PvE Tanking Discussion for Dragon Bones

code65536 · January 2018

Azarai wrote: »

code65536 wrote: »

I don't think moving mitigation from block to armor is a good idea.

If the complaint is that people are unkillable in PvP, shifting defense from active to passive would seem like the opposite solution.

Block mitigates a lot of damage. And that's a good thing. It's clear from ZOS's repeated nerfs to block cost that their vision is for blocking is an active defense, and as such, it should be rewarding. Or as @ZOS_Wrobel might say, blocking should "feel awesome". If you pared back what block can do and make it so that people can defend passively, then what would be purpose of blocking be? The effectiveness and high mitigation of blocking is appropriate and necessary for an active, reactionary defense.

The problem is that people don't use blocking reactively. It often gets used almost like a passive defense, and then the effectiveness of block seems out of whack.

And let's be honest here: holding down the RMB isn't particularly interesting.

Anyway, ZOS's solution to this has been repeated nerfs. And honestly, the nerfs are fine. Even necessary (come on, sub-100 block cost was pretty ridiculous). The problem--and why PvE tanks complain loudly about the nerfs--is that they are not matched by adjustments in the content.

I've tanked every vet trial, every vet dungeon. And I hold down the RMB a lot. Why do I do this? It's not because I think holding down RMB is oh-so-much-fun. It's because we often need to.
Content that require perma-blocking: The axes in vAA is a classic example. The more axes there are, the fewer opportunities there are to drop block. With enough axes up, there simply won't be any meaningful windows of opportunity to drop block. Also, with enough axes up, the amount of normal damage you take gets pretty high, too.

Poor telegraphs, cues, and warnings: The best example of this would be the Warrior. I remember my first few times tanking this boss. All of his attacks look similar. There is no prior warning to the start of his Channeled Swipes. Even for people who have tanked this boss often, it's still a good idea to just keep block up almost all the time.

Lag and responsiveness: On the Warrior fight, when the boss does the shield throw, the DPS can either move out or block it. The telegraph is pretty clear, and there is a good amount of warning. Should be a simple matter of jamming down the RMB when you see that rectangle on the ground, right? Most of the time, that works just fine. But now and then, I'll jam down the RMB, the shield throw would happen, and I'll get one-shot with the death recap showing that I took an unblocked hit. How many times have you heard someone say, "But I was blocking that!" It's the nature of an online game. Whether its due to client sluggishness, latency in the network, or the server being overwhelmed and slow to process, sometimes your actions don't register in a timely manner. If a DPS goes down, that's usually not a big deal. But it is when a tank goes down. But if the tank just holds down the RMB the whole time, they won't have to worry about this being a problem.

CCs: Block is more than just damage mitigation. It also stops many harmful effects like CCs. If you're doing vAA HM and get hit by a meteor without block, it'll stun you. As a tank, that's pretty much a guaranteed death. So it's pretty punishing, and then add in the lag/responsiveness problem (as a DPS, I've had too many situations where I ate an unblocked meteor hit even though my finger was firmly pressed on the RMB), and most tanks will agree that it would be folly to not permablock vAA HM. Another egregious example is the Flesh Abomination boss in Imperial City Prison. Most of this boss's attacks will knock down and CC a non-blocking player, and these attacks happen very, very frequently. I've tried to not permablock this boss (usually when I'm off-tanking as a DPS and I can only afford to tactically block), and it just doesn't work.

When the *** hits the fan: There are some fights that are just so busy that it's unreasonable for a tank to keep track of everything that's going on. A good example is the final boss of Falkreath, towards the end. It's really, really hard to see the main boss's heavy attack telegraph when you have oversized adds blocking your view and a million visual effects going on. Final boss of Mazzatun HM is similar, though not quite as bad.

On the bright side, though, it seems that newer content is better-designed. vHoF, for example, is almost perfectly designed for tactical blocking.
There are sufficient windows between must-block attacks to allow me to drop block for meaningful amounts of time.

The attacks that must be blocked are well-telegraphed.

The attacks that must be blocked have long enough of warnings that lag/responsiveness is not an issue for me.

The one area that still encourages permablocking in vHoF are the CCs. But at least they removed the health drain from Power Leech, which helped a bit.

On the whole, vHoF is pretty well-designed to support the vision of active blocking. And indeed, I block a lot less in vHoF than I do in other trials.

I've always said that block nerfs need to be accompanied by content adjustments. I'm not talking about toning down the damage of the content, but rather making sure that must-block attacks are well-spaced, well-telegraphed, and well-timed with latency/responsiveness taken into account. It's not enough to make sure that newer content supports the combat team's vision--older content needs to be adapted, too. Encounters like ICP's Flesh Abomination and vAA's axes could use some adjustment, for example.

