Should thief have 15 initiative as a baseline?

[Curennos.9307]

> @"Kageseigi.2150" - Trickster has always been my solution to condition cleansing. Seeing that I played Core Dagger/Pistol for so long before I got the expansions, I didn't have many options without hitting like a wet noodle if I took Shadow Arts. I always had Withdraw, Roll for Initiative, and Shadow Step slotted. That's 2-3 stun breaks, 3 general condition cleansing skills, along with a lot of movement-impairing condition removal. If I wanted more, I would take Haste or Scorpion Wire. Burst of Agility and Daggerstorm are also useful.

>

> The problem with Trickster, of course, is losing Bountiful Theft. Personally, I do not like the Thief's boon-removal/stealing capability to be so limited. It's called a THIEF, for crying out loud. Personally, I would make Bountiful Theft's boon-stealing baseline on Steal. And perhaps replace Bountiful Theft with a nullification-trait that removes every remaining boon from the target. I'd also add boon-stealing ability to more weapon skills... across all weapon sets... or at least melee weapons.

>

> If you want to go even further, perhaps have each weapon skill remove a specific boon... an anti-boon skill, if you will. For example...

>

> Heartseeker could remove Regeneration

> Death Blossom could remove Resistance

> Dancing Dagger could remove Swiftness

> Cloak and Dagger could remove Protection

> Headshot could remove Stability (guaranteeing an interrupt)

> Black Powder could remove Retaliation

 

I've always seen Trickery as Thief's boon/boonstrip traitline. I think it would be a bit much to scatter boonstrip on base skills - I would rather it be scattered somewhere in Trickery, perhaps as a replacement for Preparedness and Klepto(which I hope will be made baseline >.>). Otherwise we're just stacking more stuff on Thief's weapons (which admittedly do need some help, but I think they'd make great minor traits).

 

This would also open up more options overall, as Thief (presumably) wouldn't be locked in to Bountiful Theft any longer - it would merely be an option for additional boonrip.

 

Not that I am adverse to buffs to thief's lesser used skills (heartseeker needs a lot of love...)

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

IMO as a rework to initiative system, every skill should reward you when a skill meets a certain criteria and your rewarded with a return on initiative.

 

Let’s say you have Ability A that costs 4 initiative. If you successfully use this ability and hit a target below 50% health you are rewarded an initiative. Under 25% health, 2 initiative.

 

But in order to gain initiative, it should encourage the usage of combining skills together rather than spamming a single skill. So Ability A instead of the effect I wrote above, would read ; rewards 2 initiative if target is blind.

Ability B ; blinds target. If you hit a target below 50% health, gain 2 initiative.

 

Then just do away with trickery all together. No need to include more baseline initiative if the ini system actually functioned better

[Doug.4930]

No, thief is in a pretty good spot presently. It doesn't need more buffs. Other overturned classes need nerfs.

 

Power creep is already bad enough. Its not going to be fixed by buffing classes constantly.

[kash.9213]

> @"Kageseigi.2150" said:

> > @"Curennos.9307" said:

> > 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.

>

> Trickster has always been my solution to condition cleansing. Seeing that I played Core Dagger/Pistol for so long before I got the expansions, I didn't have many options without hitting like a wet noodle if I took Shadow Arts. I always had Withdraw, Roll for Initiative, and Shadow Step slotted. That's 2-3 stun breaks, 3 general condition cleansing skills, along with a lot of movement-impairing condition removal. If I wanted more, I would take Haste or Scorpion Wire. Burst of Agility and Daggerstorm are also useful.

>

> The problem with Trickster, of course, is losing Bountiful Theft. Personally, I do not like the Thief's boon-removal/stealing capability to be so limited. It's called a **THIEF**, for crying out loud. Personally, I would make Bountiful Theft's boon-stealing baseline on Steal. And perhaps replace Bountiful Theft with a nullification-trait that removes every remaining boon from the target. I'd also add boon-stealing ability to more weapon skills... across all weapon sets... or at least melee weapons.

>

> If you want to go even further, perhaps have each weapon skill remove a specific boon... an anti-boon skill, if you will. For example...

>

> * Heartseeker could remove Regeneration

> * Death Blossom could remove Resistance

> * Dancing Dagger could remove Swiftness

> * Cloak and Dagger could remove Protection

> * Headshot could remove Stability (guaranteeing an interrupt)

> * Black Powder could remove Retaliation

 

I think I mostly agree with Sob and Duff on Prep but I agree here also that thief needs to be thieving and boon steal seems like the practical option. If those changes were made though it would likely mean much of my two current builds would evaporate since that's basically what I'm built for at the moment but then I guess I'd get to have fun messing around with new stuff. I have to say though, focused boon removal is already pretty strong, once someone is stripped of that layer you're kind of free to lock down the rest of them and unless both of you have ridiculously thic builds at the core people burn or even just get deleted super fast right now once their slice of the powercreep is gone. Maybe better Initiative return or refresh rate on traits that already offer them could bring up potential non Trickery builds without needlessly energizing DA and CS.

 

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> IMO as a rework to initiative system, every skill should reward you when a skill meets a certain criteria and your rewarded with a return on initiative.

>

> Let’s say you have Ability A that costs 4 initiative. If you successfully use this ability and hit a target below 50% health you are rewarded an initiative. Under 25% health, 2 initiative.

