Warrior Balance Requests Omnibus

[felix.2386]

@Smoosh.2718 said:

@Arewn.2368 said:Suggestion for an alternative to one of the grand master Defense traits:

Defensive Maneuver: While blocking, block attacks directed at allies within range.

I can already see how broken that would be, just run 5 warriors, be on comms and time 1 block after another.

DH exist

tho it's too magical for warrior to have it.

[Smoosh.2718]

@felix.2386 said:DH exist

tho it's too magical for warrior to have it.

Aye they do, and their blocks provide protection from 1 attack only, Shield stance will provide players potentially 3s of block. now picture all these warriors are running healbreaker, how does one now beat that?

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

@felix.2386 said:

@Smoosh.2718 said:

@Arewn.2368 said:Suggestion for an alternative to one of the grand master Defense traits:

Defensive Maneuver: While blocking, block attacks directed at allies within range.

I can already see how broken that would be, just run 5 warriors, be on comms and time 1 block after another.

DH exist

tho it's too

magical

nice for warrior to have it.Fixed it for you.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

@Smoosh.2718 said:

@felix.2386 said:DH exist

tho it's too magical for warrior to have it.

Aye they do, and their blocks provide protection from 1 attack only, Shield stance will provide players potentially 3s of block. now picture all these warriors are running healbreaker, how does one now beat that?

He was referring to Dh F3 which is a 3s long block, but does not necessarily block for allies in the event of an AoE.

What was mentioned is truly more like Protector's Strike, but more powerful since it would be on any block, and a warrior could block non melee for 8s that way. This would end up being something that even Shield Stance would only be able to block 2 attacks in an AoE with an ICD involved. What do you two think about it if there were such an ICD?

Personally I could see a niche for it, but even with an ICD of 1-2s a team of 5 warriors on coms would have high AoE block uptime, so this could potentially break small scale WvW and PvP. You would still want to reward and encourage moving from block to block, Shield 5 -> Mace 2 for instance and get a AoE block out of each, so an ICD of 3s seems feasible.

Would this be a good rework for Shield Master in the long run?

[sneakytails.5629]

Great thread. I stayed up just to type all this out. Axe is my most used weapon (even over GS), and I really want it to be the premier damage weapon for Warrior.

Axe is not performing fully to its true purpose, damage. Its too slow, it has after-cast issues, and dual wielding axes actually makes you weaker not stronger. Overall the damage is on par with Great-sword and in some cases less, and this is not acceptable. Axe does not have the flexibility of Great-sword, its does not have any evades, 1H lacks movement, or blocks.

Axe should be our fastest and highest damage weapon, and any Warrior wielding it should be feared not taken lightly.

I would make the following changes:

Mainhand

Eviscerate-F1- held back by the long cast time (you typically have to pre-cast this to get reliable hits), and especially the after-cast. Remove after-cast and reduce cast time from 3/4 sec to 1/2 sec.

Chop, Double Chop, Triple Chop-Axe 1-Using the attack chain to completion rarely happens. I would change the interaction of the attack chain in this way. If Chop and Double Chop are succesful hits then Triple Chops cast time is reduced to 1/2 second from the original 1.5 seconds which was unusable.

Cyclone Axe-Axe 2-Cast time reduced from 1/2 second to 1/4 second.

Throw Axe - Axe 3- Remove cast time, and increase projectile speed.

Offhand

Dual Strike- Reduce cast time from 1/2 second to 1/4 second.

Whirling Axe- I like the idea of the OP's superspeed suggestion, it might be to much with my suggestions though. reducing the channel down to 2.5 seconds for a more compact burst might be better and allow for more chaining of skills, thats really where dual axe shines. You pump out compact bursts on the merge or cc.

I feel the damage needs a slight tweak as well, with such a lack of utility (evades, blocks, blinds, immobs, etc.) the damage really needs to be there, it should be the main focus of this weapon.

We should be focusing on chaining together multiple hits when dual weilding and getting a good F1 going with strong setup use, wether from sheild, other cc or a good Axe 3. Right now the weapon plays far too slow, and its hitting too weak. Fix it.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

So the reasoning for the below is that Axe/Axe is too weak overall, especially given the lack of evade/block/true movement. This probably boils down too Dagger providing the much needed utility of ripping boons and have 900 range worth of movement on MH, and that GS, even with its flaws, does good damage overall on top of 1650 movement range that comes with evade frames.

Axe MH is damage and vulnerability, but they massively cut the vulnerability stacks which was a mistake to be honest.Axe OH is AoE damage + quickness, but they massively nerfed the quickness duration to the point of effectively deleting the boon from the skill in competitive play.

@sneakytails.5629 said:Great thread. I stayed up just to type all this out. Axe is my most used weapon (even over GS), and I really want it to be the premier damage weapon for Warrior.TYVM.Axe is not performing fully to its true purpose, damage. Its too slow, it has after-cast issues, and dual wielding axes actually makes you weaker not stronger. Overall the damage is on par with Great-sword and in some cases less, and this is not acceptable. Axe does not have the flexibility of Great-sword, its does not have any evades, 1H lacks movement, or blocks.In competitive play, yeah Axe gets outshined by the weapons with more built in utility, so either it needs its own utility (like the superspeed suggestion I put forward) or it needs more damage, which may be a tall order to ask for, OR ask to better streamline the skills so that they flow better which is pretty much what you are asking for below.Axe should be our fastest and highest damage weapon, and any Warrior wielding it should be feared not taken lightly.