Anyway, I think that blocking should be a strong, active defense. It's just that there is a lot of content that doesn't support that model of gameplay. And I'm also under no delusion that content adjustments will be forthcoming, which is why I'm wary of these nerfs. I agree with them in principle, but not in practice.

I can mostly see your point of view, but in a lot of Vet modes, especially DLC, tanks can get so heavily punished for missing one block that I am kind of nervous to not Permablock. For instance, just did a random Vet dungeon and got Falkreath. Through 33.9k Physical resist, 8.3% from Hardy, and with blocking, the Minotaur heavy still drops me to 60% health. Now, if I am tanking two or three and miss a single block, one shot. I understand DLC dungeons are supposed to be harder, but having mobs able to one shot a full tank if they are not blocking is kind of silly. And with such a heavy penalty for not blocking, most likely a wipe, I guess I just see Permablocking as essential, as long as content can hurt that much, at least for newer players.

P.S., not saying nerf Falkreath, just explaining why changing block cost can be potentially harmful.

I know. Much of my post is why there is a lot of content that I do permablock for, and I even called out Falkreath's final boss as an example of design that doesn't support tactical blocking.

Doctordarkspawn · January 2018

@code65536 has alot of good things to say on this subject and most of what he says is true. The only thing I'd disagree with is his stance on shifting mitigation. They're different solutions to the same problem.

Especially when he talks about outright ***, connection bollocks or the like. The content needs ajusted.

I'm not all that opposed to the nerfs so long as something gives to where we are not continually given the same, increasingly broken tool to deal with the same problem.

Like we keep saying, you need to change the design on both bloody ends. Change old content to support the new style, and things will be fiiiiiiine.

...And finally, wow, me and code agreed on something. Wheeeeee.

Juhasow · January 2018

The most funny thing about this change is if @Liofa calculations are correct it means builds that are very annoying like tanky DK's that also have very nice dmg in PvP will benefit from it.

For average mag dk with lets say 3 sturdy , 19% reduce block cost from CP's , s&b passive and 1 reduce block cost enchantemnt block cost now is ~783 and will be ~697 so it'll be lower ! GG Zenimax failing again...

Maura_Neysa · January 2018

Should I dust off the old Hist/Footmans? lol not jking

Liofa wrote: »

Nifty2g wrote: »

You really do not need to use blockade honestly, if you are heavy attacking you can keep crusher up just fine doing that. Heavy attacking does not take long at all, you shouldn't be losing downtimes.

Sustaining won't be that difficult if you roll the appropriate race and class for it, and we are end game players, running what is best in slot should not be an issue for anyone.

I agree these are straight nerfs and we keep getting tank nerfs because of PvP which is ridiculous but these nerfs aren't the end of the world, I kinda like these ones as it's going to make tanking a little harder.

I actually need to run Blockade . Applying Crusher while stunned or while being away from boss makes a huge difference in many fights . You must have seen some Storm Atro parses before . While no-lightning-staff tanks are getting around 70% , I consider 99% as low . Just an example .

About heavy attacks , it is true that they don't take long but it doesn't change the fact that they take longer than normal . A heavy attack + skill is slower than two skills in a row . I will be losing buff uptimes and so are you , like everyone else .

The thing that makes me mad been pointed by many other players . Problem is not permablocking . It is the amount of healing and mitigation . Almost all PvP builds being centered around burst is just the perfect proof of that . Anyway , that's about PvP so I don't want to get into that even more . It is just that I don't like getting nerfed because of something that is completely unrelated to me .

The only real differences I see is that you are going to need to be an Argonian and make clever use of their passives.

Almost forgot . This is an another nerf . As an Imperial , if I switch to Argonian , I'll be losing stats to recover (only a part of) the lost sustain . What a joke ...

Stamden wrote: »

I never got why people complain about permablocking builds in PvP in the first place. It's annoying, but there is nothing effective about it.

True . I wish ZOS would see this as clear as we do . They are just listening to some casuls who are simply bad at PvP

Roll with a Frost Staff back bar, WITHOUT Tri-Focus. You get the the same uptime while still keeping the 36%(now) Block cost reduction. I never found the Off Balance useful, 4-man it was effective but even in DLC with the right DD we still had to slow down if we wanted to avoid mechanic stacking (FRC 8 atros and a shout) and in Trials you already have 4-6 other Lighting Blockades going.

When I tried my tank as an Argonian, I didn't find Resourceful to be all that resourceful and I run an Altmer tank.

But yeah, I'm not looking forward to this. Morrowind was Block Cost doubling, this one will be block cost more than tripling (>_>)

paulsimonps · January 2018

Juhasow wrote: »

The most funny thing about this change is if @Liofa calculations are correct it means builds that are very annoying like tanky DK's that also have very nice dmg in PvP will benefit from it.

