So you want us to use Deathshroud?

#16 - July 23, 2013, 12:40 p.m.

Let’s brainstorm some scenarios if we did this, FOR SCIENCE!

If death shroud = survivability, and we allowed necros to have death shroud from the start, then how could that change how necros play? How would this affect certain maps and the balance of those maps? How would this affect the meta? How would this affect other classes?

Also, if we gave necros death shroud, should we give warriors adrenaline? Should we give thieves initiative? Should we give everyone everything they ever wanted?

Ultimately, what I’m looking for is the reasoning, and why you feel this would be a positive change for the game. I’m curious, because it’s easy to say “I want, I want” without saying why.

#22 - July 23, 2013, 1:05 p.m.

Batmang.5421, I think it is in everyones best interest that all players consider the implications of what they are saying when they say it, regardless of their status in the scene.

mordran.4750, I appreciate your feedback, and understand your feelings. While I’m not entirely happy with the sense of entitlement I’m getting from your post (I could be completely wrong about that – internet makes it hard to read people, so sorry if I am), I don’t disagree with what you’re saying. If you have any specific ideas as to how you would like to see this, I’m all ears. I will say that information on design philosophy with patch notes is something we have discussed internally, and something we do want to do eventually.

Thanks for the feedback!

#26 - July 23, 2013, 1:13 p.m.

sorrow.2364:

Allie Murdock.8152:

Let’s brainstorm some scenarios if we did this, FOR SCIENCE!

If death shroud = survivability, and we allowed necros to have death shroud from the start, then how could that change how necros play? How would this affect certain maps and the balance of those maps? How would this affect the meta? How would this affect other classes?

Also, if we gave necros death shroud, should we give warriors adrenaline? Should we give thieves initiative? Should we give everyone everything they ever wanted?

Ultimately, what I’m looking for is the reasoning, and why you feel this would be a positive change for the game. I’m curious, because it’s easy to say “I want, I want” without saying why.

I think that the reason is quite simple.
Death Shroud is, by far, the most prominent source of survivability of Necromancer, while adrenaline is used only for offensive purposes (I don’t know what you meant with giving initiative on thieves, since they start the match with full initiative anyway :P).

What I’m trying to say is that to build up Life Force you are supposed to survive but, if you want to survive, you’d probably want to use Death Shroud, which is based on Life Force, which is what you want to survive for.
It is a vicious circle.

About adrenaline it is different. Adrenaline is solely for offensive purposes. You hit your enemy, you build adrenaline and then unleakittens destructive power :P

Sure sure, but if we gave you life force at the beginning of the match, how would that help you when you’re in battle? What I mean is, by the time you get into combat, have used a fear or two, have used some life steal, other life-force producing skills, etc., do you not have the life force you need to try and survive? Wouldn’t that mean you’d actually have a surplus of life force?

Don’t forget that you’re also doing tons of damage while you’re casting all those abilities. Is it really balanced to give you survivability AND glass-cannon damage all at once?

#33 - July 23, 2013, 1:33 p.m.

Defektive.7283:

Allie,

Against a good team right in the beginning, we like to stealth ontop of their necro (or mesmer) and just 100-0 them before they can react. This is the scenario they are worried about. You’re inferring combat takes place in a slow fashion in the beginning. People get gibbed pretty quick in the first fight.

Sure, but then we’re just talking about opportunity cost. You’re dedicating a player to finding a necro to take them out, which pulls that player out of the game. Counter play is something that cannot, and should not, be prevented in the game. One could argue that it’s the whole point of competitive PvP, or what sets competitive PvP apart. You analyze, and adjust to the other teams strategies. Am I wrong?

Also, I was not inferring that combat takes place in a slow fashion. Just fyi

#43 - July 23, 2013, 1:53 p.m.

Ok Defektive.7283, then answer me this. Since it is common in tPvP, you’re suggesting that the opportunity cost of focusing on the necro, as opposed to someone else on the team, or focusing on capping a point/other secondary objective is not great enough?

If so, then let me ask you this: if there was a different class that felt more threatening, would you perform the same maneuver on them instead?

What I’m seeing is – you’re establishing a threat according to your team comp, and focusing on that threat. If a necro didn’t threaten your team because of the comp that you’re running, would you still do that?

How is it not counter, when there is a specific condition that is necessary for the success of that strategy? Maybe I’m not understanding what you’re saying, but it sounds a lot like counter play to me.

#50 - July 23, 2013, 2:02 p.m.

Theplayboy.6417:

Allie do you actually play this game or do you just theory craft?

I’m trying to understand, as well as help others understand, what you are all saying.

Sunni.2948:

This forum posting reveled an interesting problem I think many Devs face when balancing MMOs. Allies disconnect in knowlege between how the gamers are playing and how they think we are playing. Like stated earlier Devs will hop in game a few hours when they can to do some testing ect. but they are often unaware of the current meta because they really arnt playing the game as much as other players (also looking at forums, theorycrafting, streaming).

