Leo G.4501

> @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> They actually need to do a few more of them they just need to hit the professions people are really asking for and the ones that really need it rather than ones that dont need it as much.

> Scourge needs a rework

> Renegade needs a rework

> Cor nec needs a small rework

> Cor rev could stand for some small changes too.

>

> But im willing to bet we will see a rework for like firebrand or some mess like that come through next...

Counter to my previous points, I'm not opposed to reworks _when it's needed_. I've heard a lot posters expressed the needs of Renegade and Revenant so there very well might be a high need to revamp the profession as a whole or change the concept of energy. But drastic changes to the core of a profession or the game as a whole should be something people look upon with extreme criticism and should be uncommon/rare. For example, the trait rework...what if every 4 months they just completely redid how traits work like they did in the past (requiring gold to unlock, unlocking via events, locking traits to 3 lines at a time, etc)? Wouldn't be very fun, now would it?

> @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > > You are mixing up things. One thing is having people do something unintended, other thing is whether that is good or bad, and another whether that is exploiting or not. People do lots of unintended things that are not a problem as they are, or that are not exploiting at all.

> > >

> >

> > You're still using that "unintended" flag. Like I said, that is a slippery slope, as I'll demonstrate...

> >

> > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > > In the case of mesmers, they didn't remove anything. They changed things. As we had either perma-phantasms, or just using them as extra clones to feed shatters. The intended use of phantasms is letting them do their skill first. That wasn't happening. So they made changes and now they are used like that. They are no longer a source of quick illusions for shatters, they take a bit to become clones unless interrupted, and they are no longer just summoned and left there, they do their thing, and then turn into a clone.

> > >

> > [Phantasmal Force](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Game_updates/2017-08-08#Traits_4): _This trait replaces the slot left open by Ineptitude and has the following effect: Phantasms gain a 1% damage boost whenever might is applied to them, and a 4% damage boost whenever they attack (maximum bonus 25%). This bonus damage lasts until the phantasm is destroyed._

> >

> > This was a black and white trait created to benefit a mesmer's persisting phantasms. Since phantasms were implemented with the game's inital release, it's obvious the intention was to give the player the choice of keeping the phantasms for whatever benefit they deemed fit at the time or shatter them after their initial volley. If the former is unintentional, why would they add the above trait over 4 years after releasing the game if this was an unintentional game mechanic?

> >

> > Okay, so the devs changed their minds and thought "yeah, this is definitely something that should be changed". The next question is "why should it be changed?". Is it exploitive? Is it bad? Is it unintented? We'll assume its the latter and unintended. So? Practically everything the devs release end up having unintended use because the devs cannot be better at playing the game than a select few players who specialize in using very specific features to perform very specific tasks in very specific scenarios. This is evident in players who play tournaments, who speed run, who bug find, etc. Just because something is unintended is not grounds to change it.

> >

> > Because how much would you like it if next week, mesmer simply has *NO* illusions at all because the devs decided it'd be better to take Mesmer back to its GW1 roots?

> >

> > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > > The rework was a good first step towards improving mesmer. More need to be done. Change more. Forward. That's good.

> >

> > At the same time, it alienated many players who decided not to play mesmer anymore. At this time, no one is asking to roll back the mesmer change nor even the thief change but rather *NOT* to remove aspects of the profession without clear and pertinent reason.

> >

> > In conclusion : _"My arguments are that change is better than stagnation, and that the way to go to improve things is forward, not standing still."_

> >

> > That's false. See the above example. Just because something is a change does not make it better than no change. I can write you a host of other examples, in-game and in the real world. Your perspective is flawed because you believe, since I don't think change is better than stagnation absolutely, that I believe stagnation is best absolutely. That is a false strawman and I suggest you put that argument down and tackle my *actual* argument.

>

> You are missing the point completely, because intention isn't mechanics. What people do specifically and the intention of the feel, the ebb and flow of the battle can be separate. Yes. Phantasms were meant to last longer. But the intended flow of the battle was summoning phantasms **and** shattering as the match goes on.

> They eventually realized that the initial design encouraged sticking with one of those two, instead using both, and after adding Chronophantasma and later Phantasmal Force with the intention of improving phantasms and letting them build up strength, they finally could see the problem as these traits only exacerbated it. Phantasmal Force and Chronophantasma encouraged people to go even further into the path of sitting on one mechanic, they could never work together very well, and it was more efficient to focus on one or the other.

> The intention of the original phantasm mechanic and the original Phantasmal Force was clashing with the intention for the Mesmer itself.

> The solution was changing them to encourage using both illusion and shatter mechanics rather than focusing on one.

> Still not removal. Still a change. A change derived of the phantasm change. It would not make sense to keep a trait that worked with the old way phantasms worked after changing them.

>

And you're not understanding that everything you just said, whether unintentional or not, do not qualify as bad, detrimental or exploitive. So what is the problem beside the intention not being exactly the same? And you say both playstyle cannot coexist but offer no example or proof, because in my experience, either style has their weaknesses (i.e. you're not going to sit on phantasms against masses of foes below elite).

Basically, you're working to justify why that particular change occurred but ignoring that such changes *CAN* be avoided, which is the entire premise of this argument.

> @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> You see this happen all the time with elementalist, when people tend to sit on one attunement, they change the other attunements to have more synergy and encourage using all attunements more. A skill gainst a blast, another gainst an extra effect on someone with a condition, and so on. Waver is the epitome of this idea, as you get +6 skills with attunements, the less people use any of those 6 on a weapon, the more likely they'd get improved or reworked to have more more or synergy with other skills.

>

> Change begets change.

>

But they didn't REMOVE an attunement or put a hard timer on how long you can stay in an attunement. They REMOVED phantasm mesmer. Phantasm spam mesmer is not the same as phantasm mesmer.

