Stealth Ends on Opponent Evade

[Bazsi.2734]

@CutesySylveon.8290 said:

@Bazsi.2734 said:

@CutesySylveon.8290 said:

@Bazsi.2734 said:

@CutesySylveon.8290 said:

@Bazsi.2734 said:So basicly make thieves revealed when they don't do damage, but let mesmers stealth even while doing damage. Consistency!

One has much more consistent and easy access to it with DE being able to remove reveal. This isnt speaking to DE's viability, just that in terms of not just sheer stealth access but viable stealth, thief has it much better than mesmer.

Yeah, so? Mesmer is infinitely better at summoning clones. Following this equaliser logic we could argue to make thieves guild be unkillable to have a better uptime on the AI. But thankfully, that's not how anything works. Different classes are good at different things.

Really? You're going to try to compare something both classes have access to with something they don't? Thieves guild is a single skill with no mechanics around it. Clones are the core aspect of mesmer. Stealth is neither for both but they have access to it. Try again.

I mean it's not like the comparison was deliberately bad to make a point, thank you for revealing to us that a mesmer clone is not the very same exact thing as a thieves guild summon. Now we all know. I hope the number of thieves trying to shatter their summons will radically decline now.But hey at least it has nothing to do with the original point, so we managed not to advance any meaningful discussion on why the same mechanic(stealth) should work different on some classes. My stance is still "stealth has it's rules, they are universal, deal with it". Your stance is... that mesmer clones aren't thieves guild summons? What even are you trying to argue for?

I never argued stealth should work differently between mesmers and thieves, even of mesmers don't have stealth attacks specifically. Let's spell things out so you don't get confused: any attack in stealth that is dodged should reveal the caster. Now you can stop trying to derail your own strawman you set up in the first place about different mechanics and skills.

When me asking 'what even are you trying to argue for' gets answered with a 'you can stop derailing your own strawman'... so it was all just bait. You strung me along longer than anyone on this forum ever has, congratulations. I tend to take people I don't know seriously, it's becoming more of a character flaw of mine as of late.

[Sobx.1758]

@Burnfall.9573 said:

@Bazsi.2734 said:So basicly make thieves revealed when they don't do damage, but let mesmers stealth even while doing damage. Consistency!

'It takes two to tangle'. Mesmer Profession is Punished with 1 dodge for abusing stealth while Thief Profession continue to be excused for abusing stealth??

How was that nerf/change targetting stealth? What exactly are you talking about?

[Leonidrex.5649]

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Burnfall.9573 said:

@Bazsi.2734 said:So basicly make thieves revealed when they don't do damage, but let mesmers stealth even while doing damage. Consistency!

'It takes two to tangle'. Mesmer Profession is Punished with 1 dodge for abusing stealth while Thief Profession continue to be excused for abusing stealth??

How was that nerf/change targetting stealth? What exactly are you talking about?

They hard nerfed both stealth and evasion so dunno what hes talking about

[Sobx.1758]

@Leonidrex.5649 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Burnfall.9573 said:

@Bazsi.2734 said:So basicly make thieves revealed when they don't do damage, but let mesmers stealth even while doing damage. Consistency!

'It takes two to tangle'. Mesmer Profession is Punished with 1 dodge for abusing stealth while Thief Profession continue to be excused for abusing stealth??

How was that nerf/change targetting stealth? What exactly are you talking about?

They hard nerfed both stealth and evasion so dunno what hes talking about

And, as usual, I guess we'll never know. :(

[Bradies.5902]

I don't think this is an especially big ask in the history of forum posts. Frankly it's barely a nerf to stealth at all given that once the player has chosen to re-engage then they are ready to drop out of stealth anyhow... but to then be outplayed but not be punished? That's not engaging PvP.

[Bazsi.2734]

@"Bradies.5902" said:I don't think this is an especially big ask in the history of forum posts. Frankly it's barely a nerf to stealth at all given that once the player has chosen to re-engage then they are ready to drop out of stealth anyhow... but to then be outplayed but not be punished? That's not engaging PvP.

The problem is that you're asking for the same mechanic to work differently on classes. Reveal upon casting an attack is already in the game (Death Judgement), but reveal upon block/evade needs new code, they would also have to make a separate stealth or a special buff for mesmer that lets you stay in stealth while doing damage.So not only do I disagree with what you're asking for, it would also be really hard to implement, it is actually fits the "especially big ask in the history of forum posts" category.

