Some constructive feedback about Unhindered Combatant change.

[Jinks.2057]

funny what condi mirage is now when I reread Karl's reason for the nerf

 

How about you come back and address our points Karl?

[Fade.5904]

> @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

> > @Rezzet.3614 said:

> > The > @"Fiddle Irk.9710" said:

> > > Scenario: I'm in a fight and have one dodge left. I have cripple on me and don't want to dodge and thus be stuck without any endurance for the next 6 seconds ( 4 for the exhaustion and 2 for my endurance to refill enough to dodge) but then a warrior winds up with a big ol hammer stun, or a reaper executioner scythe ect. and what then? Eat it and get wrecked? Because if I go to dodge a big physical attack and happen to have a nearly ever present condition on me I get punished BIG TIME.....UC needing to be nerfed is debatable, the nerf it got is disgusting.

> >

> > The nerf it got is fine it makes thief have to actually play like other professions, everyone else does precisely as you say if they use all their dodges recklessly, they eat a can of whoop thief shouldnt be an exception and all of you ignore the fact dd has 3 evades instead of two and can refill 4 evades in 1 to 2 seconds via utilities one of them being a condi cleanse

>

> Warrior can be built for better Endurance regen and can spam more evades than Thieves just fyi, oh and it’s Reckless Dodge can hit for 6-8k in Pvp fun times to be had, I rolled a War and with mah build I get to play as a better bound spam Thief with Dual daggers lol

>

> Also no other class is punished and locked from a basic gameplay mechanic for a trait choice, so unless they start spreading the basic gameplay mechanic punishments around they need to find a different fix to UC.

>

>

 

Also try ranger - pretty much better evade thief than evade thief right now :P

Sword / Dagger

1/2 sec evade on hornet sting - leap finisher - Sword 2

3/4 sec evade on Serpent strike - sword 3

1 1/4!! sec evade on dagger 4 (hoho)

then

3/4s stunbreak lightning reflexes +vigor

 

Natural vigor - 25% endurance recharge adept minor trait...don't even need vigor. (wilderness survival)

protection on dodge- adept master (wilderness survival)

heal lots when you have protection - ADEPT gm (wilderness survival)

and finally griffon stance - 9 seconds of *100%* endurance regen and might on evade

(oh and smokescale pet 1 1/2s evade with might)

 

http://gw2skills.net/editor/?vNAQNAsYTnEqAtsglsAW8Cs8ilJBjZalzac572f7xtJAcqmAlINNA-jlwHABhv/AAPBAA-w

 

 

 

 

[Zacchary.6183]

> @Crinn.7864 said:

> > @Gwii.5972 said:

> > > @"Karl McLain.5604" said:

> > > _1) What was the reasoning behind the change to Unhindered Combatant?_

> > > **"One important balance change in this update is the change to Unhindered Combatant. While thieves, and by extension daredevils, are intended to be slippery combatants, the escape potential for this trait was a little too high."**

> > > Unhindered Combatant has long been dominant in multiple game-types. It represents a longer distance movement option, condition-break, and swiftness generator. We like these things.

> > > The issue, however, is that there is almost no 'counter' play to the functionality... in that neither players nor designers have a way to whittle down the thief's defensive capabilities short of one-shotting them in a time where there are no evade frames occurring. We want the thief to remain incredibly mobile, but need to introduce some soft-counters so that there are methods to hinder the super-defensive nature of UC builds. We'll keep watch of Exhaustion's interactions with Unhindered Combatant and will adjust as necessary.

> >

> > Sorry but this is just meowing cat kitten. UC is dominant in what sense? They can't kill a thief fleeing? Well why does the thief have to flee in the first place? Have you ever thought of *that*?

>

> Do you realize how flipping broken thief would be if they could brawl without having to "flee." The optimal comp would literally be 5 thieves.

 

This is false. Thief has lacked any real support since it's creation except maybe venoms. Every other profession at this point provides everything thief can provide and much more. A comp with 2+ thieves usually make the team's effectiveness suffer because of this. By simply boosting the thief's ability to brawl on point through more powerful attacks and active defenses, you might put them on par with other professions individually, but they will still lack team support which is what really helps a team succeed in fights.

[Vornollo.5182]

Cheers for coming down to the Forums for an explanation, even though one was given on the actual Patch Notes already.

So after playing around with it, I'm really not too bothered by it at all. I've ran into maybe two or three situations that I otherwise would have survived pre-nerf, but fair is fair, I got outplayed in those situations.

However, I feel like the main issue I've got with the way this got nerfed is that the idea of "That Specialization *all* about the dodges, cannot actually dodge for 4 seconds." bothers me, it's a very crude view and very much incorrect, but it simply feels that way and it makes me feel bad about playing it. On the topic of "feel bad"; I sadly cannot shake the feeling of this being HoT's release all over again. Acrobatics got nerfed, seemingly to promote Daredevil. Now it *feels* like Daredevil got nerfed to promote Deadeye. That's the way that it looks from the outside, I'm sure it's not the case (as indeed, a nerf was warranted), but that's very much how it looks.

Add in that, in my expierence over these past few days, Daredevil running Unhindered Combatant is still just as slippery. We're still just as fast in rotating around PvP, we can still get out of any fight whenever we want, provided you got some situational awareness both in PvP and WvW. So really, the only time you feel this nerf, if when you're not being a pesky little ganker, but when you actually try to have a fair skill-based fight against other Proffessions.

Thief has for years been one of the, if not the, weakest 1v1 class when comparable skill is involved. This nerf has simply made it even worse. The very few Thieves that would still commit to a fight every once in a while, took the hit here. Not the slippery ones, no. Just the fighting ones.

It's a warranted nerf, like I said, but it's implementation is just very poor.

When there's classes out there like, say, the Mirage right now with an actual Stun Break on dodge along with a cleanse, or Rangers' Evasive Purity where you cleanse a Damaging and a Non-Damaging condition on a succesful(?) dodge, but have an ICD attached to it. I just don't see why the decision was made to actually make the Exhaustion effect and put it on the Specialization that's supposed to be revolving around dodging. Simply having put an ICD on the Condi Cleanse would've been fine. Heck, make it cleanse only one of these movement impairing condi's and give it an ICD. But the Exhaustion bit just feels like a terrible design in the way that GW2 currently has it's trait system.

 

I do love the idea of a trait system where your choices are always Double Edged Swords, These system make for very interesting theorycraft and usually interesting builds.

The problem right now is that, GW2 doesn't apply this treatment anywhere else and I think that's actually what's gotten people so riled up.

It feels unfair and it doesn't seem to hit Daredevil where it was intended. But the nerf is definitely warranted, just not like this. So I do hope to see some changes to it, or to have the double edged sword sort of thing applied across the board, to all traitlines, to all classes.

[Bern.9613]

"...almost no 'counter' play..."

So reveal skills/utilities, weapon ranges of 1200+, immobilize/push back/stun/knock down skills/utilities over 600, teleport over 600, immunity to dazes/basilisk venom, chillmancer, heavy aoe condi scourges, mesmers, etc are not 'counter' skills/traits/classes? Every other class has higher healing skills/signets and/or traits, stability skills/traits, faster movement speeds (nike warriors, stealthed mirages to mention two), remove movement impeding condis and yet you nerf a thief's ability to clear the same and nerfed their damage over the past 5 years?

