Why not make "Undeath" passive skale with vamp stage?

kyatos_binarini

something like
1 stage = up to 7.5%
2 stage = up to 15%
3 stage = up to 22.5%
4 stage = up to 30%
(and maybe the same could be done to other passives)

it perfectly fits the idea of "more power = more penalty" and would make this passive less overpowered in pvp

mmtaniac

Still too powerful. There is not set in game that increase damage by 30% than why we have mitigation that add this?

worrallj

The benefit of undeath should not overpower the vampires innate weakness to fire. Weakness to fire is only like 10%. So vampires aren't actually *weak* to fire, they're just slightly less strong against it. I am in favor of just straight up removing the undeath passive entirely. I think it's a stupid and broken skill that's only in the game to push people to buy the vamp skill line on all their toons, same as channelled acceleration in the psijic line. At the very least it should only kick in at 25% health or something instead of scaling continuously.

katorga

The proposed scaling is even more powerful; you get some benefit with the lowest possible vampire penalties.

Personally I think Undeath should be a stage 4 passive, swapping with the current stage 4.

mmtaniac wrote: »

Still too powerful. There is not set in game that increase damage by 30% than why we have mitigation that add this?

Blame ZOS, they nerfed the things that boosted your damage 30%.

OBJnoob

I think the proposed change is pretty good. And if 30% is still too strong maybe make it go 5 - 10 - 15 - 20 or something. And I also agree with what someone said about weakness to fire. Make the mitigation not effect fore damage at all. Done. Good to go.

I'd also be happy if it stayed how it is now but dropped to 20%. Or if it became stage 4. Doesn't really matter to me what they do... Just do something.

Sergykid

that 30% is only when u r in execute range and almost dead. As for sets Pariah work the same but only up to 15% (i know it's a different form of mitigation) but it has no cost and no downsides.

as for damage equivalent for 30%, why talk about persistent 30% when u rather should look at scaling damage sets, there are some that do that and some that reach a good 15-20% value of damage done against a target (see cmx)

yes it should be good % defense to scale with stage, but not lower the %
.

xylena_lazarow

One possibility that would also help chip away at the tank meta: turn Undeath into an offensive passive. Make it increase your damage dealt the higher your vamp stage or something.

YandereGirlfriend

worrallj wrote: »

The benefit of undeath should not overpower the vampires innate weakness to fire. Weakness to fire is only like 10%. So vampires aren't actually *weak* to fire, they're just slightly less strong against it. I am in favor of just straight up removing the undeath passive entirely. I think it's a stupid and broken skill that's only in the game to push people to buy the vamp skill line on all their toons, same as channelled acceleration in the psijic line. At the very least it should only kick in at 25% health or something instead of scaling continuously.

This is the elephant in the room re: vamps (and werewolves).

The elemental penalties that they incur are simply there for RP flavor and not as meaningful balance considerations for taking on the power of the curse.

If Undeath remained at 30% then the Flame Damage penalty really ought to be on par with the single-player games where we're talking like double damage taken from Flame. THAT is a meaningful penalty for going vamp but it is balanced by being stronger against everything else. The increase to ability costs is and always has been silly and total nonsense from a lore perspective. The cost increases should be dropped entirely while the Flame damage penalty is juiced up.

MEBengalsFan2001

How about this...

Stage 1 Vampire: 0% damage reduction and fire damage does 10% more damage
Stage 2 Vampire: 10% damage reduction and fire damage does 25% more damage
Stage 3 Vampire 15% damage reduction and fire damage does 50% more damage
Stage 4 Vampire 20% damage reduction and fire damage does 75% more damage

Vampires are not immune to fire with this setup. If fact, this would encourage players not be a vampire and if you go against a player not using fire you would have an advantage; however, if there was a slight ticket increase to vampires in PVP, many players would probably start to use more fire based damaging abilities.

Basically this would just encourage more DK and well why not. LOL.....

Melzo

You do not account for the resource cost cost penalty on abilities. I play without vampire and it's much easier for me to play. I'm much less likely to be at 0 in terms of resources. Vampire gives too many penalties and few bonuses. It doesn't make sense to play stage 3. Everyone will then sit on 1 or 2.

MEBengalsFan2001 wrote: »

How about this...

Stage 1 Vampire: 0% damage reduction and fire damage does 10% more damage
Stage 2 Vampire: 10% damage reduction and fire damage does 25% more damage
Stage 3 Vampire 15% damage reduction and fire damage does 50% more damage
Stage 4 Vampire 20% damage reduction and fire damage does 75% more damage

Vampires are not immune to fire with this setup. If fact, this would encourage players not be a vampire and if you go against a player not using fire you would have an advantage; however, if there was a slight ticket increase to vampires in PVP, many players would probably start to use more fire based damaging abilities.

