Remove Preparedness

[Psycoprophet.8107]

I had a idea and I'm sure u guys here in the forums will let me kno if it's decent or out right gbage idea.

What if anet removed Preparedness, lowered ini costs of skills to their original values than made it baseline for thief in general that when thief evades it gains 2 ini and when invisible gains 1 ini per 1.5 secs. Obviously Preparedness and shadows rejuv would have to be changed.

Thought maybe this would open up builds for thief as of currently trickery line seems a bit to baseline for all builds and allows the thief a active means of recovering ini vs just a passive addition of 3 ini. This may not work though as any skill that had a built in evade would have to have its evade removed for obvious reasons.

[Dadnir.5038]

Removing preparedness and increasing ini generation wouldn't remove the reason why the ini costs are high.

The true issue isn't initiative generation or even initiative costs but the fact that this mechanism is prone to abuses.

 

Just put a short CD of 1s per initiative used on the weaponskills and it will make trickery's preparedness less impactful and reduce the possibility of skill abuses. This would even allow ANet to reduce initiative costs on skills like infiltrator arrow.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

15 minutes ago, Dadnir.5038 said:

Removing preparedness and increasing ini generation wouldn't remove the reason why the ini costs are high.

The true issue isn't initiative generation or even initiative costs but the fact that this mechanism is prone to abuses.

 

Just put a short CD of 1s per initiative used on the weaponskills and it will make trickery's preparedness less impactful and reduce the possibility of skill abuses. This would even allow ANet to reduce initiative costs on skills like infiltrator arrow.

Isn't that directly counter to why the initiative system exists in the first place though?

Unless you are implying the very nature of the initiative system is the issue?

[Dadnir.5038]

20 minutes ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

Unless you are implying the very nature of the initiative system is the issue?

 

I do, this is a mechanism that's fondamentally impossible to truly balance through initiative cost. It's the root cause of to many issues on the thief that often lead to arguable nerfs.

 

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

28 minutes ago, Dadnir.5038 said:

 

I do, this is a mechanism that's fondamentally impossible to truly balance through initiative cost. It's the root cause of to many issues on the thief that often lead to arguable nerfs.

 

Not that I main thief, but allow me to be the Devil's Advocate here.

Why not put in a 2s CD per cast independent of initiative used? That preserves the intent for them to be used rapidly provided sufficient initiative, but reduces the spam by putting a 2s window of counterplay in between the spam.

[Dadnir.5038]

3 minutes ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

Not that I main thief, but allow me to be the Devil's Advocate here.

Why not put in a 2s CD per cast independent of initiative used? That preserves the intent for them to be used rapidly provided sufficient initiative, but reduces the spam by putting a 2s window of counterplay in between the spam.

I see why you'd want that, but it would just slow down the spam not balance the mechanism. IA with a 2s CD would keep the fondamental issue that led to it's nerf ultimately

[kash.9213]

39 minutes ago, Dadnir.5038 said:

 

I do, this is a mechanism that's fondamentally impossible to truly balance through initiative cost. It's the root cause of to many issues on the thief that often lead to arguable nerfs.

 

That's why they should work on and adjust the skills themselves so adjacent builds aren't crippled by initiative cost increases. If you leave the actual problems but still hurt initiative use, you'll just funnel people into disengage bursts builds. 

[Psycoprophet.8107]

What if thief skills had a 3 sec icd on every skill reducing its effectiveness by 30% when used within those 3 secs? Would that help promote less spammy gameplay as well as open thief up to even some slight buffs to skills that had to be nerfed do to spam potential. Ini definitely is a mechanic that's hard to balance due to spamabilty of skills. Just feel increasing ini costs constantly isn't the way to go, nor should having certain trait lines be almost mandatory for all builds to function, or at least feel good to play.. Other classes suffer from this to like war and discipline line, just seems like a poor implementation.

[Zacchary.6183]

I had an idea that REWARDED skillful use of weaponskills, usually with initiative. Based off of Unload.