When the thief was first introduced 5 years ago, YOU said they were the scourge of the battlefield. Now, well, they aren't welcomed into a lot of wvw guilds/zergs because thief has been neutered. Maybe you should try solo roaming on a thief and see how well you survive when a whole zerg chases you across a map. Assuming you can dodge all of the 600+ ranged movement impeding condis, teleports, etc using your 450 dash. The only thing a thief ever had was it's ability to move fast and keep on moving.

[Elxdark.9702]

> @Platanos.8107 said:

>

> > Unhindered Combatant has long been dominant in multiple game-types. It represents a longer distance movement option, condition-break, and swiftness generator. We like these things.

>

> Disclaimer: I have only reached a really really low level of Plat last season.

>

> What? Dominant compared to what? Other grandmaster traits? Are we seeing 2 or more thieves on one team in PvP now? I stopped PvPing for about a month, but unless the meta shifted, a +2 thief team comp doesn't really do that well. Are there not enough deadeyes? I personally don't think deadeyes do well against any other profession besides necros, and only with a p/p build.

>

>

> in PvE, I don't see how it is dominant at all. Maybe for berry farming.

>

> PvP? Well maybe if bounding dodger you know... didn't get nerfed. If you saw too many people migrating to Unhindered Combatant due to this nerf, maybe it's because the bounding dodger nerf was too big?

>

> WvW? Understandable. But if thieves are going to be complete crap in zergs, I would expect them to be good at roaming and picking off stragglers.

>

> Yes, I personally think Unhindered Combat is slightly over the top (I would be OK with the removal of the -10% damage), but so are many other professions traits. Additionally, some classes has tons of blocks and invulnerability on top of a high health pool or armor. Clearly that's unfair because you can't counterplay invulnerability, right?

>

> There are many classes that can chain invulnerable/blocks or chain movement skills. By doing that, they can probably disengage any other profession besides thieves, but is that really a problem? In PvP, probably not because thief have a slightly worse team fight and 1v1 potential than most classes. In WvW, I agree though, that can be super annoying.

>

> And there are also skills that go through evades.

> Skills with area denial purposes: Line of Warding, Ring of Warding, Dragon's Maw, Unsteady Ground, Static Field, Slick Shoes, Spectral Wall, Temporal Curtain's cripple, and others. Even shadowstepping over it will cause you to still get CC'd or damaged after going through it.

> The pull skill for Guardian (the chain skill of Binding Blade) and Hunter's Verdict for Dragonhunter (the chain skill of Spear of Justice) are also unevadeable.

>

> So don't say there's no counterplay either.

>

> Tl;dr; Unhindered Combatant is slightly over the top, but this nerf basically reduces our ability to stay in fights by about 6 seconds.

 

In PvP It was and it's still dominant because it's a skill that let the thief outrotate every class in this game thus making it extremely strong in conquest and especially in 5v5 man.

 

I disagree on this nerf tho. I'd have reduced the distance of the dodge instead.

[Belishine.7493]

here is my thought on the change to the cooldown on the thief imobil dodge. i personly like it. now thiefs are going to have to use wit as mutch as skill and dont forget you still have steal and stay on the target so i see no issue with the change. but i also see were thiefs are mad becouse they got a small nerf be glad it was not something major like huge dps. over all i am happy

[Turk.5460]

> @Crinn.7864 said:

> > @Gwii.5972 said:

> > > @"Karl McLain.5604" said:

> > > _1) What was the reasoning behind the change to Unhindered Combatant?_

> > > **"One important balance change in this update is the change to Unhindered Combatant. While thieves, and by extension daredevils, are intended to be slippery combatants, the escape potential for this trait was a little too high."**

> > > Unhindered Combatant has long been dominant in multiple game-types. It represents a longer distance movement option, condition-break, and swiftness generator. We like these things.

> > > The issue, however, is that there is almost no 'counter' play to the functionality... in that neither players nor designers have a way to whittle down the thief's defensive capabilities short of one-shotting them in a time where there are no evade frames occurring. We want the thief to remain incredibly mobile, but need to introduce some soft-counters so that there are methods to hinder the super-defensive nature of UC builds. We'll keep watch of Exhaustion's interactions with Unhindered Combatant and will adjust as necessary.

> >

> > Sorry but this is just meowing cat kitten. UC is dominant in what sense? They can't kill a thief fleeing? Well why does the thief have to flee in the first place? Have you ever thought of *that*?

>

> Do you realize how flipping broken thief would be if they could brawl without having to "flee." The optimal comp would literally be 5 thieves.

 

"I cry when Thieves run away, this nerf is great!"

 

"I would cry if Thieves didn't have to run away, don't let them be scawwy in a fight, please!"

[AegisRunestone.8672]

@"Karl McLain.5604"

First, I'm grateful you responded to my post. I'm glad to hear that the team is at least reading these thoughts.

 

As for question 1, because I don't play PvP or WvW often enough to understand the aspects of "counter-play," I'm going to assume, yes, this was for competitive reasons, which leads me to my next point:

 

*I am very disappointed with the answer to question 2.* I see you have that rule, but I have counter to it; many traits and abilities, on their tooltips state: "This trait/ability is different per game mode." Yet, you refuse to split the trait due to functionality and due to preventing confusion, correct? The problem is, there's a bug when Daredevils and Trickery thieves dismount in any way shape or form as I linked in my Opening Post. Basically, I have only two endurance bars if I'm knocked off my mount, that's two dodges. The mob hits me with one of the three conditions: I have a choice--dodge and be down to one dodge for four seconds while fighting, or try to kite and survive. In high-end content, the latter choice usually ends in death. So, PvE Daredevils are already at a disadvantage due to a bug/functionality with mounts.

 

With PvP and WvW, this isn't an issue because there are no mounts in those modes. Thus, PvE Daredevils are being punished for the sake of PvP and WvW balance. That is not right, nor proper balancing. The trait *should* be split via modes.

 

And yes, while I was typing this, there was a patch, and I went in and tested my Daredevil, who also specs in Trickery; mounted, dismounted, had 2 endurance bars and 3 empty initiative slots. By negating the ability for a Daredevil to have 3 dodges via dismounting, you're crippling the PvE playzone. This is why I recommended removing the debuff from the trait.

 

Will the bug be fixed? I don't know. I don't expect it to as there are bugs that have been in the game for years and were never fixed. Even if you do fix the bug, I still recommend splitting the trait and noting that it is different per game mode on the tooltip. If a PvE player gets confused why they are getting Exhaustion in PvP, then it lies on them **not the dev team** to have read the traits properly.

 

Second, this is a Grandmaster Trait as others have pointed out. The Daredevil is being penalized for using the trait as specified. I have yet to see a trait on any class that penalizes them for speccing it, therefore why Daredevils singled out?

 

The point of Balance, if I've learned anything from playing Warcraft II, Starcraft, Warcraft III, Starcraft II, and WoW, is to make all parts of the game **equal and fair, but granting players different playstyles at which are all in the same playing field.** MMOs are very complex and much more difficult to balance, but from everything I've seen, traits/talents/etc. **never penalize the race/class being played.** In other words, the Unhindered Combatant nerf is not proper balance.

 

Third, *I am extremely disappointed by the fact my suggestions were ignored.* Instead, Karl, you have maintained you and the dev team will "watch Exhaustion's interactions with Unhindered Combatant and make adjustments as necessary." I feel like the devs are out of touch with the community. Necros have been bottom of the barrel since 2012, and they gained some buffs, a step in the right direction, but it seems it wasn't quite enough. This wouldn't be a big problem if we have to wait three months due to the PvP seasons to get balance patches. To be blunt, that is unfair to the community. We need patches not three months, not monthly, but, at the very most, bi-monthly. There's more to Guild Wars 2 than PvP leagues.