[Fueki.4753]

@Bazsi.2734 said:Reveal upon casting an attack is already in the game (Death Judgement), but reveal upon block/evade needs new code,

Would that actually require much new code?A hit connecting to a target without a defense already strips stealth.I think a hit connecting to an invincible target also strips stealth.I doubt it would be all that different to check whether the hit connected with a block or with an evade.

[WorldofBay.8160]

@Fueki.4753 said:

@"Bazsi.2734" said:Reveal upon casting an attack is already in the game (Death Judgement), but reveal upon block/evade needs new code,

Would that actually require much new code?A hit connecting to a target without a defense already strips stealth.I think a hit connecting to an invincible target also strips stealth.I doubt it would be all that different to check whether the hit connected with a block or with an evade.

it is A LOT more likely (probably a million times), that upon a hit there is a specific exception that says "if blocked/evaded, don't destealth" than that there is an extra code for each type of hit. so the whole change would be just the removal of a really small if clause, mabye 5-10 LOC, depending on how many factors are considered specifically in that part of the code (think of unblockables for example). the work to apply the change then is very minor though we don't know how much testing it needs.

[Bazsi.2734]

@WorldofBay.8160 said:

@Fueki.4753 said:

@"Bazsi.2734" said:Reveal upon casting an attack is already in the game (Death Judgement), but reveal upon block/evade needs new code,

Would that actually require much new code?A hit connecting to a target without a defense already strips stealth.I think a hit connecting to an invincible target also strips stealth.I doubt it would be all that different to check whether the hit connected with a block or with an evade.

it is A LOT more likely (probably a million times), that upon a hit there is a sepific exception that says "if blocked/evaded, don't destealth" than that there is an extra code for each type of hit. so the whole change would be just the removal of a really small if clause, mabye 5-10 LOC, depending on how many factors are considered specifically in that part of the code (think of unblockables for example). the work to apply the change then is very minor though we don't know how much testing it needs.

Thats 8+ year old spagetti code, wrote by people who moved on. If you think you can just go in, open it up and solve it right away, please apply for a job at A-net, they are in need of talent like you.

[WorldofBay.8160]

@Bazsi.2734 said:Thats 8+ year old spagetti code, wrote by people who moved on. If you think you can just go in, open it up and solve it right away, please apply for a job at A-net, they are in need of talent like you.

this 8+ year old spaghetti code argument doesn't work for everything you know? even 20 years ago anyone would've dealt with blocking/evading the way i wrote and afaik they aren't additions to the game. spaghetti code affects additions and debugging. which i explicitly mentioned btw:

the work to apply the change then is very minor though we don't know how much testing it needs.

[Hadi.6025]

I'm so glad you don't balance the game. But seeing how CMC is a big dumb dumb he might implement this next patch.

[Bazsi.2734]

@WorldofBay.8160 said:

the work to apply the change then is very minor

though we don't know how much testing it needs

.

Evaluating how the change will ripple through different gamemodes(what possible balance changes would be needed etc.), making at least one coder familiarise him/herself with a decade old code written by someone else, and testing to find the unintended consequences resulting in further changes to the code...

Yes if you ignore all the work needed and only focus on typing 2 lines of code, the process of typing/commenting out an if clause is indeed simple and fast. So we agree and everyone is happy.

[ParanoidKami.2867]

I see this is a lot of games where low skill level players don't know how to counter something so they say it's overpowered. Something might have a longer range than them, be tougher to kill, heals a lot, does more damage, stealths, or any other mechanic that requires a basic amount of thinking on how to beat. Killing playstyles to pander to these people is not the way. They just need to get better.

[Vancho.8750]

@Bazsi.2734 said:

@WorldofBay.8160 said:

the work to apply the change then is very minor

though we don't know how much testing it needs

.

Evaluating how the change will ripple through different gamemodes(what possible balance changes would be needed etc.), making at least one coder familiarise him/herself with a decade old code written by someone else, and testing to find the unintended consequences resulting in further changes to the code...

Yes if you ignore all the work needed and only focus on typing 2 lines of code, the process of typing/commenting out an if clause is indeed simple and fast. So we agree and everyone is happy.Well the OP is right that not getting revealed on dodged attacks is kinda crappy since it is a do over for failing, and it is kinda inconsistent, for example if a warrior misses its burst well tough luck them traits work on hit. Stealth as is now kinda needs some tell or special default counterplay that can be used by anyone . It is on the same ground as evade and block skills but it is also offensive and the counterplay with 'Reveal' isn't that great since it is not that easy to get it and not all classes have such skills or traits. So Stealth ends up totally overpowered or totally useless with nerfs or buffs.Fun stuff you can 'detect' stealth players if you flail around and have some kind of lifesteal to see the heal floaters when you hit.

