Deaths Judgment

[Solori.6025]

> @Turk.5460 said:

> I don't think I ever called the skill a bug, though I agree that stacking malice off of a gate or wall _is_ a bug. So what I'm saying is that you don't understand what's going on in this thread enough to pay attention to who is saying what. So then you're trying to suggest that someone random says something just so you can attempt to make a point that has already been debated back and forth for pages, oh god.

>

> Sit down.

 

You just like Chaba miss the point on what intended and unintended mean in reference to a skill, which she has done multiple times.

Creating doubt that a skill is overtuned.

Perfectly logical and just like I mentioned earlier, I would agree.

trying to create doubt by saying an interaction of a skill is unintended based on no factual evidence or proof is something chaba has done repeatedly, bringing up skills that were changed with a documented developer note or pointing to a post that presented an example of a bugged skill to justify the argument of "unintended " is the issue and what we were discussing.

If you arent going to read what people post or follow the conversation, dont post.

Really simple.

 

glitch

1 a : a usually minor malfunction ; also: bug

2 b : a minor problem that causes a temporary setback : snag

 

bug

2 : an unexpected defect, fault, flaw, or imperfection

 

Gazelle hitting multiple times on a downed foe..

was a bug.

Full Counter gaining the bonus damage twice

Was a bug.

It's documented as such

 

 

How is this concept hard to grasp?

Please also try and understand the difference between an adjustment and a bug fix.

and Adjustment is what happened to skills like

 

Staff Strike.png Staff Strike: The damage of this skill has been reduced by 5%.

Staff Bash.png

Staff Bash: The damage of this skill has been reduced by 5%.

Punishing Strikes.png

Punishing Strikes: The damage of this skill has been reduced by 5%

 

We do not assume that changes like this happen because the skill was bugged, rather that it over performed

 

While changes like

 

Warrior:

Full Counter: Fixed a bug in which this ability gained the damage bonus from Revenge Counter twice. The base damage of this ability has been reduced by 12.5% in PvP and WvW only.

 

We know that it was FIXED because it was BUGGED and then adjusted which is what the latter part of the note is.

It's documented

We know that

Rock Gazelle: Fixed a bug in which this pet hit downed enemies multiple times with its Charge attack.

is a bug fix, the skill is was not working as intended

 

This is what intended and unintended mean, in reference to a skill, in a video game.

 

 

Again ,because you dont seem to understand, If the skill hit for 100 or 1million but followed the exact parameters as it was described, gained and calculated it's bonuses exactly as it was described, then it can not be factually considered unintended, bugged, or glitched.

 

What your friend and you seem to not grasp, is that no form in this game, no recent notes, in game occurences, developer notes, or any other item has been presented by either you or chaba ( or anyone for that matter) would provide the conclusion that a Deaths Judgement is

Working with an unexpected defect, fault, flaw, or imperfection .

Uninteded from the way the skill is described and executed.

Their is literally 0 evidence that the skill behaves differently or wrong.

 

Their is TONS of evidence that the skill is WAY overtuned.

 

At no point is it factually correct to assume the will of a developer when you do not work for or with them or have knowledge of how the system conceptualized.

 

Is this making sense?

 

[Sobx.1758]

> @Turk.5460 said:

> I don't think I ever called the skill a bug, though I agree that stacking malice off of a gate or wall _is_ a bug. So what I'm saying is that you don't understand what's going on in this thread enough to pay attention to who is saying what. So then you're trying to suggest that someone random says something just so you can attempt to make a point that has already been debated back and forth for pages, oh god.

>

> Sit down.

 

You might want to reread the post, beause you understood completely nothing. Again.

I never said you used word "bugged", but early in the post I -as I thought- clearly compared "skill working not intended" to "skill being bugged", hence why I'm using one of the two farther down in the post. Now, after not really understanding what you've read, you decided to stick to the "I never said it's bugged" and end your post "sit down" like you somehow... well, "schooled" me there? Seriously, try understanding what you read.

(also AGAIN while talking about "skill not working as intended", Chaba was refering to "malice stacks boosting DJ's dmg on non-market targets", so stop making up random crap now as an excuse <3 )

And before you say "you never said it's not working as intended" (but you did), what I was "hitting at" was this:

 

> However, it seems that you think over-tuned =/= unintended. So all over-performing abilities that were nerfed in the past were _intended_ to over-perform and be over-tuned? If that was the case, why were they nerfed? Were they indented to be overpowered, then later nerfed? Because that is exactly the logic you are using here...

 

Which is a pile of bullkitten and I already explained why.

 

But hey, you've tried.

[Arlette.9684]

So far everything in all the threads about Death's Judgement (I actually had to go read what the skill does as I haven't started working on my Deadeye, yet) looks like a classic tooltip ambiguity by ANet that could be solved with a simple statement from one of the devs with either "Working as intended."/"Not working as intended, we're working on a fix."

Why doesn't someone make an official query to their PR team for comment and see what they think?

[Solori.6025]

> @Arlette.9684 said:

> So far everything in all the threads about Death's Judgement (I actually had to go read what the skill does as I haven't started working on my Deadeye, yet) looks like a classic tooltip ambiguity by ANet that could be solved with a simple statement from one of the devs with either "Working as intended."/"Not working as intended, we're working on a fix."

> Why doesn't someone make an official query to their PR team for comment and see what they think?

 

..What is ambigous or unclear with the language of the tooltip?

Why do you think so?

[Chaba.5410]

> @Sobx.1758 said:

> you kept saying that "malice boosting DJ's dmg on non-marked targets is a bug", suddenly you change sides and decide to say what you really meant is that the skill is overtuned and that's why it doesn't work as intended.