For average mag dk with lets say 3 sturdy , 19% reduce block cost from CP's , s&b passive and 1 reduce block cost enchantemnt block cost now is ~783 and will be ~697 so it'll be lower ! GG Zenimax failing again...

@Juhasow
Add Absorb Magic on that and the cost goes down to 640. And with Absorb Magic and no Shield Play enchantment you can get 726 which is still lower than what you can get on live with the combo you said. The combo I am showing was as high as 906 on live, which is a big difference. And yes, all the math holds up the change in formula was told to us by ZOS and easy enough to test and replicate.

LioraValkyrie · January 2018

Teuton67 wrote: »

I feel that changes like these are only going to put content out of reach for more players. I'm not as concerned with these changes for tanking in 12 man trials as much as I am in 4 man content, namely vDSA. I've been spending a lot of time recently going for better scores in vDSA and contemplating a 4X increase in block cost is scary. With all the other needs for stamina (bash, break-free, and roll dodge), draining four times as much for each block will be really taxing. It's all well and good to talk about running rotations and tactically blocking against a trial boss but that falls apart when you talk about tanking double adds in vDSA.

I am also reading this thread with vDSA in mind. A really novel idea comes to mind for those nasty ad waves. Drop Heroic Slash - for me, this is a lacklustre stamina hog which I keep up less than 50% of the time anyway - and replace it with Consuming Trap. Spam it on the ads when they clump up, restore 1400 stamina every time one of them dies. This tactic won't affect tanking the 4 minibosses during the Hiath fight, since nothing will be dying, but surely a good S/B ulti + HA spam can sustain us there.

Wayshuba · January 2018

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Carbonised wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Carbonised wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

"Tactically block" my tookus.

They want to please a PVP playerbase who the majority of content isn't produced for.

ADD THE COST INCREASE TO BATTLE SPIRIT. STOP SCREWING THE REST OF US.

Typing everything with caps doesn't change the fact that this was just as much about PvE as PvP. ZOS has noticed that tanks spend 10 % of their time tanking and 90 % of their time aiding group dps, putting buffs on raid group, putting debuffs on the boss. And they concluded that the actual tanking must be too trivial if a tank can spend his majority of time and ressources to boost group DPS. And they are right. It's a nice change that tanks actually have to worry more about tanking and less about being a group buff bot. It's not about PvP.

Except if that is the aim here, that's a stupid aim.

If you dont want tanks to support the group, why is the templar tank advised to grab shards? Why the DK tank advised to grab igneous shield?

It's what they are. Tanks are group support. Your logic is stupid and contradicted by ZOS's own advisory tool. It is about PVP, all these changes are allways about PVP. Stop kidding yourself.

You went from typing all caps to calling someone stupid the minute they disagree with you.

Maybe you should take a timeout and blow off some steam

I repeat in the nicest manner possible:

If the aim of the changes is to make tanks less group support, why is the basic starter build for at least two classes filled with at least one group support ability, sometimes more than one, and sometimes with passives to support that ability? Please answer this question. I'd love to hear a rational, logical answer to it, that is argued from a place of logic, rather than exess love for the game.

Another one I'd love answered: If we're supposed to spend less time tanking, then why are the damage numbers for most of the raid bosses lessened, possibly through armor or spell mitigation? As previous established, one Rakkat blast will cost 10 K stamina next patch. Why should we block less if the content does not change? Surely, if the intent was to change how we play, the content would change to support that, no?

Edit: Still waiting.

Edit 2: Likely not geting an answer. Age old wisdom: "If you have not reasoned yourself into a position, you cannot reason yourself out of it."

In order to justify these changes you need to successfully answer both questions in a logical manner that the playerbase, or most of it, agree's with. In this case, PVE tanks. (PVP does not get a say. They're monopolization is hardly the point considering this sort of change can be done on a zone by zone basis.) I can safely bet my soul that likely will not happen.

If this is true, then ZoS should stop making tanking armor sets, enchantments and skills for tanks with group support functions.

Wayshuba · January 2018

In any MMO I have played, class balance has been a staple of almost every patch usually as a result of trying to achieve the right balance between PvE and PvP. I have yet to see a single company ever succeed.

My problem with this regarding PvE, and all other games and times in the past, is these changes are typically done in a vacuum. What I mean by this is if you want to change tanking for PvP fine, but you should also go back and adjust things in the game for the change it means for PvE - specifically bosses that were designed around particular game mechanics at the time and are no longer applicable.

For example, if they want us to get in some "heavy attacks" in rotation for stamina regen or want us to "tactically block" then spread the timing of the Axe attacks out so we can get a heavy attack in. Or change the mechanic so they do damage instead of stunning you. Instead, we get changes to the skills, class and sustain with no re-balancing in the PvE areas of the game.

SirCritical · January 2018

rustic_potato wrote: »

I personally started playing right after CP was introduced. (No cap 1500+ CP glory days) I never knew how much of a nerf the players who played before me took.