I would make the following changes:

Mainhand

Eviscerate-F1- held back by the long cast time (you typically have to pre-cast this to get reliable hits), and especially the after-cast. Remove after-cast and reduce cast time from 3/4 sec to 1/2 sec.I think the 3/4s cast time is due to the movement distance traveled. If they are able to speed up the hop, then sure this would definitely help Eviscerate. I found that using Cyclone Axe seems to help with the aftercast frames of several skills if that helps you at all btw.Chop, Double Chop, Triple Chop-Axe 1-Using the attack chain to completion rarely happens. I would change the interaction of the attack chain in this way. If Chop and Double Chop are succesful hits then Triple Chops cast time is reduced to 1/2 second from the original 1.5 seconds which was unusable.This is an interesting idea, but unnerfing Dual Strike would achieve this too right? Also take into consideration that if a inherent cast time reduction happens AND you have quickness, then would Triple Chop come out too fast and become overbearing? Probably.Cyclone Axe-Axe 2-Cast time reduced from 1/2 second to 1/4 second.Correct me if I am misremembering here, but the hits happen during the cast correct? I also find, or it at least feels like, using Axe 2 negates some aftercast frames. What may help Cyclone Axe more would be to return its vulnerability stacks from before the Feb. Patch.Throw Axe - Axe 3- Remove cast time, and increase projectile speed.If you think this is slow wait until you try and use Impale with its 1/2s cast. I agree with the projectile speed change, but I feel that the actual attack comes out quickly enough.Offhand

Dual Strike- Reduce cast time from 1/2 second to 1/4 second.I agree on this, that 1/2 cast feels like it takes forever with Dual Strike. I would go further and either revert the quickness duration nerf, or allow the boon to proc per foe hit rather than just twice, this would alleviate many of the cast time woes axe may have.Whirling Axe- I like the idea of the OP's superspeed suggestion, it might be to much with my suggestions though. reducing the channel down to 2.5 seconds for a more compact burst might be better and allow for more chaining of skills, thats really where dual axe shines. You pump out compact bursts on the merge or cc.TY. Whirling Axe is not quite in the same boat as other channeled skills in that it does allow for movement and giving superspeed on the weapon would allow you to better stay on target during the cast. The burst itself is fairly strong, and if you get more than 1s of quickness can be done quickly.I feel the damage needs a slight tweak as well, with such a lack of utility (evades, blocks, blinds, immobs, etc.) the damage really needs to be there, it should be the main focus of this weapon.I've gotten the feeling that the loss of vulnerability stacks and quickness duration is the overall culprit here which speaks to how misguided the Feb. balance patch was.

If Cyclone Axe's vuln stacks were brought back to 3 stacks per strike, and Dual Strike's quickness were to be applied per foe hit per strike (max of 3s in Competitive play), then most of what is holding axe back would be alleviated.

We should be focusing on chaining together multiple hits when dual weilding and getting a good F1 going with strong setup use, wether from sheild, other cc or a good Axe 3. Right now the weapon plays far too slow, and its hitting too weak. Fix it.

So to summarize the fewest changes that would achieve what you wanted up above:Revert vulnerability nerf to Cyclone Axe (easily a 4% increase in raw damage over time)Change Dual Strike to have a 1/4s cast time and to apply quickness per foe hit per strike (striking 3 foes with each strike would result in 3s of quickness). They'd have to change the PvE duration, but seeing as how you'd have higher uptime in the end in PvE I think the care bears would not mind. The potential 3s of quickness would get an Axe2->AA chain or Axe 5 out before the quickness expired.

Other potential changes that would help Axe is the suggestion to change Dual Wielding in the main post which would make Axe apply vulnerability on a critical strike.

[Arewn.2368]

@felix.2386 said:

@Smoosh.2718 said:

@Arewn.2368 said:Suggestion for an alternative to one of the grand master Defense traits:

Defensive Maneuver: While blocking, block attacks directed at allies within range.

I can already see how broken that would be, just run 5 warriors, be on comms and time 1 block after another.

DH exist

tho it's too magical for warrior to have it.

Nothing magical about blocking an attack for an ally. Pretty common warrior mechanic in MMOs in fact.

There's mechanical overlap between classes all over the game. Mesmer, ranger, and engi all have access to stealth even though theif exists.

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

@Smoosh.2718 said:

@felix.2386 said:DH exist

tho it's too magical for warrior to have it.

Aye they do, and their blocks provide protection from 1 attack only, Shield stance will provide players potentially 3s of block. now picture all these warriors are running healbreaker, how does one now beat that?

He was referring to Dh F3 which is a 3s long block, but does not necessarily block for allies in the event of an AoE.

What was mentioned is truly more like Protector's Strike, but more powerful since it would be on any block, and a warrior could block non melee for 8s that way. This would end up being something that even Shield Stance would only be able to block 2 attacks in an AoE with an ICD involved. What do you two think about it if there were such an ICD?

Personally I could see a niche for it, but even with an ICD of 1-2s a team of 5 warriors on coms would have high AoE block uptime, so this could potentially break small scale WvW and PvP. You would still want to reward and encourage moving from block to block, Shield 5 -> Mace 2 for instance and get a AoE block out of each, so an ICD of 3s seems feasible.

Would this be a good rework for Shield Master in the long run?

I think the ICD makes perfect sense, and is easily adjustable per game mode to achieve appropriate balance.If they are moving away from might as you suggested earlier, then having this effect replace the 'might on block' in Shield Mastery seems like a good place for it.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

@Arewn.2368 said:

@felix.2386 said:

@Smoosh.2718 said:

@Arewn.2368 said:Suggestion for an alternative to one of the grand master Defense traits:

Defensive Maneuver: While blocking, block attacks directed at allies within range.

I can already see how broken that would be, just run 5 warriors, be on comms and time 1 block after another.

DH exist

tho it's too magical for warrior to have it.

Nothing magical about blocking an attack for an ally. Pretty common warrior mechanic in MMOs in fact.

There's mechanical overlap between classes all over the game. Mesmer, ranger, and engi all have access to stealth even though theif exists.

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

@Smoosh.2718 said:

@felix.2386 said:DH exist

tho it's too magical for warrior to have it.

Aye they do, and their blocks provide protection from 1 attack only, Shield stance will provide players potentially 3s of block. now picture all these warriors are running healbreaker, how does one now beat that?