> How about growing a pair and admitting you were wrong once in a while? Instead you twist and turn your own words in hopes of keeping up your """argument""". Pathetic.

 

When you put in quotes something I never said, that's on you, not me. There is no "changing sides" when utilizing the logic of another to expose a flaw in their reasoning. My argument still is essentially the same theme: DJ needs adjusting. The reasons why are x, y, and now z. The only thing to admit here is that my argument has evolved as better understanding was acquired while you're still mired in some line of thought that's leading you to fling personal insults. That's how argumentation proceeds, it evolves and gets refined. When you are unable to refine your argument and keep repeating the same thing over again, you've reached the end of it.

 

> > @Chaba.5410 said:

> > > @babazhook.6805 said:

> > > If the INTENT that DJ remain the big hitter, lowering DJ damage would mean lowering the damage of all of those other skills as well. End result, no reason to use the Rifle.

> >

> > This is why there's the suggestion that the damage bonus should apply when the target is truly marked rather than lower the dmg numbers for DJ. It would be in line with the high risk/high reward style Anet said they were going for.

>

> And automatically malice system becomes worthless in any bigger scale pvp (and with that -the whole rifle dmg). To addition of being a strictly single-target weapon.

 

Malice is already worthless when the 3% bonus damage from the malice stacks doesn't need to apply in order to get 20-30K hits. I wrote that previously. What you called "changing sides" is the presentation of two different solutions. Either tone down the numbers or only apply the bonus damage to marked targets so that the high single shots are balanced by more of a tell.

 

 

[DemonSeed.3528]

> @Chaba.5410 said:

> damage to marked targets so that the high single shots are balanced by more of a tell.

>

Could we have a sound like a dying llama like the one from UO (instead of the unicorn one) and also firecracker explosions that beam out around the laser (maybe make the laser big like the holosmith elite) - those would be quite nice so that no one miss the tells. Seriously, would be awesome imo.

 

[Chaba.5410]

> @Solori.6025 said:

> > @Turk.5460 said:

> > I don't think I ever called the skill a bug, though I agree that stacking malice off of a gate or wall _is_ a bug. So what I'm saying is that you don't understand what's going on in this thread enough to pay attention to who is saying what. So then you're trying to suggest that someone random says something just so you can attempt to make a point that has already been debated back and forth for pages, oh god.

> >

> > Sit down.

>

> You just like Chaba miss the point on what intended and unintended mean in reference to a skill, which she has done multiple times.

> Creating doubt that a skill is overtuned.

> Perfectly logical and just like I mentioned earlier, I would agree.

> trying to create doubt by saying an interaction of a skill is unintended based on no factual evidence or proof is something chaba has done repeatedly, bringing up skills that were changed with a documented developer note or pointing to a post that presented an example of a bugged skill to justify the argument of "unintended " is the issue and what we were discussing.

> If you arent going to read what people post or follow the conversation, dont post.

> Really simple.

>

> glitch

> 1 a : a usually minor malfunction ; also: bug

> 2 b : a minor problem that causes a temporary setback : snag

>

> bug

> 2 : an unexpected defect, fault, flaw, or imperfection

>

> Gazelle hitting multiple times on a downed foe..

> was a bug.

> Full Counter gaining the bonus damage twice

> Was a bug.

> It's documented as such

>

>

> How is this concept hard to grasp?

> Please also try and understand the difference between an adjustment and a bug fix.

> and Adjustment is what happened to skills like

>

> Staff Strike.png Staff Strike: The damage of this skill has been reduced by 5%.

> Staff Bash.png

> Staff Bash: The damage of this skill has been reduced by 5%.

> Punishing Strikes.png

> Punishing Strikes: The damage of this skill has been reduced by 5%

>

> We do not assume that changes like this happen because the skill was bugged, rather that it over performed

>

> While changes like

>

> Warrior:

> Full Counter: Fixed a bug in which this ability gained the damage bonus from Revenge Counter twice. The base damage of this ability has been reduced by 12.5% in PvP and WvW only.

>

> We know that it was FIXED because it was BUGGED and then adjusted which is what the latter part of the note is.

> It's documented

> We know that

> Rock Gazelle: Fixed a bug in which this pet hit downed enemies multiple times with its Charge attack.

> is a bug fix, the skill is was not working as intended

>

> This is what intended and unintended mean, in reference to a skill, in a video game.

>

>

> Again ,because you dont seem to understand, If the skill hit for 100 or 1million but followed the exact parameters as it was described, gained and calculated it's bonuses exactly as it was described, then it can not be factually considered unintended, bugged, or glitched.

>

> What your friend and you seem to not grasp, is that no form in this game, no recent notes, in game occurences, developer notes, or any other item has been presented by either you or chaba ( or anyone for that matter) would provide the conclusion that a Deaths Judgement is

> Working with an unexpected defect, fault, flaw, or imperfection .

> Uninteded from the way the skill is described and executed.

> Their is literally 0 evidence that the skill behaves differently or wrong.

>

> Their is TONS of evidence that the skill is WAY overtuned.

>

> At no point is it factually correct to assume the will of a developer when you do not work for or with them or have knowledge of how the system conceptualized.

>

> Is this making sense?

>

 

So you're here to just argue semantics then without seeing the big picture? Some would argue with you that adjustments are in fact a bug since the effect it has on balance is unexpected, thus prompting the need for the adjustment. That's a wasteful, side-tracking argument to have though, don't you think?

[Turk.5460]

> @Solori.6025 said:

> > @Turk.5460 said:

> > I don't think I ever called the skill a bug, though I agree that stacking malice off of a gate or wall _is_ a bug. So what I'm saying is that you don't understand what's going on in this thread enough to pay attention to who is saying what. So then you're trying to suggest that someone random says something just so you can attempt to make a point that has already been debated back and forth for pages, oh god.

