DJ you aren't playing it right.

Lastly, we are leaving real life logic out of a fantasy game, because that is logical.It's like trying to add matrix logic to real life, doesn't fit because it's two very different universes

You ignore the skills I brought up as well and focus on the sniper point of view and as others have said, that makes no sense.It's the same argument people have used for skills that have been on the chopping block and each and every one of those skills have been nerfed to the ground.Examples-Grenade BarrageBackstabtriple chophundred bladesand rapid fire

Try focusing on a fix that is logical instead of bringing up hyperbolic arguments revolving around RL stuff that has no real practice in a game.

I have proposed a slight nerf to DJ's bonus damage from 15% to 12%I think the damage will still be their , you just wont get extreme numbers like 30k but rather top off at 20-22k on a glass target (anyone that wants to do the math for me feel free cause i suck at it.)

@Chaba.5410 said:

There is also still no clear answer to the question of whether DJ was intended to be affected by the malice stacks against targets that were not marked.

It's literally the description of the skill, it clearly, clearly states " based on YOUR number of malice stacks"the bonus damage from the marked target does not apply, only the bonus from having malice to begin with.

That's not at all hard to understand.

[Turk.5460]

@Solori.6025 said:

It's literally the description of the skill, it clearly, clearly states " based on YOUR number of malice stacks"the bonus damage from the marked target does not apply, only the bonus from having malice to begin with.

That's not at all hard to understand.

Being described that way does not infallibly mean that ANET wanted it to perform that way. It could very well be a poorly written tooltip. Which is not uncommon in GW2...

[Sobx.1758]

@Chaba.5410 said:There is also still no clear answer to the question of whether DJ was intended to be affected by the malice stacks against targets that were not marked.

It's funny how you're trying to argue about a skill that you didn't even read the description of.

@Turk.5460 said:

@Solori.6025 said:

It's literally the description of the skill, it clearly, clearly states " based on YOUR number of malice stacks"the bonus damage from the marked target does not apply, only the bonus from having malice to begin with.

That's not at all hard to understand.

Being described that way does not infallibly mean that ANET wanted it to perform that way. It could very well be a poorly written tooltip. Which is not uncommon in GW2...

Don't be silly.

[snh.7091]

In every case, why I bring up RL stuff is because the class is based on something from RL and this is role play. I simply try to play it like a sniper, with limitations, but I enjoy it either way and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Personally I use skill 3 far more than 4, so it's not like I depend on DJ to do all the job, on the contrary.

I understand your point of view @Solori.6025 but from my point of view I would literally lose all desire to play the class if it lost its purpose should a strong nerf affect it in a way it would be rendered useless. I'm sure there are people who share that sentiment, whose play style may be similar to mine, which isn't uncommon.

By mobility, again I have to explain myself (not personally to you, but, you know...) I mean comparably less than other Thief variants and even less than a Warrior with a GS / SW + Shield if you slot one signet and one stealth skill you get one mobility utility and Death's Retreat, maybe if you use SB then 5, depending again on play style. I don't use a bow = personal preference, thus the class can be quite limited in mobility, comparably more than others.

[Chaba.5410]

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:There is also still no clear answer to the question of whether DJ was intended to be affected by the malice stacks against targets that were not marked.

It's funny how you're trying to argue about a skill that you didn't even read the description of.

@Turk.5460 said:

@Solori.6025 said:

It's literally the description of the skill, it clearly, clearly states " based on YOUR number of malice stacks"the bonus damage from the marked target does not apply, only the bonus from having malice to begin with.

That's not at all hard to understand.

Being described that way does not infallibly mean that ANET wanted it to perform that way. It could very well be a poorly written tooltip. Which is not uncommon in GW2...

Don't be silly.