He was referring to Dh F3 which is a 3s long block, but does not necessarily block for allies in the event of an AoE.

What was mentioned is truly more like Protector's Strike, but more powerful since it would be on any block, and a warrior could block non melee for 8s that way. This would end up being something that even Shield Stance would only be able to block 2 attacks in an AoE with an ICD involved. What do you two think about it if there were such an ICD?

Personally I could see a niche for it, but even with an ICD of 1-2s a team of 5 warriors on coms would have high AoE block uptime, so this could potentially break small scale WvW and PvP. You would still want to reward and encourage moving from block to block, Shield 5 -> Mace 2 for instance and get a AoE block out of each, so an ICD of 3s seems feasible.

Would this be a good rework for Shield Master in the long run?

I think the ICD makes perfect sense, and is easily adjustable per game mode to achieve appropriate balance.If they are moving away from might as you suggested earlier, then having this effect replace the 'might on block' in Shield Mastery seems like a good place for it.

So 3s ICD in competitive, 1s ICD in PvE?

[losalamos.5123]

Already posted, but change tremor (Mace 5) and bladetrail (GS4) to be line targeted skills. Relying on character facing is too unpredictable.Change bladetrail to either have undestroyable projectile while colliding walls or immediately return if it hits a wall.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

Alright, here are some updates. I've been sitting on this thinking that a 'balance' patch was due soon and did not want to post it on the competitive forums only to get swamped as a balance patch comes out at the same time. But then the last patch was rather small...

Here are a few more updates.

Dual Strike - Axe 4: Allow quickness to proc per foe hit per strike. The current skill is only two procs of 0.5s quickness maximum, which after aftercasts does not leave much time to utilize the quickness for anything effective. This change would grant a maximum of 5s of quickness in competitive play assuming you hit 5 targets with it.

From reading recent warrior forum posts, and reading some ones from earlier in the year there is a desire for Spellbreaker to be able to customize Full Counter a bit more.

Full Counter: Normalize the 2 second daze duration across game modes.Revenge Counter: Full Counter now deals a 0.25s daze, grants resistance for 2s, copies up to 5 conditions to foes struck. and deals increased damage: 532 (2.4/1.0 Pve/Comp).

This change would give damage back to Full Counter in competitive play, but not an oppressive amount, at the expense of a shorter daze. In PvE the current 20% is rolled into a new scaling instead.

Basically in exchange for the shorter daze you gain the PvE base damage but only a 1.0 scaling instead of 2.0.

Additionally for Longbow there have been numerous threads, two in particular:https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1189840 on the weapon skills in particular

The overall sentiment from the thread was that LB needs to become explicitly condi focused. In addition to the AA change that has already been brought up the proposed weapon skills would be as follows:

Fan of Fire Add 1 more arrow along with burn on it. Tighten the cone so that at least 2 arrows will hit the same target at max range if the target is in the middle of the cone. This reduces the reliance on being in melee range to maximize the skill DPS.Pin Down Remove Arcing Arrow and put Pin Down into slot 3.12s cd, 6 stacks of bleed for 6s, 1s immob.Smoldering Arrow Increase radius to 240.Rain of Fire 20s CD, channel while being mobile, 12 hits with a damage interval of 0.5s burn Duration 4s/2s per hit, duration split for PvE/Comp. Essentially Barrage, but mobile during the channel and only applies burning instead of cripple.

Recently for the F1: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/116889/combustive-shot-weirdThis thread reminded me that Combustive Shot has not changed functionality since release when burn stacked in duration not intensity.

Combustive Shot Reduce the intervals to the more normal game duration of 1s. So after the initial hit the field persist for 1s per Adrenaline spent. This would not change the total damage dealt by the skill, but would a major QoL update to the skill.

[Lonecap.4105]

@"Lan Deathrider.5910" said:Alright, here are some updates. I've been sitting on this thinking that a 'balance' patch was due soon and did not want to post it on the competitive forums only to get swamped as a balance patch comes out at the same time. But then the last patch was rather small...

Here are a few more updates.

Dual Strike - Axe 4: Allow quickness to proc per foe hit per strike. The current skill is only two procs of 0.5s quickness maximum, which after aftercasts does not leave much time to utilize the quickness for anything effective. This change would grant a maximum of 5s of quickness in competitive play assuming you hit 5 targets with it.

From reading recent warrior forum posts, and reading some ones from earlier in the year there is a desire for Spellbreaker to be able to customize Full Counter a bit more.

Full Counter: Normalize the 2 second daze duration across game modes.Revenge Counter: Full Counter now deals a 0.25s daze, grants resistance for 2s, copies up to 5 conditions to foes struck. and deals increased damage: 532 (2.4/1.0 Pve/Comp).

This change would give damage back to Full Counter in competitive play, but not an oppressive amount, at the expense of a shorter daze. In PvE the current 20% is rolled into a new scaling instead.

Basically in exchange for the shorter daze you gain the PvE base damage but only a 1.0 scaling instead of 2.0.

Additionally for Longbow there have been numerous threads, two in particular:https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1189840 on the weapon skills in particular

The overall sentiment from the thread was that LB needs to become explicitly condi focused. In addition to the AA change that has already been brought up the proposed weapon skills would be as follows:

Fan of Fire Add 1 more arrow along with burn on it. Tighten the cone so that at least 2 arrows will hit the same target at max range if the target is in the middle of the cone. This reduces the reliance on being in melee range to maximize the skill DPS.Pin Down Remove Arcing Arrow and put Pin Down into slot 3.12s cd, 6 stacks of bleed for 6s, 1s immob.Smoldering Arrow Increase radius to 240.Rain of Fire 20s CD, channel while being mobile, 12 hits with a damage interval of 0.5s burn Duration 4s/2s per hit, duration split for PvE/Comp. Essentially Barrage, but mobile during the channel and only applies burning instead of cripple.