>

> But in order to gain initiative, it should encourage the usage of combining skills together rather than spamming a single skill. So Ability A instead of the effect I wrote above, would read ; rewards 2 initiative if target is blind.

> Ability B ; blinds target. If you hit a target below 50% health, gain 2 initiative.

>

> Then just do away with trickery all together. No need to include more baseline initiative if the ini system actually functioned better

 

I wouldn't put that into the Thief currently but that would be a fun start to a new Elite even if it might play in real time a little close to Daredevil acro/staff. This forum has talked about combos before but I don't remember the key points well enough and would have to dig.

[foste.3098]

Instead of buffing an overused trait line, they could adjust how much initiative skills cost to use.

hey could lover the overall cost of skills, but add requirements for them to be fully effective to prevent spamming 1 skill; for example cloak and dagger could cost 4 initiative instead of 5 but only give 2 seconds of stealth and no vuln baseline, and grant you 1 extra sec of stealth and 5 vuln (so what it is now) but only if you use it after using a dual attack/landing the final hit of the aa chain.

Do something like this for all weapon sets and you untie thief from the trickery trait line and remedy the everlasting issue of thieves relying on 1 skill from a weapon set.

[NorthernRedStar.3054]

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> IMO as a rework to initiative system, every skill should reward you when a skill meets a certain criteria and your rewarded with a return on initiative.

>

> Let’s say you have Ability A that costs 4 initiative. If you successfully use this ability and hit a target below 50% health you are rewarded an initiative. Under 25% health, 2 initiative.

>

> But in order to gain initiative, it should encourage the usage of combining skills together rather than spamming a single skill. So Ability A instead of the effect I wrote above, would read ; rewards 2 initiative if target is blind.

> Ability B ; blinds target. If you hit a target below 50% health, gain 2 initiative.

>

> Then just do away with trickery all together. No need to include more baseline initiative if the ini system actually functioned better

 

Skills like Headshot and Death Blossom could indeed reward a successful criterion being met. Ones that don't encourage spamming, but careful timing. The issue with this, however, is the amount of blocks, evades and invulnerability available to some classes. Balancing-wise, this has the potential to make thief extremely oppressive against some classes, and completely useless against others.

 

So, instead these could be traits you can choose for a certain matchup if you feel confident in your skill to execute the condition.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

> @"NorthernRedStar.3054" said:

> > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > IMO as a rework to initiative system, every skill should reward you when a skill meets a certain criteria and your rewarded with a return on initiative.

> >

> > Let’s say you have Ability A that costs 4 initiative. If you successfully use this ability and hit a target below 50% health you are rewarded an initiative. Under 25% health, 2 initiative.

> >

> > But in order to gain initiative, it should encourage the usage of combining skills together rather than spamming a single skill. So Ability A instead of the effect I wrote above, would read ; rewards 2 initiative if target is blind.

> > Ability B ; blinds target. If you hit a target below 50% health, gain 2 initiative.

> >

> > Then just do away with trickery all together. No need to include more baseline initiative if the ini system actually functioned better

>

> Skills like Headshot and Death Blossom could indeed reward a successful criterion being met. Ones that don't encourage spamming, but careful timing. The issue with this, however, is the amount of blocks, evades and invulnerability available to some classes. Balancing-wise, this has the potential to make thief extremely oppressive against some classes, and completely useless against others.

>

> So, instead these could be traits you can choose for a certain matchup if you feel confident in your skill to execute the condition.

 

Hmm ya that just might work. I suppose such a trait would be “dagger skills now reward initiative” or “pistol skills now reward initiative” and then as a subtext under each skill on their respective sets would have reward conditions.

 

I usually don’t like to add traits that only include specific weapon sets, but perhaps the reward condition themselves can be the trait such as “using a weapon skill while enemy is immobilized rewards initiative. Then on say PP, where only one skill provides immobilize this can encourage that. Likewise taking venoms would benefit as well.

 

It can definetly be worked out to a place where it can be balanced if though out more precisely. But the concept seems promising.

[Leo Schrodingers Cat.2497]

> @"Doug.4930" said:

> No, thief is in a pretty good spot presently. It doesn't need more buffs. Other overturned classes need nerfs.

>

> Power creep is already bad enough. Its not going to be fixed by buffing classes constantly.

 

Its not a buff. But a correction, given thief has such a strong dependency on trickery. Baring that, thief would need a full rework on the init system.

[DemonSeed.3528]

One way I think to reduce dependency on trickery is a trait somewhere else that only gives a small return on initiative *only* on successful connect, though it will probably lead to bad things if paired with the initiative on wep swap. Are there any other safer options for giving initiative whether through weapons/skills/traits? I've used many builds that do not implement trickery but they are mainly gimmick builds for WvW and not something people would consider an alternate for no trickery. If maybe one specialisation got the warrior "tactics" treatment (what I mean is that I was able to not depend on defense/discipline) so that we could stray towards a no trickery build I would be all up for it.

Is the only true option making initiative baseline? Argh

[Sobx.1758]

> @"Alatar.7364" said:

> > @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > Ah, so now we're preteding that refilling ini on weapon swap wouldn't be an absurd buff to the class if we're not talking about 2 same weapons? :lol:

>

> I wonder what do you think would suddenly happen? Thief is **incredibly** easy to nuke in split second. You think implementing my change would make it absurd? How? You would lose to some S/D & P/P? Not even turned-off washing machine could EVER lose to that. Thief could swap to Sb5 and run away? They already do and its terribly depriving the profession out of Role options. Yes, there are other options/combinations, but I have explicitly said everything can be adjusted/nerfed **IF** it would be implemented, not just traits but Builds too, like Condi S/D, etc.