[Daishi.6027]

I agree.I think the game would be healthier with this. I'd argue stealth is fairly balanced as it is so long as a-net gets the numbers right regarding whiffs. But as it stands now A-net has never struck a good balance, if a thief fails their attack their escape is too safe vs to many of the matchups.

Player perception is fairly clear, a vast amount of population finds the "anticipation" game play unfun. Thing is that cannot ever go away completely with a class like thief, and I think there needs to be more of a true consensus before any change should be made.

However, if we are going to move away from that status quo by also allowing missed attacks to be harder punished BY ALL BUILDS- including having a design with reveal on evades; it needs to be balanced out with increased damage vs the bulkier builds. The goal should be high risk/high reward.

Regarding mesmer:My bias likes this because I want power mirage to not be awful. However, No. That should not happen. That is a weird double standard to make mesmer an exception to, and although mesmer tends to be a victim of double standards that isn't a reason to perpetuate it, nor give it exceptions with some kind of weird affirmative action design in a futile attempt to balance. I'm not a rioter here to burn down other classes car lots :^)

Jokes aside the entire shatter design on a whole was ill-conceived (I'd argue phantasms are too but let's ignore that for now) and shatters on a whole should just be re-worked out of the class completely in exchange for something substantially more direct, and on demand; that doesn't involve AI pathing easily manipulated by the enemy and regressed because of stairs. Assuming that isn't in the budget, just give it more on demand access to stealth and keep it in line with a new standard of revealing on evades.

[Tayga.3192]

Make stealth go away on evade (and maybe on block), including shattered clones.I think clone autos don't reveal anyway so it's ok. Currently shatter-reveal interaction is good for the game, it's skilled gameplay to position the clones well.

[Leonidrex.5649]

@Tayga.3192 said:Make stealth go away on evade (and maybe on block), including shattered clones.I think clone autos don't reveal anyway so it's ok. Currently shatter-reveal interaction is good for the game, it's skilled gameplay to position the clones well.

nah, with how little stealth mesmer can realistically get it doesnt matter, even without thinking you wont get revealed if all the stealth you get is som for 2s every 40sinstead adding stupid reveals to everything stop people from stacking stealth for 20s at a time and stop thief from permanently stealthing

[WorldofBay.8160]

@Daishi.6027 said:Regarding mesmer:My bias likes this because I want power mirage to not be awful. However, No. That should not happen. That is a weird double standard to make mesmer an exception to, and although mesmer tends to be a victim of double standards that isn't a reason to perpetuate it, nor give it exceptions with some kind of weird affirmative action design in a futile attempt to balance. I'm not a rioter here to burn down other classes car lots :^)

the mesmer thing is a special case with a (very special) kind of projectile that has a pretty much random time to hit. it wouldn't create double standards if there was some mechanic that binds reveals to the button click and the expected attack duration, e.g. you cast a pulsing field with 0.5s casting time and 5 pulses with 1 second interval. from button press to the last hit there is a fixed time of 4.5s. for that time this move can reveal. now a shatter is an instant cast but not instant hit, the clones might have to walk over. a useful time to reveal is the time the clone needs to travel its maximum range crippled in a straight line. after that time the shatter doesn't reveal any more. other attacks with variable TTH will behave similar and there may be cases where a hit happens without a reveal but all those cases happen predictably as you basically need to run away.that way it allows the mesmer to stealth up even if you keep running away from the clones because the delayed shatter won't reveal him. is it abusable? doubt it.

just throwing in some random ideas that come to my mind.

[Daishi.6027]

@WorldofBay.8160 said:

@"Daishi.6027" said:Regarding mesmer:My bias likes this because I want power mirage to not be awful. However, No. That should not happen. That is a weird double standard to make mesmer an exception to, and although mesmer tends to be a victim of double standards that isn't a reason to perpetuate it, nor give it exceptions with some kind of weird affirmative action design in a futile attempt to balance.

I'm not a rioter here to burn down other classes car lots :^)

the mesmer thing is a special case with a (very special) kind of projectile that has a pretty much random time to hit. it wouldn't create double standards if there was some mechanic that binds reveals to the button click and the expected attack duration, e.g. you cast a pulsing field with 0.5s casting time and 5 pulses with 1 second interval. from button press to the last hit there is a fixed time of 4.5s. for that time this move can reveal. now a shatter is an instant cast but not instant hit, the clones might have to walk over. a useful time to reveal is the time the clone needs to travel its maximum range crippled in a straight line. after that time the shatter doesn't reveal any more. other attacks with variable TTH will behave similar and there may be cases where a hit happens without a reveal but all those cases happen predictably as you basically need to run away.that way it allows the mesmer to stealth up even if you keep running away from the clones because the delayed shatter won't reveal him. is it abusable? doubt it.

just throwing in some random ideas that come to my mind.