Recently for the F1: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/116889/combustive-shot-weirdThis thread reminded me that Combustive Shot has not changed functionality since release when burn stacked in duration not intensity.

Combustive Shot Reduce the intervals to the more normal game duration of 1s. So after the initial hit the field persist for 1s per Adrenaline spent. This would not change the total damage dealt by the skill, but would a major QoL update to the skill.

Nice suggestions Lan, thanks for keeping the communication alive here on behalf of all us Warrior players. Shame the forum traffic is so low right now that not many have seen these ideas, but hopefully the skills team have looked at things discussed in this thread. +Respect and thanks again.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

@ProverbsofHell.2307 said:

@"Lan Deathrider.5910" said:Alright, here are some updates. I've been sitting on this thinking that a 'balance' patch was due soon and did not want to post it on the competitive forums only to get swamped as a balance patch comes out at the same time. But then the last patch was rather small...

Here are a few more updates.

Dual Strike - Axe 4: Allow quickness to proc per foe hit per strike. The current skill is only two procs of 0.5s quickness maximum, which after aftercasts does not leave much time to utilize the quickness for anything effective. This change would grant a maximum of 5s of quickness in competitive play assuming you hit 5 targets with it.

From reading recent warrior forum posts, and reading some ones from earlier in the year there is a desire for Spellbreaker to be able to customize Full Counter a bit more.

Full Counter: Normalize the 2 second daze duration across game modes.Revenge Counter: Full Counter now deals a 0.25s daze, grants resistance for 2s, copies up to 5 conditions to foes struck. and deals increased damage: 532 (2.4/1.0 Pve/Comp).

This change would give damage back to Full Counter in competitive play, but not an oppressive amount, at the expense of a shorter daze. In PvE the current 20% is rolled into a new scaling instead.

Basically in exchange for the shorter daze you gain the PvE base damage but only a 1.0 scaling instead of 2.0.

Additionally for Longbow there have been numerous threads, two in particular:

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1189840

on the weapon skills in particular

The overall sentiment from the thread was that LB needs to become explicitly condi focused. In addition to the AA change that has already been brought up the proposed weapon skills would be as follows:

Fan of Fire

Add 1 more arrow along with burn on it. Tighten the cone so that at least 2 arrows will hit the same target at max range if the target is in the middle of the cone. This reduces the reliance on being in melee range to maximize the skill DPS.

Pin Down

Remove Arcing Arrow and put Pin Down into slot 3.12s cd, 6 stacks of bleed for 6s, 1s immob.

Smoldering Arrow

Increase radius to 240.

Rain of Fire

20s CD, channel while being mobile, 12 hits with a damage interval of 0.5s burn Duration 4s/2s per hit, duration split for PvE/Comp. Essentially Barrage, but mobile during the channel and only applies burning instead of cripple.

Recently for the F1:

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/116889/combustive-shot-weird

This thread reminded me that Combustive Shot has not changed functionality since release when burn stacked in duration not intensity.

Combustive Shot

Reduce the intervals to the more normal game duration of 1s. So after the initial hit the field persist for 1s per Adrenaline spent. This would not change the total damage dealt by the skill, but would a major QoL update to the skill.

Nice suggestions Lan, thanks for keeping the communication alive here on behalf of all us Warrior players. Shame the forum traffic is so low right now that not many have seen these ideas, but hopefully the skills team have looked at things discussed in this thread. +Respect and thanks again.

Well, I'll post them on the PvP and WvW forums when I think sufficient detail is there, and like I said above I think it is close to done, I just didn't want to post something on the other side of the forums only to have a balance patch overshadow it. If there is any other input from others, I'd like to hear it soon please.

[felix.2386]

@Smoosh.2718 said:

@felix.2386 said:DH exist

tho it's too magical for warrior to have it.

Aye they do, and their blocks provide protection from 1 attack only, Shield stance will provide players potentially 3s of block. now picture all these warriors are running healbreaker, how does one now beat that?

LOL easy, just run decap engi, jalis renegade, daredevil and necro.

or just full team of decap engi will be enough.

team like that is so easy, once they start losing node, they can't get it back not even from a thief.

[ArielRebel.3426]

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

Added:

• Kill Shot self root removal. Reasoning is the same as Flurry. I went ahead and added that in since I was adding to rifle. Self roots in general are suicide in a game where active defense is the main means of defense.

Does it mean you advocate for removing self root on every skill in the game? Because otherwise this reasoning seems inconsistent and biased, just saying :p

I do in fact. That kitten needs to go. In particular for anything channeled. A 1/4s self root is one thing a +1.5s self root is another. But sure get rid of them all.

I know im a bit late to the discussion but yes. Never understood why GS #2 for example resquires you to stand still when ranged equivalents (P/P thiefs #3 or holoforge #4 to name a few) do not require you to stand still. It's complete kitten-excrement if you get my drift. Also, why in the hell is it 3.5 sec channeling, that's an eternity in this game. It has to be lowered to 2sec!

[ArielRebel.3426]

@losalamos.5123 said:Already posted, but change tremor (Mace 5) and bladetrail (GS4) to be line targeted skills. Relying on character facing is too unpredictable.Change bladetrail to either have undestroyable projectile while colliding walls or immediately return if it hits a wall.

100% agree with this. Hate it when an enemy brushes against you (even if he's still in front of you), the bladetrail will fail and enter a mini CD.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

@ArielRebel.3426 said:

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

Added:

• Kill Shot self root removal. Reasoning is the same as Flurry. I went ahead and added that in since I was adding to rifle. Self roots in general are suicide in a game where active defense is the main means of defense.

Does it mean you advocate for removing self root on every skill in the game? Because otherwise this reasoning seems inconsistent and biased, just saying :p

I do in fact. That kitten needs to go. In particular for anything channeled. A 1/4s self root is one thing a +1.5s self root is another. But sure get rid of them all.

