I dislike the shroud camping meta

[Dadnir.5038]

@"ZDragon.3046"

Like I said, there is bound to be people with very different opinions.

However, design wise, I don't think having your peak of damage at the same time that your are at the peak of your damage mitigation is healthy.

I would be totally for reaper shroud to be the bread and butter of it's damage kit if, and only if, the reaper's health pool wasn't under the cover of life force.

 

> anet as far as we can see is 100% against doing that for necro

 

I'd even say that they 10000000% against it. They even got to the length of reducing the necromancer's stability even further to be sure that the necromancer is true living sand bag.

 

There is a lot of nonsense in the amount of restrictions put on the necromancer and even the tools ANet give it. There is way to many things that defy logic:

- The necromancer being weak to CC defy logic, there is litteraly no thematical reasons for that.

- The necromancer having almost no access to passive tools of retaliation (retal/aura) when it use it's health point as it's main defensive mean make no sense.

- The necromancer being a poor support make no sense either since in GW1 it was one of it's main expertise.

- The necromancer having a large health pool while in GW1 it was the profession that tried the hardest to have the lowest health pool possible.

- The necromancer having low mobility isn't logic either, in GW1 he didn't have low mobility and thematically nothing force a necromancer to have low mobility.

- ... etc.

 

I can see what ANet want the necromancer to do "defensively", they want the necromancer to receive the hits, to focus on passive mitigation and sustain instead of active mitigation. But it doesn't make sense, be it thematically or "historically" to have the necromancer restricted to this mode of defense. It doesn't make sense either to have the necromancer weak to CC, just like it doesn't make sense for the necromancer to not take advantage of it's way to defend himself with it's health point and use passive retalition tools.

[ZDragon.3046]

> @"Dadnir.5038" said:

> @"ZDragon.3046"

> Like I said, there is bound to be people with very different opinions.

> However, design wise, I don't think having your peak of damage at the same time that your are at the peak of your damage mitigation is healthy.

> I would be totally for reaper shroud to be the bread and butter of it's damage kit if, and only if, the reaper's health pool wasn't under the cover of life force.

Once again if this was a thing it would need a ground up rework of base utility tools more fitting to evade damage because as it stands right now base tools are not good enough to support that idea. Other professions have just as much bread and butter damage in melee range in some cases even at a distance while having the tools needed to avoid / block damage. OR they would need to up the damage so much due to the risk that no one would consider it fair when it hits them and demand it be nerfed back down. If you ask me without doing a ground work up leaving it like it is now is the best way it can be especially its given an obvious weakness like cc which might not prevent the damage mitigation but certainly prevents the out going damage.

 

Best case situation is something similar to holo which even in its kit has a bubble that massively reduces damage and a block that allows them to attack while blocking and much lower cooldowns that what reaper has. I would assume reaper would at the bare minimum need similar tools which below as you said we know anet is not going to provide.

> > anet as far as we can see is 100% against doing that for necro

>

> I'd even say that they 10000000% against it. They even got to the length of reducing the necromancer's stability even further to be sure that the necromancer is true living sand bag.

>

> There is a lot of nonsense in the amount of restrictions put on the necromancer and even the tools ANet give it. There is way to many things that defy logic:

> - The necromancer being weak to CC defy logic, there is litteraly no thematical reasons for that.

> - The necromancer having almost no access to passive tools of retaliation (retal/aura) when it use it's health point as it's main defensive mean make no sense.

> - The necromancer being a poor support make no sense either since in GW1 it was one of it's main expertise.

> - The necromancer having a large health pool while in GW1 it was the profession that tried the hardest to have the lowest health pool possible.

> - The necromancer having low mobility isn't logic either, in GW1 he didn't have low mobility and thematically nothing force a necromancer to have low mobility.

> - ... etc.

 

Basically all of this is facts but at the same time i do understand that this game is not gw1 and that their choices did not have to be in direct responce of what gw1 was or left off. So im not opposed to changing things from one game to another in terms of things like going from wanting low hp to giving high hp etc things like that.

 

Again i am personally fine with the removal/reduction of stability as i am use to playing with considerably less of it than every other profession as it is and i personally feel spoiled when playing other professions that have the options that necro does not. I am sad to see the break stun function on foot in the grave go but still fine with it so long as the method in which necro is currently designed is allowed to be viable or at least some what on part with damage evasion without only depending on boon corruption. The moment the community says "anet its not fair but ignore our ability to avoid damage" and anet says "ok" and reduces it to a point its not viable then i have an issue because there are no other options due to how its designed.

 

> I can see what ANet want the necromancer to do "defensively", they want the necromancer to receive the hits, to focus on passive mitigation and sustain instead of active mitigation. But it doesn't make sense, be it thematically or "historically" to have the necromancer restricted to this mode of defense. It doesn't make sense either to have the necromancer weak to CC, just like it doesn't make sense for the necromancer to not take advantage of it's way to defend himself with it's health point and use passive retalition tools.

 

I mean we can assume that skills and practices "lore wise" have changed over time from gw1 into gw2 so i can see that there might be reason to not exactly follow in gw1's footsteps and if you ask some people today there would certainly be many who didnt want to go back to that vs whats optional on the table now.

Defending by soaking damage is fine if its allowed to be effective. Its only when you make that method ineffective due to community request or passive creep over time and also do not give them tools on par to what other would use is when you really start to reach the point of bad design. I consider something like necro's design to be different and unique which actually makes it good design so long as it works when played correctly.

[EremiteAngel.9765]

I think I have to do a 180 degrees turn on this subject.

I think I'm beginning to like the shroud camping meta after all.

It is easier to play, less stressful, and less intensive to use and produces great results.

Suitable for an old person like me.

[Lily.1935]

I remember playing core shroud. It was absolutely boring back then and its boring now. If they completely reworked core shroud I would be ecstatic.