> @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> You keep seeing what was "lost" when nothing was lost. You know what would be a loss? An actual removal of something. Changes in mechanics, skill or trait names, that's just change. Two traits being merged into one and another added to fill the gap? Still change. Mesmers do not have any less traits or skills, they haven't lost any mechanic like illusions, distortion, hide in shadows or shatters. There has been only change. And after the change they could even do so much more damage that chronophantasma's power had to be cut in half.

Phantasmal Defender is completely different from what it was. In many instances, it's worse as a defensive tool, replaced for an offensive tool. That is change. It is also loss. I have no idea why such a concept is ungraspable to you. I've explained it in plain terms but you refuse to acknowledge. At no point have I denied your points beyond just the fundamental of what change means. At this point, I can only assume you're intentionally trying to disrespect me as you just deny facts I present.

> @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> You are mixing up things. One thing is having people do something unintended, other thing is whether that is good or bad, and another whether that is exploiting or not. People do lots of unintended things that are not a problem as they are, or that are not exploiting at all.

>

You're still using that "unintended" flag. Like I said, that is a slippery slope, as I'll demonstrate...

> @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> In the case of mesmers, they didn't remove anything. They changed things. As we had either perma-phantasms, or just using them as extra clones to feed shatters. The intended use of phantasms is letting them do their skill first. That wasn't happening. So they made changes and now they are used like that. They are no longer a source of quick illusions for shatters, they take a bit to become clones unless interrupted, and they are no longer just summoned and left there, they do their thing, and then turn into a clone.

>

[Phantasmal Force](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Game_updates/2017-08-08#Traits_4): _This trait replaces the slot left open by Ineptitude and has the following effect: Phantasms gain a 1% damage boost whenever might is applied to them, and a 4% damage boost whenever they attack (maximum bonus 25%). This bonus damage lasts until the phantasm is destroyed._

This was a black and white trait created to benefit a mesmer's persisting phantasms. Since phantasms were implemented with the game's inital release, it's obvious the intention was to give the player the choice of keeping the phantasms for whatever benefit they deemed fit at the time or shatter them after their initial volley. If the former is unintentional, why would they add the above trait over 4 years after releasing the game if this was an unintentional game mechanic?

Okay, so the devs changed their minds and thought "yeah, this is definitely something that should be changed". The next question is "why should it be changed?". Is it exploitive? Is it bad? Is it unintented? We'll assume its the latter and unintended. So? Practically everything the devs release end up having unintended use because the devs cannot be better at playing the game than a select few players who specialize in using very specific features to perform very specific tasks in very specific scenarios. This is evident in players who play tournaments, who speed run, who bug find, etc. Just because something is unintended is not grounds to change it.

Because how much would you like it if next week, mesmer simply has *NO* illusions at all because the devs decided it'd be better to take Mesmer back to its GW1 roots?

> @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> The rework was a good first step towards improving mesmer. More need to be done. Change more. Forward. That's good.

At the same time, it alienated many players who decided not to play mesmer anymore. At this time, no one is asking to roll back the mesmer change nor even the thief change but rather *NOT* to remove aspects of the profession without clear and pertinent reason.

In conclusion : _"My arguments are that change is better than stagnation, and that the way to go to improve things is forward, not standing still."_

That's false. See the above example. Just because something is a change does not make it better than no change. I can write you a host of other examples, in-game and in the real world. Your perspective is flawed because you believe, since I don't think change is better than stagnation absolutely, that I believe stagnation is best absolutely. That is a false strawman and I suggest you put that argument down and tackle my *actual* argument.

> @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > > > > No water mill has even been moved by still waters.

> > > > >

> > > > > I say any change is better than none, as long as anything that goes wrong can be fixed later.

> > > > >

> > > > > Continuous development demands change.

> > > >

> > > > There's a reason Coca-Cola doesn't change their formula anymore but rather introduces new flavors...

> > >

> > > Yeah. Because their original formula had cocaine, they can't go back to that. They got a new patent, and they can't change the recipe or they will lose it.

> > >

> >

> > Completely beside the point since I said "anymore". Changing the formula because the needed to remove the cocaine in it is what would be considered a "necessary change". Changing malice because it is "bland" is what would be considered an "unnecessary change" or "change for change's sake".

> >

> > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > > And all those 'new flavors' are still change.

> > >

> >

> > People that argue against overhauls like the recent ones don't dislike *additions* to the game. Removing options is the type of change being argued against.

> >

> > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > > And the actual flavor of Coca-cola also changes from depending on the water used to make it, because different minerals give water a different taste. That's why when I tried US Coke it tasted like what I guess is kitten kitten, compared to the delightful Coca-cola that is where I live. The temperature at which you drink it also changes the flavor.

> > >

> >

> > The type of water is inconsequential as the processes the company uses to remove impurities likely removes most artifacts in the water that could drastically change the flavor.

> >

> > And it's funny you mentioned the regional differences. Frankly, coke flavor was a bad example for me to bring up had you done a simple google search. Coca-cola actually are changing the flavor of their coke in the US, but not for the sake of change. They are lowering the concentration of high fructose corn syrup to that of the levels of those in other countries, consequently reducing the calories. Likely the reason for their choice was decades of pressure linking regular consumption to various health issues. And they've been lowering the sweetness of the drink in increments for at least a year now.

> >

> > Also, what does temperature at which you choose to drink something have to do with anything?

> >

> > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > > There's nothing that is ever the same. Everything is always in constant change, except what's dead.

> > >

> > > The end to change is the end of everything.

> > >

> >

> > Strawman. No one is advocating for static non-change.

> >

> > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > > It is not. Because change is never for the sake of change.

> >

> > Tell that to consumerists who will buy the latest iPhone, not because there is significant change in the phone or because their old phone is busted, but for the sake of change, hype and keeping up with the Jones'.