[Jugglemonkey.8741]

22 hours ago, Dadnir.5038 said:

 

I do, this is a mechanism that's fondamentally impossible to truly balance through initiative cost. It's the root cause of to many issues on the thief that often lead to arguable nerfs.

 

I fundamentally disagree with your opinion. A thief spamming the same skill over and over is usually a dead thief, as all you have to do is avoid the spam then attack when you know they have nothing left. The only skills that don't quite work out that way are unload (P/P 3) because it's literally the only DPS skill on the set, and shadow shot because that skill frankly does too much; remove the blind and that skill is a non issue too. Condi thieves may have more issues with spamminess but honestly if you're letting the thief sit there and spam 3 at you then you kinda deserve what's coming to you. 

[Dadnir.5038]

1 hour ago, Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

I fundamentally disagree with your opinion. A thief spamming the same skill over and over is usually a dead thief, as all you have to do is avoid the spam then attack when you know they have nothing left. The only skills that don't quite work out that way are unload (P/P 3) because it's literally the only DPS skill on the set, and shadow shot because that skill frankly does too much; remove the blind and that skill is a non issue too. Condi thieves may have more issues with spamminess but honestly if you're letting the thief sit there and spam 3 at you then you kinda deserve what's coming to you. 

So you mean that:

- Infiltrator's arrow wasn't nerfed because people were spaming it to move around?

- Nobody abuse heartseeker within smoke field to build long duration of stealth.

- Heartseeker wasn't nerfed for a long time due to "spam".

- Nobody abuse clusterbomb within a smoke field to build long group duration stealth.

- Infiltrator strike wasn't nerfed because people abused it to stack poison.

- Flanking stike wasn't nerf due to perma evade through spaming the skill.

- Pistol whip wasn't nerfed because you could spam crontrol effects and damage.

- Unload wasn't nerfed because "spam".

- Shadow strike didn't get repeater to avoid people kitting infinitely

- ... etc.

 

It's always because of "spam" and ANet always target "initiative" to reduce the "spam". It's not a matter of whether the opponent deserve it or not, it's a matter of mechanism abuse through "spam". If the initiative cost are high it's because of the spam, thus if you make it impossible to spam then ANet can reduce the initiative costs and make preparedness less "needed". The OP basically suggest a higher regen and lower ini cost instead of the extra point of initiative preparedness give, which mean that the thief will find itself to square 1 with high spamability and ANet would nerf back the initiative cost for the exact same reason they did in the first place: Player abusing mechanisms through "spam".

Edited July 28, 2021 by Dadnir.5038

[kash.9213]

2 hours ago, Dadnir.5038 said:

So you mean that:

- Infiltrator's arrow wasn't nerfed because people were spaming it to move around?

- Nobody abuse heartseeker within smoke field to build long duration of stealth.

- Heartseeker wasn't nerfed for a long time due to "spam".

- Nobody abuse clusterbomb within a smoke field to build long group duration stealth.

- Infiltrator strike wasn't nerfed because people abused it to stack poison.

- Flanking stike wasn't nerf due to perma evade through spaming the skill.

- Pistol whip wasn't nerfed because you could spam crontrol effects and damage.

- Unload wasn't nerfed because "spam".

- Shadow strike didn't get repeater to avoid people kitting infinitely

- ... etc.

 

It's always because of "spam" and ANet always target "initiative" to reduce the "spam". It's not a matter of whether the opponent deserve it or not, it's a matter of mechanism abuse through "spam". If the initiative cost are high it's because of the spam, thus if you make it impossible to spam then ANet can reduce the initiative costs and make preparedness less "needed". The OP basically suggest a higher regen and lower ini cost instead of the extra point of initiative preparedness give, which mean that the thief will find itself to square 1 with high spamability and ANet would nerf back the initiative cost for the exact same reason they did in the first place: Player abusing mechanisms through "spam".