I know im a bit late to the discussion but yes. Never understood why GS #2 for example resquires you to stand still when ranged equivalents (P/P thiefs #3 or holoforge #4 to name a few) do not require you to stand still. It's complete kitten-excrement if you get my drift. Also, why in the hell is it 3.5 sec channeling, that's an eternity in this game. It has to be lowered to 2sec!

Welcome to the discussion, you are not late as it is ongoing. Although soon it should get wrapped up. Please read through the main post completely if you have not. If you provide some suggestions please be detailed about why you think they need to happen. In particular I think there needs to be more contribution to Berserker and Spellbreaker traits/utilities.

I'd personally rather the self root on 100B removed, but I think that would require an animation change which means that won't happen. A 2s channel would be the best option as it would still have a window of opportunity for counter play, even with quickness up, and becomes more efficient than the AA chain.

@ArielRebel.3426 said:

@losalamos.5123 said:Already posted, but change tremor (Mace 5) and bladetrail (GS4) to be line targeted skills. Relying on character facing is too unpredictable.Change bladetrail to either have undestroyable projectile while colliding walls or immediately return if it hits a wall.

100% agree with this. Hate it when an enemy brushes against you (even if he's still in front of you), the bladetrail will fail and enter a mini CD.

This is a sticky one. Would these skills function better as ground targeted skills? Tremor perhaps, especially with the requested change away from being a projectile, but Blade Trail would function best if the projectile ricocheted off of the terrain rather than being destroyed.

[Arolandis.8360]

I don't know if this was mentioned yet, but the damage of Mace and Hammer skills needs to be returned, ESPECIALLY the burst skill which need you to build adrenaline to use in the first place. And in Spellbreaker's case, which only has access to level 1 bursts, can only cause 1 second of stun. Not even enough time to swap to GS and land some Hundred Blades hits. In it's current state, swapping to Mace/Hammer (but moreso for Mace) gives opponents more time to recover from Regen ticks and the like since there's not enough damage to at least keep a fight going.

And then there's Longbow...can I please use this on core Warrior and Spellbreaker without it being so inneffective? I also play Guardian and used to think their Longbow was bad, but then I played Warrior and sheesh. It's biggest problem is that it's a very slow weapon. It's also only really decent in melee range which is kind of weird for a ranged weapon. I don't want to play DH/Ranger to use a Longbow when core Warrior can already use one, just please rework it. WvW is my favorite mode, and when there are zerg fights I'm not usually able to do much outside of a midling Shout support because my weapons are all melee. I do the boonstrip bubble but then yeah, back to thumb twiddling.

Ohya, and Shouts aren't fun. Tempests at least get a cool bubble effect. On Warrior you hit a button and something happened. So exciting.

[ArielRebel.3426]

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

@ArielRebel.3426 said:

@losalamos.5123 said:Already posted, but change tremor (Mace 5) and bladetrail (GS4) to be line targeted skills. Relying on character facing is too unpredictable.Change bladetrail to either have undestroyable projectile while colliding walls or immediately return if it hits a wall.

100% agree with this. Hate it when an enemy brushes against you (even if he's still in front of you), the bladetrail will fail and enter a mini CD.

This is a sticky one. Would these skills function better as ground targeted skills? Tremor perhaps, especially with the requested change away from being a projectile, but Blade Trail would function best if the projectile ricocheted off of the terrain rather than being destroyed.

That's what seemed to have been discussed by the person I quoted. IMO Bladetrail should become an object that moves according the the ground target (similar to GS #3) and would come back the moment it either reaches it's max range or enters in conctact with non-scalable terrain or wall.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

@Arolandis.8360 said:I don't know if this was mentioned yet, but the damage of Mace and Hammer skills needs to be returned, ESPECIALLY the burst skill which need you to build adrenaline to use in the first place. And in Spellbreaker's case, which only has access to level 1 bursts, can only cause 1 second of stun. Not even enough time to swap to GS and land some Hundred Blades hits. In it's current state, swapping to Mace/Hammer (but moreso for Mace) gives opponents more time to recover from Regen ticks and the like since there's not enough damage to at least keep a fight going.

The Devs have stated that they are fine if CC has damage if it comes from a trait. If you read the main post you'll see that I am recommending that Body Blow be changed to deal weakness + damage instead of bleeding on a successful CC. Think Lightening Rod like damage.

And then there's Longbow...can I please use this on core Warrior and Spellbreaker without it being so inneffective? I also play Guardian and used to think their Longbow was bad, but then I played Warrior and sheesh. It's biggest problem is that it's a very slow weapon. It's also only really decent in melee range which is kind of weird for a ranged weapon. I don't want to play DH/Ranger to use a Longbow when core Warrior can already use one, just please rework it. WvW is my favorite mode, and when there are zerg fights I'm not usually able to do much outside of a midling Shout support because my weapons are all melee. I do the boonstrip bubble but then yeah, back to thumb twiddling.There are suggestions in the main post, please read them and come back.Ohya, and Shouts aren't fun. Tempests at least get a cool bubble effect. On Warrior you hit a button and something happened. So exciting.It is what it is... I'm less focused on animations here and on the overall effect.

[ArielRebel.3426]

I would add Loss Aversion's base damage should be increased back too, not just coefficient.27 damage is a sad joke. Why is lighting rod a thing yet Loss Aversion was nerfed into the ground?

They should either buff back the damage of full counter or give it's damage back in one of the traits.