> Warrior has a 5sec CD weapon swap and practically all of its skills deal nuke levels of dmg, all while happily wearing a heavy armor + Demo amulet.

>

> When players are creating Thief profession, they are greeted with a sweet description of _"They're deadly in one-on-one combat using their agility, acrobatic fighting style, (...)"_, so tell me how is it absurd that such a profession is the weakest 1v1 in the game with one of the weakest DMG in game with a mechanics that constantly locks it out of all of its weapon abilities across both weapon sets, but at the same time there is a Warrior with it's nuts dmg, nuts sustain, nuts Rampage and a **VERY** good mobility. Why is it absurd that Thief would be allowed to be what it was meant to be, instead of forever +1/decap for which I suggested removal of Sb5 all together.

> The change I suggested _(but don't intend on)_ wouldn't suddenly make Thief OP or good at 1v1s or probably even Teamfights, it would just give it diversity/chance/options, especially if trait-lines would be adjusted accordingly.

> Thief is not a fighter/duelist for a good reason, you can't say it would be absurd to give it same chances as professions that were not even described as deadly combatants unlike Thief.

 

It would be absurd at the very least because of the lesser risk of actively moving around the map while depleting your initiative, thief is already pretty much 'one of a kind' in +1ing where/when needed. So yeah, it might not make it magically a perfect duelist, because it's still the same opportunist with all its squishyness, but it would at least buff it where thief shouldn't be buffed. That's just stupid and not deserved. What you (or op for that matter, but to the lesser degree) propose solves nothing and it will just make strong builds stronger instead of increasing that glorified build diversity. Because how would it increase that build diversity? People would suddenly start spamming -like you said- "some S/D & P/P"? Or stop using trickery because now +3 ini is always here (as if that's the only reason trickery is picked), but trickery gets a new trait to use with it? What "build diversity" are you expecting here? That's just a bait for further nerfs because it will be crap where it was and stronger where it's already strong.

 

Rampage is getting nerfed hard btw and as someone above already wrote -if something is overtuned, then turn it down instead of overtuning others.

 

>with a mechanics that constantly locks it out of all of its weapon abilities across both weapon sets

 

hmm... Is it because you picked a class (speaking as if we're not allowed to play more than one btw) with a unique resource instead of cooldowns and now you have to deal with cons instead of only getting pros? Also if you want to be a warrior, go play warrior. Or better yet, play both depending on what you want to do :open_mouth: Thief isn't a warrior, surprising, I know.

 

___________________

 

> @"Leo Schrodingers Cat.2497" said:

> > @"Doug.4930" said:

> > No, thief is in a pretty good spot presently. It doesn't need more buffs. Other overturned classes need nerfs.

> >

> > Power creep is already bad enough. Its not going to be fixed by buffing classes constantly.

>

> Its not a buff. But a correction, given thief has such a strong dependency on trickery. Baring that, thief would need a full rework on the init system.

 

yh... What logic exactly are you using when you're claiming giving thieves +3 ini baseline isn't a buff?

Seriously, it's fine if you think we should be buffed, but why are you saying it's not a buff when it very obviously is? :D

[Kageseigi.2150]

> @"Sobx.1758" said:

> yh... What logic exactly are you using when you're claiming giving thieves +3 ini baseline isn't a buff?

> Seriously, it's fine if you think we should be buffed, but why are you saying it's not a buff when it very obviously is? :D

 

He means it's actually a bug. Just as being able to shorten Heartseeker by moving the camera was a bug. It's time to get it fixed! :-D

 

It's rather silly to have a specific trait in a specific traitline that changes the amount of initiative (resource) the Thief has. A trait that changes the recharge rate or restores initiative by condition is one thing, but to change the actual amount is quite different.

 

While the Deadeye is similar with Malice, having a maximum of 5 or 7 depending on a trait choice, at least every Deadeye has that choice to make. Not every type of Thief has the choice to gain a full 15 initiative... only Trickery Thieves get that benefit. Mathematically, half of possible Thief builds don't have Trickery, but extremely few builds are taken without Trickery. Sure, other Trickery traits are strong, but for me personally, that 25% extra initiative is the real game changer.

 

If anything, outright changing the maximum amount of initiative should be an Elite trait similar to how Daredevil changed the maximum amount of endurance compared to the old Feline Grace that simply restored endurance.

[DemonSeed.3528]

Speaking of that heartseeker "bug" - since it was quite useful before, maybe they should implement it as a trait lol.

[Psycoprophet.8107]

I donno would a DD d/p build be bursty enough with dd/da/cs build? Or a dd/sa/cs?

Just seems like having to use trickery drops a lot of deeps on already low dps builds just for preparedness since lead attacks isn't that great these days. I could be wrong but there's 2 builds that may get the much needed dps they need to be meta. Maybe thief's weapons as a whole do decent deeps but having to use trickery line to maintain sufficient global resources inhibits that so if that were the case preparedness would definitely increase build deversity. As it stands right now with skill costs not taking trickery feels like a handicap like as if anet set skill cost with all builds using preparedness in mind.

[Sobx.1758]

> @"Kageseigi.2150" said:

> > @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > yh... What logic exactly are you using when you're claiming giving thieves +3 ini baseline isn't a buff?