> >

> > Sit down.

>

> You just like Chaba miss the point on what intended and unintended mean in reference to a skill, which she has done multiple times.

> Creating doubt that a skill is overtuned.

> Perfectly logical and just like I mentioned earlier, I would agree.

> trying to create doubt by saying an interaction of a skill is unintended based on no factual evidence or proof is something chaba has done repeatedly, bringing up skills that were changed with a documented developer note or pointing to a post that presented an example of a bugged skill to justify the argument of "unintended " is the issue and what we were discussing.

> If you arent going to read what people post or follow the conversation, dont post.

> Really simple.

>

> glitch

> 1 a : a usually minor malfunction ; also: bug

> 2 b : a minor problem that causes a temporary setback : snag

>

> bug

> 2 : an unexpected defect, fault, flaw, or imperfection

>

> Gazelle hitting multiple times on a downed foe..

> was a bug.

> Full Counter gaining the bonus damage twice

> Was a bug.

> It's documented as such

>

>

> How is this concept hard to grasp?

> Please also try and understand the difference between an adjustment and a bug fix.

> and Adjustment is what happened to skills like

>

> Staff Strike.png Staff Strike: The damage of this skill has been reduced by 5%.

> Staff Bash.png

> Staff Bash: The damage of this skill has been reduced by 5%.

> Punishing Strikes.png

> Punishing Strikes: The damage of this skill has been reduced by 5%

>

> We do not assume that changes like this happen because the skill was bugged, rather that it over performed

>

> While changes like

>

> Warrior:

> Full Counter: Fixed a bug in which this ability gained the damage bonus from Revenge Counter twice. The base damage of this ability has been reduced by 12.5% in PvP and WvW only.

>

> We know that it was FIXED because it was BUGGED and then adjusted which is what the latter part of the note is.

> It's documented

> We know that

> Rock Gazelle: Fixed a bug in which this pet hit downed enemies multiple times with its Charge attack.

> is a bug fix, the skill is was not working as intended

>

> This is what intended and unintended mean, in reference to a skill, in a video game.

>

>

> Again ,because you dont seem to understand, If the skill hit for 100 or 1million but followed the exact parameters as it was described, gained and calculated it's bonuses exactly as it was described, then it can not be factually considered unintended, bugged, or glitched.

>

> What your friend and you seem to not grasp, is that no form in this game, no recent notes, in game occurences, developer notes, or any other item has been presented by either you or chaba ( or anyone for that matter) would provide the conclusion that a Deaths Judgement is

> Working with an unexpected defect, fault, flaw, or imperfection .

> Uninteded from the way the skill is described and executed.

> Their is literally 0 evidence that the skill behaves differently or wrong.

>

> Their is TONS of evidence that the skill is WAY overtuned.

>

> At no point is it factually correct to assume the will of a developer when you do not work for or with them or have knowledge of how the system conceptualized.

>

> Is this making sense?

>

 

Congratulations, you completely missed the point, and decided to continue attack the word "bug" which I had not even mentioned until recently. Your opinion no longer means anything in this thread, you are regurgitating the same argument over and over, writing so many words, but actually saying nothing. Please stop posting here.

[Turk.5460]

> @Sobx.1758 said:

> > @Turk.5460 said:

> > I don't think I ever called the skill a bug, though I agree that stacking malice off of a gate or wall _is_ a bug. So what I'm saying is that you don't understand what's going on in this thread enough to pay attention to who is saying what. So then you're trying to suggest that someone random says something just so you can attempt to make a point that has already been debated back and forth for pages, oh god.

> >

> > Sit down.

>

> You might want to reread the post, beause you understood completely nothing. Again.

> I never said you used word "bugged", but early in the post I -as I thought- clearly compared "skill working not intended" to "skill being bugged", hence why I'm using one of the two farther down in the post. Now, after not really understanding what you've read, you decided to stick to the "I never said it's bugged" and end your post "sit down" like you somehow... well, "schooled" me there? Seriously, try understanding what you read.

> (also AGAIN while talking about "skill not working as intended", Chaba was refering to "malice stacks boosting DJ's dmg on non-market targets", so stop making up random crap now as an excuse <3 )

> And before you say "you never said it's not working as intended" (but you did), what I was "hitting at" was this:

>

> > However, it seems that you think over-tuned =/= unintended. So all over-performing abilities that were nerfed in the past were _intended_ to over-perform and be over-tuned? If that was the case, why were they nerfed? Were they indented to be overpowered, then later nerfed? Because that is exactly the logic you are using here...

>

> Which is a pile of bullkitten and I already explained why.

>

> But hey, you've tried.

 

So we are in agreement that you think over-tuned abilities are intended? And that previously nerfed skills were intended to be over-performing? Because you most certainly did not explain why if you think otherwise. You've brought nothing new to the table here since your very first post,

and claim that you've already explained things that you clearly have not, regardless if you _think_ you did, which judging by replies other than yourself and your #1 fan Sobx, you have not. Then when someone questions your logic (which you seem to think is flawless, for some reason), you reply with zero context of their post. Its as though you've re-written their reply to what you think you can argue against, and then reply to that. This is why you can't be taken seriously in this thread.

 

So...yea...take a seat, think about what you've done

[Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582]

> @Sobx.1758 said:

> > @"Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582" said:

> > > @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

> > > > @"Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582" said:

> > > > > @Sobx.1758 said:

> > > > > I'm not "implying it", it's a fact.

> > > >

> > > > Yes well Gazelle Charge was working exactly as the tooltip stated too.