Lucky you.

Liofa · January 2018

Juhasow wrote: »

The most funny thing about this change is if @Liofa calculations are correct it means builds that are very annoying like tanky DK's that also have very nice dmg in PvP will benefit from it.

For average mag dk with lets say 3 sturdy , 19% reduce block cost from CP's , s&b passive and 1 reduce block cost enchantemnt block cost now is ~783 and will be ~697 so it'll be lower ! GG Zenimax failing again...

Yep , that is very true . I tried mDK in PTS to see how cheesy the Power Lash spam was , spoiler : It is disgustingly strong . With 8 Sturdy items and 100 Shadow Ward , I can permablock in duels most of the time . All those people who were complaining about mDKs and sDKs permablocking now gonna get a worse version of what they complained about ^^

Maura_Neysa wrote: »

Roll with a Frost Staff back bar, WITHOUT Tri-Focus. You get the the same uptime while still keeping the 36%(now) Block cost reduction. I never found the Off Balance useful, 4-man it was effective but even in DLC with the right DD we still had to slow down if we wanted to avoid mechanic stacking (FRC 8 atros and a shout) and in Trials you already have 4-6 other Lighting Blockades going.

When I tried my tank as an Argonian, I didn't find Resourceful to be all that resourceful and I run an Altmer tank.

But yeah, I'm not looking forward to this. Morrowind was Block Cost doubling, this one will be block cost more than tripling (>_>)

That's exactly what I am doing on PTS ^^ Same old setup with Ice Staff on back bar instead of Lightning . Even though block cost is much higher compared to live , an Equilibrium DK tank can permablock just like before .

actosh · January 2018

Liofa wrote: »

Juhasow wrote: »

The most funny thing about this change is if @Liofa calculations are correct it means builds that are very annoying like tanky DK's that also have very nice dmg in PvP will benefit from it.

For average mag dk with lets say 3 sturdy , 19% reduce block cost from CP's , s&b passive and 1 reduce block cost enchantemnt block cost now is ~783 and will be ~697 so it'll be lower ! GG Zenimax failing again...

Yep , that is very true . I tried mDK in PTS to see how cheesy the Power Lash spam was , spoiler : It is disgustingly strong . With 8 Sturdy items and 100 Shadow Ward , I can permablock in duels most of the time . All those people who were complaining about mDKs and sDKs permablocking now gonna get a worse version of what they complained about ^^

Maura_Neysa wrote: »

Roll with a Frost Staff back bar, WITHOUT Tri-Focus. You get the the same uptime while still keeping the 36%(now) Block cost reduction. I never found the Off Balance useful, 4-man it was effective but even in DLC with the right DD we still had to slow down if we wanted to avoid mechanic stacking (FRC 8 atros and a shout) and in Trials you already have 4-6 other Lighting Blockades going.

When I tried my tank as an Argonian, I didn't find Resourceful to be all that resourceful and I run an Altmer tank.

But yeah, I'm not looking forward to this. Morrowind was Block Cost doubling, this one will be block cost more than tripling (>_>)

That's exactly what I am doing on PTS ^^ Same old setup with Ice Staff on back bar instead of Lightning . Even though block cost is much higher compared to live , an Equilibrium DK tank can permablock just like before .

seems like zos again fullfilled their intended goals ^^

Maura_Neysa · January 2018

Liofa wrote: »

Juhasow wrote: »

The most funny thing about this change is if @Liofa calculations are correct it means builds that are very annoying like tanky DK's that also have very nice dmg in PvP will benefit from it.

For average mag dk with lets say 3 sturdy , 19% reduce block cost from CP's , s&b passive and 1 reduce block cost enchantemnt block cost now is ~783 and will be ~697 so it'll be lower ! GG Zenimax failing again...

Yep , that is very true . I tried mDK in PTS to see how cheesy the Power Lash spam was , spoiler : It is disgustingly strong . With 8 Sturdy items and 100 Shadow Ward , I can permablock in duels most of the time . All those people who were complaining about mDKs and sDKs permablocking now gonna get a worse version of what they complained about ^^

Maura_Neysa wrote: »

Roll with a Frost Staff back bar, WITHOUT Tri-Focus. You get the the same uptime while still keeping the 36%(now) Block cost reduction. I never found the Off Balance useful, 4-man it was effective but even in DLC with the right DD we still had to slow down if we wanted to avoid mechanic stacking (FRC 8 atros and a shout) and in Trials you already have 4-6 other Lighting Blockades going.

When I tried my tank as an Argonian, I didn't find Resourceful to be all that resourceful and I run an Altmer tank.

But yeah, I'm not looking forward to this. Morrowind was Block Cost doubling, this one will be block cost more than tripling (>_>)

That's exactly what I am doing on PTS ^^ Same old setup with Ice Staff on back bar instead of Lightning . Even though block cost is much higher compared to live , an Equilibrium DK tank can permablock just like before .