 

There's also a massive lack of communication between the devs and the players. From what I've learned in life, communication is **necessary for solving problems.** If you don't communicate with us often enough, we cannot have a good solution, or even a solution at all.

 

Both the forums and reddit were livid when this patch change came out, the only reason you didn't see it is because of the Mount License controversy was much more explosive. But it happened. This is a major sign of how out of tune the devs are with the community; they don't listen. If something explodes, they hide and wait until it blows over. This happened with the NPE back in 2014. I became too complacent, but I'm still heavily against the gating of skills, and Personal Story which occurred with the NPE. Gaile, those three years ago said, that complaints about the NPE were the same person saying the same thing for the seventeenth time.

 

I countered her, as another player dissatisfied with the NPE by saying "sorry, to burst your bubble, but it isn't the same person. You need to learn to listen to feedback." The dev team still doesn't after 3 years. I would at least like to hear your thoughts on my suggestions and any others people provide. Then, I would begin to have even an inkling of belief that Anet actually listens.

 

Now, back to the trait; you felt Unhindered Combatant was too strong, and because it penalizes the daredevil for using it--a Grandmaster Trait even--I feel you took the wrong approach to balance it.

 

In fact, my stance has always been "nerf sparingly, buff often." Nerfing anything into the ground makes something not fun to play. Nerfs are required at points, but if you continue to nerf things into the ground, then everyone will have an unplayable unenjoyable game. So, why not instead of nerfing Unhindered Combatant, giving a buff to the other classes to grant them a "counter-play" to this Grandmaster Trait instead of having a Trait penalize its own class?

 

I'm beginning to believe other players when they say "they nerf X trait to get us to play something else" because it looks that way, and your actions have not proven otherwise. Live by your manifesto: "play your way," not "play our way."

[Zacchary.6183]

> @AegisRunestone.8672 said:

> @"Karl McLain.5604"

> First, I'm grateful you responded to my post. I'm glad to hear that the team is at least reading these thoughts.

>

> As for question 1, because I don't play PvP or WvW often enough to understand the aspects of "counter-play," I'm going to assume, yes, this was for competitive reasons, which leads me to my next point:

>

> *I am very disappointed with the answer to question 2.* I see you have that rule, but I have counter to it; many traits and abilities, on their tooltips state: "This trait/ability is different per game mode." Yet, you refuse to split the trait due to functionality and due to preventing confusion, correct? The problem is, there's a bug when Daredevils and Trickery thieves dismount in any way shape or form as I linked in my Opening Post. Basically, I have only two endurance bars if I'm knocked off my mount, that's two dodges. The mob hits me with one of the three conditions: I have a choice--dodge and be down to one dodge for four seconds while fighting, or try to kite and survive. In high-end content, the latter choice usually ends in death. So, PvE Daredevils are already at a disadvantage due to a bug/functionality with mounts.

>

> With PvP and WvW, this isn't an issue because there are no mounts in those modes. Thus, PvE Daredevils are being punished for the sake of PvP and WvW balance. That is not right, nor proper balancing. The trait *should* be split via modes.

>

> And yes, while I was typing this, there was a patch, and I went in and tested my Daredevil, who also specs in Trickery; mounted, dismounted, had 2 endurance bars and 3 empty initiative slots. By negating the ability for a Daredevil to have 3 dodges via dismounting, you're crippling the PvE playzone. This is why I recommended removing the debuff from the trait.

>

> Will the bug be fixed? I don't know. I don't expect it to as there are bugs that have been in the game for years and were never fixed. Even if you do fix the bug, I still recommend splitting the trait and noting that it is different per game mode on the tooltip. If a PvE player gets confused why they are getting Exhaustion in PvP, then it lies on them **not the dev team** to have read the traits properly.

>

> Second, this is a Grandmaster Trait as others have pointed out. The Daredevil is being penalized for using the trait as specified. I have yet to see a trait on any class that penalizes them for speccing it, therefore why Daredevils singled out?

>

> The point of Balance, if I've learned anything from playing Warcraft II, Starcraft, Warcraft III, Starcraft II, and WoW, is to make all parts of the game **equal and fair, but granting players different playstyles at which are all in the same playing field.** MMOs are very complex and much more difficult to balance, but from everything I've seen, traits/talents/etc. **never penalize the race/class being played.** In other words, the Unhindered Combatant nerf is not proper balance.

>

> Third, *I am extremely disappointed by the fact my suggestions were ignored.* Instead, Karl, you have maintained you and the dev team will "watch Exhaustion's interactions with Unhindered Combatant and make adjustments as necessary." I feel like the devs are out of touch with the community. Necros have been bottom of the barrel since 2012, and they gained some buffs, a step in the right direction, but it seems it wasn't quite enough. This wouldn't be a big problem if we have to wait three months due to the PvP seasons to get balance patches. To be blunt, that is unfair to the community. We need patches not three months, not monthly, but, at the very most, bi-monthly. There's more to Guild Wars 2 than PvP leagues.

>

> There's also a massive lack of communication between the devs and the players. From what I've learned in life, communication is **necessary for solving problems.** If you don't communicate with us often enough, we cannot have a good solution, or even a solution at all.

>

> Both the forums and reddit were livid when this patch change came out, the only reason you didn't see it is because of the Mount License controversy was much more explosive. But it happened. This is a major sign of how out of tune the devs are with the community; they don't listen. If something explodes, they hide and wait until it blows over. This happened with the NPE back in 2014. I became too complacent, but I'm still heavily against the gating of skills, and Personal Story which occurred with the NPE. Gaile, those three years ago said, that complaints about the NPE were the same person saying the same thing for the seventeenth time.

>

> I countered her, as another player dissatisfied with the NPE by saying "sorry, to burst your bubble, but it isn't the same person. You need to learn to listen to feedback." The dev team still doesn't after 3 years. I would at least like to hear your thoughts on my suggestions and any others people provide. Then, I would begin to have even an inkling of belief that Anet actually listens.

>

> Now, back to the trait; you felt Unhindered Combatant was too strong, and because it penalizes the daredevil for using it--a Grandmaster Trait even--I feel you took the wrong approach to balance it.

>

> In fact, my stance has always been "nerf sparingly, buff often." Nerfing anything into the ground makes something not fun to play. Nerfs are required at points, but if you continue to nerf things into the ground, then everyone will have an unplayable unenjoyable game. So, why not instead of nerfing Unhindered Combatant, giving a buff to the other classes to grant them a "counter-play" to this Grandmaster Trait instead of having a Trait penalize its own class?

>

> I'm beginning to believe other players when they say "they nerf X trait to get us to play something else" because it looks that way, and your actions have not proven otherwise. Live by your manifesto: "play your way," not "play our way."

 

Yes, but then if they don't do that, build diversity goes out the window especially when all anyone plays and will play is d/p. So if the real purpose was for players to play deadeye more, then good on them. The d/p meta needs to die so everything else can get balanced properly.

[omgdracula.6345]

> @Zacchary.6183 said:

 

> Yes, but then if they don't do that, build diversity goes out the window especially when all anyone plays and will play is d/p. So if the real purpose was for players to play deadeye more, then good on them. The d/p meta needs to die so everything else can get balanced properly.

 

D/P would have to be built from the ground up. The reason so many thieves play D/P is because the build offers so much synergy and utility. No other weapon combo offers as much utility as D/P. S/D is closest.

