Should thief have 15 initiative as a baseline?

[NorthernRedStar.3054]

While adjusting the costs of certain mobility-bound weapon skills?

 

EDIT: I mean replacing the Preparedness trait with something else. Not 18 initiative with the Trickery line.

[dDuff.3860]

if you make preparedness baseline, you're buffing trickery, which is already mandatory for any thief pvp build (because you have to put something else instead of this minor trait)

[Psycoprophet.8107]

> @"dDuff.3860" said:

> if you make preparedness baseline, you're buffing trickery, which is already mandatory for any thief pvp build (because you have to put something else instead of this minor trait)

 

Umm no if prep was baseline trickery would become less of a crutch and less of a needed traitline. Sry dont follow ur logic

[Sir Vincent III.1286]

Adding 3 more initiative as base line is good, yes, but that will not solve a lot of our problems. For instance, after swapping weapons, the skills are not available if Initiative is depleted.

 

It would take a redesign of the Initiative system to make it better.

 

One suggestion I made in the past is making the Thief skills have 2 costs: initiatives and cooldown.

 

The way this will work is, if you for instance spammed Heartseeker, you can use it 3 times in a row using Initiatives. Once the Initiative is depleted, the 4th use of HS will put it in an 6s CD, for example. Even though your Initiative is depleted, other skills are available at a cost of CD. Which means you can still use Death Blossom paying CD instead of Initiative, so it will put DB in a 10s CD if the 4 Initiative cost is not paid.

 

So at the start of combat, the Thief will be using Initiatives until depleted, then all skills will be put on a CD if used without Initiatives. Initiatives will regen as normal.

 

With this system in place, the Thief will not get locked out of skills to use when they ran out of Initiatives and/or swap to a new weapon set. The skills will always be available albeit they will be put on a CD if you have no Initiatives left.

[NorthernRedStar.3054]

> @"Sir Vincent III.1286" said:

> Adding 3 more initiative as base line is good, yes, but that will not solve a lot of our problems. For instance, after swapping weapons, the skills are not available if Initiative is depleted.

>

> It would take a redesign of the Initiative system to make it better.

>

> One suggestion I made in the past is making the Thief skills have 2 costs: initiatives and cooldown.

>

> The way this will work is, if you for instance spammed Heartseeker, you can use it 3 times in a row using Initiatives. Once the Initiative is depleted, the 4th use of HS will put it in an 6s CD, for example. Even though your Initiative is depleted, other skills are available at a cost of CD. Which means you can still use Death Blossom paying CD instead of Initiative, so it will put DB in a 10s CD if the 4 Initiative cost is not paid.

>

> So at the start of combat, the Thief will be using Initiatives until depleted, then all skills will be put on a CD if used without Initiatives. Initiatives will regen as normal.

>

> With this system in place, the Thief will not get locked out of skills to use when they ran out of Initiatives and/or swap to a new weapon set. The skills will always be available albeit they will be put on a CD if you have no Initiatives left.

 

As interesting as this sounds, I don't see it happening because 1) too much work, 2) confusing for veteran players, 3) design philosophies and uniqueness.

[Sir Vincent III.1286]

> @"NorthernRedStar.3054" said:

> > @"Sir Vincent III.1286" said:

> > Adding 3 more initiative as base line is good, yes, but that will not solve a lot of our problems. For instance, after swapping weapons, the skills are not available if Initiative is depleted.

> >

> > It would take a redesign of the Initiative system to make it better.

> >

> > One suggestion I made in the past is making the Thief skills have 2 costs: initiatives and cooldown.

> >

> > The way this will work is, if you for instance spammed Heartseeker, you can use it 3 times in a row using Initiatives. Once the Initiative is depleted, the 4th use of HS will put it in an 6s CD, for example. Even though your Initiative is depleted, other skills are available at a cost of CD. Which means you can still use Death Blossom paying CD instead of Initiative, so it will put DB in a 10s CD if the 4 Initiative cost is not paid.

> >

> > So at the start of combat, the Thief will be using Initiatives until depleted, then all skills will be put on a CD if used without Initiatives. Initiatives will regen as normal.

> >

> > With this system in place, the Thief will not get locked out of skills to use when they ran out of Initiatives and/or swap to a new weapon set. The skills will always be available albeit they will be put on a CD if you have no Initiatives left.