> > Seriously, it's fine if you think we should be buffed, but why are you saying it's not a buff when it very obviously is? :D

>

> He means it's actually a bug. Just as being able to shorten Heartseeker by moving the camera was a bug. It's time to get it fixed! :-D

 

xd

 

> It's rather silly to have a specific trait in a specific traitline that changes the amount of initiative (resource) the Thief has. A trait that changes the recharge rate or restores initiative by condition is one thing, but to change the actual amount is quite different.

 

It's weird because of existance of initiative as a resource in the first place. It could be easly compared to adding an additional cast to ammo skill, which pretty sure also exists in gw2. Rare, sure, but not unheard of. Actually after someone proposed seperate ini bars for each swapped weapon, the baseline +3 doesn't look that bad BUT I still think it's not rerally needed. All I see here is "WHY NOT?!?!?!" and "BUILD DIVERSITY!" used as arguments. If "build diversity" is the target here, then other options need tweaks to make them more attractive/viable instead of implementing this change that would potentially buff already overused builds.

On the other hand if someone keeps asking "WHY NOT?!", then that's not how buff proposals work. :D (besides it was already stated in this thread "why not")

 

> While the Deadeye is similar with Malice, having a maximum of 5 or 7 depending on a trait choice, at least every Deadeye has that choice to make. Not every type of Thief has the choice to gain a full 15 initiative... only Trickery Thieves get that benefit. Mathematically, half of possible Thief builds don't have Trickery, but extremely few builds are taken without Trickery. Sure, other Trickery traits are strong, but for me personally, that 25% extra initiative is the real game changer.

 

Every thief has a choice to make while picking specs, it includes this trait as well. You want those 3 ini? You make a decision how much you value it and at the same time put a weight on other trait lines as a tradeoff. I think your comparison would make more sense if you started complaining about having to pick daredevil spec to use malice, why can't a core thief make a choice to use it as well? Well, because that's the part of the choice you make and part of the spec/traits you pick.

 

> If anything, outright changing the maximum amount of initiative should be an Elite trait similar to how Daredevil changed the maximum amount of endurance compared to the old Feline Grace that simply restored endurance.

 

Ok. And then you'd be fine when it's a part of e-spec, but because it can be used on core thief it's somehow worse? :p

[Kageseigi.2150]

> @"Sobx.1758" said:

> It's weird because of existance of initiative as a resource in the first place. It could be easly compared to adding an additional cast to ammo skill, which pretty sure also exists in gw2. Rare, sure, but not unheard of. Actually after someone proposed seperate ini bars for each swapped weapon, the baseline +3 doesn't look that bad BUT I still think it's not rerally needed. All I see here is "WHY NOT?!?!?!" and "BUILD DIVERSITY!" used as arguments. If "build diversity" is the target here, then other options need tweaks to make them more attractive/viable instead of implementing this change that would potentially buff already overused builds.

> On the other hand if someone keeps asking "WHY NOT?!", then that's not how buff proposals work. :D (besides it was already stated in this thread "why not")

 

I'd say it's more of a "WHY DID THEY DO THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE?" which affects "BUILD DIVERSITY."

 

It doesn't really fit Trickery anyway. There's nothing "tricky" about it. All it does is allow the Thief to perform more weapon skills before running out of initiative. Going back to shooting, it's just putting an extended magazine into the firearm. It allows the Thief to attack one more time. Preparedness changes absolutely nothing else.

 

Kleptomaniac enhances Steal and simply restores initiative. Quick Pockets enhances weapon-swapping and simply restores initiative. While those have synergy with Preparedness, so do Shadow's Rejuvenation of Shadow Arts and Upper Hand of Acrobatics. All of those are fine and fit where they are. But Preparedness is quite different, enhancing nothing. It just means a Trickery Thief has a 25% larger gas tank. So of course that Thief is going to be the last one still going... like the Energizer Bunny.

 

> Every thief has a choice to make while picking specs, it includes this trait as well. You want those 3 ini? You make a decision how much you value it and at the same time put a weight on other trait lines as a tradeoff. I think your comparison would make more sense if you started complaining about having to pick daredevil spec to use malice, why can't a core thief make a choice to use it as well? Well, because that's the part of the choice you make and part of the spec/traits you pick.

 

I'm not against having to make choices. I'm against a single trait making all other Thief builds significantly inferior... one that doesn't fit in with its current traitline. Trickery Thieves literally have 25% more attack capability than any other Thief. If anything, shouldn't such a trait be in Critical Strikes or at least Deadly Arts? I wouldn't like it to be in either of those either, of course, I prefer parity in Thief builds/traitlines.

 

> Ok. And then you'd be fine when it's a part of e-spec, but because it can be used on core thief it's somehow worse? :p

 

Haha, no, I wouldn't like it as an Elite either. However, if it fit anywhere in a specific line, I believe it would fit more as an Elite... just as Daredevil has got a third dodge. I'd much prefer Acrobatics get its old Feline Grace back, and give the Daredevil something else to make it special (just because I don't like them taking away something we already have only to sell it back to us). So if they did something similar with Preparedness, I would suggest to first make 15 initiative baseline, then give the new Elite spec a total of 20 initiative...

 

In other words, don't take away the 15 initiative that Core Thieves can already obtain. Just add onto it with an Elite.