 

High damage autos, easy access to stealth, combos with stealth, pulmonary, unblockable tele.

 

Anet would pretty much have to make all other weapon combos not utter garbage for people to even consider anything but D/P.

 

[Zacchary.6183]

> @omgdracula.6345 said:

> > @Zacchary.6183 said:

>

> > Yes, but then if they don't do that, build diversity goes out the window especially when all anyone plays and will play is d/p. So if the real purpose was for players to play deadeye more, then good on them. The d/p meta needs to die so everything else can get balanced properly.

>

> D/P would have to be built from the ground up. The reason so many thieves play D/P is because the build offers so much synergy and utility. No other weapon combo offers as much utility as D/P. S/D is closest.

>

> High damage autos, easy access to stealth, combos with stealth, pulmonary, unblockable tele.

>

> Anet would pretty much have to make all other weapon combos not utter garbage for people to even consider anything but D/P.

>

 

It doesn't really need to be built from the ground up. The real issue is the meta mentality mixed with a little bit of under-performing sets.

 

Even if the set has a bunch of offensive utility for the user, it provides nothing substantial for the team besides damage. Compare that to the "gimmicky" Ebola build which provides highly sustainable stacks of bleed/poison/cripple on top of some other conditions, plenty of evades for the user, aoe dots, access to stealth, great synergy with highly underutilized utility skills like Signet of Malice, great synergy with Daredevil spec, etc. It can practically shit on everything not necro. I have, in fact, killed druids and DHs (two at the same time) with it when they were considered OP because they could not hit me and could not cleanse hard enough. But it will never become meta because nobody is willing to even try to make it work due to the meta mentality.

 

For example, Meta Mentality dictates that good condition builds put on many different conditions so cleanses do not clear the ones that count. Ebola does not do this, but instead stacks bleeds, poisons and cripple constantly. This makes the stacks highly susceptible to clears while at the same time makes burst clears mostly ineffective. Unless someone is constantly clearing or negating conditions with Resistance, Ebola will kill you. But because Ebola only stacks high and not wide, it will never see meta status in any way, even if it performs way better than the meta in certain roles.

[omgdracula.6345]

> @Zacchary.6183 said:

> >

>

> It doesn't really need to be built from the ground up. The real issue is the meta mentality mixed with a little bit of under-performing sets.

>

> Even if the set has a bunch of offensive utility for the user, it provides nothing substantial for the team besides damage. Compare that to the "gimmicky" Ebola build which provides highly sustainable stacks of bleed/poison/cripple on top of some other conditions, plenty of evades for the user, aoe dots, access to stealth, great synergy with highly underutilized utility skills like Signet of Malice, great synergy with Daredevil spec, etc. It can practically kitten on everything not necro. I have, in fact, killed druids and DHs (two at the same time) with it when they were considered OP because they could not hit me and could not cleanse hard enough. But it will never become meta because nobody is willing to even try to make it work due to the meta mentality.

>

> For example, Meta Mentality dictates that good condition builds put on many different conditions so cleanses do not clear the ones that count. Ebola does not do this, but instead stacks bleeds, poisons and cripple constantly. This makes the stacks highly susceptible to clears while at the same time makes burst clears mostly ineffective. Unless someone is constantly clearing or negating conditions with Resistance, Ebola will kill you. But because Ebola only stacks high and not wide, it will never see meta status in any way, even if it performs way better than the meta in certain roles.

 

They were pretty garbo druids and DHs then. I have watched a couple DH streamers that could pretty much almost clear even scourge conditions fast enough to kill scourges when they were bugged. S/D Condi thieves have easily clearable conditions.

 

The reason the build isn't meta is because it doesn't function at high level play. It is a pubstomp build. It doesn't have access to stealth either. If you are wasting initiative on Cloak and Dagger you're doing it wrong. That skill is garbage.

 

S/D is too focused on your combo to deal damage if your opponent dodges your steal you're pretty fucked. D/P doesn't have that issue.

 

It lacks any punishment that D/P can bring.

 

[Zacchary.6183]

> @omgdracula.6345 said:

> > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > >

> >

> > It doesn't really need to be built from the ground up. The real issue is the meta mentality mixed with a little bit of under-performing sets.

> >

> > Even if the set has a bunch of offensive utility for the user, it provides nothing substantial for the team besides damage. Compare that to the "gimmicky" Ebola build which provides highly sustainable stacks of bleed/poison/cripple on top of some other conditions, plenty of evades for the user, aoe dots, access to stealth, great synergy with highly underutilized utility skills like Signet of Malice, great synergy with Daredevil spec, etc. It can practically kitten on everything not necro. I have, in fact, killed druids and DHs (two at the same time) with it when they were considered OP because they could not hit me and could not cleanse hard enough. But it will never become meta because nobody is willing to even try to make it work due to the meta mentality.

> >

> > For example, Meta Mentality dictates that good condition builds put on many different conditions so cleanses do not clear the ones that count. Ebola does not do this, but instead stacks bleeds, poisons and cripple constantly. This makes the stacks highly susceptible to clears while at the same time makes burst clears mostly ineffective. Unless someone is constantly clearing or negating conditions with Resistance, Ebola will kill you. But because Ebola only stacks high and not wide, it will never see meta status in any way, even if it performs way better than the meta in certain roles.

>

> They were pretty garbo druids and DHs then. I have watched a couple DH streamers that could pretty much almost clear even scourge conditions fast enough to kill scourges when they were bugged. S/D Condi thieves have easily clearable conditions.

>

> The reason the build isn't meta is because it doesn't function at high level play. It is a pubstomp build. It doesn't have access to stealth either. If you are wasting initiative on Cloak and Dagger you're doing it wrong. That skill is garbage.

>

> S/D is too focused on your combo to deal damage if your opponent dodges your steal you're pretty kitten. D/P doesn't have that issue.

>

> It lacks any punishment that D/P can bring.

>

 

I bet you there isn't enough data to suggest Ebola does not function in high-level play. It's one of those builds that few people really know how to use and fewer still actually use it. It's been like that since forever. And no, they were meta DHs and druids at the time doing the exact same things with the exact same things that everyone else was using. I just didn't let them hit me and stuck to them until they died. The druid in particular took a while to kill, but that's because they were burning everything to keep alive.

[Razor.6392]

> @"Karl McLain.5604" said:

> _1) What was the reasoning behind the change to Unhindered Combatant?_

> **"One important balance change in this update is the change to Unhindered Combatant. While thieves, and by extension daredevils, are intended to be slippery combatants, the escape potential for this trait was a little too high."**

> Unhindered Combatant has long been dominant in multiple game-types. It represents a longer distance movement option, condition-break, and swiftness generator. We like these things.

> The issue, however, is that there is almost no 'counter' play to the functionality... in that neither players nor designers have a way to whittle down the thief's defensive capabilities short of one-shotting them in a time where there are no evade frames occurring. We want the thief to remain incredibly mobile, but need to introduce some soft-counters so that there are methods to hinder the super-defensive nature of UC builds. We'll keep watch of Exhaustion's interactions with Unhindered Combatant and will adjust as necessary.

>

> _2) If it was meant for competitive changes, why do PvE Daredevils have to take the blow, too?_

> First off: As a rule we don't split skill and trait functionality changes ("functionality" being the keyword here). There are some things that we are okay with splitting such as damage, condition duration/stacks, resource cost, etc. However we don't want to make skills which apply different buffs or have different cast times or number of hits based on game mode. This rule is in place to preserve skill cohesion and prevent confusion when switching game modes. It's not a rule that we plan on changing.