An initiative cost increase isn't a "nerf" of a skill, that skill is simply priced out. It's not replaced or adjusted. Infiltrators Arrow is a great skill that's perfectly in tune with the thief architype but it wasn't nerfed, it got a cost increase. I can make a gimmick build for burst and disengage and still make use of the problematic aspects of Infiltrators Arrow, only now the other player will have far fewer chances to catch me or even target me. Inf Arrow could have been adjusted or changed a little but as usual, it got the knee jerk reaction cost increase (at least it wasn't gutted and left for dead with no impact or a long cooldown) instead crippling all builds for really no appropriate return. 

[Psycoprophet.8107]

24 minutes ago, kash.9213 said:

An initiative cost increase isn't a "nerf" of a skill, that skill is simply priced out. It's not replaced or adjusted. Infiltrators Arrow is a great skill that's perfectly in tune with the thief architype but it wasn't nerfed, it got a cost increase. I can make a gimmick build for burst and disengage and still make use of the problematic aspects of Infiltrators Arrow, only now the other player will have far fewer chances to catch me or even target me. Inf Arrow could have been adjusted or changed a little but as usual, it got the knee jerk reaction cost increase (at least it wasn't gutted and left for dead with no impact or a long cooldown) instead crippling all builds for really no appropriate return. 

If anet gave a skill like ai arrow a 3-5 sec icd instead of raising its ini to a ridiculous cost that would have nerfed ai and removed thief's ability to spam the skill and would have had zero impact on thief's ability to combo other skills in its kit. Raising ini costs on one skill causes a slight nerf to all the thief's skills that share ini, imo anyway.

Edited July 28, 2021 by Psycoprophet.8107

[DeceiverX.8361]

On 7/27/2021 at 10:59 AM, Dadnir.5038 said:

 

I do, this is a mechanism that's fondamentally impossible to truly balance through initiative cost. It's the root cause of to many issues on the thief that often lead to arguable nerfs.

 

 

Aside from Shadow Shot and IArrow, which skills exactly are problematic due to spam?

[saerni.2584]

5 hours ago, Dadnir.5038 said:

So you mean that:

- Infiltrator's arrow wasn't nerfed because people were spaming it to move around?

- Nobody abuse heartseeker within smoke field to build long duration of stealth.

- Heartseeker wasn't nerfed for a long time due to "spam".

- Nobody abuse clusterbomb within a smoke field to build long group duration stealth.

- Infiltrator strike wasn't nerfed because people abused it to stack poison.

- Flanking stike wasn't nerf due to perma evade through spaming the skill.

- Pistol whip wasn't nerfed because you could spam crontrol effects and damage.

- Unload wasn't nerfed because "spam".

- Shadow strike didn't get repeater to avoid people kitting infinitely

- ... etc.

 

It's always because of "spam" and ANet always target "initiative" to reduce the "spam". It's not a matter of whether the opponent deserve it or not, it's a matter of mechanism abuse through "spam". If the initiative cost are high it's because of the spam, thus if you make it impossible to spam then ANet can reduce the initiative costs and make preparedness less "needed". The OP basically suggest a higher regen and lower ini cost instead of the extra point of initiative preparedness give, which mean that the thief will find itself to square 1 with high spamability and ANet would nerf back the initiative cost for the exact same reason they did in the first place: Player abusing mechanisms through "spam".

Minor correction. Shadow Strike wasn't nerfed because of infinite kiting. Repeater was added to increase the damage potential of the weapon set (albeit at the expense of some kiting ability—which was never infinite because of the need to hit the target in melee range and the initiative cost of the skill).

 

On topic, I don't think the initiative system is a problem. The use of skill X precludes the use of skill Y and Z through a loss of initiative. If the opponent can spam something to get an advantage then you need to dodge or change tactics and let them waste all their initiative by spamming. Whether skills need to be nerfed has more to do with whether they can overperform within the larger context of total initiative cost. Anet doesn't always get balance right—no one could be right all the time—but that doesn't mean we should blame a mechanic for that. Thief isn't the only alleged victim of poor balancing decisions after all, and we are the only ones with initiative. (That is, don't assume things will be magically better without initiative).

