Change Nightblade Damage Type Disease to Bleed

MrCray78

I think it would be a good thing if the Nightblade's disease damage skills were converted to bleed damage.

The Necromancer already does disease damage, it doesn't make sense for an assassin to do disease damage.

Nightblade skill VFX is crimson like Bleed damage,this is absolutely not fitting

YandereGirlfriend

Bleed and Poison would definitely be more thematic for an assassin.

Also, since Nightblades are supposedly adept at... Blood Magic, it would stand to reason that more of their kit would do Bleed Damage as well.

MincMincMinc

Yeah never understood this one either. They probably wanted the diseased status, where now adays hemorrhaging fits better.

Still feel like nb got a better vampire kit than vampire did lol

necro_the_crafter

Thats super true, its wierd how they hasnt changed that yet.

Also would ease NBs PvE struggle by a lot.

Theist_VII

While we’re at it, we can make all of the Sun magic that Templars use Flame damage too, as the sun is literally a ball of fire.

necro_the_crafter

Theist_VII wrote: »

While we’re at it, we can make all of the Sun magic that Templars use Flame damage too, as the sun is literally a ball of fire.

But in TES sun is just big hole in the sky, that shines with magika flowing from Aetherius...

Stafford197

Things have gotten weird because there’e no vision for these classes, so stuff just changes randomly whenever they want more Stam or Mag abilities. Damage types and class themes have very little meaning.

I would’ve thought these classes would have made the most sense this way:
• Dragonknight: Flame, Molten Rock, Dragons
(Physical, Flame Damage types)
•.Nightblade: Poison, Bleed, Shadow
(Poison, Bleed Damage types)
• Templar: Holy Magic, Holy Fire
(Magic, Flame Damage types)
• Sorcerer: Lightning, Wind, Daedric Summons
(Physical, Shock Damage types)
• Warden: Nature/Plants, Earth, Animal Summons
(Physical, Poison Damage types)
• Necro: Bone, Disease, Undead Summons
(Magic, Disease Damage types)
• Arcanist: Too flashy… it shouldn’t exist in this game. Keep the same abilities, but change the theme of everything to be match the below….
• Enchantress/Snowcaller: Ice, Snow, Water
(Magic, Frost Damage types)

I feel this would allow classes to be way more versatile within the elements they are thematically supposed to represent. That way we don’t end up with something like the current Warden which has four or five damage types.

Theist_VII

necro_the_crafter wrote: »

Theist_VII wrote: »

While we’re at it, we can make all of the Sun magic that Templars use Flame damage too, as the sun is literally a ball of fire.

But in TES sun is just big hole in the sky, that shines with magika flowing from Aetherius...

Then why are all of the Dawn’s Wrath skills flame orange with fire particle effects?

huskandhunger

I want templar abilities to be flame damage on the dawn's wrath since it's about the sun theme

notyuu

If nb was made bleed based then the blood drinker set would be a free +20% damage for them

Vaqual

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

Zodiarkslayer

notyuu wrote: »

If nb was made bleed based then the blood drinker set would be a free +20% damage for them

Awesome, right? 😉

Grim_Overlord

Stafford197 wrote: »

Things have gotten weird because there’e no vision for these classes, so stuff just changes randomly whenever they want more Stam or Mag abilities. Damage types and class themes have very little meaning.

I would’ve thought these classes would have made the most sense this way:
• Dragonknight: Flame, Molten Rock, Dragons
(Physical, Flame Damage types)
•.Nightblade: Poison, Bleed, Shadow
(Poison, Bleed Damage types)
• Templar: Holy Magic, Holy Fire
(Magic, Flame Damage types)
• Sorcerer: Lightning, Wind, Daedric Summons
(Physical, Shock Damage types)
• Warden: Nature/Plants, Earth, Animal Summons
(Physical, Poison Damage types)
• Necro: Bone, Disease, Undead Summons
(Magic, Disease Damage types)
• Arcanist: Too flashy… it shouldn’t exist in this game. Keep the same abilities, but change the theme of everything to be match the below….
• Enchantress/Snowcaller: Ice, Snow, Water
(Magic, Frost Damage types)

I feel this would allow classes to be way more versatile within the elements they are thematically supposed to represent. That way we don’t end up with something like the current Warden which has four or five damage types.

Really like the divisions made on these aside from Warden given how much people have attached to the icy side of things in it, but that lack of ice aesthetic could be remedied with "animal companions" being renamed and having 1 morph be animal based and the other icicle based.

Building on this, I think we really need to move away from the damage types being tied entirely to the resource used to cast them. Why can't we cast poison magic with magicka, or disease that way? I can see the argument being made for magic damage not being stamina based alongside physical needing to use stamina, but with the hybridization system should let the rules of martial and magical damaged being tied to a specific resource be broken once in awhile, especially on class skills. This already happens on some skills like the DK whip's dual cost and many Arcanist abilities scaling with your max resource.

flizomica

Picking 2 damage types per class and then standardizing their skill damage types would go a long way toward more cohesive class identities. I really want to be encouraged to thoughtfully combine skills and sets that synergize well together, rather than simply being able to pick the highest damage options amongst all skills/sets and slap them together in the post-hybridization meta.