> >

> > Your entire argument is from an unrelated tangent that doesn't argue anything against the OP.

> >

> > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > > For mesmer, people would not use illusions the way they were meant to e used, their either spammed them a lot for shatters or tried to keep the phantasms up at all times. Phantasms had to be taken off the illusion cap they shared with clones to let mesmer gameplay be more fluent and not have people stuck in two opposite behaviors.

> > >

> >

> > Because players can't be expected to choose what they deemed fitting for their own style of play? Explain in detail, why a trait could not be used to regulate phantasms being persistent or not (either it be a trait that makes phantasms persist or a trait that makes them not).

> >

> > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > > Now, as I said before, once the changes are done, adjustments have to come after that. In the case of Mesmer illusion spam, phantasms need a cap too like clones. They should not share their cap with clones, but they need a cap of their own, or they'll be spammed way too much all over the place, cluttering the screen and making gameplay less fun and harder to watch.

> > >

> >

> > So a solution to a problem that was created by a solution for a problem that wasn't actually a problem. This is the definition of whack-a-mole balance. You tell the readers of this thread right now that it isn't. I dare you.

> >

> >

>

> Players can choose to do whatever they want, but if devs see them not doing what they were intended to do, you cannot be surprised when they keep doing changes aimed towards encouraging the intended behavior.

>

> For example, dungeon paths used to be repeatable with the same rewards. What people did? Repeat the fastest one over and over.

> That was not the intended way of doing them, so they made the rewards diminish over time. People still repeated the fastest one over and over.

> That still wasn't the intended way, so they split the rewards between a daily part and a diminishing part. People switched to repeating the 3 fastest ones over and over.

> Of course that was still bad, so the removed a lot of the daily and diminishing rewards, and put them back in a chest for doing 8 different ones. What people do now? At least 8 different ones, which is closer to the intended way.

>

> A lot of "pointless changes" for many, and there's even people blaming the emptiness of dungeons to these when we know it's just that thre's way more things to do daily to focus on dungeons, after getting its collections.

>

> A particular individual or group of individuals not seeing a problem does not make it less of a problem. If your whole argument is "If ain't broke don't fix it" then it's all pointless, because they weren't fixing something broken, they were changing something that wasn't used the way it was meant to be used.

>

>

> The changes to mesmers were needed because the way it was being used wasn't the way it was meant to be used. And more changes are needed now because it's impossible to foresse how people will use them after, and now we see people is spamming too many phantasms because they no longer have a cap. But since they can't share the cap with clones, the solution is simple: A cap of their own.

> That's what needs to be done, not going back to the old version.

And in your example, point to the part where the devs removed dungeons because players were doing then in unintentional ways. This is a good question that *does* have an answer.

Also, the whole argument about intended use is a dangerous slippery slope. There is a difference between experimentation and exploitation. The previous iteration of Mesmer was not an exploitation and I'm unsure why you're categorizing it as such.

> @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > > No water mill has even been moved by still waters.

> > >

> > > I say any change is better than none, as long as anything that goes wrong can be fixed later.

> > >

> > > Continuous development demands change.

> >

> > There's a reason Coca-Cola doesn't change their formula anymore but rather introduces new flavors...

>

> Yeah. Because their original formula had cocaine, they can't go back to that. They got a new patent, and they can't change the recipe or they will lose it.

>

Completely beside the point since I said "anymore". Changing the formula because the needed to remove the cocaine in it is what would be considered a "necessary change". Changing malice because it is "bland" is what would be considered an "unnecessary change" or "change for change's sake".

> @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> And all those 'new flavors' are still change.

>

People that argue against overhauls like the recent ones don't dislike *additions* to the game. Removing options is the type of change being argued against.

> @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> And the actual flavor of Coca-cola also changes from depending on the water used to make it, because different minerals give water a different taste. That's why when I tried US Coke it tasted like what I guess is kitten kitten, compared to the delightful Coca-cola that is where I live. The temperature at which you drink it also changes the flavor.

>

The type of water is inconsequential as the processes the company uses to remove impurities likely removes most artifacts in the water that could drastically change the flavor.

And it's funny you mentioned the regional differences. Frankly, coke flavor was a bad example for me to bring up had you done a simple google search. Coca-cola actually are changing the flavor of their coke in the US, but not for the sake of change. They are lowering the concentration of high fructose corn syrup to that of the levels of those in other countries, consequently reducing the calories. Likely the reason for their choice was decades of pressure linking regular consumption to various health issues. And they've been lowering the sweetness of the drink in increments for at least a year now.

Also, what does temperature at which you choose to drink something have to do with anything?

> @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> There's nothing that is ever the same. Everything is always in constant change, except what's dead.

>

> The end to change is the end of everything.

>

Strawman. No one is advocating for static non-change.

> @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> It is not. Because change is never for the sake of change.

Tell that to consumerists who will buy the latest iPhone, not because there is significant change in the phone or because their old phone is busted, but for the sake of change, hype and keeping up with the Jones'.

Your entire argument is from an unrelated tangent that doesn't argue anything against the OP.

> @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> For mesmer, people would not use illusions the way they were meant to e used, their either spammed them a lot for shatters or tried to keep the phantasms up at all times. Phantasms had to be taken off the illusion cap they shared with clones to let mesmer gameplay be more fluent and not have people stuck in two opposite behaviors.

>

Because players can't be expected to choose what they deemed fitting for their own style of play? Explain in detail, why a trait could not be used to regulate phantasms being persistent or not (either it be a trait that makes phantasms persist or a trait that makes them not).

> @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> Now, as I said before, once the changes are done, adjustments have to come after that. In the case of Mesmer illusion spam, phantasms need a cap too like clones. They should not share their cap with clones, but they need a cap of their own, or they'll be spammed way too much all over the place, cluttering the screen and making gameplay less fun and harder to watch.