[Tails.9372]

6 hours ago, Dadnir.5038 said:

It's always because of "spam"

 

Which is an issue in and of itself as for the most part they have yet to explain why this is a bad thing. There is no real problem with something being spammable as long as there is counterplay to it. Quite the opposite as mindless spam encourages the opponent to get acquainted with the countermeasures at which point a player who is just spamming one skill will become an easy target unless he himself changes his approach. What A-Net does by nerfing spamability just for the sake of it is to remove the need for players to improve themthelfs.

[Psycoprophet.8107]

14 hours ago, Tails.9372 said:

 

Which is an issue in and of itself as for the most part they have yet to explain why this is a bad thing. There is no real problem with something being spammable as long as there is counterplay to it. Quite the opposite as mindless spam encourages the opponent to get acquainted with the countermeasures at which point a player who is just spamming one skill will become an easy target unless he himself changes his approach. What A-Net does by nerfing spamability just for the sake of it is to remove the need for players to improve themthelfs.

I don't consider spamability much of a balance issue, though I think anet does due to the methods they chose to nerf thief by. My issue with spamability is it creates a non dynamic playstyle for the player, spamming a couple buttons = best dps output isn't imo the best design.

[Tails.9372]

2 hours ago, Psycoprophet.8107 said:

My issue with spamability is it creates a non dynamic playstyle for the player, spamming a couple buttons = best dps output isn't imo the best design.

 

What gameplay style players prefer should be up to the individual players to decide so the ideal here is to have options. Also, the same thing can be said about "clicking buttons in a rotation" just for the sake of doing so and as I said even if in theory "spamming a couple buttons = best dps output" as long as the opponent has countermeasures he will force you away from the "button spamming" regardless.

[Psycoprophet.8107]

1 minute ago, Tails.9372 said:

 

What gameplay style players prefer should be up to the individual players to decide so the ideal here is to have options. Also, the same thing can be said about "clicking buttons in a rotation" just for the sake of doing so and as I said even if in theory "spamming a couple buttons = best dps output" as long as the opponent has countermeasures he will force you away from the "button spamming" regardless.

In ur view than the existence of bad design could never exist as it would always be up to the individual assessing the design to make their own easements, so let me rephrase then. Imo a playstyle that consists of spamming a couple skills to achieve the best damage potential is bad design.

[Tails.9372]

13 minutes ago, Psycoprophet.8107 said:

In ur view than the existence of bad design could never exist

 

Not really, I just don't agree with the notion a gameplay style is "bad game design" just because you don't like it. The gameplay is first and foremost supposed to be fun and if a more simplistic approach is something many people would prefer then this is a perfectly valid thing to have. Bad game design would be something like little to no synergy between the weapon skills, spamability leading to a situation where there is pretty much no counterplay for the opponent or to make everything overly simplified / complex cause as I said there should be options.

[Psycoprophet.8107]

4 minutes ago, Tails.9372 said:

 

Not really, I just don't agree with the notion a gameplay style is "bad game design" just because you don't like it. The gameplay is first and foremost supposed to be fun and if a more simplistic approach is something many people would prefer then this is a perfectly valid thing to have. Bad game design would be something like little to no synergy between the weapon skills, spamability leading to a situation where there is pretty much no counterplay for the opponent or to make everything overly simplified / complex cause as I said there should be options.

So in a game where u have 10x skill options between the two weapon kits, u truly believe that only using 1-2 skills of each kit on a regular basses and the others being for niche situations is not bad design nor leads to a less fun rotational gameplay? Well we will just have to agree to disagree.

[Jugglemonkey.8741]

On 7/28/2021 at 3:44 PM, Dadnir.5038 said:

So you mean that:

- Infiltrator's arrow wasn't nerfed because people were spaming it to move around?