>

> Secondarily: Its condition-removal is built-in and is inseparable from the dodge-mechanic so long as you have the trait equipped. It's feasibly possible to 'remove' the trait and return you to a 'normal' dodge, but consistency is also important in that your dodge button should pretty much always do the same thing.

>

> -SnB

 

Why bother introducing a new mechanic though? Might as well delete the condi removal part (or *gasp* add an ICD). That would be less punishing than having no endurance at all.

[Cynz.9437]

> @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > @AegisRunestone.8672 said:

> > @"Karl McLain.5604"

> > First, I'm grateful you responded to my post. I'm glad to hear that the team is at least reading these thoughts.

> >

> > As for question 1, because I don't play PvP or WvW often enough to understand the aspects of "counter-play," I'm going to assume, yes, this was for competitive reasons, which leads me to my next point:

> >

> > *I am very disappointed with the answer to question 2.* I see you have that rule, but I have counter to it; many traits and abilities, on their tooltips state: "This trait/ability is different per game mode." Yet, you refuse to split the trait due to functionality and due to preventing confusion, correct? The problem is, there's a bug when Daredevils and Trickery thieves dismount in any way shape or form as I linked in my Opening Post. Basically, I have only two endurance bars if I'm knocked off my mount, that's two dodges. The mob hits me with one of the three conditions: I have a choice--dodge and be down to one dodge for four seconds while fighting, or try to kite and survive. In high-end content, the latter choice usually ends in death. So, PvE Daredevils are already at a disadvantage due to a bug/functionality with mounts.

> >

> > With PvP and WvW, this isn't an issue because there are no mounts in those modes. Thus, PvE Daredevils are being punished for the sake of PvP and WvW balance. That is not right, nor proper balancing. The trait *should* be split via modes.

> >

> > And yes, while I was typing this, there was a patch, and I went in and tested my Daredevil, who also specs in Trickery; mounted, dismounted, had 2 endurance bars and 3 empty initiative slots. By negating the ability for a Daredevil to have 3 dodges via dismounting, you're crippling the PvE playzone. This is why I recommended removing the debuff from the trait.

> >

> > Will the bug be fixed? I don't know. I don't expect it to as there are bugs that have been in the game for years and were never fixed. Even if you do fix the bug, I still recommend splitting the trait and noting that it is different per game mode on the tooltip. If a PvE player gets confused why they are getting Exhaustion in PvP, then it lies on them **not the dev team** to have read the traits properly.

> >

> > Second, this is a Grandmaster Trait as others have pointed out. The Daredevil is being penalized for using the trait as specified. I have yet to see a trait on any class that penalizes them for speccing it, therefore why Daredevils singled out?

> >

> > The point of Balance, if I've learned anything from playing Warcraft II, Starcraft, Warcraft III, Starcraft II, and WoW, is to make all parts of the game **equal and fair, but granting players different playstyles at which are all in the same playing field.** MMOs are very complex and much more difficult to balance, but from everything I've seen, traits/talents/etc. **never penalize the race/class being played.** In other words, the Unhindered Combatant nerf is not proper balance.

> >

> > Third, *I am extremely disappointed by the fact my suggestions were ignored.* Instead, Karl, you have maintained you and the dev team will "watch Exhaustion's interactions with Unhindered Combatant and make adjustments as necessary." I feel like the devs are out of touch with the community. Necros have been bottom of the barrel since 2012, and they gained some buffs, a step in the right direction, but it seems it wasn't quite enough. This wouldn't be a big problem if we have to wait three months due to the PvP seasons to get balance patches. To be blunt, that is unfair to the community. We need patches not three months, not monthly, but, at the very most, bi-monthly. There's more to Guild Wars 2 than PvP leagues.

> >

> > There's also a massive lack of communication between the devs and the players. From what I've learned in life, communication is **necessary for solving problems.** If you don't communicate with us often enough, we cannot have a good solution, or even a solution at all.

> >

> > Both the forums and reddit were livid when this patch change came out, the only reason you didn't see it is because of the Mount License controversy was much more explosive. But it happened. This is a major sign of how out of tune the devs are with the community; they don't listen. If something explodes, they hide and wait until it blows over. This happened with the NPE back in 2014. I became too complacent, but I'm still heavily against the gating of skills, and Personal Story which occurred with the NPE. Gaile, those three years ago said, that complaints about the NPE were the same person saying the same thing for the seventeenth time.

> >

> > I countered her, as another player dissatisfied with the NPE by saying "sorry, to burst your bubble, but it isn't the same person. You need to learn to listen to feedback." The dev team still doesn't after 3 years. I would at least like to hear your thoughts on my suggestions and any others people provide. Then, I would begin to have even an inkling of belief that Anet actually listens.

> >

> > Now, back to the trait; you felt Unhindered Combatant was too strong, and because it penalizes the daredevil for using it--a Grandmaster Trait even--I feel you took the wrong approach to balance it.

> >

> > In fact, my stance has always been "nerf sparingly, buff often." Nerfing anything into the ground makes something not fun to play. Nerfs are required at points, but if you continue to nerf things into the ground, then everyone will have an unplayable unenjoyable game. So, why not instead of nerfing Unhindered Combatant, giving a buff to the other classes to grant them a "counter-play" to this Grandmaster Trait instead of having a Trait penalize its own class?

> >

> > I'm beginning to believe other players when they say "they nerf X trait to get us to play something else" because it looks that way, and your actions have not proven otherwise. Live by your manifesto: "play your way," not "play our way."

>

> Yes, but then if they don't do that, build diversity goes out the window especially when all anyone plays and will play is d/p. So if the real purpose was for players to play deadeye more, then good on them. The d/p meta needs to die so everything else can get balanced properly.

 

You still assume they would balance anything if DP dies? Omg. Have you not learned ANYTHING from Anet balancing yet? Nobody will play DE anyway, it is even worse than core in pvp and that speaks volumes.

[Zacchary.6183]

> @Cynz.9437 said:

> > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > > @AegisRunestone.8672 said:

> > > @"Karl McLain.5604"

> > > First, I'm grateful you responded to my post. I'm glad to hear that the team is at least reading these thoughts.

> > >

> > > As for question 1, because I don't play PvP or WvW often enough to understand the aspects of "counter-play," I'm going to assume, yes, this was for competitive reasons, which leads me to my next point:

> > >

> > > *I am very disappointed with the answer to question 2.* I see you have that rule, but I have counter to it; many traits and abilities, on their tooltips state: "This trait/ability is different per game mode." Yet, you refuse to split the trait due to functionality and due to preventing confusion, correct? The problem is, there's a bug when Daredevils and Trickery thieves dismount in any way shape or form as I linked in my Opening Post. Basically, I have only two endurance bars if I'm knocked off my mount, that's two dodges. The mob hits me with one of the three conditions: I have a choice--dodge and be down to one dodge for four seconds while fighting, or try to kite and survive. In high-end content, the latter choice usually ends in death. So, PvE Daredevils are already at a disadvantage due to a bug/functionality with mounts.

> > >

> > > With PvP and WvW, this isn't an issue because there are no mounts in those modes. Thus, PvE Daredevils are being punished for the sake of PvP and WvW balance. That is not right, nor proper balancing. The trait *should* be split via modes.

> > >

> > > And yes, while I was typing this, there was a patch, and I went in and tested my Daredevil, who also specs in Trickery; mounted, dismounted, had 2 endurance bars and 3 empty initiative slots. By negating the ability for a Daredevil to have 3 dodges via dismounting, you're crippling the PvE playzone. This is why I recommended removing the debuff from the trait.

