Some constructive feedback about Unhindered Combatant change.

[Svarty.8019]

> @"Karl McLain.5604" said:

> The issue, however, is that there is almost no 'counter' play to the functionality...

Since when has Counterplay been ANY part of GW2?! It's all about spiking people down before their computer can even ping the server.

 

 

[Zacchary.6183]

> @omgdracula.6345 said:

> > @Sasajoe.1509 said:

> > I'll tell you, run away, like every other class does (for example engi or mesmer do it when they meet a scourge :D, + thief has a better condi removal than either of those 2)

> > Even druids can't handle all the constant condi spam from a competent scourge, BUT that is ok since necros are VERY immobile while thief has the best mobility in game - I don't see a problem here.

> >

> > And yeah... thief is a pretty cheap & easy class to play esp in wvw roaming, so I am kind of happy with the nerf (no other class is as forgiving as thief when you kitten up)

> >

> > Now they should give thieves more combat durability while lowering their mobility & things will be even better.

>

> Giving thief more combat durability defeats the purpose of the thief archetype. Thieves aren't brawlers. They are highly mobile and hit hard. Which is what D/P does and what unhindered combatant does.

>

> I always find it funny that any game that has a thief class get super pissed when they get blown up quickly yet don't realize that is the whole basis of the archetype.

>

> Making thief less mobile and more durable makes 0 sense.

>

>

 

Screw archetypes! Thieves need more defense to combat the powercreep that has plagued GW2 since HoT.

[Jinks.2057]

Gonna respond to the valid questions @"Karl McLain.5604" ?

[omgdracula.6345]

> @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > @omgdracula.6345 said:

> > > @Sasajoe.1509 said:

> > > I'll tell you, run away, like every other class does (for example engi or mesmer do it when they meet a scourge :D, + thief has a better condi removal than either of those 2)

> > > Even druids can't handle all the constant condi spam from a competent scourge, BUT that is ok since necros are VERY immobile while thief has the best mobility in game - I don't see a problem here.

> > >

> > > And yeah... thief is a pretty cheap & easy class to play esp in wvw roaming, so I am kind of happy with the nerf (no other class is as forgiving as thief when you kitten up)

> > >

> > > Now they should give thieves more combat durability while lowering their mobility & things will be even better.

> >

> > Giving thief more combat durability defeats the purpose of the thief archetype. Thieves aren't brawlers. They are highly mobile and hit hard. Which is what D/P does and what unhindered combatant does.

> >

> > I always find it funny that any game that has a thief class get super pissed when they get blown up quickly yet don't realize that is the whole basis of the archetype.

> >

> > Making thief less mobile and more durable makes 0 sense.

> >

> >

>

> Screw archetypes! Thieves need more defense to combat the powercreep that has plagued GW2 since HoT.

 

No Anet just needs to have a patch to address the powercreep

[SoulSin.5682]

> @Svarty.8019 said:

> > @"Karl McLain.5604" said:

> > The issue, however, is that there is almost no 'counter' play to the functionality...

> Since when has Counterplay been ANY part of GW2?! It's all about spiking people down before their computer can even ping the server.

>

>

 

That made me laugh.

 

 

> @Jinks.2057 said:

> I see Karl ran away from this thread never to return again.

>

> I dunno could be the fact you can't defend providing counter play to UC in light of Scourges, Mirages, and Firebrands running amok now huh?

>

> Feels like S1-S2 again tbh. I'll continue sitting out.

 

I believe the reason most devs don't post around here much is that they can't give official statement over anything.

 

Karl gave us the reasoning that the balance team had when they nerfed UC, thats an official statement and he has no problem answering that one.

I don't believe he has the authority to discuss or even comment on our suggestions. At best he can pick this post as important and bring it up in the next balance team discussion.

All he could say is that they are still looking on it. And in fact, he already did.

 

 

Either way, my suggestions to this drama (choose one):

 

1) *Change the stamina regen from -100% to -50% or 33%*. So at least we can counter the side effects with vigor.

 

2) *A mechanical change*. You could make dash the Daredevil default dodge ability (works even when untraited) and leave UC to be a remove conditions on cooldown kind of trait.

Basically, you can have dash without condi removal by not picking a grandmaster, or have condi removal by picking UC with side effects.

DeadEye was released after all, it's not like anyone needs a DD with normal dodge.

 

3) *Reduce from 4 to 2 seconds*. Frankly I don't like that one.

