Sorc 1.6.3 Preview (From Livestream)

AshTal

The Sorc changes so far seem to have done little to improve our survival abilities or DPS. The one thing that seems to have remained the same is pets in PvP are worthless as they get one hit killed and killed when they roam out in front of the battle lines and so they don't even loss an attack.
Solo yes pets will be better in PvE but in groups they will probably end up as worthless as they are in PvP. As they are our "big" improvement in dps I don't think we will get what we need.

Nightreaver

Pets should not be THE DPS build for Sorcerers. It should be an optional alternative to a non-pet build that is equal in DPS.

Yes, pets are the class defining line for Sorcerers.
The class defining line for Templars is Healing. Doesn't mean they can't do anything other than heal.

The class defining line for NBs is stealth. Doesn't mean they can't do anything other than conceal themselves.

There NEEDS to be a non-pet DPS build that can provide DPS equal to a pet build.

I'll accept that the only purpose of a Sorcerer is to provide DPS through a pet build when Templars accept that their only purpose is provide heals and NBs accept that their only purpose is Stealth.

Telling Sorcerers they shouldn't have picked Sorcerer if they didn't want to use pets is like telling Templars they shouldn't have picked that class if they didn't want to be a Healer.

Dracane

Nightreaver wrote: »

Pets should not be THE DPS build for Sorcerers. It should be an optional alternative to a non-pet build that is equal in DPS.

Yes, pets are the class defining line for Sorcerers.
The class defining line for Templars is Healing. Doesn't mean they can't do anything other than heal.

The class defining line for NBs is stealth. Doesn't mean they can't do anything other than conceal themselves.

There NEEDS to be a non-pet DPS build that can provide DPS equal to a pet build.

I'll accept that the only purpose of a Sorcerer is to provide DPS through a pet build when Templars accept that their only purpose is provide heals and NBs accept that their only purpose is Stealth.

Telling Sorcerers they shouldn't have picked Sorcerer if they didn't want to use pets is like telling Templars they shouldn't have picked that class if they didn't want to be a Healer.

Indeed. I think, there should be 2 ways. You can reach more DPS without pets, because you can use more abilities. When you're using pets, you sacrifise abilities and the pets should deal enough damage, to compensate the lack of variety.

But Sorcerers shouldn't be forced to do so. However after seeing this in duels and so on, I must say, making pets non-toggles would make them too strong in my opinion.

Varicite

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

What worries me, is if critical hits will work on wards/shields. Light armor users are gonna be superduper squishy, like riciulously so.
@olsborg , it's fine w/additions:

• If Shields can be Crit, you should be able to Crit cast a shield (+50% mitigation based on your Crit %)
• If Shields can takes DoTs, shields should have regens, based on your MR)

I have a lot of trouble understanding the logic behind these types of comments (not just this, but others demanding compensation for the shields nerf).

Clearly ZOS is nerfing damage shields because they feel they are too strong on PTS currently.

Why on earth do people feel that some sort of compensation is in order for toning down something that was already too strong?

It's like a convo w/ ZOS that goes like this:

ZOS: Hey guys, we're going to tone down shields because they're too strong.

Players: Sure, that's cool, as long as you also buff them so they aren't nerfed.

Just seems like very backwards logic to me.

Dracane

Varicite wrote: »

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

What worries me, is if critical hits will work on wards/shields. Light armor users are gonna be superduper squishy, like riciulously so.
@olsborg , it's fine w/additions:

• If Shields can be Crit, you should be able to Crit cast a shield (+50% mitigation based on your Crit %)
• If Shields can takes DoTs, shields should have regens, based on your MR)

I have a lot of trouble understanding the logic behind these types of comments (not just this, but others demanding compensation for the shields nerf).

Clearly ZOS is nerfing damage shields because they feel they are too strong on PTS currently.

Why on earth do people feel that some sort of compensation is in order for toning down something that was already too strong?

It's like a convo w/ ZOS that goes like this:

ZOS: Hey guys, we're going to tone down shields because they're too strong.

Players: Sure, that's cool, as long as you also buff them so they aren't nerfed.

Just seems like very backwards logic to me.

Simple thing: Because damage shields are the health bar for light armor users. If our shield is down, it take a few more hits and we're dead, no matter how much health we have. Because we have as good as no defense.

Single damage shields have never been a problem. Shield stacking is and I am so sad, we're getting nerfed so hard and shield stacking is allowed to stay. The 15% nerf is not the biggest problem. If crits are really possible against damage shields, it's over.

Varicite

Dracane wrote: »

Simple thing: Because damage shields are the health bar for light armor users. If our shield is down, it take a few more hits and we're dead, no matter how much health we have. Because we have as good as no defense.

Single damage shields have never been a problem. Shield stacking is and I am so sad, we're getting nerfed so hard and shield stacking is allowed to stay. The 15% nerf is not the biggest problem. If crits are really possible against damage shields, it's over.

I agree that shield stacking is and has always been the issue, but they seem reluctant to curb that thus far.

You say "light armor users", but it seems like what you really mean is "Sorcs", as NBs also use light armor w/out access to a class shield, making the entire argument that all light armor users must have access to multiple strong damage shields somewhat invalid.

Honestly, my solution to this would be something like this:

1) Bump up the damage from light armor a bit, perhaps a spell damage boost of some sort. If you're decked out in 7/7 light armor, your spells should hit noticeably harder, imo. Perhaps somewhere around 10-15% more damage per cast.

