Really wish they weren't going for another "free damage proc" with the wildfire passive. They could have done something actually interesting with some sort of dot damage modifier, but instead we are getting pyreband to go with our pyreband.

RaptorRodeoGod wrote: »

Tannus15 wrote: »

so here is a fun bit of data



if you're running 2 pets, BURNING LIGHT is more dps than static reverberation.

Lol they increased the cool down and thought it would somehow magically not affect pet builds the exact same amount as non pet builds. A nerf for one is a nerf for the other unless the pet portion were to be specified in the change

@Tannus15 I agree and many of us have said similar things on other feedback threads. The nerfs to Sorcs is unnecessary and comes of a lack of objectivity.

I can get my Mag Sorc to proc more DPS out of Burning Light than Static pretty easily. Burning has a consistent application potential during combat whereas Static doesn't really start to deliver, reliably, until around execute range and even then the scaling per application isn't as high as what other classes can scale passive output.

I've always been dumbfounded why people, including ZoS, get so pearl-clutchy over dummy parses as if to think that is somehow reflective of in game PvE or PvP combat?!?

Dummy parsing should be nothing more than a reference, not used as a baseline.

Nobody in either PvP or PvE simply stands in one place and just "take it" while you wail on them. It's ridiculous.

Parses make no consideration for mechanics and in most cases those parse numbers are incredibly staged in ways that are wholly unrealistic in gameplay, further making the numbers unreliable.

If all we're going to do is make numerical changes based on parses then just call end of life on the title and call it a day because you'll never end up with anything meaningful.

When many of us talk about Sorcs being uncompetitive we're saying so in the broad context of all gameplay, not just whether or not someone can manufacture a number that carries no real world value.

Stam Sorcs have a leg up over Mag Sorcs which is borderline criminal given the "lore" factor for Sorcs. I'm not saying Stam Sorcs shouldn't exist I'm saying someone made a wrong turn at Albuquerque if the after-thought version of the class out performs the main focus. .. And even with that Sorcs as a class see ourselves slotting more from the World & Weapon lines than we do from our own trees because they're so bad.

Sorc carries a big contradiction in ESO: promoting build and play diversity and theory-crafting then boxing Sorcs in to such narrow scopes of potential ... "Hey, we hear you want to play Sorc, you have two realistic choices, either go dual wield and pretend your a Night Blade or try to stand back and just hold left click and do little else" .. Sorcs ought to come with a set of Pom Poms by default at character creation.

People achieve potential with Sorcs, don't get me wrong, I've seen examples on the Stam side and I've done it on the Mag side .. But here's the problem, both approaches rely HEAVILY on going outside of the class, whether one subclasses or not. I don't think any other class has a proverbial "condemned" sticker on their skills like Sorc does.

We're Sorcs in name only. We don't see pure Sorcs or Sorc skills topping the ESO logs and as far as PvP goes I rarely see Sorcs with consistent strong results and the few times I do (when it's not me), they're Stam and subclassed.

I've said it elsewhere and I'll say it here too, Sorc Class Mastery passives need to slap .. I mean, go get a bag of frozen peas on your face level of slap; at least until the Sorc re-work then they can be dialed back.

@CatalinaWineMixer2

I don't feel bad for the combat team. No, they won't make everyone happy and they don't need to, that should never be the goal because that's unrealistic.

But, what the combat team does have is an AMAZING benefit that few industries ever get and that is to have the LIONS SHARE of their businesses quality control come, FOR FREE, from their own customers; rather than having an entire, internal, QC team.

The Devs get a lot of constructive feedback from a lot of people. Some of that feedback is shallow but a lot of it is also objective and fact driven and more relevant to real world gameplay than just YT video parses.

To make the choice to do little in-house testing, rather, letting your customers do that work for you and hand deliver the results a benefit many don't get. It requires a dedicated and loyal fanbase that's subscribed to the product.

Imagine if your local grocery store threw new & unknown food items on the shelf, sold them to you, and told you to report back which ones didn't give you diarrhea and those are the ones they'd keep? .. That store would be out of business in a second .. yet that's a pretty solid analogy for what the Devs have here. Only in that example the grocery store listened whereas the ZoS team is keeping the diarrhea on the shelf and if you're wondering where the diarrhea is, it's the Sorc skill trees.

The feedback data from these forums shouldn't be an issue to collect, consolidate, and analyze to get real insights into what changes would deliver rewarding combat experiences. In this very example, many of us communicated to the Devs precisely why a set like Monolith is bad and looks good on paper only, even going as far as to suggest direct changes, yet they went in the opposite direction of the feedback.

When I game tested for EA for Battlefront 2 it was similar with that studio, they were so laser focused on a select group of influencers that they wanted to positively promote the game, yet, none of them were really testers they were content creators and those people were only interested in looking good in content so we ended up with this vicious cycle of bad choices. I'm not saying that's what happening here but I'm also not saying that it doesn't look similar to that.