Basically this would just encourage more DK and well why not. LOL.....

75 percent? Are you serious??? Do you want to die from a fire spit? A skill that deals 3 thousand damage on 3 targets with 75 percent will deal 5 thousand. Yes, even if you increase the passive from 30 to 40, you will still be in the red...

Amottica

It makes sense that the most risk is required to get such a passive.

OBJnoob

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

worrallj wrote: »

The benefit of undeath should not overpower the vampires innate weakness to fire. Weakness to fire is only like 10%. So vampires aren't actually *weak* to fire, they're just slightly less strong against it. I am in favor of just straight up removing the undeath passive entirely. I think it's a stupid and broken skill that's only in the game to push people to buy the vamp skill line on all their toons, same as channelled acceleration in the psijic line. At the very least it should only kick in at 25% health or something instead of scaling continuously.

This is the elephant in the room re: vamps (and werewolves).

The elemental penalties that they incur are simply there for RP flavor and not as meaningful balance considerations for taking on the power of the curse.

If Undeath remained at 30% then the Flame Damage penalty really ought to be on par with the single-player games where we're talking like double damage taken from Flame. THAT is a meaningful penalty for going vamp but it is balanced by being stronger against everything else. The increase to ability costs is and always has been silly and total nonsense from a lore perspective. The cost increases should be dropped entirely while the Flame damage penalty is juiced up.

Respectfully I think you need to decide what's more important to you, balance or lore, and defend that stance. In your above post you kinda flipflop and therefore contradict yourself.

I can tell you that I honestly don't give a flying fart about lore... All I do is PvP... I want balance.

I say (and I'm mostly listing other peoples ideas here, the ones I liked, not trying to take credit,)
1) reduce undeath passive to 20%.
2) leave the fire damage increase how it is, so we can see how the other chsnges work out without changing too many variables at once, but completely remove flame damage from the list of what gets mitigated by undeath.
3) leave the ability cost increases how they are.
4) rework some of the active vampire skills so they aren't so useless. As compensation for the nerfs and to give people more than 1 reason to be a vampire.

mmtaniac

Best way is to force people to wear abilities to unlock passives count start from 2(2skills to unlock rank 1 passives) ,the more abilities you have the more passives you have. Undeath require atleast 4 vampire skills on one bar. At the same time zos should buff, change abilities to be able to work not cripple you.

YandereGirlfriend

OBJnoob wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

worrallj wrote: »

The benefit of undeath should not overpower the vampires innate weakness to fire. Weakness to fire is only like 10%. So vampires aren't actually *weak* to fire, they're just slightly less strong against it. I am in favor of just straight up removing the undeath passive entirely. I think it's a stupid and broken skill that's only in the game to push people to buy the vamp skill line on all their toons, same as channelled acceleration in the psijic line. At the very least it should only kick in at 25% health or something instead of scaling continuously.

This is the elephant in the room re: vamps (and werewolves).

The elemental penalties that they incur are simply there for RP flavor and not as meaningful balance considerations for taking on the power of the curse.

If Undeath remained at 30% then the Flame Damage penalty really ought to be on par with the single-player games where we're talking like double damage taken from Flame. THAT is a meaningful penalty for going vamp but it is balanced by being stronger against everything else. The increase to ability costs is and always has been silly and total nonsense from a lore perspective. The cost increases should be dropped entirely while the Flame damage penalty is juiced up.

Respectfully I think you need to decide what's more important to you, balance or lore, and defend that stance. In your above post you kinda flipflop and therefore contradict yourself.

I can tell you that I honestly don't give a flying fart about lore... All I do is PvP... I want balance.

I say (and I'm mostly listing other peoples ideas here, the ones I liked, not trying to take credit,)
1) reduce undeath passive to 20%.
2) leave the fire damage increase how it is, so we can see how the other chsnges work out without changing too many variables at once, but completely remove flame damage from the list of what gets mitigated by undeath.
3) leave the ability cost increases how they are.
4) rework some of the active vampire skills so they aren't so useless. As compensation for the nerfs and to give people more than 1 reason to be a vampire.

You can do both. One needn't be a slave to the vampire lore (I would break ties in favor of balance rather than lore) but, IMO, two things are true in the vampire debate: that the Flame damage penalty is far too low for the amount of power conferred by Undeath and the ability cost increase is random and was tacked-on by ZOS for reasons that never particularly added up.