Don't be dismissive. Tooltips have never been fully explanatory due to bugs or overlooked implementations. Coalescence of Ruin still says "Slam the ground with your hammer, creating a cascading eruption of energy." since introduction of that skill even though the way it works has changed over time. It doesn't explain that a single enemy can only be hit once every 0.5 seconds (not the only skill to be fixed that way either). Using your logic, you're also dismissing the tooltip of the Deadeye's Mark trait which says Malice increases your damage against the marked target, basically in direct contradiction of the DJ tooltip.

[Solori.6025]

@Turk.5460 said:

@Solori.6025 said:

It's literally the description of the skill, it clearly, clearly states " based on YOUR number of malice stacks"the bonus damage from the marked target does not apply, only the bonus from having malice to begin with.

That's not at all hard to understand.

Being described that way does not infallibly mean that ANET wanted it to perform that way. It could very well be a poorly written tooltip. Which is not uncommon in GW2...

..that makes very little sense, considering that the way it is performing is EXACTLY the way it's written in the tool tip, and exactly as for all we know ANET wanted it to.

It is actually pretty uncommon for a skill to have two incorrect values, Value 1 being the action and usage of the skill and value 2 being the tooltip. Usually it has been one or the other effecting the way a skill behavesEither the tooltip didnt reflect what the skill actually did or the skill didnt do what the tooltip said it did.If ANET wanted it to perform in a different way, they would have not only coded it differently, they would have written the tooltip differently.

Can you name a skill that was bugged, that was perfoming exactly as written?(keep in mind overperformance =/= bugged)Also how do you know what ANet had in mind for the skill?Do you know how ANET wanted the skill to perform?

We could make the argument that it is overpeforming, and that would be a valid argument to make, but also a very opinionated one, and would probably be devoid of factual content ( since no one in this thread has had the red ANET tag , it would all be speculative ).

But saying it is bugged, or broken is incorrect, when you simply have to read the tooltip to see that it is in fact working as written. As far as the bonus damage applied through malice goes.

PS.You could also argue that the bonus damage is suffering from the same bug that Warrior FC was suffering from, but i think a bug giving 30% per stack would be doing 3-4x the numbers we are seeing

I am no mathematician however so I leave that conclusion for the math savants

[Solori.6025]

@Inoki.6048 said:In every case, why I bring up RL stuff is because the class is based on something from RL and this is role play. I simply try to play it like a sniper, with limitations, but I enjoy it either way and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Personally I use skill 3 far more than 4, so it's not like I depend on DJ to do all the job, on the contrary.

I understand your point of view @"Solori.6025" but from my point of view I would literally lose all desire to play the class if it lost its purpose should a strong nerf affect it in a way it would be rendered useless. I'm sure there are people who share that sentiment, whose play style may be similar to mine, which isn't uncommon.

By mobility, again I have to explain myself (not personally to you, but, you know...) I mean comparably less than other Thief variants and even less than a Warrior with a GS / SW + Shield if you slot one signet and one stealth skill you get one mobility utility and Death's Retreat, maybe if you use SB then 5, depending again on play style. I don't use a bow = personal preference, thus the class can be quite limited in mobility, comparably more than others.

So first I completely agree with you, It would be terrible for the Deadeye as a spec if it was nerfed to uselessness, as it is severely bogged down by major issues with mobility, and a wide range of bugs that make no sense ( like being out of range when you are within 1000u or being obstructed by a rock even though the target is literally in melee range of you)I don't think any class or spec should be brought down to that level.The reality of it though is that ANET is really really bad at balancing. Overnerfs are the new norm, with slow buffs 2-3+ years later and only after the class falls short in their "airquotes" metrics "end airquotes"

I think the best things for thieves to do would be to acknowledge the top end damageThe reason why people discredit the use of RL examples is because you have stated in various post" a sniper in RL would headshot and kill you, why not deadeye"While I understand ( and I think we all do) that snipers are deadly in RL, in a game where we fight dragons, that argument for why something does immense damage doesn't fly, because we are slaves to an ever changing universe, and balance.