>

> As interesting as this sounds, I don't see it happening because 1) too much work, 2) confusing for veteran players, 3) design philosophies and uniqueness.

 

1) If they can put CD on the stealth attacks, this should not be any different

2) The Initiatives will functions as normal. The only difference is the addition of CD which allows for the use of the skill without Initiatives. Any veteran who knows how to manage their Initiative may not even need to use the skill for CD.

3) What do you mean by this?

[NorthernRedStar.3054]

> @"Sir Vincent III.1286" said:

> > @"NorthernRedStar.3054" said:

> > > @"Sir Vincent III.1286" said:

> > > Adding 3 more initiative as base line is good, yes, but that will not solve a lot of our problems. For instance, after swapping weapons, the skills are not available if Initiative is depleted.

> > >

> > > It would take a redesign of the Initiative system to make it better.

> > >

> > > One suggestion I made in the past is making the Thief skills have 2 costs: initiatives and cooldown.

> > >

> > > The way this will work is, if you for instance spammed Heartseeker, you can use it 3 times in a row using Initiatives. Once the Initiative is depleted, the 4th use of HS will put it in an 6s CD, for example. Even though your Initiative is depleted, other skills are available at a cost of CD. Which means you can still use Death Blossom paying CD instead of Initiative, so it will put DB in a 10s CD if the 4 Initiative cost is not paid.

> > >

> > > So at the start of combat, the Thief will be using Initiatives until depleted, then all skills will be put on a CD if used without Initiatives. Initiatives will regen as normal.

> > >

> > > With this system in place, the Thief will not get locked out of skills to use when they ran out of Initiatives and/or swap to a new weapon set. The skills will always be available albeit they will be put on a CD if you have no Initiatives left.

> >

> > As interesting as this sounds, I don't see it happening because 1) too much work, 2) confusing for veteran players, 3) design philosophies and uniqueness.

>

> 1) If they can put CD on the stealth attacks, this should not be any different

> 2) The Initiatives will functions as normal. The only difference is the addition of CD which allows for the use of the skill without Initiatives. Any veteran who knows how to manage their Initiative may not even need to use the skill for CD.

> 3) What do you mean by this?

 

1) It still requires potential additional re-balancing of a ton of different skills. Any games' devs would be hesitant about this. 2) Muscle memory is a w-bitch. 3) What the class was designed in mind with. No weapon cooldowns is the 'thief thing' - similar to mesmer clones.

[Crab Fear.1624]

> @"Psycoprophet.8107" said:

> > @"dDuff.3860" said:

> > if you make preparedness baseline, you're buffing trickery, which is already mandatory for any thief pvp build (because you have to put something else instead of this minor trait)

>

> Umm no if prep was baseline trickery would become less of a crutch and less of a needed traitline. Sry dont follow ur logic

 

They would have to take out the extra 3 initiative from preparedness.

 

Make it something else, otherwise thieves would still just take trickery

 

Trickery is still pretty juicy choice anyways without even considering that extra 3 ini.

[NorthernRedStar.3054]

> @"Crab Fear.1624" said:

> > @"Psycoprophet.8107" said:

> > > @"dDuff.3860" said:

> > > if you make preparedness baseline, you're buffing trickery, which is already mandatory for any thief pvp build (because you have to put something else instead of this minor trait)

> >

> > Umm no if prep was baseline trickery would become less of a crutch and less of a needed traitline. Sry dont follow ur logic

>

> They would have to take out the extra 3 initiative from preparedness.

>

> Make it something else, otherwise thieves would still just take trickery

>

> Trickery is still pretty juicy choice anyways without even considering that extra 3 ini.

 

It is juicy, but it'd no longer restrict build creativity, which I feel it indeed does at the moment.

[Psycoprophet.8107]

> @"Crab Fear.1624" said:

> > @"Psycoprophet.8107" said:

> > > @"dDuff.3860" said:

> > > if you make preparedness baseline, you're buffing trickery, which is already mandatory for any thief pvp build (because you have to put something else instead of this minor trait)

> >

> > Umm no if prep was baseline trickery would become less of a crutch and less of a needed traitline. Sry dont follow ur logic

>

> They would have to take out the extra 3 initiative from preparedness.