> > >

> > > Really it showed multi hit? Since every skill that hits multiple times shows multi hit....

> > > @Sobx.1758 said:

> > > > @"Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582" said:

> > > > > @Sobx.1758 said:

> > > > > I'm not "implying it", it's a fact.

> > > >

> > > > Yes well Gazelle Charge was working exactly as the tooltip stated too.

> > >

> > > No, it didn't, but if you feel you need to lie to try and "make your point" then it's up to you.

> > > Also you guys keep confusing situations when something isn't specified in the tooltip with situations where something is clearly explained in the tooltip and then sooomehow you're trying to use it as a valid argument in this case. <.<

> >

> > It only multi-hit downed targets which was a bug, obviously. The damage and the skill charge were working exactly as the tooltip stated which could result in a 1-shot if you stacked enough modifiers.

> >

> > I'm merely pointing out that 1-shot mechanics are not to ANets liking and that DJ will most certainly be nerfed, I'd say that they'll make the malice bonus damage only apply to the marked target.

>

> No, you weren't pointing that out, you were trying to say that it proves that DJ has a mistake in a tooltip or it does more than the tooltip says (but it doesn't) like the Gazelle did. Suddenly when called out on your bullkitten, you're claiming it's about something entirely different.

>

> So, again, just stop lying when you're trying to make an argument.

I'm pretty sure I was pointing that out, I mean I was there when I wrote it so I'm fairly certain I know what I intended. A point was made that the tooltip is accurate compared to how the skill works and this means it is intended (DJ). As for Charge, if you discount the multi-hit on downed targerts bug which IS a separate issue completely, Charge was working exactly as the tooltip stated and if you stacked enough modifiers you could 1-shot someone with it. I don't see how there is any difference here, both skills capable of a 1-shot. Charge had it's damage *halved* although they'd already fixed the multi-hit bug, so don't be surprised when they change the way malice works with DJ.

[Swamurabi.7890]

You all need to just realize that NOTHING is going to be done to DJ because:

 

1. The only complaints about the skill are from WvW forums, which nothing is ever balanced for (except Epidemic).

2. sPvP isn't concerned about DJ because the tells are not a problem for skilled players, but the LOS is.

3. PvE doesn't care because Deadeye isn't preferred in raids.

 

With no reason from sPvP or PvE to change the skill it will remain as is.

 

The sad part of this thread is that it's one of the most popular threads in WvW and there's no input from Anet, which should tell you everything you need to know.

[KrHome.1920]

> @Inoki.6048 said:

> Mostly those who complain haven't got a clue about the class because they haven't played it but judge based on being hit or other circumstances, while in reality just uneven terrain in WvW is a crucial factor that entirely affects the mechanic and can grant immunity to DJ in many cases. In the beginning it happened to me many times I missed the shot because of uneven terrain when someone was running away and they went down just a small slope for the shot to be a miss.

Uneven terrain is no valid argument for creating overpowered skills. If it would be, I would ask for a 1500 ranged Grasping Darkness (with the same casting time it has now which effectively doubles the travel speed of the pull) or a 10 seconds cooldown on Spectral Grasp.

 

Besides that I don't think that Death's Judgement is overpowered. A Deadeye that can oneshot people with this skill can be oneshot too. Anyway a mechanical change that the bonus damage applies only to marked targets seems okay as it helps people to become aware of the presence of the Deadeye and the incoming DJ. I'd prefer that over a damage nerf.

[babazhook.6805]

> @Swamurabi.7890 said:

> You all need to just realize that NOTHING is going to be done to DJ because:

>

> 1. The only complaints about the skill are from WvW forums, which nothing is ever balanced for (except Epidemic).

> 2. sPvP isn't concerned about DJ because the tells are not a problem for skilled players, but the LOS is.

> 3. PvE doesn't care because Deadeye isn't preferred in raids.

>

> With no reason from sPvP or PvE to change the skill it will remain as is.

>

> The sad part of this thread is that it's one of the most popular threads in WvW and there's no input from Anet, which should tell you everything you need to know.

 

Counting the number of posts is not a measure of popularity if a given thred just the same small number of people engaged in a back and forth that is never ending. Popularity should be measured by the number of unique name posters only. Now there certainly a lot of views on this topic but I do not think that view count measures the number of different accounts that have followed the thread.

[Chaba.5410]

> @Solori.6025 said:

> > @Chaba.5410 said:

> > > @Solori.6025 said:

> > > > @Chaba.5410 said:

> > > > > @Solori.6025 said:

> > > > >

> > > > > > @Turk.5460 said:

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Congratulations, you completely missed the point, and decided to continue attack the word "bug" which I had not even mentioned until recently. Your opinion no longer means anything in this thread, you are regurgitating the same argument over and over, writing so many words, but actually saying nothing. Please stop posting here.

> > > > >

> > > > > When you decide to actually present a point, I would be happy to go over it and either agree or disagree and provide evidence that is relevant to what you are pointing out.

> > > > > You havent, neither of you have

> > > > > You haven't displayed the basic concept of comprehension when it comes to distinguishing two types of basic interactions.

> > > > >

> > > > > Leave

> > > > > Go learn how to at least use google,

> > > > > Sit down, do something that will bump up that furry IQ

> > > > >

> > > > > You and your guild mate have displayed nothing but ignorance when it comes to something as simple as intended and unintended, you both have been trying to dispute a Fact and replace it with an opinion.

> > > > > You have both presented a poor basic understanding of the common language used when describing the interaction between tooltip and actual skill Or skill and it's interaction with the environment.

> > > > > Add to that the backpeddling and making arguments which to any sane person makes little to no sense.