2) Scale Hardened Ward w/ health like the other 2 class-based shields so that it doesn't continue to be unequally buffed from stacking a damage stat (magicka). This should ensure that class-based shields do not receive a buff from #1, though I'm fairly certain that Hardened Ward does not scale from spell damage anyway.

3) Allow damage shields to be critted against, allow DoTs and proc effects to happen against all damage shields. Either keep 15% reduction in shield effectiveness, or raise cost of casting shields by 15%.

Why would I say all of that?

The idea is to make the lightest armor more for "glass cannon" builds. The real issue on PTS seems to be that shield stacking and overall nerfs to magicka builds in general have left most light armor users spamming shields to stay alive.

I personally do not agree that you should continue to receive defensive buffs and utility for choosing to give up defenses, as this serves to diminish the choice of those wishing to tailor their characters into a more tanky role.

That is the sort of backwards logic that created the situation we've dealt w/ for the past year, where light armor + resto / S&B created a super tanky character dealing high damage while enjoying full utility. I'm quite reluctant to return to that, as I am sure others are reluctant to see the pendulum swing too far the other way.

Instead, I say if you chose to be a glass cannon, then keep the glass and add more cannon. If it's defenses you really want, give up some of those rags for real armor at the cost of damage / resources.

It should be about choices, not about being able to do it all at the same time.

Nightreaver

Varicite wrote: »

1) Bump up the damage from light armor a bit, perhaps a spell damage boost of some sort. If you're decked out in 7/7 light armor, your spells should hit noticeably harder, imo. Perhaps somewhere around 10-15% more damage per cast.

1) Light Armor increases DPS for Magicka builds.
Medium armor increases DPS for Stamina builds.
So should Magicka builds do 10-15% more damage than Stamina builds?

Varicite wrote: »

2) Scale Hardened Ward w/ health like the other 2 class-based shields so that it doesn't continue to be unequally buffed from stacking a damage stat (magicka). This should ensure that class-based shields do not receive a buff from #1, though I'm fairly certain that Hardened Ward does not scale from spell damage anyway.
The idea is to make the lightest armor more for "glass cannon" builds. The real issue on PTS seems to be that shield stacking and overall nerfs to magicka builds in general have left most light armor users spamming shields to stay alive.

Well if as you say, the real issue is shield stacking then leave Hardened Ward as it is and prohibit shield stacking. Since magicka is being used to create the shield it makes sense that the strength of the shield is dependent on that magicka .

Varicite wrote: »

I personally do not agree that you should continue to receive defensive buffs and utility for choosing to give up defenses, as this serves to diminish the choice of those wishing to tailor their characters into a more tanky role.

If I choose to use Light armor in place of Medium or Heavy then I do give up the defense those armors provide and receive only the defensive buffs the Light armor provides which is far less. What armor I choose should not restrict what class abilities I choose. If I choose to use Hardened Ward to increase my defense then it is because I chose to give up a slot that I could have used to increase my DPS. Thereby making the choice to trade DPS for defense.

Varicite wrote: »

That is the sort of backwards logic that created the situation we've dealt w/ for the past year, where light armor + resto / S&B created a super tanky character dealing high damage while enjoying full utility. I'm quite reluctant to return to that, as I am sure others are reluctant to see the pendulum swing too far the other way.

And I'm sure that issue had much to do with the recent changes to armor.

Varicite wrote: »

Instead, I say if you chose to be a glass cannon, then keep the glass and add more cannon. If it's defenses you really want, give up some of those rags for real armor at the cost of damage / resources.

And should this happen will all those who choose to wear Medium/Heavy armor give up their DPS abilities?

Varicite wrote: »

It should be about choices, not about being able to do it all at the same time.

Doesn't Medium armor already to that?
It provides the best DPS for Stamina builds while offering close to the best defense.

Morvul

Nightreaver wrote: »

1) Light Armor increases DPS for Magicka builds.
Medium armor increases DPS for Stamina builds.
So should Magicka builds do 10-15% more damage than Stamina builds?

considering how much less sturdy light armor users are: yes, I actually would say they should do 10-15% more DPS then stamina builds.

At the moment though, medium armor Stamina (melee) builds do 20+% more damage then light armor magicka builds.
The logick here seems to be that since they are forced into melee for their high dps, they are compensated by higher dps potenital and higher mitigation.
In my opinion, that is double compensation though. They definetly should get something for beeing forced into melee, but massive DSPs and massive mitigation advantage is too much. It should be one or the other (or a lesser version of both)

kkampaseb17_ESO

Morvul wrote: »

Nightreaver wrote: »

1) Light Armor increases DPS for Magicka builds.
Medium armor increases DPS for Stamina builds.
So should Magicka builds do 10-15% more damage than Stamina builds?

considering how much less sturdy light armor users are: yes, I actually would say they should do 10-15% more DPS then stamina builds.

At the moment though, medium armor Stamina (melee) builds do 20+% more damage then light armor magicka builds.
The logick here seems to be that since they are forced into melee for their high dps, they are compensated by higher dps potenital and higher mitigation.
In my opinion, that is double compensation though. They definetly should get something for beeing forced into melee, but massive DSPs and massive mitigation advantage is too much. It should be one or the other (or a lesser version of both)

You are mixing here magicka - stamina debate with a melee - ranged. Stamina ranged doesn't do 20% more damage than light armor magicka builds. Stamina melee does....it is melee. Yes some AoE also hits ranged characters in PvE....it doesn't eliminate the inherent bonus a ranged build has.