I think that the ideal balance point would be found in some combination of: reducing the magnitude of Undeath, increasing the magnitude of the Flame penalty, and eliminating the ability cost penalty. Additionally, as some others have proposed, making the Undeath bonus scale with Vampire Stage could also make sense (weighted in favor of the higher stages).

OBJnoob

@YandereGirlfriend ah well I'm sorry then I think I misunderstood. We agree almost completely. I, ignoring lore and seeking balance, don't find the cost increase bad at all. I think it's pretty necessary since so many people are running stage 3 for pvp. There has to be some drawback. And while I can see how there'd be more drawback with your suggested flame damage change, I think there needs to be more.

I think the problem is twofold: undeath is too strong with not enough drawbacks (so don't remove any drawbacks!) And there's only 1 reason to play vampire. Two reasons really, but they're both passive, and gankers and brawlers only find 1 useful-- though they use different ones.

So my plan... Keeping the cost increases... Would benefit from redoing some of the passive skills to be less bad.

Jammy420

Vampire has been nerfed to hell with the revamp and they only recently got it back to useful, and now I see people think vampires need a nerf?

Imagine complaining about ESO vamps in 2022. It is fine where it is, leave it alone. ZoS will destroy it completely again if they touch it. It feels like the people in this thread do not remember the great fiasco that the revamp was, and it shows.

worrallj wrote: »

The benefit of undeath should not overpower the vampires innate weakness to fire. Weakness to fire is only like 10%. So vampires aren't actually *weak* to fire, they're just slightly less strong against it. I am in favor of just straight up removing the undeath passive entirely. I think it's a stupid and broken skill that's only in the game to push people to buy the vamp skill line on all their toons, same as channelled acceleration in the psijic line. At the very least it should only kick in at 25% health or something instead of scaling continuously.

Its 20 percent at stage 4. How are you going to talk about nerfing vampires yet not even know what you are talking about? On top of that 0 health regen. That is MASSIVE in pvp. Go ahead and try to play a stage 4 vampire with the vampire lord set and tell me again how op vampire is. We literally have ONE set that is for us, and it makes us even -weaker- to fire. I could see moving the undeath to stage 4, but then you would need to do the sprint passive at 3. That would be fine, but anything else would wreck vamp as it is, and it is by far not OP.

Let's leave vampires to players who actually understand them.

OBJnoob

And let's leave balance discussions to those that not only understand vampires but also understand how their existence effects overall game balance in the current meta. Tankyness is a problem and undeath is a big part of that problem. 8 out of 10 competitive pvp builds these days are vampires. Either for the stealth or for the undeath. Not so much for any other reason and certainly not for the active abilities. Vampire needs to retain it's relative strength, yes, but by shifting that strength out of passives and into active abilities.

In short, undeath is a problem. If you don't know that then you don't know much.

Jammy420

OBJnoob wrote: »

And let's leave balance discussions to those that not only understand vampires but also understand how their existence effects overall game balance in the current meta. Tankyness is a problem and undeath is a big part of that problem. 8 out of 10 competitive pvp builds these days are vampires. Either for the stealth or for the undeath. Not so much for any other reason and certainly not for the active abilities. Vampire needs to retain it's relative strength, yes, but by shifting that strength out of passives and into active abilities.

In short, undeath is a problem. If you don't know that then you don't know much.

Ah yes, nerfing something into uselessness is balance, I forgot. There is one single skill line that has unique buffs and debuffs and you want to water it down so its no different than being mortal. Luckily ZoS is 100 percent not listening to you.

They got rid of our 0 trade off dmg boost
Got rid of our no trade off regen buffs
Made our core skills cost more, including roll dodge, utlimates, our class skills and our weapon skills
Made vamps squishier.
Took away all our health regen
Made us more weak vs fire when fire is EVERYWHERE in pvp
Made our skills worse
Made our ulti worse
Did not rework our one synergy set to fit our new weaknesses
Nerfed Arterial burst
Nerfed Blood frenzy and morphs

But hey we have undeath, so obviously, we are still problematic. I am glad ZoS doesnt listen to the playerbase if these are the kind of takes people have.

Honestly it just sounds like you do not want anyone to play vampires. The amount of vamps vs non vamps is clearly much lower than it was previously as seen by everywhere, and you still want to make it so only .5 percent use it out of rp reasons.

HELL we cant even be healed with our health based spammable, or our blood frenzy, and with pale order ring iirc. So we are forced to be more self sustainable than every other class / spec in the game.

Jammy420

mmtaniac wrote: »

Still too powerful. There is not set in game that increase damage by 30% than why we have mitigation that add this?

Is there a set in the game that adds that amount of damage protection with also debuffing health regen, flamge suceptibility, increase skill cost, etc?