I agree a deadeye should be deadlyI think at full malice and rolling the top score for damage on your weapon, while building for full glass you should be able to do upwards of 21-24KI think for a class that sacrifices and waits like a deadeye has to, that is justified, especially considering the what you lose as far as mobility goes.

I do not agree that it is justifiable to say that the class ( or any class) should get anywhere near 28k+on a single skill on a ranged weapon when it carries the inherent lowrisk of being at range.It goes back to the 2012-3 statement Anet made about how melee is supposed to do more damage than ranged.

Lastly I will rescind a previous statement I made about the burst being easy to set up.With everyone carrying reflects and the 10s warrior bubble which actually generates more kills than a deadeye in a zerg ever willIt has become increasingly difficult to hit a target marked or not when the Zerg is organised and when the people you are targeting are aware of their surroundings.

PS.Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that most soldier unites now carried portable thermal radar to counter guerilla warfare in places like jungles and cities. So they would know where you are because the body is actually quite warm.

[snh.7091]

I think, and I'm quite certain I'm not the only one who thought of this, that a solution to DJ could be a damage cap, meaning regardless of Malice stacks and other modifiers the damage output would never exceed a certain number, let's say 15k.

Why 15k?15k seems like a reasonable limit to still grant one-hit kills against paper builds with low HP but at the same time others with a higher health pool would be granted a chance to retaliate.

Think that's close to a good option.

[Solori.6025]

@Inoki.6048 said:I think, and I'm quite certain I'm not the only one who thought of this, that a solution to DJ could be a damage cap, meaning regardless of Malice stacks and other modifiers the damage output would never exceed a certain number, let's say 15k.

Why 15k?15k seems like a reasonable limit to still grant one-hit kills against paper builds with low HP but at the same time others with a higher health pool would be granted a chance to retaliate.

Think that's close to a good option.

I like 20k <<lets make it 20k >>

[Chaba.5410]

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:The question as to whether Anet intended DJ to do additional damage with Malice stacks to an unmarked target when Malice is meant to apply bonus damage to marked targets remains unanswered because it isn't Anet answering the question and no amount of your fallacious reasoning using tooltips will change that.

lmao. Here's your answer:"

Fire a shot that deals increased damage based on your number of malice stacks. This attack reveals you.

"And it's astonishing how you can take a fact and dismiss it just because you don't like it. But for now the facts are simple: it is working as intended.

Nope, I very clearly countered your argument by challenging your assertion that the tooltips are to be taken at face value; has nothing to do with "I don't like it". Tooltips are not infallable, which is why I would not attempt to base an argument on them over intent. Doing so is like trying to say that when Epidemic's tooltip says it works off a "target foe", it was intended that "foe" includes an oil pot and thus no fix was needed because the tooltip system was revamped. The only fact here is the words of the tooltip, not what the intent is supposed to be in regards to how a skill functions in the environment. The design of the Deadeye isn't to just be a sniper, but also provide for some bonuses when using skills against a marked target as can be seen across multiple skills. What's being questioned here is whether malice stacks were really intended to be used as a damage modifier to unmarked targets for DJ. If the answer is yes, and players are able to one-shot others using DJ without having to even mark the person they are using DJ against, then that points to an overtuned skill since adding in the additional Malice damage modifier from being marked would be overkill and essentially unnecessary. The other issue I've brought up, just like with Epidemic, is using gates to build malice stacks. Certainly "marked target" was not intended to mean gate.

[Solori.6025]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:The question as to whether Anet intended DJ to do additional damage with Malice stacks to an unmarked target when Malice is meant to apply bonus damage to marked targets remains unanswered because it isn't Anet answering the question and no amount of your fallacious reasoning using tooltips will change that.

lmao. Here's your answer:"

Fire a shot that deals increased damage based on your number of malice stacks. This attack reveals you.

"And it's astonishing how you can take a fact and dismiss it just because you don't like it. But for now the facts are simple: it is working as intended.