Morvul

kkampaseb17_ESO wrote: »

Morvul wrote: »

Nightreaver wrote: »

1) Light Armor increases DPS for Magicka builds.
Medium armor increases DPS for Stamina builds.
So should Magicka builds do 10-15% more damage than Stamina builds?

considering how much less sturdy light armor users are: yes, I actually would say they should do 10-15% more DPS then stamina builds.

At the moment though, medium armor Stamina (melee) builds do 20+% more damage then light armor magicka builds.
The logick here seems to be that since they are forced into melee for their high dps, they are compensated by higher dps potenital and higher mitigation.
In my opinion, that is double compensation though. They definetly should get something for beeing forced into melee, but massive DSPs and massive mitigation advantage is too much. It should be one or the other (or a lesser version of both)

You are mixing here magicka - stamina debate with a melee - ranged. Stamina ranged doesn't do 20% more damage than light armor magicka builds. Stamina melee does....it is melee. Yes some AoE also hits ranged characters in PvE....it doesn't eliminate the inherent bonus a ranged build has.

true, I do.
But they can not be seen as completely independent discussions, when balance is the goal.

Stamina ranged does roughly the same dps as magicka ranged (with the exception of sorcerer magica ranged - which is slightly higher) - yet has significantly higher mitigations.
magicka melee does lower damage then stamina melee (with the exception of DK magicka melee, which seems to be similar to stamina melee) - yet has significantly lower mitigations.

kkampaseb17_ESO

Morvul wrote: »

kkampaseb17_ESO wrote: »

Morvul wrote: »

Nightreaver wrote: »

1) Light Armor increases DPS for Magicka builds.
Medium armor increases DPS for Stamina builds.
So should Magicka builds do 10-15% more damage than Stamina builds?

considering how much less sturdy light armor users are: yes, I actually would say they should do 10-15% more DPS then stamina builds.

At the moment though, medium armor Stamina (melee) builds do 20+% more damage then light armor magicka builds.
The logick here seems to be that since they are forced into melee for their high dps, they are compensated by higher dps potenital and higher mitigation.
In my opinion, that is double compensation though. They definetly should get something for beeing forced into melee, but massive DSPs and massive mitigation advantage is too much. It should be one or the other (or a lesser version of both)

You are mixing here magicka - stamina debate with a melee - ranged. Stamina ranged doesn't do 20% more damage than light armor magicka builds. Stamina melee does....it is melee. Yes some AoE also hits ranged characters in PvE....it doesn't eliminate the inherent bonus a ranged build has.

true, I do.
But they can not be seen as completely independent discussions, when balance is the goal.

Stamina ranged does roughly the same dps as magicka ranged (with the exception of sorcerer magica ranged - which is slightly higher) - yet has significantly higher mitigations.
magicka melee does lower damage then stamina melee (with the exception of DK magicka melee, which seems to be similar to stamina melee) - yet has significantly lower mitigations.

Unfortunately, the mitigation problem arises due to medium/light armor. That is true. But you also have to think that most "burst" heals/prevention (shields) in game are magicka based while stamina has a single DoT heal that won't save you against even a single proper opponent. Yes stamina can have the the dodge roll etc, but so does a character with focus on magicka....just less dodges. His dodge is as powerful as a stamina focused character. He can use it just less often. A stamina characters cannot use magicka based heal/shield as often...and certainly not to the same extent, making it actually worthless for the GCD used.

Morvul

kkampaseb17_ESO wrote: »

Morvul wrote: »

kkampaseb17_ESO wrote: »

Morvul wrote: »

Nightreaver wrote: »

1) Light Armor increases DPS for Magicka builds.
Medium armor increases DPS for Stamina builds.
So should Magicka builds do 10-15% more damage than Stamina builds?

considering how much less sturdy light armor users are: yes, I actually would say they should do 10-15% more DPS then stamina builds.

At the moment though, medium armor Stamina (melee) builds do 20+% more damage then light armor magicka builds.
The logick here seems to be that since they are forced into melee for their high dps, they are compensated by higher dps potenital and higher mitigation.
In my opinion, that is double compensation though. They definetly should get something for beeing forced into melee, but massive DSPs and massive mitigation advantage is too much. It should be one or the other (or a lesser version of both)

You are mixing here magicka - stamina debate with a melee - ranged. Stamina ranged doesn't do 20% more damage than light armor magicka builds. Stamina melee does....it is melee. Yes some AoE also hits ranged characters in PvE....it doesn't eliminate the inherent bonus a ranged build has.

true, I do.
But they can not be seen as completely independent discussions, when balance is the goal.

Stamina ranged does roughly the same dps as magicka ranged (with the exception of sorcerer magica ranged - which is slightly higher) - yet has significantly higher mitigations.
magicka melee does lower damage then stamina melee (with the exception of DK magicka melee, which seems to be similar to stamina melee) - yet has significantly lower mitigations.

Unfortunately, the mitigation problem arises due to medium/light armor. That is true. But you also have to think that most "burst" heals/prevention (shields) in game are magicka based while stamina has a single DoT heal that won't save you against even a single proper opponent. Yes stamina can have the the dodge roll etc, but so does a character with focus on magicka....just less dodges. His dodge is as powerful as a stamina focused character. He can use it just less often. A stamina characters cannot use magicka based heal/shield as often...and certainly not to the same extent, making it actually worthless for the GCD used.