>

So a solution to a problem that was created by a solution for a problem that wasn't actually a problem. This is the definition of whack-a-mole balance. You tell the readers of this thread right now that it isn't. I dare you.

> @"mindcircus.1506" said:

> > @"Ephemiel.5694" said:

> > I think they SHOULD do more reworks, but they should test them far more, maybe invite trusted members of the community [under NDA just in case] to test out the changes and give feedback.

>

> They last time Anet did this on any decent scale the participants (predictably) violated the trust placed in them.

> Nope.

Rather than try to keep things under wraps, why not just introduce a Test Server and let players get a feel for possible reworks when they should occur? One might say that would be way too much effort but then reworks should be *rare*.

> @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> No water mill has even been moved by still waters.

>

> I say any change is better than none, as long as anything that goes wrong can be fixed later.

>

> Continuous development demands change.

There's a reason Coca-Cola doesn't change their formula anymore but rather introduces new flavors...

> @"OriOri.8724" said:

> > @"Lyger.5429" said:

> > I know the devs had good intentions with the recent reworks to deadeye and mesmer and it's awesome to see more dev interactions. However these reworks have been a good example of "good on paper, bad in practice".

> >

> > Mesmer has pretty much ruined pvp with it's clone spam, which also causes more lag. Deadeye is now both useless in pvp and pve, no longer even able to reach 30k with rifle on benchmarks.

> >

> > **Please Anet if it ain't broke....don't try to fix it.**

>

> Well that's the problem, pre-rework mesmer was broken. It had a self defeating mechanic, and that's reason enough to fix it. And just because its unbalanced does not mean that the rework was bad.

Mesmer was not broken for 4+ years. Mirage just introduced a playstyle that was less than ideal.

I actually thought a Mesmer elite spec (or even more intriguing, new or tangent core spec unlocks... Imagine if a mastery could be opened to grant you the ability to unlock a 4th line to the dueling spec) where it changed your phantasms to temporary aoe effects (similar to current) and leaving you the option of having your Phantasm build if you prefer it... That would have been ideal. I'm sure the current Mesmer is stronger, but strength isn't everything.

> @"Jay Felger.2510" said:

> 3. Malice generation to full "Maleficent Seven"-level is way more harder now with all the evades, blocks, reflects while being more vulnerable while constantly attacking.

> Haven't seen many players (if any) using "Maleficent Seven" anymore (in WvW).

> Actually I've seen more and more players now who don't even bother with the "Mark" (in WvW), because it doesn't give you that much of a benefit anymore for all the risks it brings by alarming your target (and other players) and giving them time to counterplay.

>

> In that regard, **I want to make the following suggestion** that will give deadeyes a certain tactical improvement (please let it linger in your mind for a moment):

> Since the new Mark-Malice(-not-time-based-generation)-system does not impose any threat in itself any longer, **please consider redesigning the Mark as "not visible to enemies".**

> There is no need for a glowing Orb pulsing above players heads anymore. Lets be clear on that.

> If deadeyes have to heavily invest into a fight by constantly attacking with initiative-using-damage skills/critical hits in order to build-up a significant amount of Malice, enemy-players know something serious is coming for them. No more additional heads-up necessary.

That was something I had thought might happen with the change, i.e. the change to malice being at best (outside of dagger/dagger), only used to get some bonus effects from cantrips and other effects you might get form it are just extras, and at worst, just not using mark at all.

Along with removing the glowing orb over someone's head (so at least the foes can't see it), making it instant-cast would also be welcomed.

> @"Samnang.1879" said:

> why when i type "heritage set skins" in google image, i get neutrogena creams???

>

> anyway i never played wow... i like the idea of new races, but not the idea of cloning another game... gw2 is great because it has unique ideas

> ![](https://i.imgur.com/K0lbo2X.png"")

>

You don't. You get a variety of brands of skin products (Amorepacific, Sulwhasoo, Elysee, etc). As for why, if you look at the picture, those products literally say "heritage set" on them and they are skin care products.

> @"Blocki.4931" said:

> > @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

> > > @"Blocki.4931" said:

> > > Good thing a second weapon set exists that could offer you access to stealth and the rest.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > That should not be needed or required though. If their goal is to have sneak attack be used for all weapons, all weapons should have easy access to stealth either as a trait or a skill used for that weapon. Saying just use another weapon set is a cheap cop out excuse.

>

> Why should every playstyle cover every possibility? A second weapon set can be used to set things up etc. It's like you're not making use of some part of your kit and that doesn't seem very good to me. What's worse off is taking 1 pistol in 1 set and the other in the second set and then just weapon swapping to make use of sigils/traits to restore initiative or whatever

It's like you could almost argue that, had they not changed malice at all, this disruption wouldn't have occurred and that the purpose of the change was merely for the sake of change.

> @"bearshaman.3421" said:

> People hate change. I get that. But change is inevitable, so might as well roll with it and see what you can do.

Slightly skewed argument. I don't think players are opposed to change but context plays a large role in how change is perceived. Is this a change to avert a game-breaking exploit? It has to be done! Is this a change that is relatively minor and only alters an aspect of the game for the better? Meh, if it's better or not is subjective but if it's minor, lots won't even notice it changed. Is this a change that greatly alters the look and/or feel of something that is popular for no largely perceivable reason (that was explained, at least)? Why?

Someone above said just grow up and take it like a man, and that can be one way to go about it. But if you're actually paying attention, not everyone is going to do that. And if Anet keep making changes that require players to "grow up and take it like a man", well, they'll likely start to look for better options instead. Do you want *more* players in your game or less?

> @"Maikimaik.1974" said:

> I don't think it looks that bad?

Agree. Sometimes you just have to pretend a little when it comes to MMOs... Like pretending a scythe is a better and practical weapon compared to a Bo staff.