These would be my ideals, with a good mixture across classes:

• DK: flame, physical
• NB: magic, bleed. I think poison also works well for an assassin, but red VFX = bleed damage to me.
• Templar: magic or physical (both work thematically to me from Aedric Spear), flame
• Sorc: shock, physical
• Warden: poison (stam morphs), frost. Bleed also works really well thematically, but I don't like it with the green VFX personally.
• Necro: disease (stam morphs), frost.
• Arcanist: I think the mix of damage types works well given the class theme, as they're just.. magic-y without a strong particular elemental leaning.

Vaqual

I get the thematic aspect, but all damage types that are in place can already be thematically justified. The disease damage on power extraction for example makes sense, as the target feels debilitated, sickened and enfeebled by the spell. You can just as well spin this as a magic (cursed by it) or bleed (drained by it) type attack. The damage types are however not just a thematic consideration. They are an important balancing aspect, regulating what kind of statuses can be easily accessed on each class and what gear synergies exist. I do not think that blanket changes make too much sense.
In case anyone is motivated by some sneaky thoughts about potential synergies that could result from the changes: Don't worry, everyone else would also figure that out.

I think the style system is a much less invasive way of nudging thematic discrepancies into the correct place, if they can manage to go beyond just recolors.

Stafford197

Vaqual wrote: »

I get the thematic aspect, but all damage types that are in place can already be thematically justified. The disease damage on power extraction for example makes sense, as the target feels debilitated, sickened and enfeebled by the spell. You can just as well spin this as a magic (cursed by it) or bleed (drained by it) type attack. The damage types are however not just a thematic consideration. They are an important balancing aspect, regulating what kind of statuses can be easily accessed on each class and what gear synergies exist. I do not think that blanket changes make too much sense.
In case anyone is motivated by some sneaky thoughts about potential synergies that could result from the changes: Don't worry, everyone else would also figure that out.

I think the style system is a much less invasive way of nudging thematic discrepancies into the correct place, if they can manage to go beyond just recolors.

What’s the point in this?

Sure we can write two sentences to make any damage type work on any ability. Like you said, just change around some words:
• Scorch: Summon two flaming beetles which damage enemies in a line forward from you after 3 seconds, dealing Flame Damage.
• Scorch: Summon two poisonous beetles which damage enemies in a line forward from you after 3 seconds, dealing Poison Damage.
• Scorch: Summon two plague-ridden beetles which damage enemies in a line forward from you after 3 seconds, dealing Disease Damage.

It sounds boring though - there is no regard for class identity or build archetypes in this idea. (Warden “Ice Mage”, Dragonknight “Fire Mage”, etc).

I’d rather classes are a thematically cohesive kit of abilities which help build toward fun Class Archetypes, instead of being a random mix of stuff “just because it can be justified by writing a sentence with key words like poison or cold”.

Vaqual

Stafford197 wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

I get the thematic aspect, but all damage types that are in place can already be thematically justified. The disease damage on power extraction for example makes sense, as the target feels debilitated, sickened and enfeebled by the spell. You can just as well spin this as a magic (cursed by it) or bleed (drained by it) type attack. The damage types are however not just a thematic consideration. They are an important balancing aspect, regulating what kind of statuses can be easily accessed on each class and what gear synergies exist. I do not think that blanket changes make too much sense.
In case anyone is motivated by some sneaky thoughts about potential synergies that could result from the changes: Don't worry, everyone else would also figure that out.

I think the style system is a much less invasive way of nudging thematic discrepancies into the correct place, if they can manage to go beyond just recolors.

What’s the point in this?

Sure we can write two sentences to make any damage type work on any ability. Like you said, just change around some words:
• Scorch: Summon two flaming beetles which damage enemies in a line forward from you after 3 seconds, dealing Flame Damage.
• Scorch: Summon two poisonous beetles which damage enemies in a line forward from you after 3 seconds, dealing Poison Damage.
• Scorch: Summon two plague-ridden beetles which damage enemies in a line forward from you after 3 seconds, dealing Disease Damage.

It sounds boring though - there is no regard for class identity or build archetypes in this idea. (Warden “Ice Mage”, Dragonknight “Fire Mage”, etc).

I’d rather classes are a thematically cohesive kit of abilities which help build toward fun Class Archetypes, instead of being a random mix of stuff “just because it can be justified by writing a sentence with key words like poison or cold”.

The point is, that there will likely not be a consensus answer as to what damage type each ability deserves "thematically". Just because one ability feels to you like it should be damage type XY, doesn't mean the next guy will agree. The damage type has also far more implications for gameplay and each synergy you create for changing the type will mean that one more other synergies break. There is just no easy solution for this that will satisfy everyone, which is why the status quo is just mostly OK. Also, your example is trivial on purpose. I think I did a good enough job highlighting the issue in my example.