- Nobody abuse heartseeker within smoke field to build long duration of stealth.

- Heartseeker wasn't nerfed for a long time due to "spam".

- Nobody abuse clusterbomb within a smoke field to build long group duration stealth.

- Infiltrator strike wasn't nerfed because people abused it to stack poison.

- Flanking stike wasn't nerf due to perma evade through spaming the skill.

- Pistol whip wasn't nerfed because you could spam crontrol effects and damage.

- Unload wasn't nerfed because "spam".

- Shadow strike didn't get repeater to avoid people kitting infinitely

- ... etc.

 

It's always because of "spam" and ANet always target "initiative" to reduce the "spam". It's not a matter of whether the opponent deserve it or not, it's a matter of mechanism abuse through "spam". If the initiative cost are high it's because of the spam, thus if you make it impossible to spam then ANet can reduce the initiative costs and make preparedness less "needed". The OP basically suggest a higher regen and lower ini cost instead of the extra point of initiative preparedness give, which mean that the thief will find itself to square 1 with high spamability and ANet would nerf back the initiative cost for the exact same reason they did in the first place: Player abusing mechanisms through "spam".

The fact that you consider using heartseeker or cluster bomb in a smoke field an abuse of a mechanic actually says everything one needs to know about your position regarding thief. The entire point of initiative is that it's possible to use skills several times in a row, if you don't like that then go play another class.

 

As to the OP's suggestion, I don't think that changing preparedness will make much difference, because the combination of bountiful theft and slight of hand is enough to justify always picking the line for any power build, but especially so for daredevil. As things stand, you could move preparedness into acrobatics (which already has a grandmaster trait that rewards initiative on dodge) and people would still play trickery over acrobatics. 

[Tails.9372]

19 hours ago, Psycoprophet.8107 said:

So in a game where u have 10x skill options between the two weapon kits, u truly believe that only using 1-2 skills of each kit on a regular basses and the others being for niche situations is not bad design nor leads to a less fun rotational gameplay?

 

Here's the thing: fun is subjective. And yes, I do not consider having to jump around in order to snipe "just cause" a fun thing to do. I also don't think that those who play e.g. P/P thief are, in general, longing to be forced into overly complex gameplay rotations just for the sake of it. Furthermore, even under your mindset the spamability of a DPS skill only becomes a problem if you're fighting a stationary HP blob which is more of an issue with the encounter itself. A more active, mechanics driven fight wouldn't have this "issue" at all (assuming a proper weapon set and not like you suggested one where 3-4/5 weapon skills are overly niche).

 

 

19 hours ago, Psycoprophet.8107 said:

Well we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

agreed

Edited July 30, 2021 by Tails.9372

[DeceiverX.8361]

On 7/28/2021 at 10:44 AM, Dadnir.5038 said:

So you mean that:

- Infiltrator's arrow wasn't nerfed because people were spaming it to move around?

- Nobody abuse heartseeker within smoke field to build long duration of stealth.

- Heartseeker wasn't nerfed for a long time due to "spam".

- Nobody abuse clusterbomb within a smoke field to build long group duration stealth.

- Infiltrator strike wasn't nerfed because people abused it to stack poison.

- Flanking stike wasn't nerf due to perma evade through spaming the skill.

- Pistol whip wasn't nerfed because you could spam crontrol effects and damage.

- Unload wasn't nerfed because "spam".

- Shadow strike didn't get repeater to avoid people kitting infinitely

- ... etc.

 

 

I didn't see this initially so I'll respond in kind to all of them:

- IArrow - Problematic by virtue of Daredevil existing more than anything else.  Nobody really historically complained about the casts prior to having so much additional built-in mobility.  Problem?  Sort of.  I could maybe cede 7 just because the play pattern at 8 definitely is "Just run away and stealth until init resets regardless."