I certainly agree with you on the healing part, not entirely on the damage-shield part though. Many Shield-spells actually scale with health, not magicka. So while a stamina templar or DK can't use his shield as often as a magicka based one would - the amount of absorbed damage is actually the same.
The actual reason why stamina based builds would not want shield spells, is that the shields do not have any mitigation, while their health pool does (thanks to medium armor).
Incidentally, that is why magicka based builds so love their shields now: they don't have mitigation anyway, might as well throw up a shield...

in addition, for PvE dps at least, you expect most of your healing to originate from external sources (aka: the groups healer). In that scenario, having mitigations on your healthpool (aka medium armor) is vastly superior to throwing up a damage shield yourself (aka light armor) - since your healer is kinda out of a job while your shield is up - and keeping that shield up costs you dps.
Story is a bit different for small-scale PvP, obviously

Edit: and now we have introduced the PvE / PvP debate as well into the light armor / medium armor debate, which actually started out as a magicka / stamina debate that was "posioned" by a ranged / melee debate...

problem is: none of these issues can be seen individually and independent of the others...

Edit 2: in other words: sorc damage shields are borderline OP in 1.6.2 solo PvP, but utterly useless in 1.6.2 group-PvE (and some inbetween power in group-PvP and solo-PvE). Does that make sorcs good or bad, overall?
Your answer will obviously depend on what is your primary activity in the game...

kkampaseb17_ESO

Morvul wrote: »

kkampaseb17_ESO wrote: »

Morvul wrote: »

kkampaseb17_ESO wrote: »

Morvul wrote: »

Nightreaver wrote: »

1) Light Armor increases DPS for Magicka builds.
Medium armor increases DPS for Stamina builds.
So should Magicka builds do 10-15% more damage than Stamina builds?

considering how much less sturdy light armor users are: yes, I actually would say they should do 10-15% more DPS then stamina builds.

At the moment though, medium armor Stamina (melee) builds do 20+% more damage then light armor magicka builds.
The logick here seems to be that since they are forced into melee for their high dps, they are compensated by higher dps potenital and higher mitigation.
In my opinion, that is double compensation though. They definetly should get something for beeing forced into melee, but massive DSPs and massive mitigation advantage is too much. It should be one or the other (or a lesser version of both)

You are mixing here magicka - stamina debate with a melee - ranged. Stamina ranged doesn't do 20% more damage than light armor magicka builds. Stamina melee does....it is melee. Yes some AoE also hits ranged characters in PvE....it doesn't eliminate the inherent bonus a ranged build has.

true, I do.
But they can not be seen as completely independent discussions, when balance is the goal.

Stamina ranged does roughly the same dps as magicka ranged (with the exception of sorcerer magica ranged - which is slightly higher) - yet has significantly higher mitigations.
magicka melee does lower damage then stamina melee (with the exception of DK magicka melee, which seems to be similar to stamina melee) - yet has significantly lower mitigations.

Unfortunately, the mitigation problem arises due to medium/light armor. That is true. But you also have to think that most "burst" heals/prevention (shields) in game are magicka based while stamina has a single DoT heal that won't save you against even a single proper opponent. Yes stamina can have the the dodge roll etc, but so does a character with focus on magicka....just less dodges. His dodge is as powerful as a stamina focused character. He can use it just less often. A stamina characters cannot use magicka based heal/shield as often...and certainly not to the same extent, making it actually worthless for the GCD used.

I certainly agree with you on the healing part, not entirely on the damage-shield part though. Many Shield-spells actually scale with health, not magicka. So while a stamina templar or DK can't use his shield as often as a magicka based one would - the amount of absorbed damage is actually the same.
The actual reason why stamina based builds would not want shield spells, is that the shields do not have any mitigation, while their health pool does (thanks to medium armor).
Incidentally, that is why magicka based builds so love their shields now: they don't have mitigation anyway, might as well throw up a shield...

in addition, for PvE dps at least, you expect most of your healing to originate from external sources (aka: the groups healer). In that scenario, having mitigations on your healthpool (aka medium armor) is vastly superior to throwing up a damage shield yourself (aka light armor) - since your healer is kinda out of a job while your shield is up - and keeping that shield up costs you dps.
Story is a bit different for small-scale PvP, obviously

Yes that is why I put shield as second after the healing/. Some shields use max health instead of magicka. However, Hardened Ward and Healing Ward (and this is accessible to everyone) both use magicka to determine their INITIAL values (initial due to the % scaling of healing ward).

I do understand your comment on PvE and where healing is coming from. However, you have to also consider PvP. That is a different story and exactly where mine comes from.

Morvul

kkampaseb17_ESO wrote: »

Morvul wrote: »

Nightreaver wrote: »

1) Light Armor increases DPS for Magicka builds.
Medium armor increases DPS for Stamina builds.
So should Magicka builds do 10-15% more damage than Stamina builds?

considering how much less sturdy light armor users are: yes, I actually would say they should do 10-15% more DPS then stamina builds.