> > >

> > > Will the bug be fixed? I don't know. I don't expect it to as there are bugs that have been in the game for years and were never fixed. Even if you do fix the bug, I still recommend splitting the trait and noting that it is different per game mode on the tooltip. If a PvE player gets confused why they are getting Exhaustion in PvP, then it lies on them **not the dev team** to have read the traits properly.

> > >

> > > Second, this is a Grandmaster Trait as others have pointed out. The Daredevil is being penalized for using the trait as specified. I have yet to see a trait on any class that penalizes them for speccing it, therefore why Daredevils singled out?

> > >

> > > The point of Balance, if I've learned anything from playing Warcraft II, Starcraft, Warcraft III, Starcraft II, and WoW, is to make all parts of the game **equal and fair, but granting players different playstyles at which are all in the same playing field.** MMOs are very complex and much more difficult to balance, but from everything I've seen, traits/talents/etc. **never penalize the race/class being played.** In other words, the Unhindered Combatant nerf is not proper balance.

> > >

> > > Third, *I am extremely disappointed by the fact my suggestions were ignored.* Instead, Karl, you have maintained you and the dev team will "watch Exhaustion's interactions with Unhindered Combatant and make adjustments as necessary." I feel like the devs are out of touch with the community. Necros have been bottom of the barrel since 2012, and they gained some buffs, a step in the right direction, but it seems it wasn't quite enough. This wouldn't be a big problem if we have to wait three months due to the PvP seasons to get balance patches. To be blunt, that is unfair to the community. We need patches not three months, not monthly, but, at the very most, bi-monthly. There's more to Guild Wars 2 than PvP leagues.

> > >

> > > There's also a massive lack of communication between the devs and the players. From what I've learned in life, communication is **necessary for solving problems.** If you don't communicate with us often enough, we cannot have a good solution, or even a solution at all.

> > >

> > > Both the forums and reddit were livid when this patch change came out, the only reason you didn't see it is because of the Mount License controversy was much more explosive. But it happened. This is a major sign of how out of tune the devs are with the community; they don't listen. If something explodes, they hide and wait until it blows over. This happened with the NPE back in 2014. I became too complacent, but I'm still heavily against the gating of skills, and Personal Story which occurred with the NPE. Gaile, those three years ago said, that complaints about the NPE were the same person saying the same thing for the seventeenth time.

> > >

> > > I countered her, as another player dissatisfied with the NPE by saying "sorry, to burst your bubble, but it isn't the same person. You need to learn to listen to feedback." The dev team still doesn't after 3 years. I would at least like to hear your thoughts on my suggestions and any others people provide. Then, I would begin to have even an inkling of belief that Anet actually listens.

> > >

> > > Now, back to the trait; you felt Unhindered Combatant was too strong, and because it penalizes the daredevil for using it--a Grandmaster Trait even--I feel you took the wrong approach to balance it.

> > >

> > > In fact, my stance has always been "nerf sparingly, buff often." Nerfing anything into the ground makes something not fun to play. Nerfs are required at points, but if you continue to nerf things into the ground, then everyone will have an unplayable unenjoyable game. So, why not instead of nerfing Unhindered Combatant, giving a buff to the other classes to grant them a "counter-play" to this Grandmaster Trait instead of having a Trait penalize its own class?

> > >

> > > I'm beginning to believe other players when they say "they nerf X trait to get us to play something else" because it looks that way, and your actions have not proven otherwise. Live by your manifesto: "play your way," not "play our way."

> >

> > Yes, but then if they don't do that, build diversity goes out the window especially when all anyone plays and will play is d/p. So if the real purpose was for players to play deadeye more, then good on them. The d/p meta needs to die so everything else can get balanced properly.

>

> You still assume they would balance anything if DP dies? Omg. Have you not learned ANYTHING from Anet balancing yet?

 

If everyone keeps playing d/p and d/p keeps killing people, those people will bitch and anet will nerf based on the bitching. Yes, I learned a lot from anet balancing. :P

And to answer your first question, yes I do. A vast majority of nerfs have been directed towards d/x and active defenses. The weaponset currently works on nothing but bads and squishies. The only thing that makes it popular is the autoattack damage and it's utilities, but otherwise it is a bad weaponset. And at this point, I don't think anything other than making every other set OP will get people off d/p simply because it has not changed for years and advocates are rabidly protective of it.

 

On top of that, anet doesn't have the metrics to determine the state of other weaponsets because everyone plays d/p.

[Cynz.9437]

> > @Cynz.9437 said:

> > > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > > > @AegisRunestone.8672 said:

> > > > @"Karl McLain.5604"

> > > > First, I'm grateful you responded to my post. I'm glad to hear that the team is at least reading these thoughts.

> > > >

> > > > As for question 1, because I don't play PvP or WvW often enough to understand the aspects of "counter-play," I'm going to assume, yes, this was for competitive reasons, which leads me to my next point:

> > > >

> > > > *I am very disappointed with the answer to question 2.* I see you have that rule, but I have counter to it; many traits and abilities, on their tooltips state: "This trait/ability is different per game mode." Yet, you refuse to split the trait due to functionality and due to preventing confusion, correct? The problem is, there's a bug when Daredevils and Trickery thieves dismount in any way shape or form as I linked in my Opening Post. Basically, I have only two endurance bars if I'm knocked off my mount, that's two dodges. The mob hits me with one of the three conditions: I have a choice--dodge and be down to one dodge for four seconds while fighting, or try to kite and survive. In high-end content, the latter choice usually ends in death. So, PvE Daredevils are already at a disadvantage due to a bug/functionality with mounts.

> > > >

> > > > With PvP and WvW, this isn't an issue because there are no mounts in those modes. Thus, PvE Daredevils are being punished for the sake of PvP and WvW balance. That is not right, nor proper balancing. The trait *should* be split via modes.

> > > >

> > > > And yes, while I was typing this, there was a patch, and I went in and tested my Daredevil, who also specs in Trickery; mounted, dismounted, had 2 endurance bars and 3 empty initiative slots. By negating the ability for a Daredevil to have 3 dodges via dismounting, you're crippling the PvE playzone. This is why I recommended removing the debuff from the trait.

> > > >

> > > > Will the bug be fixed? I don't know. I don't expect it to as there are bugs that have been in the game for years and were never fixed. Even if you do fix the bug, I still recommend splitting the trait and noting that it is different per game mode on the tooltip. If a PvE player gets confused why they are getting Exhaustion in PvP, then it lies on them **not the dev team** to have read the traits properly.

> > > >

> > > > Second, this is a Grandmaster Trait as others have pointed out. The Daredevil is being penalized for using the trait as specified. I have yet to see a trait on any class that penalizes them for speccing it, therefore why Daredevils singled out?

> > > >

> > > > The point of Balance, if I've learned anything from playing Warcraft II, Starcraft, Warcraft III, Starcraft II, and WoW, is to make all parts of the game **equal and fair, but granting players different playstyles at which are all in the same playing field.** MMOs are very complex and much more difficult to balance, but from everything I've seen, traits/talents/etc. **never penalize the race/class being played.** In other words, the Unhindered Combatant nerf is not proper balance.