> > > > > Did you say anything you typed out loud?

> > > > > Think about things before you blurt them out, it's something they teach you in grade school

> > > > >

> > > > > You have provided no evidence to back up said claims and instead go to personal attacks

> > > > > I even GAVE you the basic definition

> > > > > You could literally google " not working as intended" and you will get a synonymous search with bugs and glitches

> > > > > But I guess basic research is also to hard for you

> > > > > Awesome

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > You should probably sit in a corner, at least the rest of us wont have to look at you.

> > > >

> > > > This coming from a guy who ignores both historic in-practice Anet actions and subtextual reading of a tooltip, which was never meant to be a product calibration report: i.e., the tooltip is not the actual code. Your opinion that the tooltip is infallable and reflective of how a skill actually works is not a fact, it's just a localization string entered into a variable or array. Common sense says DJ is broken in some way since players are getting one-shot by it given that Anet has a history of nerfing one-shot skills; doesn't matter what definitions you use. Common sense also says Deadeye's Mark is bugged if a gate can be marked and used to build up malice stacks. What are you really trying to defend here?

> > >

> > > ....

> > >

> > > omg

> > > GG.

> > > I am being pirate shipped to death.

> > >

> > >

> > > So are we agreeing that Deaths Judgement is overtuned and not bugged, because that's what I have been trying to explain to you all day.

> > > Deaths judgement is too strong.

> > > and I have provided multiple screenshots to prove that.

> > >

> >

> > What are you really trying to defend here?

> >

> > The extremely high damage numbers are occurring when players are running a certain build, with certain gear, with the malice stacks built upon something other than the actual target which removes the long and clear tell of Deadeye's Mark. If they're not, the numbers from DJ are actually much lower and can't one-shot you. Anet can adjust the damage numbers downward, but end up removing the hard hitting feel of the skill for the lower risk players. Is that what you are advocating for?

> >

> > Adjusting numbers is not the only way to balance a skill. They can also be balanced by opportunity costs, cooldowns, cast times, animation changes, etc. If I start talking about how it would be better to require the target to be marked for the bonus damage in order to preserve the hard hit feel without over-nerfing DJ for other builds, I'm afraid you're just going to get bogged down in a semantics argument again. If a player can land a DJ running the glassy high risk gear/build against a target that is also marked with the long and clear tell, perhaps they deserve those numbers since most people should have more than enough reaction time with that tell. Players not running as high risk a build can still hit hard without being punished for the existence of the one-trick pony higher risk build.

>

>

> What was unclear, about how I was describing the language YOU used being incorrect, how can I help you understand that?

> Their is no defense of anything, and I cannot make or force you to understand something as basic as what you call something.

>

>

> > @Chaba.5410 said:

>

> > There is also still no clear answer to the question of whether DJ was intended to be affected by the malice stacks against targets that were not marked.

> >>Solori.6025Solori.6025

>

> >>It's literally the description of the skill, it clearly, clearly states " based on YOUR number of malice stacks"

> >>the bonus damage from the marked target does not apply, only the bonus from having malice to begin with.

>

>

>

> This is what I have been trying to get you to understand.

>

> The language you used was not correct.

> Same as here

> from this post

>

> > @Chaba.5410 said:

> > > @Sobx.1758 said:

> > > It literally tells you what DJ does and how its dmg scales. That's it. And you're here to claim that it's a bug because... it works like the tooltip says it does.

> >

> > I said it is an unanswered question whether the bonus damage was meant to be applied to unmarked targets since malice is involved. If that is intended, then the skill is overtuned.

> >

> >

>

> If something is adjusted, it is wrong to say that previously it was unintended, when it worked exactly as it said.

> This is what I have been trying to get you to understand.

>

> The language used is not correct.

>

> I could honestly care less if the skill ended up doing 1000 damage, but I wasn't talking and havent been talking about the damage.

> Just your use of the language to describe the skill, when the skill is working exactly as described.

>

> Another example.

>

> Rapid fire. When that skill was buffed it wasnt working unintended before hand.

> It was too weak, and unused.

> When mantra's were changed to the ammo system, they weren't bugged or unintended.

> They were changed to follow a new direction.

>

> We would call those changes, changes.

> Not bug fixes and not the previous interactions and implementations unintended.

>

>

> Multiple times chaba I have agreed with you when you mention the skill is overtuned, in fact I have even said that the bonus damage should probably be nerfed.

> Multiple times.

>

> You just need to simply use the correct language.

>

> I don't think anyone can defend a skill that does

>

> https://imgur.com/4seEGA3

>

> ^this from the nerf block.

> (I did that and I was kinda proud I got that number :D)

>

> But I wont say it's unintended when referencing it's execution.

> Especially when it does what it describes.

>

> It's too strong, and way overtuned.

> Can you quote what I have said that would make you think I was defending this skills damage?

 

And this is why I said you're not focusing on the bigger picture. You'd rather spend time arguing about your dislike of someone's language usage, defending your own narrow definitions and scope. Skills don't get changed in a vacuum. Changes do not occur simply for the sake of change. Do you think an available skill was ever intended to not be used? Do you not understand why "a new direction" would ever be implemented or skills/traits outright removed?

[Solori.6025]

> @Swamurabi.7890 said:

> You all need to just realize that NOTHING is going to be done to DJ because:

>

> 1. The only complaints about the skill are from WvW forums, which nothing is ever balanced for (except Epidemic).

> 2. sPvP isn't concerned about DJ because the tells are not a problem for skilled players, but the LOS is.

> 3. PvE doesn't care because Deadeye isn't preferred in raids.

>

> With no reason from sPvP or PvE to change the skill it will remain as is.