>

> Make it something else, otherwise thieves would still just take trickery

>

> Trickery is still pretty juicy choice anyways without even considering that extra 3 ini.

 

Yeah I'd love for trickery to grant 18 ini but I think I'm the trait being changes to something else and just adding the 3 ini to thief's baseline would be more realistic.

[Kageseigi.2150]

> Should thief have 15 initiative as a baseline?

 

Yes. Though with the rate of nerfs the Thief receives, I'm beginning to think that 20 is a fairer number.

 

Honestly, two nerfs in two days. Yet no buffs to builds/styles that actually need it.

[NorthernRedStar.3054]

> @"Kageseigi.2150" said:

> > Should thief have 15 initiative as a baseline?

>

> Yes. Though with the rate of nerfs the Thief receives, I'm beginning to think that 20 is a fairer number.

>

> Honestly, two nerfs in two days. Yet no buffs to builds/styles that actually need it.

 

I'm happy something about s/d condi got touched.. Less bandwagoners running the build, not that I had issues with them to begin with (it's a free kill for an experienced thief). These changes, while painful for staff thief, will serve to improve the match quality in a way, for whatever that's worth.

 

 

[Dante.1508]

> @"NorthernRedStar.3054" said:

> > @"Kageseigi.2150" said:

> > > Should thief have 15 initiative as a baseline?

> >

> > Yes. Though with the rate of nerfs the Thief receives, I'm beginning to think that 20 is a fairer number.

> >

> > Honestly, two nerfs in two days. Yet no buffs to builds/styles that actually need it.

>

> I'm happy something about s/d condi got touched.. Less bandwagoners running the build, not that I had issues with them to begin with (it's a free kill for an experienced thief). These changes, while painful for staff thief, will serve to improve the match quality in a way, for whatever that's worth.

>

>

 

Do you have a build for that cause i'd love to try a s/d or s/p setup.. Staff in opve is not cutting it for me imo, its ok but limited.

[Alatar.7364]

As was mentioned, make 15 Ini baseline then remove Preparedness from Trickery and we're good.

 

_(also make ini-pols separate for each weapon set)_

[Sobx.1758]

Nah, it's not really needed or deserved.

 

It's a buff, sure, but that's not enough of a justification to impletement something. :D

[NorthernRedStar.3054]

> @"Dante.1508" said:

> > @"NorthernRedStar.3054" said:

> > > @"Kageseigi.2150" said:

> > > > Should thief have 15 initiative as a baseline?

> > >

> > > Yes. Though with the rate of nerfs the Thief receives, I'm beginning to think that 20 is a fairer number.

> > >

> > > Honestly, two nerfs in two days. Yet no buffs to builds/styles that actually need it.

> >

> > I'm happy something about s/d condi got touched.. Less bandwagoners running the build, not that I had issues with them to begin with (it's a free kill for an experienced thief). These changes, while painful for staff thief, will serve to improve the match quality in a way, for whatever that's worth.

> >

> >

>

> Do you have a build for that cause i'd love to try a s/d or s/p setup.. Staff in opve is not cutting it for me imo, its ok but limited.

 

The current build in MetaBattle (for s/d condi) is largely the same as the one I've been using for the past ~ 2 months or so. Frankly, I tested a lot of different runes, sigils and amulets, and settled for Traveler's Rune, Carrion Amulet and Bountiful Theft for a number of reasons. Lynx, I found, also suited me, but the added boon uptime from Traveler's on top of the slight boost for other stats felt better with only a miniscule loss in terms of non-condi DPS. If you were to use Mug instead of Deadly Ambition, I'd definitely try running Lynx alongside it.

 

If you're against a less boon-focused comp (seems rather rare these days, though), you can swap Theft for Trickster - but since you lose the 11 ½ seconds of vigor, you might want to swap something for Signet of Agility for the extra endurance sustain in a fight.

 

Before the Ambition nerf, I used to run Thousand Needles against immobile, more teamfight oriented comps - as it's near immediate 6 stacks of poison applied in an AoE. One Choking Gas applied on top and people will be suffering from daze over and over. But since the nerf, I feel like Spider Venom's become more and more mainstay in the build, so that can't be helped. Definitely recommend playing around with the preparations, though. They're a ton of fun, and rewarding to use.

 

Other than that, just use the MetaBattle version. It's largely my build.