[Sobx.1758]

> @"Kageseigi.2150" said:

> > @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > It's weird because of existance of initiative as a resource in the first place. It could be easly compared to adding an additional cast to ammo skill, which pretty sure also exists in gw2. Rare, sure, but not unheard of. Actually after someone proposed seperate ini bars for each swapped weapon, the baseline +3 doesn't look that bad BUT I still think it's not rerally needed. All I see here is "WHY NOT?!?!?!" and "BUILD DIVERSITY!" used as arguments. If "build diversity" is the target here, then other options need tweaks to make them more attractive/viable instead of implementing this change that would potentially buff already overused builds.

> > On the other hand if someone keeps asking "WHY NOT?!", then that's not how buff proposals work. :D (besides it was already stated in this thread "why not")

>

> I'd say it's more of a "WHY DID THEY DO THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE?" which affects "BUILD DIVERSITY."

>

> It doesn't really fit Trickery anyway. There's nothing "tricky" about it. All it does is allow the Thief to perform more weapon skills before running out of initiative. Going back to shooting, it's just putting an extended magazine into the firearm. It allows the Thief to attack one more time. Preparedness changes absolutely nothing else.

>

> Kleptomaniac enhances Steal and simply restores initiative. Quick Pockets enhances weapon-swapping and simply restores initiative. While those have synergy with Preparedness, so do Shadow's Rejuvenation of Shadow Arts and Upper Hand of Acrobatics. All of those are fine and fit where they are. But Preparedness is quite different, enhancing nothing. It just means a Trickery Thief has a 25% larger gas tank. So of course that Thief is going to be the last one still going... like the Energizer Bunny.

 

Trickery focuses on steal and ini, so if it doesn't fit trickery, then it doesn't fit anything at all. Almost nothing about trickery spec is "tricky", I'm not sure how the name of the spec is an argument here at all?

It also has a very obvious synergy with lead attacks which in combination with ini restoring traits can help you with easier stacking, maintaining and actually using the damage bonus. I'm not sure how it suddenly "doesn't fit there" just because people want to get a buff to the class.

 

> > Every thief has a choice to make while picking specs, it includes this trait as well. You want those 3 ini? You make a decision how much you value it and at the same time put a weight on other trait lines as a tradeoff. I think your comparison would make more sense if you started complaining about having to pick daredevil spec to use malice, why can't a core thief make a choice to use it as well? Well, because that's the part of the choice you make and part of the spec/traits you pick.

>

> I'm not against having to make choices. I'm against a single trait making all other Thief builds significantly inferior... one that doesn't fit in with its current traitline. Trickery Thieves literally have 25% more attack capability than any other Thief. If anything, shouldn't such a trait be in Critical Strikes or at least Deadly Arts? I wouldn't like it to be in either of those either, of course, I prefer parity in Thief builds/traitlines.

 

So trickery is picked only/mostly for +3 ini and that's specifically what makes other builds inferior? I disagree.

And again, it very much does fit its current spec. You can keep repeating it doesn't, I can keep repeating it does and tbh I'm not sure what's the point of doing that.

What does "+3 ini" have to do with "critical strikes"? What does it have to do with "deadly arts"? You seem to be contradicting your own arguments that you literally made in the same post and just seem to be dead set on moving the "OP 3 ini" somewhere else even if it doesn't make sense at all.

[anduriell.6280]

With the normal initiative regeneration you get enough to spam skills soon enough. Either way all the thief autos do a ton of damage and those dont use inititative.

 

I dont see any need to increase the amount of spamming the thief can do. The class has its issues but the damage output is not one of them, being meta in raids.

 

[NorthernRedStar.3054]

> @"anduriell.6280" said:

> With the normal initiative regeneration you get enough to spam skills soon enough. Either way all the thief autos do a ton of damage and those dont use inititative.

>

> I dont see any need to increase the amount of spamming the thief can do. The class has its issues but the damage output is not one of them, being meta in raids.

>

 

Spamming is something only amateur thieves do, lol. Yet, it seems to be a common consensus among other class mains that they can just get away with it. Also, this is about PvP.

 

Dagger mainhand has pitiful autoattack damage, and sword with strength rune is just enough to have some semblance of presence, but it takes far too long to ramp up against warriors and alike.

[Kageseigi.2150]

> @"Sobx.1758" said:

> Trickery focuses on steal and ini, so if it doesn't fit trickery, then it doesn't fit anything at all. Almost nothing about trickery spec is "tricky", I'm not sure how the name of the spec is an argument here at all?

> It also has a very obvious synergy with lead attacks which in combination with ini restoring traits can help you with easier stacking, maintaining and actually using the damage bonus. I'm not sure how it suddenly "doesn't fit there" just because people want to get a buff to the class.

 

Buffing maximum initiative for the Thief as a whole is hardly a bad thing. The one thing we can agree on is that we have different perspectives on what Preparedness does. You see it as a buff to the Thief, I see it as a nerf to non-Trickery Thieves... the same way that going without Shortbow in PvP takes away the biggest advantage (and only real purpose) the Thief has there.

 

Trickery focuses a lot on Trick utilities, so the name fits (whether or not that was the original intent). It also focuses on BUFFING Steal and REDUCING its RECHARGE time. Other traitlines also BUFF Steal (Deadly Arts, Shadow Arts) and REDUCE its RECHARGE time (Acrobatics). It also focuses on BUFFING initiative use (Lead Attacks) and REDUCING its RECHARGE time (Kleptomaniac, Quick Pockets). But other traitlines also BUFF initiative use (Acrobatics) and REDUCE its RECHARGE time (Shadow Arts, Acrobatics). Such traits, whether from Trickery or other lines, are great. However, they only BUFF or REDUCE RECHARGE time. And they are not exclusive to Trickery. And they all synergize with each other.