No.

mmtaniac

Classes that counter fire is only dk and magicka especially , this means vampire have no negatives on pvp only negative are costs health regen are nerfed anyway so no one use it too maybe few players but most people ignore these stat.

Jammy420

mmtaniac wrote: »

Classes that counter fire is only dk and magicka especially , this means vampire have no negatives on pvp only negative are costs health regen are nerfed anyway so no one use it too maybe few players but most people ignore these stat.

What? Fire counters include

Oils
Fire Treb
Fire Ballista
All dk skills
Templar skills
Necro has some flame skills
FLAME staff skills
Flame enchantment
Flame Lancer
Cold fire siege weapons ( lol theyll one shot you if you arent tanky because of flame damage)

There are numerous counters, its up to you to build toward them, not ZOS to nerf vamps so they are easy mode for you to fight.

Here is a full list of skills that have flame damage, including a MULTITUDE of flame based sets.

https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Online:Flame_Damage

I guess we are also forgetting about the fighters guild skill line as well. While not flame damage, does a TON of damage to undead. For stamina characters? If you REALLY want to counter vamps, use the cross bow and dawnbreaker.

As for the no negatives, no health regen is massive at stage 4, so a compromise of putting undeath stage 4 would be totally acceptable for me, and the stage four passive at stage 3. That is the ONLY thing that makes sense. Making undeath passives be one EVERY level would be OP AF. You SHOULD have to be stage 4 to have all the best passives. But the negatives are more than enough.

Its also important to mention that we do not benefit from ANY health regen sets at stage 4. So our negatives are monumental for the trade off of 30 percent reduction at 5 percent health.

This is however, mostly, a l2p issue.

OBJnoob

@Jammy420 I agree with some what you're saying and if you read MY posts you'll notice what I'm trying to suggest is moving some of the vampire strength out of passives and into active abilities. I'm not trying to make vampires weaker, I'm trying to fix the overall tank meta by nerfing one bit contributor but compensating vampires in other ways.

I can see you haven't liked any of the vampire changes for a long time... But if you remember ZOS' reason for revamping was because everybody was a vampire for the passive recovery but they didn't actually DO anything a vampire would do. It wasn't about being a vampire it was just about min/maxing your character. It was obligatory, like maxing undaunted or grinding alchemy for medicinal use.

Vampire is the same now but because of the undeath passive instead. In pvp everybody is using it. So I'm saying nerf that a little... So people can actually die again sometimes... But rework some of the previously nerfed active abilities to not suck again.

Jammy420

OBJnoob wrote: »

@Jammy420 I agree with some what you're saying and if you read MY posts you'll notice what I'm trying to suggest is moving some of the vampire strength out of passives and into active abilities. I'm not trying to make vampires weaker, I'm trying to fix the overall tank meta by nerfing one bit contributor but compensating vampires in other ways.

I can see you haven't liked any of the vampire changes for a long time... But if you remember ZOS' reason for revamping was because everybody was a vampire for the passive recovery but they didn't actually DO anything a vampire would do. It wasn't about being a vampire it was just about min/maxing your character. It was obligatory, like maxing undaunted or grinding alchemy for medicinal use.

Vampire is the same now but because of the undeath passive instead. In pvp everybody is using it. So I'm saying nerf that a little... So people can actually die again sometimes... But rework some of the previously nerfed active abilities to not suck again.

Going to have to agree to disagree here, I listed the plethora of weaknesses vamps have and their counters to make the undeath not such a big deal, plus you are running on the assumption that its thirty percent at all times, when in truth , that is only in execute range, if not lower.

I have no problem with the actual changes, but the execution and bumbling around for a year before vamps hit a good spot. They are currently not great but not bad, and most of their power comes from active skills and fast paced builds. The devs already said they are happy with where vampires are now, and for once, I agree with them. This is a non issue, and a lack of willingness to counter issue.

OBJnoob

Well... Not my fight so I'll let someone else fight it. I hear where you're coming from for the most part. My two last cents...

When you say vampires current strength is active abilities I wonder which ones you're talking about?

And... While undeath isn't 30% all the time it is when it matters-- which is when you're blockcasting through executes casting overtuned class burst self heals.

Urzigurumash

@Jammy420 Can TES Vampires feed on each other in lore?

If the answer is no, then Vampire doesn't exist in ESO PvP, because everybody is one besides the handful of WWs per server. It's an error in our character sheet. Sounds like you care about Vampire from some thematic perspective, so you should support the removal of Undeath to return some thematic meaning to Vampirism in ESO PvP. The nerf to HP Regen and the additional 1k Weapon Damage compelled 9999 out of 10000 PvPers to switch to Vampirism, prior to these changes it was not so ubiquitous.