At the moment though, medium armor Stamina (melee) builds do 20+% more damage then light armor magicka builds.
The logick here seems to be that since they are forced into melee for their high dps, they are compensated by higher dps potenital and higher mitigation.
In my opinion, that is double compensation though. They definetly should get something for beeing forced into melee, but massive DSPs and massive mitigation advantage is too much. It should be one or the other (or a lesser version of both)

You are mixing here magicka - stamina debate with a melee - ranged. Stamina ranged doesn't do 20% more damage than light armor magicka builds. Stamina melee does....it is melee. Yes some AoE also hits ranged characters in PvE....it doesn't eliminate the inherent bonus a ranged build has.

I also forgot to mention here: why then has a stamina ranged build much, much more mitigation then a magicka ranged build?
because the magicka-ranged build can have more self-healing?
but if the magicka ranged build is spending time on self-healing, it no longer has equal dps to the stamina ranged build...

kkampaseb17_ESO

Morvul wrote: »

kkampaseb17_ESO wrote: »

Morvul wrote: »

Nightreaver wrote: »

1) Light Armor increases DPS for Magicka builds.
Medium armor increases DPS for Stamina builds.
So should Magicka builds do 10-15% more damage than Stamina builds?

considering how much less sturdy light armor users are: yes, I actually would say they should do 10-15% more DPS then stamina builds.

At the moment though, medium armor Stamina (melee) builds do 20+% more damage then light armor magicka builds.
The logick here seems to be that since they are forced into melee for their high dps, they are compensated by higher dps potenital and higher mitigation.
In my opinion, that is double compensation though. They definetly should get something for beeing forced into melee, but massive DSPs and massive mitigation advantage is too much. It should be one or the other (or a lesser version of both)

You are mixing here magicka - stamina debate with a melee - ranged. Stamina ranged doesn't do 20% more damage than light armor magicka builds. Stamina melee does....it is melee. Yes some AoE also hits ranged characters in PvE....it doesn't eliminate the inherent bonus a ranged build has.

I also forgot to mention here: why then has a stamina ranged build much, much more mitigation then a magicka ranged build?
because the magicka-ranged build can have more self-healing?
but if the magicka ranged build is spending time on self-healing, it no longer has equal dps to the stamina ranged build...

That is a difficult question and has to be tested in actual environments than just theory. Because in both PvP and PvE ranged people get damage and several times they need to utilize their "defensive" abilities in order to stay alive which makes both to loose time from DPSing.

And more in PvP than in PvE for sure.

Morvul

kkampaseb17_ESO wrote: »

Morvul wrote: »

kkampaseb17_ESO wrote: »

Morvul wrote: »

Nightreaver wrote: »

1) Light Armor increases DPS for Magicka builds.
Medium armor increases DPS for Stamina builds.
So should Magicka builds do 10-15% more damage than Stamina builds?

considering how much less sturdy light armor users are: yes, I actually would say they should do 10-15% more DPS then stamina builds.

At the moment though, medium armor Stamina (melee) builds do 20+% more damage then light armor magicka builds.
The logick here seems to be that since they are forced into melee for their high dps, they are compensated by higher dps potenital and higher mitigation.
In my opinion, that is double compensation though. They definetly should get something for beeing forced into melee, but massive DSPs and massive mitigation advantage is too much. It should be one or the other (or a lesser version of both)

You are mixing here magicka - stamina debate with a melee - ranged. Stamina ranged doesn't do 20% more damage than light armor magicka builds. Stamina melee does....it is melee. Yes some AoE also hits ranged characters in PvE....it doesn't eliminate the inherent bonus a ranged build has.

I also forgot to mention here: why then has a stamina ranged build much, much more mitigation then a magicka ranged build?
because the magicka-ranged build can have more self-healing?
but if the magicka ranged build is spending time on self-healing, it no longer has equal dps to the stamina ranged build...

That is a difficult question

on that, we can certainly agree

Derra

Varicite wrote: »

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

What worries me, is if critical hits will work on wards/shields. Light armor users are gonna be superduper squishy, like riciulously so.
@olsborg , it's fine w/additions:

• If Shields can be Crit, you should be able to Crit cast a shield (+50% mitigation based on your Crit %)
• If Shields can takes DoTs, shields should have regens, based on your MR)

I have a lot of trouble understanding the logic behind these types of comments (not just this, but others demanding compensation for the shields nerf).

Clearly ZOS is nerfing damage shields because they feel they are too strong on PTS currently.

Why on earth do people feel that some sort of compensation is in order for toning down something that was already too strong?

It's like a convo w/ ZOS that goes like this:

ZOS: Hey guys, we're going to tone down shields because they're too strong.

Players: Sure, that's cool, as long as you also buff them so they aren't nerfed.

Just seems like very backwards logic to me.

Maybe because one or the other would have been fine. Both together will just make shields not worth casting as every hard hitting dmg ability will break the shield + dmg your health.

Also critical hits against a mechanic that is per design not able to be critically cast seems wrong.
You either have to balance the value of shields against the avarage crit an opponent has - screwing players without crit builds or you have to balance around no crit - screwing the shield user.

There is no way to make everybody happy and i think proccs + the 15% strengh decrease would have been better than enabling crit on shields.

Derra

kkampaseb17_ESO wrote: »

Morvul wrote: »

kkampaseb17_ESO wrote: »

Morvul wrote: »

Nightreaver wrote: »

1) Light Armor increases DPS for Magicka builds.
Medium armor increases DPS for Stamina builds.
So should Magicka builds do 10-15% more damage than Stamina builds?

considering how much less sturdy light armor users are: yes, I actually would say they should do 10-15% more DPS then stamina builds.