> > > >

> > > > Third, *I am extremely disappointed by the fact my suggestions were ignored.* Instead, Karl, you have maintained you and the dev team will "watch Exhaustion's interactions with Unhindered Combatant and make adjustments as necessary." I feel like the devs are out of touch with the community. Necros have been bottom of the barrel since 2012, and they gained some buffs, a step in the right direction, but it seems it wasn't quite enough. This wouldn't be a big problem if we have to wait three months due to the PvP seasons to get balance patches. To be blunt, that is unfair to the community. We need patches not three months, not monthly, but, at the very most, bi-monthly. There's more to Guild Wars 2 than PvP leagues.

> > > >

> > > > There's also a massive lack of communication between the devs and the players. From what I've learned in life, communication is **necessary for solving problems.** If you don't communicate with us often enough, we cannot have a good solution, or even a solution at all.

> > > >

> > > > Both the forums and reddit were livid when this patch change came out, the only reason you didn't see it is because of the Mount License controversy was much more explosive. But it happened. This is a major sign of how out of tune the devs are with the community; they don't listen. If something explodes, they hide and wait until it blows over. This happened with the NPE back in 2014. I became too complacent, but I'm still heavily against the gating of skills, and Personal Story which occurred with the NPE. Gaile, those three years ago said, that complaints about the NPE were the same person saying the same thing for the seventeenth time.

> > > >

> > > > I countered her, as another player dissatisfied with the NPE by saying "sorry, to burst your bubble, but it isn't the same person. You need to learn to listen to feedback." The dev team still doesn't after 3 years. I would at least like to hear your thoughts on my suggestions and any others people provide. Then, I would begin to have even an inkling of belief that Anet actually listens.

> > > >

> > > > Now, back to the trait; you felt Unhindered Combatant was too strong, and because it penalizes the daredevil for using it--a Grandmaster Trait even--I feel you took the wrong approach to balance it.

> > > >

> > > > In fact, my stance has always been "nerf sparingly, buff often." Nerfing anything into the ground makes something not fun to play. Nerfs are required at points, but if you continue to nerf things into the ground, then everyone will have an unplayable unenjoyable game. So, why not instead of nerfing Unhindered Combatant, giving a buff to the other classes to grant them a "counter-play" to this Grandmaster Trait instead of having a Trait penalize its own class?

> > > >

> > > > I'm beginning to believe other players when they say "they nerf X trait to get us to play something else" because it looks that way, and your actions have not proven otherwise. Live by your manifesto: "play your way," not "play our way."

> > >

> > > Yes, but then if they don't do that, build diversity goes out the window especially when all anyone plays and will play is d/p. So if the real purpose was for players to play deadeye more, then good on them. The d/p meta needs to die so everything else can get balanced properly.

> >

> > You still assume they would balance anything if DP dies? Omg. Have you not learned ANYTHING from Anet balancing yet?

>

> If everyone keeps playing d/p and d/p keeps killing people, those people will kitten and anet will nerf based on the kitten. Yes, I learned a lot from anet balancing. :P

> And to answer your first question, yes I do. A vast majority of nerfs have been directed towards d/x and active defenses. The weaponset currently works on nothing but bads and squishies. The only thing that makes it popular is the autoattack damage and it's utilities, but otherwise it is a bad weaponset. And at this point, I don't think anything other than making every other set OP will get people off d/p simply because it has not changed for years and advocates are rabidly protective of it.

>

> On top of that, anet doesn't have the metrics to determine the state of other weaponsets because everyone plays d/p.

 

D/P wasn't killing anyone in s1/s2. Your point is moot.

[Zacchary.6183]

> @Cynz.9437 said:

> > > @Cynz.9437 said:

> > > > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > > > > @AegisRunestone.8672 said:

> > > > > @"Karl McLain.5604"

> > > > > First, I'm grateful you responded to my post. I'm glad to hear that the team is at least reading these thoughts.

> > > > >

> > > > > As for question 1, because I don't play PvP or WvW often enough to understand the aspects of "counter-play," I'm going to assume, yes, this was for competitive reasons, which leads me to my next point:

> > > > >

> > > > > *I am very disappointed with the answer to question 2.* I see you have that rule, but I have counter to it; many traits and abilities, on their tooltips state: "This trait/ability is different per game mode." Yet, you refuse to split the trait due to functionality and due to preventing confusion, correct? The problem is, there's a bug when Daredevils and Trickery thieves dismount in any way shape or form as I linked in my Opening Post. Basically, I have only two endurance bars if I'm knocked off my mount, that's two dodges. The mob hits me with one of the three conditions: I have a choice--dodge and be down to one dodge for four seconds while fighting, or try to kite and survive. In high-end content, the latter choice usually ends in death. So, PvE Daredevils are already at a disadvantage due to a bug/functionality with mounts.

> > > > >

> > > > > With PvP and WvW, this isn't an issue because there are no mounts in those modes. Thus, PvE Daredevils are being punished for the sake of PvP and WvW balance. That is not right, nor proper balancing. The trait *should* be split via modes.

> > > > >

> > > > > And yes, while I was typing this, there was a patch, and I went in and tested my Daredevil, who also specs in Trickery; mounted, dismounted, had 2 endurance bars and 3 empty initiative slots. By negating the ability for a Daredevil to have 3 dodges via dismounting, you're crippling the PvE playzone. This is why I recommended removing the debuff from the trait.

> > > > >

> > > > > Will the bug be fixed? I don't know. I don't expect it to as there are bugs that have been in the game for years and were never fixed. Even if you do fix the bug, I still recommend splitting the trait and noting that it is different per game mode on the tooltip. If a PvE player gets confused why they are getting Exhaustion in PvP, then it lies on them **not the dev team** to have read the traits properly.

> > > > >

> > > > > Second, this is a Grandmaster Trait as others have pointed out. The Daredevil is being penalized for using the trait as specified. I have yet to see a trait on any class that penalizes them for speccing it, therefore why Daredevils singled out?

> > > > >

> > > > > The point of Balance, if I've learned anything from playing Warcraft II, Starcraft, Warcraft III, Starcraft II, and WoW, is to make all parts of the game **equal and fair, but granting players different playstyles at which are all in the same playing field.** MMOs are very complex and much more difficult to balance, but from everything I've seen, traits/talents/etc. **never penalize the race/class being played.** In other words, the Unhindered Combatant nerf is not proper balance.

> > > > >

> > > > > Third, *I am extremely disappointed by the fact my suggestions were ignored.* Instead, Karl, you have maintained you and the dev team will "watch Exhaustion's interactions with Unhindered Combatant and make adjustments as necessary." I feel like the devs are out of touch with the community. Necros have been bottom of the barrel since 2012, and they gained some buffs, a step in the right direction, but it seems it wasn't quite enough. This wouldn't be a big problem if we have to wait three months due to the PvP seasons to get balance patches. To be blunt, that is unfair to the community. We need patches not three months, not monthly, but, at the very most, bi-monthly. There's more to Guild Wars 2 than PvP leagues.

> > > > >

> > > > > There's also a massive lack of communication between the devs and the players. From what I've learned in life, communication is **necessary for solving problems.** If you don't communicate with us often enough, we cannot have a good solution, or even a solution at all.

> > > > >

> > > > > Both the forums and reddit were livid when this patch change came out, the only reason you didn't see it is because of the Mount License controversy was much more explosive. But it happened. This is a major sign of how out of tune the devs are with the community; they don't listen. If something explodes, they hide and wait until it blows over. This happened with the NPE back in 2014. I became too complacent, but I'm still heavily against the gating of skills, and Personal Story which occurred with the NPE. Gaile, those three years ago said, that complaints about the NPE were the same person saying the same thing for the seventeenth time.