Also the Fire Damage Penalty should be removed. DK, fka MagDK, has been difficult to balance in PvP throughout this game's history and this Penalty doesn't help. Same could be said for the Fighter's Guild Penalty but that could he helped by buffing other Burst Ults - Berserker Strike and Crescent Sweep probably for sure.

As I've said before, we could use another Subclass besides Vampire and WW. Some other form of Undead, like Mummy, or another form of Were-Creature, or something.

Fruity_Ninja

Nerf/change undeath and mist form, and already we would have a much better balance in PVP. There would be a lot more deaths and a lot less stalemates.

Hell while they’re at it, cap health through battle spirit at 35k maximum.

It would make the world of difference.

Urzigurumash

Fruity_Ninja wrote: »

Nerf/change undeath and mist form, and already we would have a much better balance in PVP. There would be a lot more deaths and a lot less stalemates.

Hell while they’re at it, cap health through battle spirit at 35k maximum.

It would make the world of difference.

I agree about Undeath and Mist Form. I don't really mind people who play dedicated Mist Form tanks though, if they're having fun with it I don't mind, that's the best method at True Tanking in PvP right now. I've seen low level players on a Mist Tank lock out a flag from a small group of high level players so to me - good - that low level player just had fun shutting down a bunch of 5 stars. But most of the time, on most specs, Mist Form is a nuisance, giving the player an undeserved opportunity to bounce out of combat and heal to full at will. I sometimes like to abuse it too for this purpose, of course. Again I think this Undead Tank idea would be better on a Mummy / Draugr subclass.

But, as for Health Caps, perhaps it's worth remembering that prior to the 1st major racial revision in 2019 or whenever there were always lots of 70k HP Argonian DKs in Cyro, and many patches before 2019 are fondly remembered and didn't suffer from a long average TTK.

Point being high average HP contributes to a "tank meta" yes, absolutely, but real Health Tanks themselves, not so much, they're pretty rare and have limited potential in combat. So, I don't know that a hard cap on Health for all specs is needed - and we only have hard caps on Speed to my knowledge. I think in PvP we could call Crit Chance and Crit Damage both soft caps since they can have debuffs / mitigation overcome by raising the stat above the cap (even if theoretically for Crit Chance, I'm pretty sure if it were possible to build like 120% Crit Chance that Uncertainty could be overcome). I don't think it's possible to overcome a snare by raising Speed over the cap. I could be wrong about those though.

More general point being, "True Tanks" and a "Tank Meta" are completely unrelated phenomena. I found this term Tank Meta immensely confusing for a few years really until it was better explained to me on this forum. It's not about actual "tanks" and so I'm not sure such deliberate "anti-tank" means as a hard cap on HP are needed to reduce the average TTK.

Fruity_Ninja

@Urzigurumash i see your point. And I actually agree on the difference between a “true tank” and “tank meta”

I don’t have an issue with tanks per se. just the fact that everyone is so hard to kill these days- undeath removal and mist form change would be an amazing start to getting some balance back.

Derra

Personally i don´t think changing undeath would change much in the current pvp situation.

Everyone is using it currently so it gets kind of canceled out. If they were to remove or significantly change undeath people would simply build more tanky (sacrificing killing power leading to the same fight results).

Groupsize, Stacking hots, combat medic and rapid successive respawning/ressurections not being punished are imo far more responsible for the current state of pvp than undeath.



Generally speaking esos playerbase has a fundamental mentality problem where dying is not considered a normal (and imo desireable) outcome for an encounter with other players.
This is reinforced by ZOS' balancing approach of trying to prolong fights - that simply doesn´t work in a combat system where EVERYTHING (sets, skills, core combat mechanics) defense related is stronger than its offensive counterpart.

To change that for individual encounters zos would either have to change the general balancing approach to a point where Red Numbers > Green Numbers over the course of an long(ish) encounter (not good for casual players)
or if they were to keep the current general combat balancing increase the volatility of dmg to the point where not everything dmg related is counterable by having enough HP + continuous green numbers (bigger luck factor: either cap/decrease achvieveable health pools or increase critdmg across the board / combination of both).

deleted221205-002626

kyatos_binarini wrote: »

something like
1 stage = up to 7.5%
2 stage = up to 15%
3 stage = up to 22.5%
4 stage = up to 30%
(and maybe the same could be done to other passives)

it perfectly fits the idea of "more power = more penalty" and would make this passive less overpowered in pvp

You have to be stage3 to even enable it!