 

The absolute ONLY trait that uniquely affects initiative other than BUFFING or REDUCING RECHARGE time is Preparedness. In the Core lines, the closest trait that comes to its effectiveness was the old Swindler's Equilibrium that gave a complete second Steal on evade, but even then, it required an evade... it wasn't outright.

 

> So trickery is picked only/mostly for +3 ini and that's specifically what makes other builds inferior? I disagree.

 

No, many people take it for the Steal buffs/boon-steal. That alone is strong enough to choose Trickery over other lines. However, the +3 initiative puts it over the top, making it a no-brainer choice. On many builds, I can do without buffed Steal or even the condition-cleansing Tricks... but I can hardly do without the +3 initiative. Between map-traversal by Shortbow or Stealth-stacking with Dagger/Pistol or Unload barrages with Pistol/Pistol, a pool of 15 initiative is extremely superior to one of 12.

 

> What does "+3 ini" have to do with "critical strikes"? What does it have to do with "deadly arts"? You seem to be contradicting your own arguments that you literally made in the same post and just seem to be dead set on moving the "OP 3 ini" somewhere else even if it doesn't make sense at all.

 

There are no contradictions. I said that I wouldn't like a +3 initiative trait in any of them. I believe it to be a baseline characteristic. However, the argument is that a Preparedness could very well fit other traits just as well. Trickery is more of a utility line where Deadly Arts and Critical Strikes are offensive lines, which is what weapon skills (initiative) are all about. For what it's worth, Lead Attacks may fit in the other lines better also, and Improvisation fits Trickery much better than Deadly Arts.

 

And again, I say that 15 initiative should be baseline for every Thief. The only other traits that outright change the Thief's base capabilities are Elite traits. Daredevil gives a third dodge. Daredevil halves the range of Steal (Swipe). Deadeye changes a shadowstepping Steal to a ranged Mark. Deadeye transforms Stealth Attacks into Malicious Stealth Attacks.

 

It's just a matter of consistency. Every Core Thief has Steal. It may recharge quickly, it may recharge slowly. But when it's ready to go, there is only one shot, and it always functions the same.

Every Thief uses initiative. It may recharge quickly, it may recharge slowly. All of that is fine.

The problem is that some Thieves have more initiative than others, and that 3 extra initiative is another attack that can be used initially in a fight. It's similar to a 3-second daze every fight.

 

I'd have less of a problem with Preparedness if it just increased the initiative recharge rate similar to Vigor with endurance, but I don't like just tacking on extra initiative. I think it is an inconsistency in design. Either way, to avoid any hint of contradiction, I would much prefer the Thief's initiative to be consistent in both pool size (12 or 15) and natural regeneration rate (as it is now). Whether Preparedness was made baseline (15 initiative for all) or simply removed (12 initiative for all), at least the weapon skills and natural regeneration rate could be (re)balanced to that number.

 

Then again, this is coming from a person who doesn't like weapon-specific traits, and would prefer if such traits would benefit all weapons in the way that Deadly Ambition is more useful to every Thief than the old Dagger Training was.

 

We may disagree on if such a change should be made, but there are actual reasons for both sides.

[anduriell.6280]

> @"NorthernRedStar.3054" said:

> > @"anduriell.6280" said:

> > With the normal initiative regeneration you get enough to spam skills soon enough. Either way all the thief autos do a ton of damage and those dont use inititative.

> >

> > I dont see any need to increase the amount of spamming the thief can do. The class has its issues but the damage output is not one of them, being meta in raids.

> >

>

> Spamming is something only amateur thieves do, lol. Yet, it seems to be a common consensus among other class mains that they can just get away with it. Also, this is about PvP.

>

> Dagger mainhand has pitiful autoattack damage, and sword with strength rune is just enough to have some semblance of presence, but it takes far too long to ramp up against warriors and alike.

 

um i strongly dissagree with your statement and as you pointed out the rest of the other mains would agree with me. lol.

Not that i don't have any experience playing with thief eitherway.

 

Im not asking to nerf the damage thou. **Yet I doesn't need any powercreep.**

[Sobx.1758]

> @"Kageseigi.2150" said:

> > @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > Trickery focuses on steal and ini, so if it doesn't fit trickery, then it doesn't fit anything at all. Almost nothing about trickery spec is "tricky", I'm not sure how the name of the spec is an argument here at all?

> > It also has a very obvious synergy with lead attacks which in combination with ini restoring traits can help you with easier stacking, maintaining and actually using the damage bonus. I'm not sure how it suddenly "doesn't fit there" just because people want to get a buff to the class.

>

> Buffing maximum initiative for the Thief as a whole is hardly a bad thing. The one thing we can agree on is that we have different perspectives on what Preparedness does. You see it as a buff to the Thief, I see it as a nerf to non-Trickery Thieves... the same way that going without Shortbow in PvP takes away the biggest advantage (and only real purpose) the Thief has there.

 

I already understand you think it's hardly a bad thing, not sure why you're repeating it in the answer to this quoted fragment, but I might have missed something here? :p

Comparing +3 max ini to the utility that bow brings to thief's kit is a huge stretch for me, just saying.