Nope, I very clearly countered your argument by challenging your assertion that the tooltips are to be taken at face value; has nothing to do with "I don't like it". Tooltips are not infallable, which is why I would not attempt to base an argument on them over intent. Doing so is like trying to say that when Epidemic's tooltip says it works off a "target foe", it was intended that "foe" includes an oil pot and thus no fix was needed because the tooltip system was revamped. The only fact here is the words of the tooltip, not what the intent is supposed to be in regards to how a skill functions in the environment. The design of the Deadeye isn't to just be a sniper, but also provide for some bonuses when using skills against a marked target as can be seen across multiple skills. What's being questioned here is whether malice stacks were really intended to be used as a damage modifier to unmarked targets. If the answer is yes, and players are able to one-shot others using DJ without having to even mark the person, then that points to an overtuned skill since adding in the additional Malice damage modifier from being marked would be overkill and essentially unnecessary to achieve a one-shot kill. The other issue I've brought up, just like with Epidemic, is using gates to build malice stacks. Certainly "marked target" was not intended to mean gate.

...You...really didn't though..

What you are arguing is intent and execution,If something is not intended or working out of the boundries set in this game( or any game) it is considered a bug, or glitch.To state that a skill is not or could not be working as intended would mean their is or needs to be clear evidence of the skill not working within the bounds set.In this case you question the intended effect of the bonus damage of Deaths Judgement by stating

"There is also still no clear answer to the question of whether DJ was intended to be affected by the malice stacks against targets that were not marked."

At this point you were presented with the tooltip of the skillNot only is this skill working at the tool tip saysTheir is no evidence in game that it is working beyond the bounds set by the tooltip.Rather it is working *to effectively

To argue intent of developers ( which if you arent a developer yourself why even assume you know how it works ?) and the fact they change skills, is silly, it doesnt make sense, and has very little relevance to a skill that is in fact working as intended.Using that same logic, is every skill working within the parameters of it's tooltip working as intended?

That argument is invalid.

If you want to question if the skill is overtuned, that is a different argument entirely and makes sense, and I would agree with you even, but questioning intent when the skill performs within the parameters set is like asking if auto attacks are intended to be used without a cooldown.Then pointing to the changed or nerfed skills and saying " see this wasnt accurate when.."Things that are OVERTUNED change

Deaths Judgement tooltip clearly states, "your malice stacks"No where in any part of the skill does it say it is reliant on a foe, or even give hint to it needing a target for it's damage bonus.It's been that way since beta

Overtuned =/= bugged

Now Malice (or Deadeye mark)Is in fact a different skill from Deaths Judgement.The bonus for having JUST malice is also on DE utilities as well.

Course you would know that if you read the skills

[Sobx.1758]

@Solori.6025 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:The question as to whether Anet intended DJ to do additional damage with Malice stacks to an unmarked target when Malice is meant to apply bonus damage to marked targets remains unanswered because it isn't Anet answering the question and no amount of your fallacious reasoning using tooltips will change that.

lmao. Here's your answer:"

Fire a shot that deals increased damage based on your number of malice stacks. This attack reveals you.

"And it's astonishing how you can take a fact and dismiss it just because you don't like it. But for now the facts are simple: it is working as intended.

Nope, I very clearly countered your argument by challenging your assertion that the tooltips are to be taken at face value; has nothing to do with "I don't like it". Tooltips are not infallable, which is why I would not attempt to base an argument on them over intent. Doing so is like trying to say that when Epidemic's tooltip says it works off a "target foe", it was intended that "foe" includes an oil pot and thus no fix was needed because the tooltip system was revamped. The only fact here is the words of the tooltip, not what the intent is supposed to be in regards to how a skill functions in the environment. The design of the Deadeye isn't to just be a sniper, but also provide for some bonuses when using skills against a marked target as can be seen across multiple skills. What's being questioned here is whether malice stacks were really intended to be used as a damage modifier to unmarked targets. If the answer is yes, and players are able to one-shot others using DJ without having to even mark the person, then that points to an overtuned skill since adding in the additional Malice damage modifier from being marked would be overkill and essentially unnecessary to achieve a one-shot kill. The other issue I've brought up, just like with Epidemic, is using gates to build malice stacks. Certainly "marked target" was not intended to mean gate.