Stafford197

Vaqual wrote: »

Stafford197 wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

I get the thematic aspect, but all damage types that are in place can already be thematically justified. The disease damage on power extraction for example makes sense, as the target feels debilitated, sickened and enfeebled by the spell. You can just as well spin this as a magic (cursed by it) or bleed (drained by it) type attack. The damage types are however not just a thematic consideration. They are an important balancing aspect, regulating what kind of statuses can be easily accessed on each class and what gear synergies exist. I do not think that blanket changes make too much sense.
In case anyone is motivated by some sneaky thoughts about potential synergies that could result from the changes: Don't worry, everyone else would also figure that out.

I think the style system is a much less invasive way of nudging thematic discrepancies into the correct place, if they can manage to go beyond just recolors.

What’s the point in this?

Sure we can write two sentences to make any damage type work on any ability. Like you said, just change around some words:
• Scorch: Summon two flaming beetles which damage enemies in a line forward from you after 3 seconds, dealing Flame Damage.
• Scorch: Summon two poisonous beetles which damage enemies in a line forward from you after 3 seconds, dealing Poison Damage.
• Scorch: Summon two plague-ridden beetles which damage enemies in a line forward from you after 3 seconds, dealing Disease Damage.

It sounds boring though - there is no regard for class identity or build archetypes in this idea. (Warden “Ice Mage”, Dragonknight “Fire Mage”, etc).

I’d rather classes are a thematically cohesive kit of abilities which help build toward fun Class Archetypes, instead of being a random mix of stuff “just because it can be justified by writing a sentence with key words like poison or cold”.

The point is, that there will likely not be a consensus answer as to what damage type each ability deserves "thematically". Just because one ability feels to you like it should be damage type XY, doesn't mean the next guy will agree. The damage type has also far more implications for gameplay and each synergy you create for changing the type will mean that one more other synergies break. There is just no easy solution for this that will satisfy everyone, which is why the status quo is just mostly OK. Also, your example is trivial on purpose. I think I did a good enough job highlighting the issue in my example.

You’re really overcomplicating it lol. ESO balance is not super intricate like you seem to think. We just want to play archetypes like fire mages, frost mages, rogues, warriors, etc.
This game uses classes to get it done so the idea is for those archetypes to have lots of options instead of like two abilities for their element.

Vaqual

Stafford197 wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

Stafford197 wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

I get the thematic aspect, but all damage types that are in place can already be thematically justified. The disease damage on power extraction for example makes sense, as the target feels debilitated, sickened and enfeebled by the spell. You can just as well spin this as a magic (cursed by it) or bleed (drained by it) type attack. The damage types are however not just a thematic consideration. They are an important balancing aspect, regulating what kind of statuses can be easily accessed on each class and what gear synergies exist. I do not think that blanket changes make too much sense.
In case anyone is motivated by some sneaky thoughts about potential synergies that could result from the changes: Don't worry, everyone else would also figure that out.

I think the style system is a much less invasive way of nudging thematic discrepancies into the correct place, if they can manage to go beyond just recolors.

What’s the point in this?

Sure we can write two sentences to make any damage type work on any ability. Like you said, just change around some words:
• Scorch: Summon two flaming beetles which damage enemies in a line forward from you after 3 seconds, dealing Flame Damage.
• Scorch: Summon two poisonous beetles which damage enemies in a line forward from you after 3 seconds, dealing Poison Damage.
• Scorch: Summon two plague-ridden beetles which damage enemies in a line forward from you after 3 seconds, dealing Disease Damage.

It sounds boring though - there is no regard for class identity or build archetypes in this idea. (Warden “Ice Mage”, Dragonknight “Fire Mage”, etc).

I’d rather classes are a thematically cohesive kit of abilities which help build toward fun Class Archetypes, instead of being a random mix of stuff “just because it can be justified by writing a sentence with key words like poison or cold”.

The point is, that there will likely not be a consensus answer as to what damage type each ability deserves "thematically". Just because one ability feels to you like it should be damage type XY, doesn't mean the next guy will agree. The damage type has also far more implications for gameplay and each synergy you create for changing the type will mean that one more other synergies break. There is just no easy solution for this that will satisfy everyone, which is why the status quo is just mostly OK. Also, your example is trivial on purpose. I think I did a good enough job highlighting the issue in my example.

You’re really overcomplicating it lol. ESO balance is not super intricate like you seem to think. We just want to play archetypes like fire mages, frost mages, rogues, warriors, etc.
This game uses classes to get it done so the idea is for those archetypes to have lots of options instead of like two abilities for their element.

No I'm not. You are making the mistake of writing "we". Damage types are literally a major aspect for the way they interact with sets and for the buffs and debuffs they grant with their related status effects. If an ability totally makes sense as magic damage ability and works that way, it shouldn't be changed to "bleed" damage just because it feels more nightblady to one player.

If you just want to play a fire mage nothing stops you from using fire staff abilities and literally 1/3 of the DK kit.