1000blades should also not root us in place (on top of making it a 2s channel). Thief Pistol/Pistol #3 and holoforge #4 are similar attacks and RANGED (so much easier to land) yet they are allowed to move freely (and even jump) while using it.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

@ArielRebel.3426 said:I would add Loss Aversion's base damage should be increased back too, not just coefficient.Loss Aversion is weak atm true. It cannot crit even, but it is unblockable. My question back to you would be on a Berserker amulet, what would you feel would be appropriate damage per boon ripped? 500 HP? 1k? 250 HP? Now imagine WoD and Enchantment Collapse benefitting from said damage. This is something that would compound quickly. I think it is fair for a lower base but higher scaling, is a 27 damage base too low though? Perhaps.27 damage is a sad joke. Why is lighting rod a thing yet Loss Aversion was nerfed into the ground?LR and LA are different mechanics. One is per CC the other per boon ripped, but you are right in that Loss Aversion, along with Full Counter in my opinion, were overnerfed.They should either buff back the damage of full counter or give it's damage back in one of the traits.See my recent suggestion on Revenge Counter. It does just that.1000blades should also not root us in place (on top of making it a 2s channel). Thief Pistol/Pistol #3 and holoforge #4 are similar attacks and RANGED (so much easier to land) yet they are allowed to move freely (and even jump) while using it.

As I said I would prefer no self root, but I do not think the required animation change to make that work will ever happen, better to reduce the channel to 2s from 3.5s and use quickness to reduce it further to 1s. The self root hardly matters at that point.

[ArielRebel.3426]

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

@ArielRebel.3426 said:I would add Loss Aversion's base damage should be increased back too, not just coefficient.Loss Aversion is weak atm true. It cannot crit even, but it is unblockable. My question back to you would be on a Berserker amulet, what would you feel would be appropriate damage per boon ripped? 500 HP? 1k? 250 HP? Now imagine WoD and Enchantment Collapse benefitting from said damage. This is something that would compound quickly. I think it is fair for a lower base but higher scaling, is a 27 damage base too low though? Perhaps.

In any case, it's kind of pointless to argue/debate semantics because we both know the devs won't simply take our words. They'd buff it (if enough ppl voice for it) but they would obviously not buff it by a crazy amount. They'll most likely buff it by an insignificant amount and call it a day "see you in another 6 months" kind of patch.But yeah I'd say it's base damage should be something like 250 with a 1.0 coeff the moment it strips one or multiple boons (it would not be scaling off of the amount of boons stripped). If you want to keep it as "deal damage PER boon stripped", then it should be something like 75 base damage with 1 coeff. Just remember that Lightning Rod is 250 with 0.95 coeff while also dealing weakness which IS HUGE in terms of helping with damage mitigation yet LR procs whenever they simply disable while ours has to strip boons to work. Side note: I feel spellbreaker should also have a reliably way to deal weakness.

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

@ArielRebel.3426 said:27 damage is a sad joke. Why is lighting rod a thing yet Loss Aversion was nerfed into the ground?LR and LA are different mechanics. One is per CC the other per boon ripped, but you are right in that Loss Aversion, along with Full Counter in my opinion, were overnerfed.Our only reliably way to remove boons is : sigil of absorption (and I'm not even sure if stealing boons counts as boon stripping), CC and Breaching Strike. We require the target to also have boons so unless you fight certain classes that poop boons out their rear, you will only have a handful of boons to remove and once they have no boons left to strip, LA has no effect thus you don't proc bonus damage anymore when CCing or using Breaching Strike for example where as LR will continue working.

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

@ArielRebel.3426 said:1000blades should also not root us in place (on top of making it a 2s channel). Thief Pistol/Pistol #3 and holoforge #4 are similar attacks and RANGED (so much easier to land) yet they are allowed to move freely (and even jump) while using it.As I said I would prefer no self root, but I do not think the required animation change to make that work will ever happen, better to reduce the channel to 2s from 3.5s and use quickness to reduce it further to 1s. The self root hardly matters at that point.It wouldn't require an animation change, just "unlocking" the legs of the character which may look weird depending on the body's position while slashing but would give us movement freedom. It's not like the animations were MoCaps afterall. It would make a difference for when you don't have quickness and to get out of AoEs which can mean life or death in PVE fractals and raids for example. Right now, if you started 1000blades just as the boss initiates his oneshot AoE, welp... you have to cancel your main damage ability to walk out of said AoE while every other class with a similar ability doesn't have to cancel his/her ability to do so.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

@ArielRebel.3426 said:

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

@ArielRebel.3426 said:I would add Loss Aversion's base damage should be increased back too, not just coefficient.Loss Aversion is weak atm true. It cannot crit even, but it is unblockable. My question back to you would be on a Berserker amulet, what would you feel would be appropriate damage per boon ripped? 500 HP? 1k? 250 HP? Now imagine WoD and Enchantment Collapse benefitting from said damage. This is something that would compound quickly. I think it is fair for a lower base but higher scaling, is a 27 damage base too low though? Perhaps.

In any case, it's kind of pointless to argue/debate semantics because we both know the devs won't simply take our words. They'd buff it (if enough ppl voice for it) but they would obviously not buff it by a crazy amount. They'll most likely buff it by an insignificant amount and call it a day "see you in another 6 months" kind of patch.But yeah I'd say it's base damage should be something like 250 with a 1.0 coeff the moment it strips one or multiple boons (it would not be scaling off of the amount of boons stripped). If you want to keep it as "deal damage PER boon stripped", then it should be something like 75 base damage with 1 coeff. Just remember that Lightning Rod is 250 with 0.95 coeff while also dealing weakness which IS HUGE in terms of helping with damage mitigation yet LR procs whenever they simply disable while ours has to strip boons to work. Side note: I feel spellbreaker should also have a reliably way to deal weakness.I'd keep it as per boon ripped, so 75 base with a 1.0 non critable modifier. Since CCs had their damages removed that added damage shouldn't be too bad and would one way of getting their damage back, especially as it cannot critical hit. The other being the suggestion to change Body Blow to function like Lightening Rod in that it would deal damage instead of bleed.