>

> The sad part of this thread is that it's one of the most popular threads in WvW and there's no input from Anet, which should tell you everything you need to know.

 

...That would be very disheartening if they did ignore the issues with the skill and specialization just because it's a WwW issue, being able to hit a player for 37000 needs to be immediately addressed, but you are right.

History has proven that.

 

 

 

Edit: the image I linked doesn't zoom on a mobile device, and I'm not sure if it does that on a desktop as well, if anyone is having trouble seeing the combat log please say so, and I will re-upload the picture with just the combat log.

[Sobx.1758]

> @Turk.5460 said:

> > @Sobx.1758 said:

> > > @Turk.5460 said:

> > > I don't think I ever called the skill a bug, though I agree that stacking malice off of a gate or wall _is_ a bug. So what I'm saying is that you don't understand what's going on in this thread enough to pay attention to who is saying what. So then you're trying to suggest that someone random says something just so you can attempt to make a point that has already been debated back and forth for pages, oh god.

> > >

> > > Sit down.

> >

> > You might want to reread the post, beause you understood completely nothing. Again.

> > I never said you used word "bugged", but early in the post I -as I thought- clearly compared "skill working not intended" to "skill being bugged", hence why I'm using one of the two farther down in the post. Now, after not really understanding what you've read, you decided to stick to the "I never said it's bugged" and end your post "sit down" like you somehow... well, "schooled" me there? Seriously, try understanding what you read.

> > (also AGAIN while talking about "skill not working as intended", Chaba was refering to "malice stacks boosting DJ's dmg on non-market targets", so stop making up random crap now as an excuse <3 )

> > And before you say "you never said it's not working as intended" (but you did), what I was "hitting at" was this:

> >

> > > However, it seems that you think over-tuned =/= unintended. So all over-performing abilities that were nerfed in the past were _intended_ to over-perform and be over-tuned? If that was the case, why were they nerfed? Were they indented to be overpowered, then later nerfed? Because that is exactly the logic you are using here...

> >

> > Which is a pile of bullkitten and I already explained why.

> >

> > But hey, you've tried.

>

> So we are in agreement that you think over-tuned abilities are intended? And that previously nerfed skills were intended to be over-performing? Because you most certainly did not explain why if you think otherwise. You've brought nothing new to the table here since your very first post,

> and claim that you've already explained things that you clearly have not, regardless if you _think_ you did, which judging by replies other than yourself and your #1 fan Sobx, you have not. Then when someone questions your logic (which you seem to think is flawless, for some reason), you reply with zero context of their post. Its as though you've re-written their reply to what you think you can argue against, and then reply to that. This is why you can't be taken seriously in this thread.

>

> So...yea...take a seat, think about what you've done

 

 

"Myself and my number one fan Sobx"? What?

 

 

 

"I reply with zero context", while literally seperating posts into smaller quotes so you know what exactly I am answering to? If anything, it's you who've tried to say I "don't know who I'm answering to", while at the same time disregarding completely what Chaba said before.

 

Bad trolling attempt, buddy.

[coro.3176]

> @Inoki.6048 said:

> In every case, why I bring up RL stuff is because the class is based on something from RL and this is role play. I simply try to play it like a sniper, with limitations, but I enjoy it either way and I'm sure I'm not alone.

>

 

Definitely. My engineer should be able to build a tank and crush the skulls of my sniper enemies!

Did you know some tanks can drive at 45 miles per hour? That's waaay faster than a human (or norn or charr for that matter) can run! No one will escape! If they try, I'll just blast them with some high explosive tank warheads! BOOM. Dead. Realism.

 

[Zacchary.6183]

> @coro.3176 said:

> > @Inoki.6048 said:

> > In every case, why I bring up RL stuff is because the class is based on something from RL and this is role play. I simply try to play it like a sniper, with limitations, but I enjoy it either way and I'm sure I'm not alone.

> >

>

> Definitely. My engineer should be able to build a tank and crush the skulls of my sniper enemies!

> Did you know some tanks can drive at 45 miles per hour? That's waaay faster than a human (or norn or charr for that matter) can run! No one will escape! If they try, I'll just blast them with some high explosive tank warheads! BOOM. Dead. Realism.

>

 

Takes forever to build a tank without the proper equipment.

[Turk.5460]

> @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > @coro.3176 said:

> > > @Inoki.6048 said:

> > > In every case, why I bring up RL stuff is because the class is based on something from RL and this is role play. I simply try to play it like a sniper, with limitations, but I enjoy it either way and I'm sure I'm not alone.

> > >

> >

> > Definitely. My engineer should be able to build a tank and crush the skulls of my sniper enemies!

> > Did you know some tanks can drive at 45 miles per hour? That's waaay faster than a human (or norn or charr for that matter) can run! No one will escape! If they try, I'll just blast them with some high explosive tank warheads! BOOM. Dead. Realism.

> >

>

> Takes forever to build a tank without the proper equipment.

 

Not for OJ Simpson

[Maugetarr.6823]

I don't think they're going to be able to fix this issue by simply nerfing the damage. It basically functions as 1.65×(1+.15×malice stacks), so untraited, it's 1.65×1.75=2.89, and traited 1.65×2.05=3.38. Alone, those 2 multipliers aren't out of line with other skills in the game, but with the way damage modifiers interact in this game, it can get boosted pretty high.