...You...really didn't though..

What you are arguing is intent and execution,If something is not intended or working out of the boundries set in this game( or any game) it is considered a bug, or glitch.To state that a skill is not or could not be working as intended would mean their is or needs to be clear evidence of the skill not working within the bounds set.In this case you question the intended effect of the bonus damage of Deaths Judgement by stating

"There is also still no clear answer to the question of whether DJ was intended to be affected by the malice stacks against targets that were not marked."

At this point you were presented with the tooltip of the skillNot only is this skill working at the tool tip saysTheir is no evidence in game that it is working beyond the bounds set by the tooltip.Rather it is working *to effectively

To argue intent of developers ( which if you arent a developer yourself why even assume you know how it works ?) and the fact they change skills, is silly, it doesnt make sense, and has very little relevance to a skill that is in fact working as intended.Using that same logic, is every skill working within the parameters of it's tooltip working as intended?

That argument is invalid.

If you want to question if the skill is overtuned, that is a different argument entirely and makes sense, and I would agree with you even, but questioning intent when the skill performs within the parameters set is like asking if auto attacks are intended to be used without a cooldown.Then pointing to the changed or nerfed skills and saying " see this wasnt accurate when.."Things that are OVERTUNED change

Deaths Judgement tooltip clearly states, "your malice stacks"No where in any part of the skill does it say it is reliant on a foe, or even give hint to it needing a target for it's damage bonus.It's been that way since beta

Overtuned =/= bugged

Now Malice (or Deadeye mark)Is in fact a different skill from Deaths Judgement.The bonus for having JUST malice is also on DE utilities as well.

Course you would know that if you read the skills

Yh... Thank you, I seriously ran out of patience with that guy. How can he not understand something as simple as that is beyond me.

[Chaba.5410]

@Solori.6025 said:Their is no evidence in game that it is working beyond the bounds set by the tooltip.

Again, when you take a tooltip at face value, that is a conclusion that can be drawn, but it relies on the idea that tooltips are infallable. When you account for the fact that tooltips are not always accurate - they're tips, not product certification and calibration, suddenly there is not a measurable boundary. I thought the details given regarding the changes made to Coalescence of Ruin would have made that clear to you. No where does the tooltip say there's a 0.5s icd on the damage it gives to a single player. By your logic that would be a bug or glitch due to being out of the bounds set by the tooltip. We know in hindsight that that is not the case.

[Sobx.1758]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Solori.6025 said:Their is no evidence in game that it is working beyond the bounds set by the tooltip.

Again, when you take a tooltip at face value, that is a conclusion that can be drawn, but it relies on the idea that tooltips are infallable. When you account for the fact that tooltips are not always accurate - they're tips, not product certification and calibration, suddenly there is not a measurable boundary. I thought the details given regarding the changes made to Coalescence of Ruin would have made that clear to you. No where does the tooltip say there's a 0.5s icd on the damage it gives to a single player. By your logic that would be a bug or glitch due to being out of the bounds set by the tooltip. We know in hindsight that that is not the case.

You keep talking about "things not included in tooltip", but that's literally not relevant in the case of DJ's tooltip, all you can give are irrelevant ""examples"" that aren't equal to what we're talking about <.<It literally tells you what DJ does and how its dmg scales. That's it. And you're here to claim that it's a bug because... it works like the tooltip says it does.

[Chaba.5410]

@Sobx.1758 said:It literally tells you what DJ does and how its dmg scales. That's it. And you're here to claim that it's a bug because... it works like the tooltip says it does.