At the moment though, medium armor Stamina (melee) builds do 20+% more damage then light armor magicka builds.
The logick here seems to be that since they are forced into melee for their high dps, they are compensated by higher dps potenital and higher mitigation.
In my opinion, that is double compensation though. They definetly should get something for beeing forced into melee, but massive DSPs and massive mitigation advantage is too much. It should be one or the other (or a lesser version of both)

You are mixing here magicka - stamina debate with a melee - ranged. Stamina ranged doesn't do 20% more damage than light armor magicka builds. Stamina melee does....it is melee. Yes some AoE also hits ranged characters in PvE....it doesn't eliminate the inherent bonus a ranged build has.

true, I do.
But they can not be seen as completely independent discussions, when balance is the goal.

Stamina ranged does roughly the same dps as magicka ranged (with the exception of sorcerer magica ranged - which is slightly higher) - yet has significantly higher mitigations.
magicka melee does lower damage then stamina melee (with the exception of DK magicka melee, which seems to be similar to stamina melee) - yet has significantly lower mitigations.

Unfortunately, the mitigation problem arises due to medium/light armor. That is true. But you also have to think that most "burst" heals/prevention (shields) in game are magicka based while stamina has a single DoT heal that won't save you against even a single proper opponent. Yes stamina can have the the dodge roll etc, but so does a character with focus on magicka....just less dodges. His dodge is as powerful as a stamina focused character. He can use it just less often. A stamina characters cannot use magicka based heal/shield as often...and certainly not to the same extent, making it actually worthless for the GCD used.

Statement is only true for harness magica and ward (sorc class shield). All other shields are based on HP and therefor usable with stamina builds (or unusable bc stacking hp is crap in 1.6 - admittedly).
For stam DKs all utility spells are usable.
For NB only cloak (but i´d argue that ability - if it works - is stronger than any other magica utility when not specced into magica)

kkampaseb17_ESO

Derra wrote: »

kkampaseb17_ESO wrote: »

Morvul wrote: »

kkampaseb17_ESO wrote: »

Morvul wrote: »

Nightreaver wrote: »

1) Light Armor increases DPS for Magicka builds.
Medium armor increases DPS for Stamina builds.
So should Magicka builds do 10-15% more damage than Stamina builds?

considering how much less sturdy light armor users are: yes, I actually would say they should do 10-15% more DPS then stamina builds.

At the moment though, medium armor Stamina (melee) builds do 20+% more damage then light armor magicka builds.
The logick here seems to be that since they are forced into melee for their high dps, they are compensated by higher dps potenital and higher mitigation.
In my opinion, that is double compensation though. They definetly should get something for beeing forced into melee, but massive DSPs and massive mitigation advantage is too much. It should be one or the other (or a lesser version of both)

You are mixing here magicka - stamina debate with a melee - ranged. Stamina ranged doesn't do 20% more damage than light armor magicka builds. Stamina melee does....it is melee. Yes some AoE also hits ranged characters in PvE....it doesn't eliminate the inherent bonus a ranged build has.

true, I do.
But they can not be seen as completely independent discussions, when balance is the goal.

Stamina ranged does roughly the same dps as magicka ranged (with the exception of sorcerer magica ranged - which is slightly higher) - yet has significantly higher mitigations.
magicka melee does lower damage then stamina melee (with the exception of DK magicka melee, which seems to be similar to stamina melee) - yet has significantly lower mitigations.

Unfortunately, the mitigation problem arises due to medium/light armor. That is true. But you also have to think that most "burst" heals/prevention (shields) in game are magicka based while stamina has a single DoT heal that won't save you against even a single proper opponent. Yes stamina can have the the dodge roll etc, but so does a character with focus on magicka....just less dodges. His dodge is as powerful as a stamina focused character. He can use it just less often. A stamina characters cannot use magicka based heal/shield as often...and certainly not to the same extent, making it actually worthless for the GCD used.

Statement is only true for harness magica and ward (sorc class shield). All other shields are based on HP and therefor usable with stamina builds (or unusable bc stacking hp is crap in 1.6 - admittedly).
For stam DKs all utility spells are usable.
For NB only cloak (but i´d argue that ability - if it works - is stronger than any other magica utility when not specced into magica)

Yes there is continuation of this particular comment a bit afterwards. I am referring particularly to Hardened Ward and Healing Ward (which I think also scales with magicka, at least the initial value) (and I did forget about Harness Magicka). That is why I said healing at first and as second shields (since it doesn't apply to all of them).

kkampaseb17_ESO

Derra wrote: »

Maybe because one or the other would have been fine. Both together will just make shields not worth casting as every hard hitting dmg ability will break the shield + dmg your health.

Also critical hits against a mechanic that is per design not able to be critically cast seems wrong.
You either have to balance the value of shields against the avarage crit an opponent has - screwing players without crit builds or you have to balance around no crit - screwing the shield user.

There is no way to make everybody happy and i think proccs + the 15% strengh decrease would have been better than enabling crit on shields.

Although I do agree with you that they have gone overboard, allowing shields with such high values to crit as a "compensation" it would require to reevaluate the shield values (from scratch) with average crit chance against appropriate builds to see whether a "breaking point" or "point of pressure" can be created, rather than having the shields in their current monstrous incarnation.

Also do not forget that some shields have long duration (over 20s) and you can just fish for a crit shield. Also shields do not have the problem of overhealing if you crit on them. Their values are actual values.....