> @"Curennos.9307" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Curennos.9307" said:

> > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > @"Curennos.9307" said:

> > > > > > @"Vulcaruss.9567" said:

> > > > > > > @"Curennos.9307" said:

> > > > > > > Can we give backstab and DJ the Blurred Frenzy treatment and buff the hell out of those two skills in pve? It'd be a nice dps boost and an easy split. Then fix the irritating thing with the stealth on dodge and see where we're at then?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I get that some people really liked the previous incarnation of Malice - I liked how the dmg increase applied to all my attacks, too. But let's be honest, the whole 'stalking' thing was horribly unfun to play against. YOU may have fun marking someone, then waiting for malice to build or w/e, then smashing your opponent, but it's an awful pvp mechanic.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Pve wise, they definitely need some love, but I'm not quite sure why there are some people complaining that...they have to use a core profession mechanic? Maybe I am interpreting this incorrectly - I found DE in pve to be utterly, mindnumbingly boring before. Now it's kinda mildly more interesting because I'm rewarded more for making good use of stealth, but you certainly don't see me complaining that I have to use shade skills for scourge to be effective, shroud for a reaper/core necro, or that playing a class involves...playing that class.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ANet could also stand to sprinkle some more stealth access around tbh. I run dp/rifle in all game modes, but I feel bad for those who wanted to move away from rifle, stealth utilities (could of the stealth utilities could maybe do with some fenangling - lower cooldown, lower stealth duration, yadday adda), etc. There definitely is a difference between being able to easily access stealth and not doing so, and just having to sacrifice far too much to get stealth (say...a sword/SB setup or something)

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I understand your viewpoint but, killing an entire mechanic just to fix one build that could have been easily fixed in another manner without breaking the Malice system to the point it only benefits a select few who are willing to conform to that style of play is ludicrous. Also it's not just some of the players it's a good majority of the Deadeye player base. Or if anything the ones who love and understand the rifle, which again is the majority of the Deadeye player base.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Simply buffing the stealth skills won't solve the underlying problem of the Specialization itself.

> > > > >

> > > > > I wouldn't presume to guess the statistics of the change. All the teefs I know have been loving the changes. That certainly doesn't mean that others who have groups of friends/guilds with teefs hating the change are invalid, but...their exp doesn't invalidate mine, and vice versa.

> > > >

> > > > This isn't a debate about your experience vs another, it's about the terms and conditions that facilitate change. Because you could very well be on the opposite side of the fence the next time Anet decides to change something drastically, and then where do you argue from? Would you contradict yourself or support the change even at the detriment of yourself and others?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > The paragraph below the one that's showing in your quote is extremely relevant. I never made it about personal experience - it was an example to prove a point when I addressed their usage of 'everyone who loves rifle' and all that jazz. I do disagree with anet's REASON for doing this...but I have very little against the results - malice pre-change was...dare I say it, extremely simple. IIRC they said they changed it because it was too hard to understand, which I found absolutely bamboozling. I found it boring and too easy to understand/work with.

> >

> > What I fear is that they didn't change it for the reasons stated (your recollection is correct, they said it was "bland" and traits "conflicted" and malic interaction was too "complex") but rather just to balance an aspect of the game that was out of hand (the stealth camping Deadeye deathsquads in WvW, perhaps).

> >

> > That's even worse practice than changing things on a whim.

> >

> > Also, I know they have test server publishing capabilities...

>

> Eh, fair, if a bit...conspiracy theory for my taste. I highly doubt anet would go through that much trouble just for one setup when they could've done it much, much, muuuuuuch easier. Or maybe they just suck at phrasing. I for one have never seen any complaints on the forums about DE being difficult to understand. The rifle and duel pistol spammers crawling all over the place certainly don't point to that conclusion, either.

I'm willing to give Anet the benefit of the doubt (I say it is a fear, not my opinion) but I'm also willing to just live with their mistakes as well. If Deadeye turned out boring and bland, I'll take it and play the spec when I feel like something sniper-ish even it it's boring and bland.

> @"Specialka.7290" said:

> They did not revamp DE to only fix one build.

>

> It was because the system was crap, boring and bland before. Now, you have to be more active while playing DE, especially with Rifle. Though it could need some tweaks, it is better designed now than before.

The current problem would have been circumvented had the devs released the elite specs on a test server to those that pre-ordered PoF, tested the specs for a couple of months and made *meaningful* observations and changes and then released the DE with the current malice style (or very soon after release if the resources weren't available to change it before the official release). After you set up the profession spec and release it, you only change it if unexpected outcomes arise which usually only happen when less-than-optimal forethought was used in balancing the spec in the first place.

Even if the result ends up being crappy, boring and bland, that is the crap-bland-borring flavor of those that pick that spec. The imparative should then be "don't make that mistake again" for the next set released.

> @"Curennos.9307" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Curennos.9307" said:

> > > > @"Vulcaruss.9567" said:

> > > > > @"Curennos.9307" said:

> > > > > Can we give backstab and DJ the Blurred Frenzy treatment and buff the hell out of those two skills in pve? It'd be a nice dps boost and an easy split. Then fix the irritating thing with the stealth on dodge and see where we're at then?

> > > > >

> > > > > I get that some people really liked the previous incarnation of Malice - I liked how the dmg increase applied to all my attacks, too. But let's be honest, the whole 'stalking' thing was horribly unfun to play against. YOU may have fun marking someone, then waiting for malice to build or w/e, then smashing your opponent, but it's an awful pvp mechanic.

> > > > >

> > > > > Pve wise, they definitely need some love, but I'm not quite sure why there are some people complaining that...they have to use a core profession mechanic? Maybe I am interpreting this incorrectly - I found DE in pve to be utterly, mindnumbingly boring before. Now it's kinda mildly more interesting because I'm rewarded more for making good use of stealth, but you certainly don't see me complaining that I have to use shade skills for scourge to be effective, shroud for a reaper/core necro, or that playing a class involves...playing that class.