I'm a Warden tank will be rough if I have to drop Ice Fortress for Equalibrium and switch to playing the stam / mag block balance game. Up side is we had stronger sustain to start with.

Nolic1 · January 2018

Wayshuba wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Carbonised wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Carbonised wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

"Tactically block" my tookus.

They want to please a PVP playerbase who the majority of content isn't produced for.

ADD THE COST INCREASE TO BATTLE SPIRIT. STOP SCREWING THE REST OF US.

Typing everything with caps doesn't change the fact that this was just as much about PvE as PvP. ZOS has noticed that tanks spend 10 % of their time tanking and 90 % of their time aiding group dps, putting buffs on raid group, putting debuffs on the boss. And they concluded that the actual tanking must be too trivial if a tank can spend his majority of time and ressources to boost group DPS. And they are right. It's a nice change that tanks actually have to worry more about tanking and less about being a group buff bot. It's not about PvP.

Except if that is the aim here, that's a stupid aim.

If you dont want tanks to support the group, why is the templar tank advised to grab shards? Why the DK tank advised to grab igneous shield?

It's what they are. Tanks are group support. Your logic is stupid and contradicted by ZOS's own advisory tool. It is about PVP, all these changes are allways about PVP. Stop kidding yourself.

You went from typing all caps to calling someone stupid the minute they disagree with you.

Maybe you should take a timeout and blow off some steam

I repeat in the nicest manner possible:

If the aim of the changes is to make tanks less group support, why is the basic starter build for at least two classes filled with at least one group support ability, sometimes more than one, and sometimes with passives to support that ability? Please answer this question. I'd love to hear a rational, logical answer to it, that is argued from a place of logic, rather than exess love for the game.

Another one I'd love answered: If we're supposed to spend less time tanking, then why are the damage numbers for most of the raid bosses lessened, possibly through armor or spell mitigation? As previous established, one Rakkat blast will cost 10 K stamina next patch. Why should we block less if the content does not change? Surely, if the intent was to change how we play, the content would change to support that, no?

Edit: Still waiting.

Edit 2: Likely not geting an answer. Age old wisdom: "If you have not reasoned yourself into a position, you cannot reason yourself out of it."

In order to justify these changes you need to successfully answer both questions in a logical manner that the playerbase, or most of it, agree's with. In this case, PVE tanks. (PVP does not get a say. They're monopolization is hardly the point considering this sort of change can be done on a zone by zone basis.) I can safely bet my soul that likely will not happen.

If this is true, then ZoS should stop making tanking armor sets, enchantments and skills for tanks with group support functions.

There are some tank sets that works great for helping add some support to the group but really only one is ever used and that is Ebon Alkosh was not a tank set it is a set made for DPS and works just like Sunderflame but no one runs it that way even though it would be easier for a DPS to hit a synergy then making the tank stop tanking to do it and it does not slow down dps enough to ruin there rotation so its more effective for them to use. As for all the other support sets to be honest there are uses for them but again no one has used them cause the meta design does not call for them.

Bevik · January 2018

Is the block cost increases as you getting more hit? If not why not make that? I mean if you do the perma block 1st hit you get cost X stamina, 2nd hit cost more and so on. This way the more hit you get the sooner you run out the stamina if you keep holding the block. So eventually you should drop the block. Make some penalty for holding the block and problem solved.
And yes, change some mechanics so permablocking won't be a thing.

Maura_Neysa · January 2018

Nolic1 wrote: »

Wayshuba wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Carbonised wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Carbonised wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

"Tactically block" my tookus.

They want to please a PVP playerbase who the majority of content isn't produced for.

ADD THE COST INCREASE TO BATTLE SPIRIT. STOP SCREWING THE REST OF US.

Typing everything with caps doesn't change the fact that this was just as much about PvE as PvP. ZOS has noticed that tanks spend 10 % of their time tanking and 90 % of their time aiding group dps, putting buffs on raid group, putting debuffs on the boss. And they concluded that the actual tanking must be too trivial if a tank can spend his majority of time and ressources to boost group DPS. And they are right. It's a nice change that tanks actually have to worry more about tanking and less about being a group buff bot. It's not about PvP.

Except if that is the aim here, that's a stupid aim.

If you dont want tanks to support the group, why is the templar tank advised to grab shards? Why the DK tank advised to grab igneous shield?

It's what they are. Tanks are group support. Your logic is stupid and contradicted by ZOS's own advisory tool. It is about PVP, all these changes are allways about PVP. Stop kidding yourself.

You went from typing all caps to calling someone stupid the minute they disagree with you.