Varicite

Derra wrote: »

Also critical hits against a mechanic that is per design not able to be critically cast seems wrong.
You either have to balance the value of shields against the avarage crit an opponent has - screwing players without crit builds or you have to balance around no crit - screwing the shield user.

But you are double-dipping here, as there is already a mechanic in place to reduce the strength of crits.

What you're really saying is that you want both Impenetrable AND all shields to mitigate against crit strength as they do currently on PTS.

Nightreaver wrote: »

1) Light Armor increases DPS for Magicka builds.
Medium armor increases DPS for Stamina builds.
So should Magicka builds do 10-15% more damage than Stamina builds?

Currently, most Stamina builds are already doing more than that much damage when compared to their Magicka counterparts.

The only exception to this is bow dps, which has been relegated once again to last in PvE dps, which is a completely separate issue from this discussion.

Nightreaver wrote: »

Well if as you say, the real issue is shield stacking then leave Hardened Ward as it is and prohibit shield stacking. Since magicka is being used to create the shield it makes sense that the strength of the shield is dependent on that magicka .

I disagree that defensive abilities should scale from offensive stats, creating a situation where you can just stack Magicka and have the best of both worlds.

No other class receives a Magicka-based shield. Sorc shields are strongest because they scale off of the main damage resource.

This is why Hardened Ward gets brought up more than Blazing / Igneous Shield.

You should be happy your class even has a shield to stack, rather than insisting that Sorc shields absolutely need to be the strongest and easiest to maintain in the entire game, imo.

Nightreaver wrote: »

If I choose to use Light armor in place of Medium or Heavy then I do give up the defense those armors provide and receive only the defensive buffs the Light armor provides which is far less. What armor I choose should not restrict what class abilities I choose.

Hasn't it always been this way, though? If you're stamina dps, you wear medium. If you're magicka dps, you wear light.

I don't agree that it should be split that way, but that's the system ESO uses. However, medium enjoys a hefty armor bonus compared to magicka, so I'm okay w/ light gaining a 10-15% DPS boost.

Derra

Varicite wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Also critical hits against a mechanic that is per design not able to be critically cast seems wrong.
You either have to balance the value of shields against the avarage crit an opponent has - screwing players without crit builds or you have to balance around no crit - screwing the shield user.

But you are double-dipping here, as there is already a mechanic in place to reduce the strength of crits.

What you're really saying is that you want both Impenetrable AND all shields to mitigate against crit strength as they do currently on PTS.

No i´m not double dipping. You don´t understand my statement.

Crit is esentially a worthless stat when casting a shield. A shield has a fixed value that is only tied to one stat.
My statement was: Why would you allow a shield to be affected by critical hits when you don´t allow a shields to be critical(50% stronger) when casting them? - Answer is: It makes no sense. It´s like having crit not apply to healing but only to dmg.

Also i don´t think impenetrable (and cs passive) will apply to shields because currently no dmg mitigation of any form works on shields. Therefor shields will be affected even stronger by critical hits.

Joy_Division

Khivas_Carrick wrote: »

I would like to think it would make sense, dare I say common sense, that a damage shield can be subjected to critical strikes, especially since they're technically just an addition to your life bar.

I hate common sense. Because it's usually wrong. Damage shields are not subject to mitigation like your life bar. Damage shields do not regenerate like your life bar. Damage shields cannot be healed like your life bar.

Merlin13KAGL

Varicite wrote: »

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

What worries me, is if critical hits will work on wards/shields. Light armor users are gonna be superduper squishy, like riciulously so.
@olsborg , it's fine w/additions:

• If Shields can be Crit, you should be able to Crit cast a shield (+50% mitigation based on your Crit %)
• If Shields can takes DoTs, shields should have regens, based on your MR)

I have a lot of trouble understanding the logic behind these types of comments (not just this, but others demanding compensation for the shields nerf).

Clearly ZOS is nerfing damage shields because they feel they are too strong on PTS currently.

Why on earth do people feel that some sort of compensation is in order for toning down something that was already too strong?

It's like a convo w/ ZOS that goes like this:

ZOS: Hey guys, we're going to tone down shields because they're too strong.

Players: Sure, that's cool, as long as you also buff them so they aren't nerfed.

Just seems like very backwards logic to me.

@Varicite , you're having trouble because you're seeing the parts you wish to see, not the whole thing.

Overall shield strength can still be turned down. One side argues for wanting to be able to do 50% more damage to a shield based on Crit's, the same opportunity should be there for the casting side.

Balance. As a damage dealer, you expect your crit % to have value - same for the opposite end. No/low crit % as the caster, guess what, no/low chance for stronger shield. It gives crit more meaning on both sides that way.

Same with DoT's - you want the effect to be able to chip away, shield regen is the counter to that.

The Base Level values can still be adjusted for balance. Percentage effects can still be adjusted for balance. The one is not the automatic undoing of the other.

And no one's demanding anything. Everything should have its counter. How is that backwards logic?

Everything. When the one outpaces the other, that's what decides the outcome.

There are hundreds of ways things can be adjusted aside from turning them up or turning them down.

Numerous excellent suggestions get posted here daily. They don't automatically mean someone wants it tuned to their side.

We're (LA/Sorc/fill in the blank as you wish) are not the ones asking for bias - we're asking for it to be reasonably equal, so all classes/reasonable setups can have the same fighting chance.

You ask for more damage ability (Crits/DoTs) while providing no viable survivability alternatives.