> > > > >

> > > > > ANet could also stand to sprinkle some more stealth access around tbh. I run dp/rifle in all game modes, but I feel bad for those who wanted to move away from rifle, stealth utilities (could of the stealth utilities could maybe do with some fenangling - lower cooldown, lower stealth duration, yadday adda), etc. There definitely is a difference between being able to easily access stealth and not doing so, and just having to sacrifice far too much to get stealth (say...a sword/SB setup or something)

> > > >

> > > > I understand your viewpoint but, killing an entire mechanic just to fix one build that could have been easily fixed in another manner without breaking the Malice system to the point it only benefits a select few who are willing to conform to that style of play is ludicrous. Also it's not just some of the players it's a good majority of the Deadeye player base. Or if anything the ones who love and understand the rifle, which again is the majority of the Deadeye player base.

> > > >

> > > > Simply buffing the stealth skills won't solve the underlying problem of the Specialization itself.

> > >

> > > I wouldn't presume to guess the statistics of the change. All the teefs I know have been loving the changes. That certainly doesn't mean that others who have groups of friends/guilds with teefs hating the change are invalid, but...their exp doesn't invalidate mine, and vice versa.

> >

> > This isn't a debate about your experience vs another, it's about the terms and conditions that facilitate change. Because you could very well be on the opposite side of the fence the next time Anet decides to change something drastically, and then where do you argue from? Would you contradict yourself or support the change even at the detriment of yourself and others?

> >

> >

> >

>

> The paragraph below the one that's showing in your quote is extremely relevant. I never made it about personal experience - it was an example to prove a point when I addressed their usage of 'everyone who loves rifle' and all that jazz. I do disagree with anet's REASON for doing this...but I have very little against the results - malice pre-change was...dare I say it, extremely simple. IIRC they said they changed it because it was too hard to understand, which I found absolutely bamboozling. I found it boring and too easy to understand/work with.

What I fear is that they didn't change it for the reasons stated (your recollection is correct, they said it was "bland" and traits "conflicted" and malic interaction was too "complex") but rather just to balance an aspect of the game that was out of hand (the stealth camping Deadeye deathsquads in WvW, perhaps).

That's even worse practice than changing things on a whim.

Also, I know they have test server publishing capabilities...

> @"Curennos.9307" said:

> > @"Vulcaruss.9567" said:

> > > @"Curennos.9307" said:

> > > Can we give backstab and DJ the Blurred Frenzy treatment and buff the hell out of those two skills in pve? It'd be a nice dps boost and an easy split. Then fix the irritating thing with the stealth on dodge and see where we're at then?

> > >

> > > I get that some people really liked the previous incarnation of Malice - I liked how the dmg increase applied to all my attacks, too. But let's be honest, the whole 'stalking' thing was horribly unfun to play against. YOU may have fun marking someone, then waiting for malice to build or w/e, then smashing your opponent, but it's an awful pvp mechanic.

> > >

> > > Pve wise, they definitely need some love, but I'm not quite sure why there are some people complaining that...they have to use a core profession mechanic? Maybe I am interpreting this incorrectly - I found DE in pve to be utterly, mindnumbingly boring before. Now it's kinda mildly more interesting because I'm rewarded more for making good use of stealth, but you certainly don't see me complaining that I have to use shade skills for scourge to be effective, shroud for a reaper/core necro, or that playing a class involves...playing that class.

> > >

> > > ANet could also stand to sprinkle some more stealth access around tbh. I run dp/rifle in all game modes, but I feel bad for those who wanted to move away from rifle, stealth utilities (could of the stealth utilities could maybe do with some fenangling - lower cooldown, lower stealth duration, yadday adda), etc. There definitely is a difference between being able to easily access stealth and not doing so, and just having to sacrifice far too much to get stealth (say...a sword/SB setup or something)

> >

> > I understand your viewpoint but, killing an entire mechanic just to fix one build that could have been easily fixed in another manner without breaking the Malice system to the point it only benefits a select few who are willing to conform to that style of play is ludicrous. Also it's not just some of the players it's a good majority of the Deadeye player base. Or if anything the ones who love and understand the rifle, which again is the majority of the Deadeye player base.

> >

> > Simply buffing the stealth skills won't solve the underlying problem of the Specialization itself.

>

> I wouldn't presume to guess the statistics of the change. All the teefs I know have been loving the changes. That certainly doesn't mean that others who have groups of friends/guilds with teefs hating the change are invalid, but...their exp doesn't invalidate mine, and vice versa.

This isn't a debate about your experience vs another, it's about the terms and conditions that facilitate change. Because you could very well be on the opposite side of the fence the next time Anet decides to change something drastically, and then where do you argue from? Would you contradict yourself or support the change even at the detriment of yourself and others?

> @"Turk.5460" said:

> > @"Vulcaruss.9567" said:

> > > @"Specialka.7290" said:

> > > > @"Vulcaruss.9567" said:

> > > > > @"Specialka.7290" said:

> > > > > > @"Vulcaruss.9567" said:

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > @"Specialka.7290" said:

> > > > > > > Lots of bad players around here honestly. You can't check how many malice you have and care for your surroundings? Is this your first mmo?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > They just need to tweak the roll to reliably get stealth out of it, make that malice build on yourself and not your target so you can switch target easily or if the target dies too quickly(since they copy pasted the rogue from Wow, they could have fullt done it), and maybe tweak a little the damage for rifle since it seems to lack a little.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Obviously, the new malice system is far better than the previous one which was boring and bland.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Oh look the typical "Get Gud" Poster. Sir I'll have you know my experience in this game probably and most certainly out shines yours, with over 6000 hours of game time and having been here since the beginning of the game, I am in no way a noob. Here's a question for you, have you tried it yet? Have you actually done testing with this?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And No the new Malice system is not better to the old one, This one takes focus off the Deadeye profession and the Signature Rifle itself, and puts Focus on the Thiefs Core Stealth Attacks more than the actual Rifle. A player who does not use Stealth in there build is now being forced to take Stealth if he/she wants to be efficient in any capacity. From a customizable game play stand and this is unacceptable. The old system allowed the Player using the Deadeye to put more focus and effort into his target, and not have to worry about stacking yet another energy bar that they have to manage besides the one they already have Initiative. And now with them making Dodge a Stealth Proc, they've effectively turned it into another required energy source to be effective due to how the new Malice works.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > But you are probably the kind of Deadeye who doesn't use Rifle right? The Pistol kind who is absolute loving the new changes cause they don't even affect you at all.

> > > > >

> > > > > Hours played =/= skill. Wrong argument, mate.

> > > > >

> > > > > And all your BS < gameplay

> > > >

> > > > You assume that after over 6000 hours I wouldnt be proficient in the professions I play? I have over 20 characters between this account and my main account. Every Elite Spec unlocked all characters atleast geared with Exotic or better gear. I've built two legendarys granted thats not a whole In comparison to other players but its still something. If you want me to prove myself then I will gladly oblige, I'll even let you set the terms to be friendly.

> > > >

> > > > Regardless my position still stands on the Deadeye and then Malice system, I played Deadeye often since the start of Path of Fire and enjoyed it long before they recieved the damage increases. This change just screams under tested and poorly implemented, made to solve the minor problem of one build...

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > I assume nothing because I do not care about you. Just that hours played is not skill. So use another argument plz.

> >

> > I did use another arguement besides hours played in my previous response, I even expanded upon it in my last post, If thats not good enough then I'm all ears to a way I can prove I'm skillful. But this is the last I will argue this, we're getting too off topic and thats how forum conversations like these devolve into maddness and get closed. Lets return the the actual problem and not criticize others skill levels.

>

> Your "actual problem" seems to be just a bunch of opinions colliding.

>

> *The* actual problem as it stands is Silent Scope's auto-reveal from mid-air projectiles, as well as heal-skills giving malice allowing insane minimal-counterplay backstabs. That's a problem whether you like or dislike the rework of the DE. Everything else is one person's opinion vs. another person's opinion - not problems.

I'd argue that *THE* actual problem is that Anet feels it's perfectly fine to just remove parts of their game and replace them on the grounds of "we feel like it". They did this with Guardian Spirit weapons, they did this with Mesmer Phantasms and now they're doing it with Deadeye Malice play-style. Not saying that Anet have no power to change the aspects of their own game, because they have all the power to do so. HOWEVER, to retain good relations with players, the best approach is to make such drastic changes only when absolutely necessary and after exhausting several other options.

When you set the precedence of change-on-a-whim, no test servers, a mentality to never take feedback into consideration (name the amount of changes that were rolled back or diverted because of player feedback), you set an atmosphere that can be destructive for your product.

Regardless of if something turns out to be a buff or not, many players don't care about min/max buffs but mostly about aesthetics and "feeling" (take a look at politics and you'll understand that). The ultimate and best solution is to do as much to keep the feel, style and use of the game the same and being creative about how you implement change, in the current and the future. This requires forethought, planning and cooperation (TEST SERVER!).

> @"Specialka.7290" said:

> > @"Aistos.5174" said:

> > > @"Specialka.7290" said:

> > > > @"Aistos.5174" said:

> > > > > @"Ryans.9571" said:

> > > > > Just gonna add my voice in here, I think the changes for non rifle deadeye are super interesting but as a PvE Rifle Deadeye I know feel like I have no purpose. We already had to struggle to prove ourselves but now it is almost impossible to come close to keeping up damage wise. Please find some sort of middle ground that gets rifle back to the way it was while keeping up the support for non rifle Deadeyes. Right now though, I have lost a lot of my drive to play, I am sure in a week or two I will be back but not on my Thief, not unless Rifle gets fixed.

> > > >

> > > > I'm with you, why don't give some changes (in particular malice) a chance. You have to try new things to get a chance of improving the game. But what I personally still don't understand at all are the changes to the rifle skills: If all the rifle skills would be reset (DJ back at #4, cursed bullet back at stealth-1, snipers cover grants stealth etc.) then why not try out a new malice system.

> > > > But right now it just feels like the changes only make your life as a rifle-DE much harder without any reason. The whole rifle-system of DE seems screwed up, mainly because of the weird rifle-skill arrangement (necessary evade for stealth, worthless smoke wall, DJ not at #4 and the absence of cursed bullet - why do we need this obstacles?).

> > >

> > > If you have any other mmo, De Rifle is easy to play (like most class in gw2). the only current real issue is that you can lost your stealth after a roll if you have a shot en route to your target at that moment, but that will be fixed hopefully.

> >

> > I don't think "easy" and "difficult" to play are the right words to describe the problem here. It just doesn't feel right how the rifle skills are arranged now, especially if you consider that all these changes were made for this useless smoke wall. I just wanna say I can't see any reasons for the rifle-skill (<> not malice, give it a try) changes at all - for me this arrangement takes so much fun out of the DE that I don't play it for the moment. And that's a pity because that was by far my favourite class.

>

> Well, I find the specs more fun now than before the patch because it is far more dynamic to play. So to each its own.

Well it's not "to each their own" because the change is forced, it's not an option to play it one way or the other lol

Couldn't the devs have made changes that altered malice and rifle skills through traits? A sub-spec line? Rather than tear down things they made that people find fun and just replace them with new things, they could just add the new things and players can decide which gameplay is more fun?