Maybe you should take a timeout and blow off some steam

I repeat in the nicest manner possible:

If the aim of the changes is to make tanks less group support, why is the basic starter build for at least two classes filled with at least one group support ability, sometimes more than one, and sometimes with passives to support that ability? Please answer this question. I'd love to hear a rational, logical answer to it, that is argued from a place of logic, rather than exess love for the game.

Another one I'd love answered: If we're supposed to spend less time tanking, then why are the damage numbers for most of the raid bosses lessened, possibly through armor or spell mitigation? As previous established, one Rakkat blast will cost 10 K stamina next patch. Why should we block less if the content does not change? Surely, if the intent was to change how we play, the content would change to support that, no?

Edit: Still waiting.

Edit 2: Likely not geting an answer. Age old wisdom: "If you have not reasoned yourself into a position, you cannot reason yourself out of it."

In order to justify these changes you need to successfully answer both questions in a logical manner that the playerbase, or most of it, agree's with. In this case, PVE tanks. (PVP does not get a say. They're monopolization is hardly the point considering this sort of change can be done on a zone by zone basis.) I can safely bet my soul that likely will not happen.

If this is true, then ZoS should stop making tanking armor sets, enchantments and skills for tanks with group support functions.

There are some tank sets that works great for helping add some support to the group but really only one is ever used and that is Ebon Alkosh was not a tank set it is a set made for DPS and works just like Sunderflame but no one runs it that way even though it would be easier for a DPS to hit a synergy then making the tank stop tanking to do it and it does not slow down dps enough to ruin there rotation so its more effective for them to use. As for all the other support sets to be honest there are uses for them but again no one has used them cause the meta design does not call for them.

No, just no. Give the tank every synergy you can. Synergies are stamina return while blocking. Tanking is not so busy that synergies take away from it. Ebon's 2-4 are are health, good for a tank, Alkosh 2+3 are max stamina, also good for a tank. And actually my selfish set up is a heavy and light armor, which actually allows me to run 5+1+1 optamaly because the waist, the smallest piece, is light giving me the most possible stats. Neither of those two sets are more effective on anyone else. Yeah there are better sets for a tank, but tanks, almost never are optimized for tanking. Thats why ZOS keeps nerfing them, that and whiners who can't kill them in Cryodiil

JobooAGS · January 2018

Maura_Neysa wrote: »

Nolic1 wrote: »

Wayshuba wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Carbonised wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Carbonised wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

"Tactically block" my tookus.

They want to please a PVP playerbase who the majority of content isn't produced for.

ADD THE COST INCREASE TO BATTLE SPIRIT. STOP SCREWING THE REST OF US.

Typing everything with caps doesn't change the fact that this was just as much about PvE as PvP. ZOS has noticed that tanks spend 10 % of their time tanking and 90 % of their time aiding group dps, putting buffs on raid group, putting debuffs on the boss. And they concluded that the actual tanking must be too trivial if a tank can spend his majority of time and ressources to boost group DPS. And they are right. It's a nice change that tanks actually have to worry more about tanking and less about being a group buff bot. It's not about PvP.

Except if that is the aim here, that's a stupid aim.

If you dont want tanks to support the group, why is the templar tank advised to grab shards? Why the DK tank advised to grab igneous shield?

It's what they are. Tanks are group support. Your logic is stupid and contradicted by ZOS's own advisory tool. It is about PVP, all these changes are allways about PVP. Stop kidding yourself.

You went from typing all caps to calling someone stupid the minute they disagree with you.

Maybe you should take a timeout and blow off some steam

I repeat in the nicest manner possible:

If the aim of the changes is to make tanks less group support, why is the basic starter build for at least two classes filled with at least one group support ability, sometimes more than one, and sometimes with passives to support that ability? Please answer this question. I'd love to hear a rational, logical answer to it, that is argued from a place of logic, rather than exess love for the game.

Another one I'd love answered: If we're supposed to spend less time tanking, then why are the damage numbers for most of the raid bosses lessened, possibly through armor or spell mitigation? As previous established, one Rakkat blast will cost 10 K stamina next patch. Why should we block less if the content does not change? Surely, if the intent was to change how we play, the content would change to support that, no?

Edit: Still waiting.

Edit 2: Likely not geting an answer. Age old wisdom: "If you have not reasoned yourself into a position, you cannot reason yourself out of it."

In order to justify these changes you need to successfully answer both questions in a logical manner that the playerbase, or most of it, agree's with. In this case, PVE tanks. (PVP does not get a say. They're monopolization is hardly the point considering this sort of change can be done on a zone by zone basis.) I can safely bet my soul that likely will not happen.

If this is true, then ZoS should stop making tanking armor sets, enchantments and skills for tanks with group support functions.