The example here showing that a Dev didnt even consider a whole team stealthing and killing a necro right off the bat so why would they consider that in balancing. Can we really expect the Devs to first hand experience real competitive Tpvp?

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Let’s not get carried away here. While I do have the fancy ArenaNet emblem, that does not mean that I implement or design or balance the game. I am here trying to get a full understanding of what you are all saying, so that I can relay it all to the people who know this stuff better than I do. Don’t kill the messenger!

#52 - July 23, 2013, 2:05 p.m.

Defektive.7283:

Allie Murdock.8152:

Ok Defektive.7283, then answer me this. Since it is common in tPvP, you’re suggesting that the opportunity cost of focusing on the necro, as opposed to someone else on the team, or focusing on capping a point/other secondary objective is not great enough?

If so, then let me ask you this: if there was a different class that felt more threatening, would you perform the same maneuver on them instead?

What I’m seeing is – you’re establishing a threat according to your team comp, and focusing on that threat. If a necro didn’t threaten your team because of the comp that you’re running, would you still do that?

How is it not counter, when there is a specific condition that is necessary for the success of that strategy? Maybe I’m not understanding what you’re saying, but it sounds a lot like counter play to me.

You are incorrectly inferring that targets are placed based on their threat level.

Targets are generally chosen based on squishyness / ability to escape the damage train.

In the early game, capturing a point isn’t important, winning the first team fight is.
If you can eliminate key players, or even 1 player quickly enough, you have a fight in your advantage.

Necromancers are PRIME targets, no matter their damage because of their complete inability to mitigate pressure or to tank it. Warriors unfortunately suffer from the same fate, we have no Z axis teleport or invulnerability unless we pop all of our utilities.

Early game:
1) Eliminate the easiest target from stealth.
2) Put the team fight in your advantage early on.
3) Switch targets to the most threatening in order to apply pressure and reduce their damage output.
4) Wipe out the remaining players
5) Capture the point.

Who cares if you’re down 20-30 points in the early game if you can secure a 2 cap immediately after and hold it for 2-5 minutes.

There is no opportunity cost to doing this, only an advantage to gain if your team understands how to use stealth mechanics correctly and can point out a target who can’t avoid your damage.

I see! Thanks for explaining this with such detail!

With all that you’ve said (btw, really appreciate your objective feedback), do you agree that necros need something else to boost their survivability?

#54 - July 23, 2013, 2:05 p.m.

Thedenofsin.7340:

Allie Murdock.8152:

Ok Defektive.7283, then answer me this. Since it is common in tPvP, you’re suggesting that the opportunity cost of focusing on the necro, as opposed to someone else on the team, or focusing on capping a point/other secondary objective is not great enough?

If so, then let me ask you this: if there was a different class that felt more threatening, would you perform the same maneuver on them instead?

What I’m seeing is – you’re establishing a threat according to your team comp, and focusing on that threat. If a necro didn’t threaten your team because of the comp that you’re running, would you still do that?

How is it not counter, when there is a specific condition that is necessary for the success of that strategy? Maybe I’m not understanding what you’re saying, but it sounds a lot like counter play to me.

If it’s counter play, then how do you counter the counter play? You can’t unstealth a team. You cannot peel an invisible team, and if they have stability, you can’t peel them anyway. So the only viable options I am seeing are: a) send the necro somewhere else, thus introducing a numbers disadvantage, b) don’t bring a necro and bring a different profession. We’ve already established that Necromancers need a support group to keep them alive, so option “a” doesn’t seem really very viable.

Flesh Wurm would be a nice counter if it didn’t have the problems of being killable and having LOS issues.

I think counter play is a great idea, but there’s an implied understanding that the counter play is bi-directional. When a ‘counter’ itself cannot be countered, is that not imbalance?

Great points! Thanks for the feedback!

#85 - July 23, 2013, 6:27 p.m.

So how does this relate to this thread:

https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/pvp/pvp/Truth-and-justice/

Are Necro’s easy to kill and need life force at the start of the game, or are they unkillable death machines?

These two threads seem to be entirely disparate and diametrically opposed.

#87 - July 23, 2013, 6:35 p.m.

ensoriki.5789:

Take the medium of the two.
Necro’s are eating up quite a bit of damage, and putting out a significant amount that well still feels somewhat absurd for how long they’re maintaining themself with shroud.

Without that lifeshroud however it’s not really a biggie and they go down fairly quickly. So sure at the beginning of the fight they’ll go down easily after that it’s a pain.

Nods. I’m simply illustrating the fact that we often hear things from the players that are diametrically opposed. And thus, if it’s hard to do “what the players want”. This is a good example of that.