 

4) *Makes UC work the old way, but remove the immobilize cc cleaner*. This sucks for the thief, but this will grant the choice for the thief of carrying up a extra CC Break utility or he can use Staff 3# (widely useless skill due to UC outshadowing it).

That said, the deadliest CC against thief has always been immob, removing the immob cleaner is a nerf big enough for this trait.

 

 

And yes, like other people mentioning, I don't like the nerf to this skill. Before nerf our fleeing skill, the balance team should ask themselves why the thief was running in the first place. *We*. *can't*. *duel*. *anything*.

[Swagg.9236]

> @"Fiddle Irk.9710" said:

> We don't have automatic invulnerability, stability, blocks.

 

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Bandit%27s_Defense

 

> @"Fiddle Irk.9710" said:

> or even crazy active healing

 

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Channeled_Vigor without full endurance heals for more than Necromancer (most baseline vitality in the game) healing skills and it's on half the cooldown. On top of that, it restores endurance and has a 0.75s cast-time. Pretty crazy.

 

> @"Fiddle Irk.9710" said:

> Dodging big hit's and stuns is using it wisely. Not being able to use your dodge because you have a movement impairing condition is NOT skilled game play, not a matter of using your dodges recklessly.

 

Pressing 3 (and sometimes 2) doesn't require any wisdom or skillful discretion.

 

 

[Fade.5904]

My problem with HoT spec changes and especially a huge change like this is Karl, HOW DID YOU GET IT WRONG FOR SO LONG?

Seriously, 2 years and then suddenly, even after all the endurance nerfs from a few months ago you decide UC is still too slippery?

With all respect, if i were in charge of Anet id be asking about why it took 2 years to implement these changes to all the 'OP' HOT specs that have apparently been allowed to run amok for so long.

Until now I really haven't bought into the whole 'previous specs are nerfed so everyone plays PoF specs' mindset but i'm starting to believe it.

Are there some metrics that point to how many people are playing the new specs so that its deemed they were a success?

Surely in a rock/paper/scissors game diversity is a good thing? The more viable choices the better no?

 

[Jinks.2057]

> @SoulSin.5682 said:

> > @Svarty.8019 said:

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

> > > The issue, however, is that there is almost no 'counter' play to the functionality...

> > Since when has Counterplay been ANY part of GW2?! It's all about spiking people down before their computer can even ping the server.

> >

> >

>

> That made me laugh.

>

>

> > @Jinks.2057 said:

> > I see Karl ran away from this thread never to return again.

> >

> > I dunno could be the fact you can't defend providing counter play to UC in light of Scourges, Mirages, and Firebrands running amok now huh?

> >

> > Feels like S1-S2 again tbh. I'll continue sitting out.

>

> I believe the reason most devs don't post around here much is that they can't give official statement over anything.

>

> Karl gave us the reasoning that the balance team had when they nerfed UC, thats an official statement and he has no problem answering that one.

> I don't believe he has the authority to discuss or even comment on our suggestions. At best he can pick this post as important and bring it up in the next balance team discussion.

> All he could say is that they are still looking on it. And in fact, he already did.

>

>

> Either way, my suggestions to this drama (choose one):

>

> 1) *Change the stamina regen from -100% to -50% or 33%*. So at least we can counter the side effects with vigor.

>

> 2) *A mechanical change*. You could make dash the Daredevil default dodge ability (works even when untraited) and leave UC to be a remove conditions on cooldown kind of trait.

> Basically, you can have dash without condi removal by not picking a grandmaster, or have condi removal by picking UC with side effects.

> DeadEye was released after all, it's not like anyone needs a DD with normal dodge.

>

> 3) *Reduce from 4 to 2 seconds*. Frankly I don't like that one.

>

> 4) *Makes UC work the old way, but remove the immobilize cc cleaner*. This sucks for the thief, but this will grant the choice for the thief of carrying up a extra CC Break utility or he can use Staff 3# (widely useless skill due to UC outshadowing it).

> That said, the deadliest CC against thief has always been immob, removing the immob cleaner is a nerf big enough for this trait.

>

>

> And yes, like other people mentioning, I don't like the nerf to this skill. Before nerf our fleeing skill, the balance team should ask themselves why the thief was running in the first place. *We*. *can't*. *duel*. *anything*.

 

I believe Karl heads the balance team. He is the exact person to discuss this. We are asking legit questions albeit tough questions but they should be answered.

 

What happened is he came in thinking hed shut this all down only to have the community call him out for the BS reasoning.

 

Dude just come out and say it. You wantt us playing DE