 

- HS acting as a recastable leap finisher for BP is literally how D/P functions.  They could give the skill three max ammo changes on a 10s cooldown and honestly 99% of players wouldn't even notice.  The damage above execute threshold is meager and the animation is long.  If anything, it *supports* the initiative mechanic because the cooldown for BP/HS would have to be dropped so massively otherwise to allow for re-application of stealth that it defeats the purpose.  I hate the BP + HS combo.  I hate OOC stealth.  But you're deluding yourself if you think initiative is the problem here rather than stacking/OOC stealth.

 

- HS was nerfed ages ago because the game was way slower and it was the most effective way to deal damage by coefficient per unit of time.  Having an "execute" be the best source of damage the player has when its opponent it's "executing" is at 100% health is bad design rather than a flaw with initiative.  Once they changed the thresholds and cut the damage at the top end, the spam outright ended.  Again, that's a flaw with the skill, not the initiative system.

 

- OOC group stealth (what you concern with for Cluster Bomb) is more or less used for:  PvE content skips in dungeons/fractals since it can't be used for raids/Open world (and who cares about OW balance, anyways?), and ZvZ.  The former is a problem (if you want to call dungeon skips a problem) with stacked stealth, not initiative.  The latter isn't actually blasted by cluster bomb since it only affects 5 targets.  In ZvZ nobody runs a thief per party to blast stealth lol.  The existing blasters just use a smoke field, which may not even be used by thief.

 

- Infil Strike wasn't nerfed for stacking poison.  That was a trait interaction, and the trait was given an ICD.  You don't know what you're talking about.

 

- Flanking/Larcenous was made to prevent sidenote evasion spam, yes.  But again, that's not an initiative system problem with LS added - that was a design oversight with FS with its low initiative cost back in the day.  If your argument is about evasion spam, do you think DB spam is a problematic/OP build?  Probably not, because the animations allow punishment and the build/kit sucks otherwise.  Some people argue detargeting and casting FS repeatedly is a problem.  However, a significant number of prominent S/D players even desire the re-introduction of LS to be chained by FS even when FS misses the target to be able to precast the boon denial/high damage.  Which negates your argument entirely...

 

- PW has not been directly nerfed since 2014 and has literally been buffed almost every single patch since its launch.  They changed the initiative costs from 5 to 6 in sPvP and then unified them years later to 6 with people taking Tr universally across the competitive modes.  I don't think that's really a "spam nerf" considering the skill lets you still cast three straight times regardless of the state it's in, and has historically solely been buffed otherwise.

 

- Unload was BUFFED to be recasted but just made it so you need to time it better via initiative resets on full hits because it's literally the only good skill on P/P.  It was only "nerfed" because some players were mashing 3 without caring about which hits landed or didn't land (because it still pretty much is the only skill worth using on P/P).  Otherwise the skill has only been buffed.

 

- As outlined above, Shadow Strike/Repeater was redesigned for a different purpose entirely.

 

Brainless "spam" gameplay only really emerges when using the same thing over and over again is the most effective way to win for most of the gameplay experience up to a certain point - this just isn't really true though, because it took multiple rounds of buffs for most of the above skills to make them competitively viable (if that) in the first place.

 

Really the only actually egregious example is the one you failed to include - Shadow Shot.

Edited July 30, 2021 by DeceiverX.8361

[AikijinX.6258]

18 hours ago, DeceiverX.8361 said:

 

I didn't see this initially so I'll respond in kind to all of them:

- IArrow - Problematic by virtue of Daredevil existing more than anything else.  Nobody really historically complained about the casts prior to having so much additional built-in mobility.  Problem?  Sort of.  I could maybe cede 7 just because the play pattern at 8 definitely is "Just run away and stealth until init resets regardless."