A suggestion I had was to add a 2nd level to combos. To get to the 2nd level you have to perform level 1 combos (i.e. set down a field and get some "combo points" for every *other* player that uses a combo through your field or use a finisher through any field) and once you get maxed, you can activate the power and spend it all on either a SUPER COMBO FIELD or a SUPER FINISHER.

What these effects could be, I didn't consider that much yet...it's mainly just a thought and maybe someone else could get inspired to come up with a better idea to make combos more interesting.

From reading the thread so far, the changes are slightly polarizing. Some really do not care for the changes while others love it with some in between that can see a definite improvement in their build.

Ultimately, I think the change will eventually be accepted by those that continue to get better and better at Deadeye but you can't be considering this a success, right? Changes like these should be saved for when its absolutely necessary, not done on a whim. But I sense you'll continue with this trend, changing professions because you want to while upsetting your playerbase for no reason...

...or maybe you weren't being completely honest with how you presented this change? Was it to better balance the profession because it was performing too well or not well enough? From the OP, it seems these changes were brought about because certain aspects were "bland", "lacked adaptability" and "conflicted".

So how many professions are going to be overhauled for such reasons?

> @"sokeenoppa.5384" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > I was just reading some other combo criticism from a while back and something I forgot about got me curious.

> >

> > Do people of GW2 like super moves?

> >

> > I wasn't thinking about it in the past because I had only recently (like last month recent) got to new max level cap in Blade and Soul and that unlocks this pair of super moves that you can use after charging a special meter. It reminded me of the Incarnate abilities you could unlock and modify in City of Heroes which were basically a pool of super moves. Then in FFXIV, you've got, of course, Limit Breaks which are kind of generic and can only be performed in a party (unless that has changed?) but they are effectively role-based super moves.

> >

> > GW2 doesn't have super moves. They have elite abilities, but many elite abilities are extremely watered down or situational. Some elites kind of feel like super moves but a lot of them don't.

> >

> > What do you think? Do you think, maybe a super move feature born from the combo system could be what we're looking for out of combos? Or maybe super moves should just be a different system and we should fix combos? Just a though...

>

> Some already has those. Like warriors adrenaline skills, mesmer shatters, necro deathshroud and druid celestial avatar.

If you're spamming them ever 4-10 seconds, they're not really super moves. More like auto-attacks and in-between attacks.

> @"Orpheal.8263" said:

> Occultists as Engineer E Spec... Do you even know, what an Occultist is??

> Just in case you dont't, a Necromancer is an Occultist, a Ritualist is an Occultist, but absolutely not in any way, shape or form ever an Engineer.

> Occultism has to do with blood, death, spirits, souls, rituals, demons, curses and hexes, dark magic so to say and is not anything that has to do with technology and engineering...

Honestly, that sounds like a challenge.

In my days playing City of Heroes, that's, like, 80% of where the creativity goes: into thinking of new, varied, wild, unique and logical ways to play around with character looks, builds and origins. Granted, GW2 has a more stringent grasp on the origins of its powers, don't ever take options off the table. In fact, because it is a common fact that magic exists in Tyria, it should very well be possible to blend technology and magic (and not just the way Asura do).

While the name can definitely be a point of contention, the basic concept is not. You just have to spin a story and logic around it.

> To come to an end, if I would have made a topic like yours, I think I would have come up rather with a better fitting list concept like this. (with rev being redesigned) and certain earlier E-Specs getting renamed/changed)

>

> Expansion:-----------------3 (Land of the Dragons)-----4 (Wars of Demons and Gods)---- 5 (Age of Utopia)

> Warrior:--------------------**Gladiator** (Staff)----------------**Berserker** (Greataxe)-------------**Legionnaire** (Greatshield)

> Guardian:------------------**Patron** (Warhorn)-------------**Warden** (Greatshield)-------------**Seeker** (Whip)

> Revenant (Ritualist)-----**Soulbinder** (Whip)------------**Mystic** (Scepter)--------------------**Oracle** (Focus)

> Engineer:-------------------**Alchemist** (Axe)---------------**Technomancer** (Staff)------------**Forgemaster** (Mace)

> Ranger:---------------------**Beastlord** (Whip)--------------**Shaman** (Scepter)-----------------**Forager** (Greataxe)

> Thief:------------------------**Assassin** (Chakram)----------**Rogue** (Longbow)------------------**Saboteur** (Torch)

> Elementalist:---------------**Summoner** (Chakram)------**Bender**(Whip)----------------------**Spellslinger** (Pistols/Longbow)

> Necromancer:-------------**Witcher** (Sword)--------------**Torturer** (Whip)--------------------**Executioner** (Greataxe)

> Mesmer:--------------------**Minstrel** (Shortbow)---------**Bladedancer** (Chakram)----------**Dreamcatcher** (Whip)

Meh, mostly generic names but naming is really only the small part of the concept. I personally think stringently sticking to the "one word" or "mash two words together" convention is too limiting if we're going to sell these things by name alone from the concept phase.

I was just reading some other combo criticism from a while back and something I forgot about got me curious.

Do people of GW2 like super moves?

I wasn't thinking about it in the past because I had only recently (like last month recent) got to new max level cap in Blade and Soul and that unlocks this pair of super moves that you can use after charging a special meter. It reminded me of the Incarnate abilities you could unlock and modify in City of Heroes which were basically a pool of super moves. Then in FFXIV, you've got, of course, Limit Breaks which are kind of generic and can only be performed in a party (unless that has changed?) but they are effectively role-based super moves.

GW2 doesn't have super moves. They have elite abilities, but many elite abilities are extremely watered down or situational. Some elites kind of feel like super moves but a lot of them don't.

What do you think? Do you think, maybe a super move feature born from the combo system could be what we're looking for out of combos? Or maybe super moves should just be a different system and we should fix combos? Just a though...