There are some tank sets that works great for helping add some support to the group but really only one is ever used and that is Ebon Alkosh was not a tank set it is a set made for DPS and works just like Sunderflame but no one runs it that way even though it would be easier for a DPS to hit a synergy then making the tank stop tanking to do it and it does not slow down dps enough to ruin there rotation so its more effective for them to use. As for all the other support sets to be honest there are uses for them but again no one has used them cause the meta design does not call for them.

No, just no. Give the tank every synergy you can. Synergies are stamina return while blocking. Tanking is not so busy that synergies take away from it. Ebon's 2-4 are are health, good for a tank, Alkosh 2+3 are max stamina, also good for a tank. And actually my selfish set up is a heavy and light armor, which actually allows me to run 5+1+1 optamaly because the waist, the smallest piece, is light giving me the most possible stats. Neither of those two sets are more effective on anyone else. Yeah there are better sets for a tank, but tanks, almost never are optimized for tanking. Thats why ZOS keeps nerfing them, that and whiners who can't kill them in Cryodiil

alkosh gives crit, minor slayer weapon damage, and pen on syerngy. ebon gives hp, hp, healing recieved and hp for group

Maura_Neysa · January 2018

Nolic1 wrote: »

I find these post funny I have to play a support tank made by players that the devs gave the tools to make so its the devs fault. The thing is its not the devs fault for the meta or strategy to face these fights its the community itself that is to blame for these ideas that you have to tank this way. The strategy for axes in HA have always been to block in many peoples eyes but truth is get your damn DD's off the boss and kill the Axe is much easier to do then waste your time blocking them all.

You realize each Axe has 20,000,000 health. It is not easier to have the DDs switch to them. In other words 3 axes which you always have at least 3, is a whole second Mage worth of HP to burn. Plus the mage herself doesn't move or hit that hard. This fight was absolutely made with the Axe tank test in mind. Honestly though the axes really are not challenging, at least not 5 (the most I've ever had) and especially not with a the can toss occasionall Orbs/Shards the can toss occasionally.

Asardes · January 2018

In vAA trying to kill the axes is a bad idea, since all adds in that fight spawn on a timer; same goes for atronachs in HM. So the slower the DPS, the more axes you get so you will probably end with more axes if you try killing them. Even for HM one of the fastest, cleanest strategies is for the off-tank to take all the atronachs that spawn away while the DDs only burn the boss and mini-mages, then bring them to center right before the boss enters the execute phase, and drop nova and destro ults on everything at the same time.

aeowulf · January 2018

There are some really good things on this post.

I stopped NB tanking with Morrowind, and miss it loads. The changes that happened then killed off tanking for me.

ZoS seem to be making tanking tougher for everyone, when they should be making it easier. The lack of visible combat queues (as in there is a lot of stuff exploding on the screen can make it tough to spot early), issues where perma blocking is required (axes, warrior) Lack of class balance wrt. tanking & the constant lag/performance problems with me screaming 'FFS, i was blocking' at my monitor, all contribute to perma blocking being a much easier life than it is now.

So switched to DPS. I do beleive that if these changes to tanking continue, in a few years there will be no tanks left, but DPS will be so high tanks will not be needed.

I did very much think the proposed higher mitigation cap/block damage redux seemed sensible. Would also means non-tanks might need to un-specialise a bit to become more survivable. Right now if a tank runs out of resources, it could easily mean the group wipes. Not really the case if a DPS runs out...

Zer0oo · January 2018

Asardes wrote: »

In vAA trying to kill the axes is a bad idea, since all adds in that fight spawn on a timer; same goes for atronachs in HM. So the slower the DPS, the more axes you get so you will probably end with more axes if you try killing them. Even for HM one of the fastest, cleanest strategies is for the off-tank to take all the atronachs that spawn away while the DDs only burn the boss and mini-mages, then bring them to center right before the boss enters the execute phase, and drop nova and destro ults on everything at the same time.

Fun fact: you actually can not kill the axes (similar to guards they are unkillable if they do not have changed it)

SirCritical · January 2018

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

We're running out of options, update after update. We have attempted meaningfull feedback, polite criticism, angry screaming, using proxies like Alcast or others to talk to ZOS in person....they respond to nothing. Which leaves us with extortion and similarly blunt tactics.

Because there are those few great and respectful players (no pun intended), who say "a bit different, but adjustable". And their word counts. Based on their opinion, ZOS won't change anything back. I'm sure these players don't notice hard changes, but I, and a lots of tanks on my level, will.

Bevik · January 2018

Will see this year. They made massive changes and added loads of things. For sure Outfit system along with the Advice system were big projects. Hopefully they can focus more on other things.

SirCritical · January 2018

aeowulf wrote: »

There are some really good things on this post.

I stopped NB tanking with Morrowind, and miss it loads. The changes that happened then killed off tanking for me.