 

> Trickery focuses a lot on Trick utilities, so the name fits (whether or not that was the original intent). It also focuses on BUFFING Steal and REDUCING its RECHARGE time. Other traitlines also BUFF Steal (Deadly Arts, Shadow Arts) and REDUCE its RECHARGE time (Acrobatics). It also focuses on BUFFING initiative use (Lead Attacks) and REDUCING its RECHARGE time (Kleptomaniac, Quick Pockets). But other traitlines also BUFF initiative use (Acrobatics) and REDUCE its RECHARGE time (Shadow Arts, Acrobatics). Such traits, whether from Trickery or other lines, are great. However, they only BUFF or REDUCE RECHARGE time. And they are not exclusive to Trickery. And they all synergize with each other.

 

I know what trickery and other specs do, not sure what you're trying to spell out here for me -saying that other trait lines can also affect "x" changes nothing about what I said.

Saying that "it also focuses on trick utilities" is nearly irrelevant, because it doesn't exclude what I said in any way.

Of course they need to synergize with each other in one way or the other, they're all parts of the same class, if they were all strictly divided and seperated by mechanics it would make next to no sense and feel terrible to use. Again, not sure what point you're trying to make and how it changes what I said.

 

> The absolute ONLY trait that uniquely affects initiative other than BUFFING or REDUCING RECHARGE time is Preparedness. In the Core lines, the closest trait that comes to its effectiveness was the old Swindler's Equilibrium that gave a complete second Steal on evade, but even then, it required an evade... it wasn't outright.

 

How exactly is this an argument that "it doesn't fit because it's unique at what it does"?

Cool, so by your own logic old Swingler's Equilibrium should have been made baseline. :D If you think +3 ini overperforms so hard then it should be switched to a new trait, not pulled out of a trait line and made baseline. Seriously, that's not how it works.

 

> > So trickery is picked only/mostly for +3 ini and that's specifically what makes other builds inferior? I disagree.

>

> No, many people take it for the Steal buffs/boon-steal. That alone is strong enough to choose Trickery over other lines. However, the +3 initiative puts it over the top, making it a no-brainer choice. On many builds, I can do without buffed Steal or even the condition-cleansing Tricks... but I can hardly do without the +3 initiative. Between map-traversal by Shortbow or Stealth-stacking with Dagger/Pistol or Unload barrages with Pistol/Pistol, a pool of 15 initiative is extremely superior to one of 12.

 

Exactly. You don't need to explain it to me, I literally wrote:

>So trickery is picked only/mostly for +3 ini and that's specifically what makes other builds inferior? **I disagree.**

 

and it was in response to your "I'm against a single trait making all other Thief builds significantly inferior". If it's singlehandedly makes other specs inferior then it's easy to understand that THAT'S exactly what makes trickery. But it doesn't. It's like you can't decide whether it's "making or breaking the thief" or not.

 

> > What does "+3 ini" have to do with "critical strikes"? What does it have to do with "deadly arts"? You seem to be contradicting your own arguments that you literally made in the same post and just seem to be dead set on moving the "OP 3 ini" somewhere else even if it doesn't make sense at all.

>

> There are no contradictions. I said that I wouldn't like a +3 initiative trait in any of them. I believe it to be a baseline characteristic. However, the argument is that a Preparedness could very well fit other traits just as well. Trickery is more of a utility line where Deadly Arts and Critical Strikes are offensive lines, which is what weapon skills (initiative) are all about. For what it's worth, Lead Attacks may fit in the other lines better also, and Improvisation fits Trickery much better than Deadly Arts.

 

Here's where -imo- the contradiction is:

you claim it doesn't fit trickery (but it does and I told you why) and then write "If anything, shouldn't such a trait be in Critical Strikes or at least Deadly Arts?".

If you think it shouldn't be in CS or DA then I don't understand why you picked the form of a question that suggests it should be there ("shouldn't it be in...?"). No, no it shouldn't. It has nothing to do with CS or DA and even by what you said -if increasing resources isn't a utility trait, then I'm not sure what it.

 

 

> And again, I say that 15 initiative should be baseline for every Thief. The only other traits that outright change the Thief's base capabilities are Elite traits. Daredevil gives a third dodge. Daredevil halves the range of Steal (Swipe). Deadeye changes a shadowstepping Steal to a ranged Mark. Deadeye transforms Stealth Attacks into Malicious Stealth Attacks.

 

You can't seriously compare "+3 ini" with DD's dodge abilities and DE mark/malice lmao. And, again, not sure why you're vaguely describing the especs to me right now as if I don't understand what they do? :D The fact remains that +3 ini is nowhere near the changes those especs bring.

 

> It's just a matter of consistency. Every Core Thief has Steal. It may recharge quickly, it may recharge slowly. But when it's ready to go, there is only one shot, and it always functions the same.

> Every Thief uses initiative. It may recharge quickly, it may recharge slowly. All of that is fine.

> The problem is that some Thieves have more initiative than others, and that 3 extra initiative is another attack that can be used initially in a fight. It's similar to a 3-second daze every fight.

 

It literally doesn't "function the same" depending on what traits or specs you pick. Anyways, +3 ini has nothing to do with that fact.

"It's fine" because what? Because you decided that at this post? I don't know what you're writing right now, but you sure aren't making any valid point by typing "it changes how it works, but in a DIFFERENT way, so it's fine. Now THIS trait changes it in another way so it should be baseline". Wat.