 

 

[NorthernRedStar.3054]

> @"Sobx.1758" said:

> Nah, it's not really needed or deserved.

>

> It's a buff, sure, but that's not enough of a justification to impletement something. :D

 

I feel like changing something that notably limits creativity is worth investigating over. Might even make Shadow Arts worth some serious consideration in some builds. Then again, considering how ill-received stealth as a concept is, maybe Anet wants to keep it a niche, fun-oriented trait line. The stealth on healing skill can be a little obnoxious with added synergies.

[Sobx.1758]

> @"NorthernRedStar.3054" said:

> > @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > Nah, it's not really needed or deserved.

> >

> > It's a buff, sure, but that's not enough of a justification to impletement something. :D

>

> I feel like changing something that notably limits creativity is worth investigating over. Might even make Shadow Arts worth some serious consideration in some builds. Then again, considering how ill-received stealth as a concept is, maybe Anet wants to keep it a niche, fun-oriented trait line. The stealth on healing skill can be a little obnoxious with added synergies.

 

How does it limit creativity? Different traits give you different possibilities which is their whole point and there will pretty much always be "a better option" for pvp. Also it's not like trickery is picked solely for that 3 ini.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

as much as I am against base line stuff I am not immediately against this.

[Curennos.9307]

I just want to be able to NOT take Trickery without feeling gimped . And to see Quick Pockets have a 'removes weapon swap cooldown' added. THAT is what a GM trait should be - game changing, but not an outright buff to this or that (like No Quarter is on crit strikes...c'mon, it's basically a flat damage buff - a good damage buff, but it's flat, plain and boring all the same).

 

Also - I think part of what makes Trickery so required is the meta of other classes. Steal becomes extremely powerful, but **needed**, due to the amount of protection and stability floating around. Being able to remove protection on your opponent - who would otherwise have near perma prot - or remove it in time for your burst, is extremely powerful. If anet toned down the amount of boonspam, it could justify changes to Slight of Hand/Bountiful Theft without it being an outright nerf.

 

It's unfortunate that anet doesn't seem to be even slightly aware of this issue, tho.

 

Edit: I had a few thoughts but it got too long. In short - make Preparedness/Kelpto baseline, make the daze from Slight of Hand baseline but reduce to 1/4 sec. Bake Bountiful Theft into Slight of hand, nerf bountiful theft slightly (2 boons ripped instead of 3, 5-8 sec vigor, yadda yadda), maybe nerf the CDR a little bit. Change Trickster to cleanse 1-3(?) condis when you use a heal, utility, or elite skill. Make Bewildering Ambush apply confusion + torment on interrupt + strip 1 boon . Or...some combination? I hate CDR skills - all they really do is say that the CD on this or that was too long in the first place.

 

Alternatively, leave bountiful theft where it is (reduce vigor duration slightly, maybe have it steal only 2 boons, w/e - or grant 5 sec vigor, 5 sec prot). Make prep/klepto baseline, make Slight of Hand baseline (maybe only 10% CDR for steal, heck). Change the baseline version of slight of hand to 1/4 sec daze. Try to turn Trickery into a daze/boonsteal-rip traitline....Make Quick Pockets remove weapon swap cooldown, the 'new' slight of hand is a stun on steal instead of daze + gives a damage boost after interrupting/stealing a boon, and Bewildering Ambush is condis on interrupt/boonstrip.

 

 

 

[Psycoprophet.8107]

> @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > @"NorthernRedStar.3054" said:

> > > @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > > Nah, it's not really needed or deserved.

> > >

> > > It's a buff, sure, but that's not enough of a justification to impletement something. :D

> >

> > I feel like changing something that notably limits creativity is worth investigating over. Might even make Shadow Arts worth some serious consideration in some builds. Then again, considering how ill-received stealth as a concept is, maybe Anet wants to keep it a niche, fun-oriented trait line. The stealth on healing skill can be a little obnoxious with added synergies.

>

> How does it limit creativity? Different traits give you different possibilities which is their whole point and there will pretty much always be "a better option" for pvp. Also it's not like trickery is picked solely for that 3 ini.