ZoS seem to be making tanking tougher for everyone, when they should be making it easier. The lack of visible combat queues (as in there is a lot of stuff exploding on the screen can make it tough to spot early), issues where perma blocking is required (axes, warrior) Lack of class balance wrt. tanking & the constant lag/performance problems with me screaming 'FFS, i was blocking' at my monitor, all contribute to perma blocking being a much easier life than it is now.

So switched to DPS. I do beleive that if these changes to tanking continue, in a few years there will be no tanks left, but DPS will be so high tanks will not be needed.

I did very much think the proposed higher mitigation cap/block damage redux seemed sensible. Would also means non-tanks might need to un-specialise a bit to become more survivable. Right now if a tank runs out of resources, it could easily mean the group wipes. Not really the case if a DPS runs out...

Absolutely valid points brought up there.

ZOS_Mika · January 2018

We have recently removed several comments because of bashing and off topic commentary. Please keep this thread constructive and on topic. While we do not expect community members to agree all of the time, we do expect a certain level of civility to be shown when disagreements arise. Thank you for your understanding.

dirtykdx · January 2018

Yeah, after my team and I had a laugh when I told them someone was saying change focus from the boss to the axes, I had look at the axes in HM. 86 million health. The same as the mage. On a timer. I really thought it was a troll the first post about it, but now I'm just not sure what they're thinking.

But please, please don't spout of nonsense like that. It invalidates every argument you've had, even if the others have merit.

I will say I still don't agree with 90% of balance changes they make. And I don't like the higher learner curve to tanking. I'd like to see mechanics slightly adjusted. I'd like to see liquid lightning and other synergy attacks toned done visually, that lightning *** all the time messes with my eyes badly. I'd like to see the role have a solid ramp up to promote more people taking on the role effectively. While I don't see this as happening, they've shown very little desire to revert or reduce sweeping changes in the past, I don't think this is the straw to break it. I think 250 is a really forgiving target for block cost. I'll likely be running closer to 490 after the update.Will this be the end of tanking? No,and those already committed to it will adjust, those new to it may not even notice due to never having had the crutch. So, while it'll cause a lot of disruption for the first few weeks after patch. It'll carry on.

helediron · January 2018

Two years of systematic NB tank nerfing just keeps going on. I gave up year ago.

Bevik · January 2018

Many players said here they are using Divines and Infused on parts not even Sturdy. So change to Sturdy and problem solved. Is it a bad change that ZOS want to change tanks for more tanky rather than a support class?

Asardes · January 2018

I'll have 455 block costs after patch, which is already ~75% reduction from base cost. As every stat in the game, block cost reduction has diminishing returns, and if you build strictly for it you'll lose out too much on other stats.

Zippy81 · January 2018

The Best in Slot gear changes after almost every update, it's good for the game as people need to chase new goals. I know people get lazy and get annoyed then but at least they have stuff to do.
I personally don't like the idea of meta but in the end I need to follow it to be effective in a group. From what I noticed, there are lots of different ideas coming from players all the time when it comes to new content, even players adjusting gear to single fights. I got laughed at when I wanted to test a warden tank with an ice staff on back bar and here I read it's nice to have. Maybe there are other ways to support your group? Maybe the 2nd tank being templar tossing shards? The guard spell? Shield ultimate? Some other gear? In my opinion, the community will figure it out.

ZeroXFF · January 2018

I have a suggestion that might be worth considering, and would create more build diversity among tanks: make block and armor mitigation additive and enforce a cap that applies to both of them together. This could look something like this:

1. Increase armor cap to 49650 (75%).
2. Block now increases armor by 16550 (25%) instead of being an additional multiplier in the calculation.
3. Excess armor reduces block cost by up to an additional 60%. So if you have 49650 armor from gear and buffs alone when you take a hit while blocking, you avoid all the secondary effects in typical block fashion, and this block costs 40% as much as it would normally have. This would scale with how far over the cap you are (so if you were missing 8275 armor before blocking, your block would cost 30% less than normally etc).
4. Adjust block costs to whatever is considered "balanced" for PvP with the new system.

The exact numbers are obviously up for discussion, but I think this would address all of the concerns raised.

This way people will have a choice of either going with high block cost reduction from the start to have something similar to the current meta, or stack armor for a more passive play style with weaker support capabilities, but in a way that is much better suited for beginners who are still learning the fights, allowing them to miss some heavy attacks without instantly dying. This approach would probably also make templars and NBs viable as tanks again.

This would also have the effect in PvP that no matter how much armor you stack, you will never really reach the cap, because the cap is so damn high, and penetration would become very powerful at making sure that your block costs the full amount. On top of that, penetration of just 3310 (5%) would effectively increase the damage on the just barely capped tank by 20% (going from 25% damage taken to 30%). With the numbers of penetration that are achievable, this could be a devastating counter play to PvP tanks (16550 would entirely negate the effect from blocking, potentially doubling the damage on the tank).