 

They might be able to split up how the damage multipliers are added to the shot into part malice and part specific marked target. Lower the base multiplier to 1.5, have it deal + 10% damage for each stack of malice and an additional +50% to your marked target. So now the multiplier would be 2.25 (5 malice stacks) and 2.55 (7 malice stacks) if you hit an unmarked target (Backstab is 2.4 for reference). If you hit your marked target, it would be 3.0 and 3.3, so a minor boost for untraited and a minor shave for traited. This might help bridge the divide on this issue because you couldn't be one shot anymore without being the marked target (unless Backstab was already one-shotting you), and if you were the marked target you would be aware of the thief and have it take time to build up against you.

 

Adding to that, they could change up the marking and malice system to be a little bit more like adrenaline. Something like gaining 1 tick of malice each time you hit a target in combat with an ICD of 2 seconds. You don't lose malice when your target dies, only when you get OOC, and then it degenerates at 1 tick a second. You deal 2% more damage per stack of malice, and 7% more damage to your marked target.

[DemonSeed.3528]

> @Maugetarr.6823 said:

> I don't think they're going to be able to fix this issue by simply nerfing the damage. It basically functions as 1.65×(1+.15×malice stacks), so untraited, it's 1.65×1.75=2.89, and traited 1.65×2.05=3.38. Alone, those 2 multipliers aren't out of line with other skills in the game, but with the way damage modifiers interact in this game, it can get boosted pretty high.

>

> They might be able to split up how the damage multipliers are added to the shot into part malice and part specific marked target. Lower the base multiplier to 1.5, have it deal + 10% damage for each stack of malice and an additional +50% to your marked target. So now the multiplier would be 2.25 (5 malice stacks) and 2.55 (7 malice stacks) if you hit an unmarked target (Backstab is 2.4 for reference). If you hit your marked target, it would be 3.0 and 3.3, so a minor boost for untraited and a minor shave for traited. This might help bridge the divide on this issue because you couldn't be one shot anymore without being the marked target (unless Backstab was already one-shotting you), and if you were the marked target you would be aware of the thief and have it take time to build up against you.

>

> Adding to that, they could change up the marking and malice system to be a little bit more like adrenaline. Something like gaining 1 tick of malice each time you hit a target in combat with an ICD of 2 seconds. You don't lose malice when your target dies, only when you get OOC, and then it degenerates at 1 tick a second. You deal 2% more damage per stack of malice, and 7% more damage to your marked target.

 

Interesting stuff and thanks for the write up, but for the last part I don't know if thieves would welcome a change into playing thief with a warrior type adrenaline system but it's an idea.

[gmmg.9210]

> @Swamurabi.7890 said:

> You all need to just realize that NOTHING is going to be done to DJ because:

>

> 1. The only complaints about the skill are from WvW forums, which nothing is ever balanced for (except Epidemic).

> 2. sPvP isn't concerned about DJ because the tells are not a problem for skilled players, but the LOS is.

> 3. PvE doesn't care because Deadeye isn't preferred in raids.

>

> With no reason from sPvP or PvE to change the skill it will remain as is.

>

> The sad part of this thread is that it's one of the most popular threads in WvW and there's no input from Anet, which should tell you everything you need to know.

 

You're not seriously suggesting that Anet cares more about their living world expansion and limited sPvP balance over WvW are you? *cough* *cough*

[Maugetarr.6823]

> @DemonSeed.3528 said:

> > @Maugetarr.6823 said:

> > I don't think they're going to be able to fix this issue by simply nerfing the damage. It basically functions as 1.65×(1+.15×malice stacks), so untraited, it's 1.65×1.75=2.89, and traited 1.65×2.05=3.38. Alone, those 2 multipliers aren't out of line with other skills in the game, but with the way damage modifiers interact in this game, it can get boosted pretty high.

> >

> > They might be able to split up how the damage multipliers are added to the shot into part malice and part specific marked target. Lower the base multiplier to 1.5, have it deal + 10% damage for each stack of malice and an additional +50% to your marked target. So now the multiplier would be 2.25 (5 malice stacks) and 2.55 (7 malice stacks) if you hit an unmarked target (Backstab is 2.4 for reference). If you hit your marked target, it would be 3.0 and 3.3, so a minor boost for untraited and a minor shave for traited. This might help bridge the divide on this issue because you couldn't be one shot anymore without being the marked target (unless Backstab was already one-shotting you), and if you were the marked target you would be aware of the thief and have it take time to build up against you.

> >

> > Adding to that, they could change up the marking and malice system to be a little bit more like adrenaline. Something like gaining 1 tick of malice each time you hit a target in combat with an ICD of 2 seconds. You don't lose malice when your target dies, only when you get OOC, and then it degenerates at 1 tick a second. You deal 2% more damage per stack of malice, and 7% more damage to your marked target.

>

> Interesting stuff and thanks for the write up, but for the last part I don't know if thieves would welcome a change into playing thief with a warrior type adrenaline system but it's an idea.

 

Well, the idea of that change might be welcomed because it would hopefully help in all 3 modes. Right now malice ends if your target dies, even if you're still in combat with other people so there's large fluctuations in the way Deadeye puts out damage. This would hopefully help in group combat through maintaining the current build up they designed into Deadeye and emphasize the spike that's going to come from DJ while eliminating the ability to use ambient creatures for malice gain.

[MUDse.7623]

> @Maugetarr.6823 said:

> I don't think they're going to be able to fix this issue by simply nerfing the damage. It basically functions as 1.65×(1+.15×malice stacks), so untraited, it's 1.65×1.75=2.89, and traited 1.65×2.05=3.38. Alone, those 2 multipliers aren't out of line with other skills in the game, but with the way damage modifiers interact in this game, it can get boosted pretty high.