 

Ur right trickery isnt always taken for prep but their are alot of builds forced to take trickery line for the trait. I'd bet most stealth builds and some DD builds would opt not using it more often in favor of other traitlines especially since swipes CD reduction. A dd/cs/da would be a gun build if weren't for only 12 ini

[Sir Vincent III.1286]

> @"NorthernRedStar.3054" said:

> > @"Sir Vincent III.1286" said:

> > > @"NorthernRedStar.3054" said:

> > > > @"Sir Vincent III.1286" said:

> > > > Adding 3 more initiative as base line is good, yes, but that will not solve a lot of our problems. For instance, after swapping weapons, the skills are not available if Initiative is depleted.

> > > >

> > > > It would take a redesign of the Initiative system to make it better.

> > > >

> > > > One suggestion I made in the past is making the Thief skills have 2 costs: initiatives and cooldown.

> > > >

> > > > The way this will work is, if you for instance spammed Heartseeker, you can use it 3 times in a row using Initiatives. Once the Initiative is depleted, the 4th use of HS will put it in an 6s CD, for example. Even though your Initiative is depleted, other skills are available at a cost of CD. Which means you can still use Death Blossom paying CD instead of Initiative, so it will put DB in a 10s CD if the 4 Initiative cost is not paid.

> > > >

> > > > So at the start of combat, the Thief will be using Initiatives until depleted, then all skills will be put on a CD if used without Initiatives. Initiatives will regen as normal.

> > > >

> > > > With this system in place, the Thief will not get locked out of skills to use when they ran out of Initiatives and/or swap to a new weapon set. The skills will always be available albeit they will be put on a CD if you have no Initiatives left.

> > >

> > > As interesting as this sounds, I don't see it happening because 1) too much work, 2) confusing for veteran players, 3) design philosophies and uniqueness.

> >

> > 1) If they can put CD on the stealth attacks, this should not be any different

> > 2) The Initiatives will functions as normal. The only difference is the addition of CD which allows for the use of the skill without Initiatives. Any veteran who knows how to manage their Initiative may not even need to use the skill for CD.

> > 3) What do you mean by this?

>

> 1) It still requires potential additional re-balancing of a ton of different skills. Any games' devs would be hesitant about this.

 

It's not like they haven't done this before, else we wouldn't even have new weapons and weapon skills.

 

> 2) Muscle memory is a w-kitten.

 

That doesn't explain anything. It seems that you're dismissing the idea for the sake of dismissing it without any valid reason on your part why you're dismissing it.

 

> 3) What the class was designed in mind with. No weapon cooldowns is the 'thief thing' - similar to mesmer clones.

 

Obviously that design is flawed. It has been flawed from the very beginning and I have given several example where this design have failed. So far, you have not shown any support to your claims.

[Kulvar.1239]

Thief don't need 15 initiatives baseline.

Thief need Alacrity boosting its initiative regeneration from 1 per 1.0 second to 1 per 0.8 second.

[Sobx.1758]

> @"Kulvar.1239" said:

> Thief don't need 15 initiatives baseline.

> Thief need Alacrity boosting its initiative regeneration from 1 per 1.0 second to 1 per 0.8 second.

 

I agree.

On the other hand, it would be mostly a group pve dps buff (maybe staff wvw zerg fights a bit too) and I don't know how it would influence the numbers, so... I hesitantly agree :D

 

Edit: but then again, chill doesn't work on ini either, so... eh. There's probably more to lose than to gain in this one.

[NorthernRedStar.3054]

> @"Sir Vincent III.1286" said:

> It's not like they haven't done this before, else we wouldn't even have new weapons and weapon skills.

 

You're comparing apples to pineapples.

 

> @"Sir Vincent III.1286" said:

> That doesn't explain anything. It seems that you're dismissing the idea for the sake of dismissing it without any valid reason on your part why you're dismissing it.

 

It's a very common reasoning between some development and update decisions, when concerned with existing players' reactions. Granted, not really that relevant here, I'll give you that.

 

> @"Sir Vincent III.1286" said:

> Obviously that design is flawed. It has been flawed from the very beginning and I have given several example where this design have failed. So far, you have not shown any support to your claims.

 

This isn't about me trying to prove my superiority over you. It's just me trying to envision and explain the reasoning behind the devs' involvement or lack of thereof. It's easier to swap wheels for an existing card, based on a need, than to re-invent a new type of a car. Even if the original design was lacking.