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

@ArielRebel.3426 said:27 damage is a sad joke. Why is lighting rod a thing yet Loss Aversion was nerfed into the ground?LR and LA are different mechanics. One is per CC the other per boon ripped, but you are right in that Loss Aversion, along with Full Counter in my opinion, were overnerfed.Our only reliably way to remove boons is : sigil of absorption (and I'm not even sure if stealing boons counts as boon stripping), CC and Breaching Strike. We require the target to also have boons so unless you fight certain classes that poop boons out their rear, you will only have a handful of boons to remove and once they have no boons left to strip, LA has no effect thus you don't proc bonus damage anymore when CCing or using Breaching Strike for example where as LR will continue working.You forgot Break Enchantments. My distinction was that LA is based on boon removal which is linked to CC whereas LR is strictly based on CC.@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:@ArielRebel.3426 said:1000blades should also not root us in place (on top of making it a 2s channel). Thief Pistol/Pistol #3 and holoforge #4 are similar attacks and RANGED (so much easier to land) yet they are allowed to move freely (and even jump) while using it.As I said I would prefer no self root, but I do not think the required animation change to make that work will ever happen, better to reduce the channel to 2s from 3.5s and use quickness to reduce it further to 1s. The self root hardly matters at that point.It wouldn't require an animation change, just "unlocking" the legs of the character which may look weird depending on the body's position while slashing but would give us movement freedom. It's not like the animations were MoCaps afterall. It would make a difference for when you don't have quickness and to get out of AoEs which can mean life or death in PVE fractals and raids for example. Right now, if you started 1000blades just as the boss initiates his oneshot AoE, welp... you have to cancel your main damage ability to walk out of said AoE while every other class with a similar ability doesn't have to cancel his/her ability to do so.

Perhaps, but I'm thinking of their point of view on resource management and what the low hanging fruits are.

Also, in FotM use Endure Pain if you are caught in 100B when you need to mitigate damage. That or use it after Defiant Stance. Or run Axe/Axe Power Berserker and be mobile anyway.

[ArielRebel.3426]

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

@ArielRebel.3426 said:

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

@ArielRebel.3426 said:I would add Loss Aversion's base damage should be increased back too, not just coefficient.Loss Aversion is weak atm true. It cannot crit even, but it is unblockable. My question back to you would be on a Berserker amulet, what would you feel would be appropriate damage per boon ripped? 500 HP? 1k? 250 HP? Now imagine WoD and Enchantment Collapse benefitting from said damage. This is something that would compound quickly. I think it is fair for a lower base but higher scaling, is a 27 damage base too low though? Perhaps.

In any case, it's kind of pointless to argue/debate semantics because we both know the devs won't simply take our words. They'd buff it (if enough ppl voice for it) but they would obviously not buff it by a crazy amount. They'll most likely buff it by an insignificant amount and call it a day "see you in another 6 months" kind of patch.But yeah I'd say it's base damage should be something like 250 with a 1.0 coeff the moment it strips one or multiple boons (it would not be scaling off of the amount of boons stripped). If you want to keep it as "deal damage PER boon stripped", then it should be something like 75 base damage with 1 coeff. Just remember that Lightning Rod is 250 with 0.95 coeff while also dealing weakness which IS HUGE in terms of helping with damage mitigation yet LR procs whenever they simply disable while ours has to strip boons to work. Side note: I feel spellbreaker should also have a reliably way to deal weakness.I'd keep it as per boon ripped, so 75 base with a 1.0 non critable modifier. Since CCs had their damages removed that added damage shouldn't be too bad and would one way of getting their damage back, especially as it cannot critical hit. The other being the suggestion to change Body Blow to function like Lightening Rod in that it would deal damage instead of bleed.I'd totally agree with BB being changed so it's direct damage that can crit over bleeds. As we would have to choose between that and Forceful Greatsword, then I don't think it would be OP as I still don't think ppl would pick it over FG because of how mandatory greatsword (at least for spellbreakers). Maybe it would see some use for core or zerker.

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

@ArielRebel.3426 said:27 damage is a sad joke. Why is lighting rod a thing yet Loss Aversion was nerfed into the ground?LR and LA are different mechanics. One is per CC the other per boon ripped, but you are right in that Loss Aversion, along with Full Counter in my opinion, were overnerfed.Our only reliably way to remove boons is : sigil of absorption (and I'm not even sure if stealing boons counts as boon stripping), CC and Breaching Strike. We require the target to also have boons so unless you fight certain classes that poop boons out their rear, you will only have a handful of boons to remove and once they have no boons left to strip, LA has no effect thus you don't proc bonus damage anymore when CCing or using Breaching Strike for example where as LR will continue working.You forgot Break Enchantments. My distinction was that LA is based on boon removal which is linked to CC whereas LR is strictly based on CC.Yeah, my point is more toward the fact that landing CC is much more reliable than having to boon strip (because as I explained, it's not everytime you will CC a target with boons to strip for example) so LA should be stronger than LR as it's less reliable.

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

@ArielRebel.3426 said:1000blades should also not root us in place (on top of making it a 2s channel). Thief Pistol/Pistol #3 and holoforge #4 are similar attacks and RANGED (so much easier to land) yet they are allowed to move freely (and even jump) while using it.As I said I would prefer no self root, but I do not think the required animation change to make that work will ever happen, better to reduce the channel to 2s from 3.5s and use quickness to reduce it further to 1s. The self root hardly matters at that point.It wouldn't require an animation change, just "unlocking" the legs of the character which may look weird depending on the body's position while slashing but would give us movement freedom. It's not like the animations were MoCaps afterall. It would make a difference for when you don't have quickness and to get out of AoEs which can mean life or death in PVE fractals and raids for example. Right now, if you started 1000blades just as the boss initiates his oneshot AoE, welp... you have to cancel your main damage ability to walk out of said AoE while every other class with a similar ability doesn't have to cancel his/her ability to do so.Perhaps, but I'm thinking of their point of view on resource management and what the low hanging fruits are.