> > > > >

> > > > > I countered her, as another player dissatisfied with the NPE by saying "sorry, to burst your bubble, but it isn't the same person. You need to learn to listen to feedback." The dev team still doesn't after 3 years. I would at least like to hear your thoughts on my suggestions and any others people provide. Then, I would begin to have even an inkling of belief that Anet actually listens.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now, back to the trait; you felt Unhindered Combatant was too strong, and because it penalizes the daredevil for using it--a Grandmaster Trait even--I feel you took the wrong approach to balance it.

> > > > >

> > > > > In fact, my stance has always been "nerf sparingly, buff often." Nerfing anything into the ground makes something not fun to play. Nerfs are required at points, but if you continue to nerf things into the ground, then everyone will have an unplayable unenjoyable game. So, why not instead of nerfing Unhindered Combatant, giving a buff to the other classes to grant them a "counter-play" to this Grandmaster Trait instead of having a Trait penalize its own class?

> > > > >

> > > > > I'm beginning to believe other players when they say "they nerf X trait to get us to play something else" because it looks that way, and your actions have not proven otherwise. Live by your manifesto: "play your way," not "play our way."

> > > >

> > > > Yes, but then if they don't do that, build diversity goes out the window especially when all anyone plays and will play is d/p. So if the real purpose was for players to play deadeye more, then good on them. The d/p meta needs to die so everything else can get balanced properly.

> > >

> > > You still assume they would balance anything if DP dies? Omg. Have you not learned ANYTHING from Anet balancing yet?

> >

> > If everyone keeps playing d/p and d/p keeps killing people, those people will kitten and anet will nerf based on the kitten. Yes, I learned a lot from anet balancing. :P

> > And to answer your first question, yes I do. A vast majority of nerfs have been directed towards d/x and active defenses. The weaponset currently works on nothing but bads and squishies. The only thing that makes it popular is the autoattack damage and it's utilities, but otherwise it is a bad weaponset. And at this point, I don't think anything other than making every other set OP will get people off d/p simply because it has not changed for years and advocates are rabidly protective of it.

> >

> > On top of that, anet doesn't have the metrics to determine the state of other weaponsets because everyone plays d/p.

>

> D/P wasn't killing anyone in s1/s2. Your point is moot.

 

Yet people still bitched about it and anet still nerfed it.

[omgdracula.6345]

> @Zacchary.6183 said:

>

> I bet you there isn't enough data to suggest Ebola does not function in high-level play. It's one of those builds that few people really know how to use and fewer still actually use it. It's been like that since forever. And no, they were meta DHs and druids at the time doing the exact same things with the exact same things that everyone else was using. I just didn't let them hit me and stuck to them until they died. The druid in particular took a while to kill, but that's because they were burning everything to keep alive.

 

It wouldn't. A lot of builds have built in condi clear and unless you stack on your initial engagement you lose a lot of damage I mean it is just obvious it is feast or famine. You also have 0 access to stealth if you go S/D because let's just admit it CnD is straight garbage and you're not going to waste the initiative on an easily telegraphed skill.

 

As I said before it is a pubstomp build.

 

 

[Zacchary.6183]

> @omgdracula.6345 said:

> > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> >

> > I bet you there isn't enough data to suggest Ebola does not function in high-level play. It's one of those builds that few people really know how to use and fewer still actually use it. It's been like that since forever. And no, they were meta DHs and druids at the time doing the exact same things with the exact same things that everyone else was using. I just didn't let them hit me and stuck to them until they died. The druid in particular took a while to kill, but that's because they were burning everything to keep alive.

>

> It wouldn't. A lot of builds have built in condi clear and unless you stack on your initial engagement you lose a lot of damage I mean it is just obvious it is feast or famine. You also have 0 access to stealth if you go S/D because let's just admit it CnD is straight garbage and you're not going to waste the initiative on an easily telegraphed skill.

>

> As I said before it is a pubstomp build.

>

>

 

I am also talking about d/d, the original Ebola.

[omgdracula.6345]

> @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > @omgdracula.6345 said:

> > > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > >

> > > I bet you there isn't enough data to suggest Ebola does not function in high-level play. It's one of those builds that few people really know how to use and fewer still actually use it. It's been like that since forever. And no, they were meta DHs and druids at the time doing the exact same things with the exact same things that everyone else was using. I just didn't let them hit me and stuck to them until they died. The druid in particular took a while to kill, but that's because they were burning everything to keep alive.

> >

> > It wouldn't. A lot of builds have built in condi clear and unless you stack on your initial engagement you lose a lot of damage I mean it is just obvious it is feast or famine. You also have 0 access to stealth if you go S/D because let's just admit it CnD is straight garbage and you're not going to waste the initiative on an easily telegraphed skill.

> >

> > As I said before it is a pubstomp build.

> >

> >

>

> I am also talking about d/d, the original Ebola.

 

Like how far back D/D? Release D/D was the only time it was decent. Like pre death blossom nerf

[omgdracula.6345]

> @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > @omgdracula.6345 said:

> > > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > >

> > > I bet you there isn't enough data to suggest Ebola does not function in high-level play. It's one of those builds that few people really know how to use and fewer still actually use it. It's been like that since forever. And no, they were meta DHs and druids at the time doing the exact same things with the exact same things that everyone else was using. I just didn't let them hit me and stuck to them until they died. The druid in particular took a while to kill, but that's because they were burning everything to keep alive.

> >

> > It wouldn't. A lot of builds have built in condi clear and unless you stack on your initial engagement you lose a lot of damage I mean it is just obvious it is feast or famine. You also have 0 access to stealth if you go S/D because let's just admit it CnD is straight garbage and you're not going to waste the initiative on an easily telegraphed skill.

> >

> > As I said before it is a pubstomp build.

> >

> >

>

> I am also talking about d/d, the original Ebola.

 

Like how far back D/D? Release D/D was the only time it was decent. Like pre death blossom nerf

[CreedOfGod.9764]

Just change it from -100% endurance regen to -50%. I've been testing it in WvW and it indeed a really fucking awful nerf. Anet wont change it because fuck thieves but -50% regen will atleast still give us **something** to work with when getting condi + immob bombed.

[Zacchary.6183]

> @omgdracula.6345 said:

> > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > > @omgdracula.6345 said:

> > > > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > > >

> > > > I bet you there isn't enough data to suggest Ebola does not function in high-level play. It's one of those builds that few people really know how to use and fewer still actually use it. It's been like that since forever. And no, they were meta DHs and druids at the time doing the exact same things with the exact same things that everyone else was using. I just didn't let them hit me and stuck to them until they died. The druid in particular took a while to kill, but that's because they were burning everything to keep alive.

> > >

> > > It wouldn't. A lot of builds have built in condi clear and unless you stack on your initial engagement you lose a lot of damage I mean it is just obvious it is feast or famine. You also have 0 access to stealth if you go S/D because let's just admit it CnD is straight garbage and you're not going to waste the initiative on an easily telegraphed skill.

> > >

> > > As I said before it is a pubstomp build.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > I am also talking about d/d, the original Ebola.

>

> Like how far back D/D? Release D/D was the only time it was decent. Like pre death blossom nerf

 

I am talking about condition d/d now. The only reason why it was decent pre-nerf was because thief wasn't so underpowered back then (before all the nerfbatting). Anet might have increased the cost of Deathblossom by one ini but it still applies lengthy aoe bleeds which can easily reach 20 seconds, usually totaling 7k per full application. And with the number of sources available to it, it can easily maintain at least 10 bleeds through cleanse or up to 25 without.