>

> They might be able to split up how the damage multipliers are added to the shot into part malice and part specific marked target. Lower the base multiplier to 1.5, have it deal + 10% damage for each stack of malice and an additional +50% to your marked target. So now the multiplier would be 2.25 (5 malice stacks) and 2.55 (7 malice stacks) if you hit an unmarked target (Backstab is 2.4 for reference). If you hit your marked target, it would be 3.0 and 3.3, so a minor boost for untraited and a minor shave for traited. This might help bridge the divide on this issue because you couldn't be one shot anymore without being the marked target (unless Backstab was already one-shotting you), and if you were the marked target you would be aware of the thief and have it take time to build up against you.

>

> Adding to that, they could change up the marking and malice system to be a little bit more like adrenaline. Something like gaining 1 tick of malice each time you hit a target in combat with an ICD of 2 seconds. You don't lose malice when your target dies, only when you get OOC, and then it degenerates at 1 tick a second. You deal 2% more damage per stack of malice, and 7% more damage to your marked target.

 

if you put more value into who you mark, then you need to be able to switch marks faster as you need to be flexible in a groupfight. currently i mark targets that woudnt get oneshot without a mark (condi players, supporters - and that is with me being in full berserks and CS traitline) but i still do decent damage on the other targets in the area. with your suggestion DE would fall even further behind daredevil against half decent opponents. its so much easier to avoid DJ compared to Backstab and you can 'build up' for a Backstab much easier so they shouldnt be on the same level damage wise not even on non marked targets IMO.

 

im fine with losing malice if my mark expires in WvW. this way deadeye gameplay doesnt become to build up malice and then just DJ + AA.

But i understand that it would be helpful in PvE, i heard the DPS of a deadeye is rather low. in spvp the build up time for DJ is too long and DE has lower mobility than DD, but thats oke for me as alot of other playstyles arent viable as well - or do you want to turn deadeye into a ranged daredevil ? just DJ instead of backstab. (backstab would still be stronger as harder to avoid).

[Maugetarr.6823]

> @MUDse.7623 said:

> > @Maugetarr.6823 said:

> > I don't think they're going to be able to fix this issue by simply nerfing the damage. It basically functions as 1.65×(1+.15×malice stacks), so untraited, it's 1.65×1.75=2.89, and traited 1.65×2.05=3.38. Alone, those 2 multipliers aren't out of line with other skills in the game, but with the way damage modifiers interact in this game, it can get boosted pretty high.

> >

> > They might be able to split up how the damage multipliers are added to the shot into part malice and part specific marked target. Lower the base multiplier to 1.5, have it deal + 10% damage for each stack of malice and an additional +50% to your marked target. So now the multiplier would be 2.25 (5 malice stacks) and 2.55 (7 malice stacks) if you hit an unmarked target (Backstab is 2.4 for reference). If you hit your marked target, it would be 3.0 and 3.3, so a minor boost for untraited and a minor shave for traited. This might help bridge the divide on this issue because you couldn't be one shot anymore without being the marked target (unless Backstab was already one-shotting you), and if you were the marked target you would be aware of the thief and have it take time to build up against you.

> >

> > Adding to that, they could change up the marking and malice system to be a little bit more like adrenaline. Something like gaining 1 tick of malice each time you hit a target in combat with an ICD of 2 seconds. You don't lose malice when your target dies, only when you get OOC, and then it degenerates at 1 tick a second. You deal 2% more damage per stack of malice, and 7% more damage to your marked target.

>

> if you put more value into who you mark, then you need to be able to switch marks faster as you need to be flexible in a groupfight. currently i mark targets that woudnt get oneshot without a mark (condi players, supporters - and that is with me being in full berserks and CS traitline) but i still do decent damage on the other targets in the area. with your suggestion DE would fall even further behind daredevil against half decent opponents. its so much easier to avoid DJ compared to Backstab and you can 'build up' for a Backstab much easier so they shouldnt be on the same level damage wise not even on non marked targets IMO.

>

> im fine with losing malice if my mark expires in WvW. this way deadeye gameplay doesnt become to build up malice and then just DJ + AA.

> But i understand that it would be helpful in PvE, i heard the DPS of a deadeye is rather low. in spvp the build up time for DJ is too long and DE has lower mobility than DD, but thats oke for me as alot of other playstyles arent viable as well - or do you want to turn deadeye into a ranged daredevil ? just DJ instead of backstab. (backstab would still be stronger as harder to avoid).

 

Well, I'll preface this by saying that the gap between power Daredevil and power Deadeye is greatly exaggerated. They're within a couple of percent of each other in terms of damage, however, there is a gap when it comes to mobility and survivability.

 

This may just be a difference in opinion between the two of us, but I don't think the mark would need a reduction in CD because of Renewing Gaze. It would be more of a commitment for DJ specifically but I don't see that as a bad thing. If you really need to switch targets you'd have mercy to do that, and if you successfully kill your marked target, you'd be able to keep your malice for the next target in a group fight, making finishing off a target more rewarding. Also, keep in mind that this wouldn't put DJ at it's base damage against unmarked targets, but it would knock off about 25% versus an unmarked target. With the values I've proposed here, the followup auto attack would make up that difference.

 

Math from proposed values:

Marked DJ @ 5 malice: 3.0

Unmarked DJ @ 5 malice: 2.25

Auto attack multiplier: 0.8

UDJ + AA: 2.25 + 0.8 = 3.05

 

I'd actually like to see some buffs to some of other skills on rifle as well to help with sustained damage and utility, but this thread was about DJ specifically. I thought I should include the change to malice because it was was tied to my thoughts on how to balance out DJ a bit more without simply nerfing the damage, because even if it they knocked back DJ to its base value of 1.65 at full malice, OP would have still have been hit for over 10k by this particular thief, which is why I pointed to the ~~multipliers~~ damage modifiers in the first place.