Xiroku

I wonder what happened to the "Play the way you want and be who you want to be" thing.

GreyRanger

Xiroku wrote: »

I wonder what happened to the "Play the way you want and be who you want to be" thing.

That was really more a tag line than a possibility. In a game that has to be coded and served over the net there were always going to be lots of limitations. Add to that lots of competitive content (PVP, time trials, hard late game PVE) and you further push everyone toward optimized builds because suboptimal builds start having a hard time getting a team.

If you really want to play the way you want you need to do paper and pencil role playing with friends. It is really only limited by your imagination.

For an MMO a more realistic tag line/goal might be:

Amazing flexibility and diversity of viable builds for a hard coded game.

That just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Snit

Xiroku wrote: »

I wonder what happened to the "Play the way you want and be who you want to be" thing.

It works until endgame content.

Varicite

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

@Varicite , you're having trouble because you're seeing the parts you wish to see, not the whole thing.

Overall shield strength can still be turned down. One side argues for wanting to be able to do 50% more damage to a shield based on Crit's, the same opportunity should be there for the casting side.

That opportunity exists. They can crit you for 50% more damage, and you can counter their crit damage all the way down to 0% more damage.

I find that many people in this thread are seeing only what they wish to see, which is pretty understandable in a thread full of Sorcs about Sorcs, lol.

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

Balance. As a damage dealer, you expect your crit % to have value - same for the opposite end. No/low crit % as the caster, guess what, no/low chance for stronger shield. It gives crit more meaning on both sides that way.

See, crit is an offensive stat. It has no place being useful for defensive abilities, like damage shields. It already boosts both damage and healing, thus I don't see any reason that you should be able to crit shield yourself as well.

The counter to crits is Impenetrable, not shields. There do not need to be 2 completely separate mechanics involved to counter crits, which is currently how it works.

PS) If you're rocking full light armor, the real truth is that you are likely a damage dealer or healer and are already receiving the full benefit of your own crit%.

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

We're (LA/Sorc/fill in the blank as you wish) are not the ones asking for bias - we're asking for it to be reasonably equal, so all classes/reasonable setups can have the same fighting chance.

This is not possible while some classes have shields while others do not.

No amount of asking for your class shield to remain the strongest and uniquely scale off of your offensive stat so you only need worry about magicka is going to ever hold water when there is a class that has no shield.

This is not giving all classes the same fighting chance or there'd be way more petitions from Sorcs to give NBs a class shield (never seen one in over a year); this is trying to give Sorcs a better fighting chance in light armor than the other classes.

Why? Because Sorcs have a much better shield in light armor than any other class, as it scales off of their primary damage stat. No other class has this.

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

You ask for more damage ability (Crits/DoTs) while providing no viable survivability alternatives.

That's right, because damage shields are being looked at and toned down for being too strong currently on PTS.

The main issue of contention seems to be that most of you disagree w/ this very basic assessment of the situation, so you believe that you should receive some form of compensation to counteract the nerf.

All I've really said is that if ZOS feels the shields are too strong and need to be nerfed, so asking them to give you equal and opposite compensation to completely counter the nerf to shields seems... counterproductive at best.

1) Shields can be crit now, yes. But there is also a mechanic in place to reduce the extra damage from crits down to 0. No need to have crit shields if you can already reduce crits down to 0. No compensation necessary.

2) Shields can be DoT'd and proc effects now, yes. It was entirely unfair that popping a shield completely negated an entire list of passives and abilities; this needed to change. No compensation necessary.

3) Shield strength was reduced by 15% to curb the ability to endlessly be able to stack them while under fire. Personally, I would have raised their costs, but this basically serves the same function.

HOWEVER, I most likely would have held off on this particular nerf until at least seeing how the results of the first 2 nerfs played out. I don't disagree w/ ZOS' stance on the matter, though.

Robbmrp

Would the spell damage stack if you used

Dracane wrote: »

Snit wrote: »

Question: Do Lightning Splashes stack, from different casters?

Of course. Just like each AoE in the game. But you yourself can only cast it one time. And I am very very sure, an ally using the synergy will instantly stop lightning splash. Spear shards ends, after someone uses the synergy and I am very sure, same goes for splash.

So I will spend all my day with jelling at allies, to not use the synergy. Great....

The nice thing with the 10 second buff will be using Pulsar in addition to it. IF it does disappear once someone uses Synergy then changing the duration of it is pointless....

Dracane

Robbmrp wrote: »

Would the spell damage stack if you used

Dracane wrote: »

Snit wrote: »

Question: Do Lightning Splashes stack, from different casters?

Of course. Just like each AoE in the game. But you yourself can only cast it one time. And I am very very sure, an ally using the synergy will instantly stop lightning splash. Spear shards ends, after someone uses the synergy and I am very sure, same goes for splash.

So I will spend all my day with jelling at allies, to not use the synergy. Great....

The nice thing with the 10 second buff will be using Pulsar in addition to it. IF it does disappear once someone uses Synergy then changing the duration of it is pointless....

If you manage to replace a reasonable ability on your bar with lightning splash, it is going to help or AoE damage output. I myself can't sacrifise another ability for lightning splash. Lightning splash is a fun ability in my eyes and not an ability I would be using in a serious environment.

But I want to try it. But I have to use Overload for the seconds bar. (Oh my.... Overload would be so lost if it didn't offer a 3rd bar )