Some thieves have 3 more initiative at the start, which actually gives you significantly less than the traits that recharge it multiple times during the fight. How is 3 ini equal to 3 second daze?

 

> I'd have less of a problem with Preparedness if it just increased the initiative recharge rate similar to Vigor with endurance, but I don't like just tacking on extra initiative. I think it is an inconsistency in design. Either way, to avoid any hint of contradiction, I would much prefer the Thief's initiative to be consistent in both pool size (12 or 15) and natural regeneration rate (as it is now). Whether Preparedness was made baseline (15 initiative for all) or simply removed (12 initiative for all), at least the weapon skills and natural regeneration rate could be (re)balanced to that number.

 

Inconsistency in deign in what way? Making prep a passive ini recharge would be a buff to prep (unless you'd like to make it so insignificant that it wouldn't really matter at all, then what's the point?), so... I'm confused even more than I was at the start of this post.

 

> Then again, this is coming from a person who doesn't like weapon-specific traits, and would prefer if such traits would benefit all weapons in the way that Deadly Ambition is more useful to every Thief than the old Dagger Training was.

>

> We may disagree on if such a change should be made, but there are actual reasons for both sides.

 

Well, yeah, still just opinions, I guess I might as well agree to disagree and move on. :p

[Sir Vincent III.1286]

Adding more Initiatives is just delaying the inevitable of running out of Initiatives. When you run out of Initiatives and you used Shadow Shot every 4s, for example, you are basically adding 4 more seconds of cooldown to every other weapon skills. The Thief's weapon skill cooldown starts low, but it snowball to crazy length in a long fight.

 

For instance, if I used up my Initiatives and used Shadow Shot every 4s, I'm adding 4s CD to Blackpowder basically making its CD 10s. For every Shadow Shot I use, Blackpowder's CD just keep on accumulating by 4s, 14s CD, 18s CD, 22s CD, 26s CD, _ad infinitum_. As long as I keep on using Shadow Shot every 4s, Blackpowder will never see the light of day. This effectively limits the Thief's access to other skills in a long fight, while other profession's skills will recharge independently from each other -- in both weapon sets. A Warrior who uses Savage Leap every 8s is not adding 8s CD to their other weapon skills.

 

This flaw in the Initiative system creates bad gameplay like "permastealth" to wait for Initiative regen or flat out abandoning the fight, aka running away. Neither the Thief nor other profession view this kind of gameplay satisfactorily.

[Kageseigi.2150]

> @"Sobx.1758" said:

> How is 3 ini equal to 3 second daze?

 

Since this is a direct question, and I didn't clarify earlier, I'll do so now. And note that I said that it's similar, not equal... because it's certainly not equal :-P

 

Basically, if you compare a Trickery Thief to a non-Trickery Thief, in each fight (more specifically, every time the initiative pool refills), the Trickery Thief is able to use 15 initiative worth of skills (say 5 Heartseekers) immediately where the non-Trickery Thief is able to use only 12 initiative worth of skills (4 Heartseekers) immediately. In order to get that 5th Heartseeker, the non-Trickery Thief has to wait for three seconds for enough initiative to regenerate.

 

Yeah, it's not a true daze (never said it was), but it is similar in that most of your weapon skills are out of commission while waiting for the initiative to regenerate. While every Thief deals with running out of initiative and waiting for the refill, a non-Trickery Thief has to deal with it for 3 seconds more than a Trickery Thief every fight, thus the daze comparison.

 

> Well, yeah, still just opinions, I guess I might as well agree to disagree and move on. :p

 

I agree also! See? Togetherness and unity in the Thief forum! :-D

 

> @"Sir Vincent III.1286" said:

> This flaw in the Initiative system creates bad gameplay like "permastealth" to wait for Initiative regen or flat out abandoning the fight, aka running away. Neither the Thief nor other profession view this kind of gameplay satisfactorily.

 

Hmm, they say that one man's trash is another man's treasure. I suppose that could be true in this case.

 

I wouldn't necessarily call it a flaw, I would call it a disadvantage. But on the flip side, the advantage is that every skill is accessible when you need it (assuming you have enough initiative). I'd much rather be able to use a skill twice or thrice than to be locked out of it. Those double tap Headshots are/were nice to interrupt through Stability. The ability to chain Infiltrator's Arrow is what allows a Thief escapability. I can't count the number of times that the pathing failed on my first attempt, or I warped right into a wall instead of on top of it. That ability to port again almost instantly (even though it costs me twice the amount of initiative) is a life-saver.

 

I guess I view the initiative system like I view a set of tools. I can use my screwdriver whenever I come across a screw. I can use my hammer whenever I come across a nail. But I may come across two nails at one time, so being able to use the hammer twice in succession is better than using the hammer once, but getting locked out of it, and having to use my screwdriver to deal with the second nail. I'm sure the screwdriver appreciates the extra use, but it makes the job much harder.

 

That's my view on the current initiative system, of course. It's certainly not perfect. It could use tweaks and modifications, and your suggestion is well worth the discussion. I'm just speaking for the current system compared to the pure cooldown system of the others. To be honest, though, the initiative system is really why I play Thief. There's so much more flexibility in it in my opinion. Whether the Thief has enough initiative or if the skills are strong enough because of the spammability, that's up for debate... but I do love the flexibility! :-D