I get where you're coming from, but I think that this kind of serves to create intricacies to an already fickle mechanic, in an attempt to make it function; when frankly from both a PvP and PvE perspective, even if different reasons it's a terrible design. Which is why mesmer spends half it's time trying to minimize how it's used and how clones travel. Were it not for this, on a flat without stealth; clones being used as a projectile innately becomes something impossible for bads who don't know how to dodge or position to avoid, and any player in plat can casually negate, or expend no effort or even cooldowns to mitigate with several options.

It's kinda to a point where I'd rather tighten mechanics instead of bloating ones that are "unreasonably fickle for pvp", example: Shattering all clones (for f1 - f3) and your next auto attack (or next attack in general, if we want this to synergize with mantras~~ and to call into question mirror blade's unblockable feature~~) applies the respective effect or damage, in addition to the normal attacks damage. and give it a flashy visual animation when this is active so people can see it. (maybe f3 is next hits x number of illusions shattered)This:

1. removes the disconnect between the "instant cast" and "instant effect" and removes reliance on AI pathing making it more comparable to literally every direct input attack, and parallels thief in particular.
2. gives counter play to be avoided easier by even bads who are not savvy enough to manipulate the AI. Also not forcing them to evade in a specific direction; simply 1 evade = 0 dmg.
3. gives the mesmer more fair play to not have their shatters be made redundant by players who do know what they are doing, forcing mes into builds that rely on abusing stealth and creating the entire problem for what this thread focuses on.

I don't think your thoughts are bad, but I think the design is so innately terrible it's what needs to be fixed instead.

[Lithril Ashwalker.6230]

A better suggestion, On cast spear from F1 of guardian should always reveal the thrower beginning of cast. sick of this shit from trapper guardians

[Fueki.4753]

@Lithril Ashwalker.6230 said:A better suggestion, On cast spear from F1 of guardian should always reveal the thrower beginning of cast. sick of this kitten from trapper guardians

The problem in this case is the Rune of the Trapper.The stealth needs to be removed from it.

[Eugchriss.2046]

@Fueki.4753 said:

@"Lithril Ashwalker.6230" said:A better suggestion, On cast spear from F1 of guardian should always reveal the thrower beginning of cast. sick of this kitten from trapper guardians

The problem in this case is the Rune of the Trapper.The stealth

needs

to be removed from it.Not necessarily. Actually the stealth "match" with what we expect from a trapper. There 2 issues with this rune:

1. Stealth + superspeed is beyond broken and stupid design. Especially when you gain access to both with the same thing. Anet should keep stealth and remove superspeed.
2. This one is more a stealth issue: Casting any damaging skill, even instant ones, while stealth-ed should reveal the player. Period. No need to explain this one.

[Hot Boy.7138]

stealth should cancel upon any skill activation, whether it hits or not.

[Kuma.1503]

Speaking as a filthy RP'er, I wouldn't mind it if stealth were more... stealthy.

If you walk directly in front of someone and whiff multiple skills, the act of flailing your arms around and creating noise should alert your opponent to your presence. As the stealth user, you can afford to be as sloppy as you like up until the point where stealth either runs out or your first hit deals damage.

In WoW stealth is much more limited. Walk too close and the enemy hears a SFX that alerts them to incoming danger. Giving the opponent advance warning gives them a chance to prepare countermeasures to the incoming attack. You will also be able to see the stealthed character if they walk too close, but this will not break them out of stealth, they will still be able to retreat back into the shadows to prepare their next strike.

Adding mechanics similar to these forces the stealth user to be more mindful of their positioning. You must sneak around the big beefy brawlers in the frontline to get to your squishy targets in the back.

Mind you, I'm fully aware that additional changes would need to be made in order to facilitate a rework like this. How do you land backstab when you must walk within detection range to land it? Should thief be given a vitality or damage increase to compensate for weakened stealth? None of these questions should be brushed off when discussing how to change stealth moving forward.

`

[Bazsi.2734]

@Hot Boy.7138 said:stealth should cancel upon any skill activation, whether it hits or not.

WoW has infinite duration stealth, and that does not end upon skill activation. But the 3 second long GW2 stealth definitely should... the sound of reason is deafening.