 

- HS acting as a recastable leap finisher for BP is literally how D/P functions.  They could give the skill three max ammo changes on a 10s cooldown and honestly 99% of players wouldn't even notice.  The damage above execute threshold is meager and the animation is long.  If anything, it *supports* the initiative mechanic because the cooldown for BP/HS would have to be dropped so massively otherwise to allow for re-application of stealth that it defeats the purpose.  I hate the BP + HS combo.  I hate OOC stealth.  But you're deluding yourself if you think initiative is the problem here rather than stacking/OOC stealth.

 

- HS was nerfed ages ago because the game was way slower and it was the most effective way to deal damage by coefficient per unit of time.  Having an "execute" be the best source of damage the player has when its opponent it's "executing" is at 100% health is bad design rather than a flaw with initiative.  Once they changed the thresholds and cut the damage at the top end, the spam outright ended.  Again, that's a flaw with the skill, not the initiative system.

 

- OOC group stealth (what you concern with for Cluster Bomb) is more or less used for:  PvE content skips in dungeons/fractals since it can't be used for raids/Open world (and who cares about OW balance, anyways?), and ZvZ.  The former is a problem (if you want to call dungeon skips a problem) with stacked stealth, not initiative.  The latter isn't actually blasted by cluster bomb since it only affects 5 targets.  In ZvZ nobody runs a thief per party to blast stealth lol.  The existing blasters just use a smoke field, which may not even be used by thief.

 

- Infil Strike wasn't nerfed for stacking poison.  That was a trait interaction, and the trait was given an ICD.  You don't know what you're talking about.

 

- Flanking/Larcenous was made to prevent sidenote evasion spam, yes.  But again, that's not an initiative system problem with LS added - that was a design oversight with FS with its low initiative cost back in the day.  If your argument is about evasion spam, do you think DB spam is a problematic/OP build?  Probably not, because the animations allow punishment and the build/kit sucks otherwise.  Some people argue detargeting and casting FS repeatedly is a problem.  However, a significant number of prominent S/D players even desire the re-introduction of LS to be chained by FS even when FS misses the target to be able to precast the boon denial/high damage.  Which negates your argument entirely...

 

- PW has not been directly nerfed since 2014 and has literally been buffed almost every single patch since its launch.  They changed the initiative costs from 5 to 6 in sPvP and then unified them years later to 6 with people taking Tr universally across the competitive modes.  I don't think that's really a "spam nerf" considering the skill lets you still cast three straight times regardless of the state it's in, and has historically solely been buffed otherwise.

 

- Unload was BUFFED to be recasted but just made it so you need to time it better via initiative resets on full hits because it's literally the only good skill on P/P.  It was only "nerfed" because some players were mashing 3 without caring about which hits landed or didn't land (because it still pretty much is the only skill worth using on P/P).  Otherwise the skill has only been buffed.

 

- As outlined above, Shadow Strike/Repeater was redesigned for a different purpose entirely.

 

Brainless "spam" gameplay only really emerges when using the same thing over and over again is the most effective way to win for most of the gameplay experience up to a certain point - this just isn't really true though, because it took multiple rounds of buffs for most of the above skills to make them competitively viable (if that) in the first place.

 

Really the only actually egregious example is the one you failed to include - Shadow Shot.

Yeah to be honest, this dude doesn’t know what he is talking about. Ohhhhhhh.. the days where S/D 2 infinite port was a thing 🤧 and that wretched staff jump 3🙄 and double D/D Death blossom condi spam😂 man gw2 was fun back then.

The cost for some of these skills now just don’t make sense and this dude calling for an 1s ICD on initiative makes even less sense than the sense he was trying to make when he tried to prove a point by listing “spammable” attacks without actually knowing the history or actual group practicality/stealth limit behind them.( i.e group stealth in a Z vs Z WvW battle vs open world PvE junctions.) Shadow shot 3 is really the only legitimate candidate for this argument, which wasn’t mentioned.

 

The initiative system wasn’t designed for hard CDs in mind. I still don’t actually know why we even have a 9s weapon swap CD. But I digress.

Edited July 31, 2021 by AikijinX.6258