I never made a claim it's a bug. I said it is an unanswered question whether the bonus damage was meant to be applied to unmarked targets since malice is involved. If that is intended, then the skill is overtuned. The only thing I said was a bug is how you can build malice stacks off a gate.

You keep implying the tooltip text is accurate. That is a choice you are making for yourself. There is nothing irrelevant in pointing out that tooltip text is not always accurate nor unambiguous, especially when it is the central theme to your argument.

[Solori.6025]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Solori.6025 said:Their is no evidence in game that it is working beyond the bounds set by the tooltip.

Again, when you take a tooltip at face value, that is a conclusion that can be drawn, but it relies on the idea that tooltips are infallable. When you account for the fact that tooltips are not always accurate - they're tips, not product certification and calibration, suddenly there is not a measurable boundary. I thought the details given regarding the changes made to Coalescence of Ruin would have made that clear to you. No where does the tooltip say there's a 0.5s icd on the damage it gives to a single player. By your logic that would be a bug or glitch due to being out of the bounds set by the tooltip. We know in hindsight that that is not the case.

key word here is CHANGES.Againagain you seem to miss this point.

In this instance not once has this skill been changed touched, or even mentioned in the most recent patch notesWe could question if it is working as intended, but that would imply that at some point, somewhere the interaction with the skill was documented to work a completely different way or was ( shown through evidence) having performed in a completely abnormal way.The issue with questioning the working intent of a skill ,specifically this skill, is that their is no evidence anywhere to suggest thatthe bonus would not be applied to a marked target.Not through written context such as the tooltip, not through any developer notes prior to PoF, not from any official forum response, not from any hinted patch notes.No one has provided any numerical or even factual suggestions that the skill would be working in an un-intended fashion?

Using your logic though we could ask if any skill in the game is working as intended. Simply based on the interaction of another completely different skill in the tool set.

Was it intended for weaver to get a 14% ferocity buff from traits when other classes get stat conversion that are 10 and 12%?

Why does Illusionary ambush break target and is it intended to work that way when blink doesnt?

Why does Unrelenting Assault, a channeled attack stop working when a target stealths but attacks like Unload and rapid fire continue to track the target?

Was it intended for Full counter to go off when you are attacked by an enemy you are not actively fighting?Is that the interaction the devs had originally planned for?

We can not measure nor guess intent, but rather take what we have been given as correct interaction and information until the devs CHANGE the interaction and document it.Same as the Documented CHANGE of skills like CoRor most recently Sand Shades

Besides that I also don't think you fully understand or comprehend that Malice is an added resource that interacts with thief ( with a few more limitations as to how it's gained) like a warriors adrenaline

Did you read the thief skills?

Can you show the documented changes that would have you believe that Deaths Judgement is not working as intended?Can you name an instance where any of the Developers have referred or spoken of the interaction of Deaths Judgement and malice?Have you read the description for Deadeye?

and pro tip:In the context of any type of online or offline game.When you question somethings intentional performance you are in fact assuming it is bugged or glitched when you ask " Is this working intentionally" or make statements like" If there's a bug or something unintended, that has to be fixed, just like Epidemic was fixed to not work off oil. There is also still no clear answer to the question of whether DJ was intended to be affected by the malice stacks against targets that were not marked."

Which basically reads like" is this working intentionally"

GO READ THE THIEF SKILLS AND DESCRIPTIONit seems like you dont fully even understand the class your questioning when you make assumptions like

"The design of the Deadeye isn't to just be a sniper, but also provide for some bonuses when using skills against a marked target.."No where in the description does it state that is the complete design direction of deadeye.

[Chaba.5410]

@Solori.6025 said:We can not measure nor guess intent, but rather take what we have been given as correct interaction and information until the devs CHANGE the interaction and document it.

Yes, which is why I said only Anet can answer the question. The balance patch is still some ways out. Jeesh.