Also, in FotM use Endure Pain if you are caught in 100B when you need to mitigate damage. That or use it after Defiant Stance. Or run Axe/Axe Power Berserker and be mobile anyway.Sure that's a "solution" but my point is that we should not have to use a 60sec CD "solution" that wastes a utility slot because we are the only class with our main burst ability rooting us in place lol. Obviously, if it gets to be only 2sec channel (with the same damage, obviously) then yeah it would be much safer to use and it would leave us less prone to sudden AoEs requiring us to move out of the way but still. For the sake of consistency and balance, either everybody with a similar ability gets rooted or nobody gets rooted. Hell, it would make more sense if ranged equivalents were rooting the user and melee equivalents didn't (as the latter is much harder to land on moving targets).

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

@ArielRebel.3426 said:

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

@ArielRebel.3426 said:

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

@ArielRebel.3426 said:I would add Loss Aversion's base damage should be increased back too, not just coefficient.Loss Aversion is weak atm true. It cannot crit even, but it is unblockable. My question back to you would be on a Berserker amulet, what would you feel would be appropriate damage per boon ripped? 500 HP? 1k? 250 HP? Now imagine WoD and Enchantment Collapse benefitting from said damage. This is something that would compound quickly. I think it is fair for a lower base but higher scaling, is a 27 damage base too low though? Perhaps.

In any case, it's kind of pointless to argue/debate semantics because we both know the devs won't simply take our words. They'd buff it (if enough ppl voice for it) but they would obviously not buff it by a crazy amount. They'll most likely buff it by an insignificant amount and call it a day "see you in another 6 months" kind of patch.But yeah I'd say it's base damage should be something like 250 with a 1.0 coeff the moment it strips one or multiple boons (it would not be scaling off of the amount of boons stripped). If you want to keep it as "deal damage PER boon stripped", then it should be something like 75 base damage with 1 coeff. Just remember that Lightning Rod is 250 with 0.95 coeff while also dealing weakness which IS HUGE in terms of helping with damage mitigation yet LR procs whenever they simply disable while ours has to strip boons to work. Side note: I feel spellbreaker should also have a reliably way to deal weakness.I'd keep it as per boon ripped, so 75 base with a 1.0 non critable modifier. Since CCs had their damages removed that added damage shouldn't be too bad and would one way of getting their damage back, especially as it cannot critical hit. The other being the suggestion to change Body Blow to function like Lightening Rod in that it would deal damage instead of bleed.I'd totally agree with BB being changed so it's direct damage that can crit over bleeds. As we would have to choose between that and Forceful Greatsword, then I don't think it would be OP as I still don't think ppl would pick it over FG because of how mandatory greatsword (at least for spellbreakers). Maybe it would see some use for core or zerker.Well if Lose Aversion gets a damage bump as we are discussing and Body Blow changes as well (which I am more in favor of) you'd see CC's hitting for +3k again assuming a boon is removed. Whether that is more valuable over FGS is debatable, but I think it makes it a solid alternative whereas now FGS is pretty much the only choice in its tier.

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

@ArielRebel.3426 said:27 damage is a sad joke. Why is lighting rod a thing yet Loss Aversion was nerfed into the ground?LR and LA are different mechanics. One is per CC the other per boon ripped, but you are right in that Loss Aversion, along with Full Counter in my opinion, were overnerfed.Our only reliably way to remove boons is : sigil of absorption (and I'm not even sure if stealing boons counts as boon stripping), CC and Breaching Strike. We require the target to also have boons so unless you fight certain classes that poop boons out their rear, you will only have a handful of boons to remove and once they have no boons left to strip, LA has no effect thus you don't proc bonus damage anymore when CCing or using Breaching Strike for example where as LR will continue working.You forgot Break Enchantments. My distinction was that LA is based on boon removal which is linked to CC whereas LR is strictly based on CC.Yeah, my point is more toward the fact that landing CC is much more reliable than having to boon strip (because as I explained, it's not everytime you will CC a target with boons to strip for example) so LA should be stronger than LR as it's less reliable.

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

@ArielRebel.3426 said:1000blades should also not root us in place (on top of making it a 2s channel). Thief Pistol/Pistol #3 and holoforge #4 are similar attacks and RANGED (so much easier to land) yet they are allowed to move freely (and even jump) while using it.As I said I would prefer no self root, but I do not think the required animation change to make that work will ever happen, better to reduce the channel to 2s from 3.5s and use quickness to reduce it further to 1s. The self root hardly matters at that point.It wouldn't require an animation change, just "unlocking" the legs of the character which may look weird depending on the body's position while slashing but would give us movement freedom. It's not like the animations were MoCaps afterall. It would make a difference for when you don't have quickness and to get out of AoEs which can mean life or death in PVE fractals and raids for example. Right now, if you started 1000blades just as the boss initiates his oneshot AoE, welp... you have to cancel your main damage ability to walk out of said AoE while every other class with a similar ability doesn't have to cancel his/her ability to do so.Perhaps, but I'm thinking of their point of view on resource management and what the low hanging fruits are.

Also, in FotM use Endure Pain if you are caught in 100B when you need to mitigate damage. That or use it after Defiant Stance. Or run Axe/Axe Power Berserker and be mobile anyway.Sure that's a "solution" but my point is that we should not have to use a 60sec CD "solution" that wastes a utility slot because we are the only class with our main burst ability rooting us in place lol. Obviously, if it gets to be only 2sec channel (with the same damage, obviously) then yeah it would be much safer to use and it would leave us less prone to sudden AoEs requiring us to move out of the way but still. For the sake of consistency and balance, either everybody with a similar ability gets rooted or nobody gets rooted. Hell, it would make more sense if ranged equivalents were rooting the user and melee equivalents didn't (as the latter is much harder to land on moving targets).Well, if it self roots it should at least be worth it. Rapid Fire for instance is a quicker channel but deals less damage, but is ranged and mobile. 100B is something like 25% stronger, but 30% longer cast time, is melee, back loaded, and self roots.

Making it 2s long by comparison makes it cast quicker while dealing more damage than Rapid Fire, which is balanced due to being in melee and self rooted. Things like Blurred Frenzy and Pistol Whip, which would be melee equivalents, both have evade frames, shorter cast times, but much less damage to balance that out.