HUGE Rebalance Project Idea for ESO from Skinny Cheeks(YTB Vidéo)

CatoUnchained

silky_soft wrote: »

Did they delete the previous post on this?

Yes, they did. I read the post in offline mode yesterday and came on today to comment, but there is only this thread now, and other posters have already brought up the points I came to the thread to make. But there was a different thread that had at least a dozen posts before it disappeared.

o_Primate_o

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

I think the move to 3 piece sets would reduce the gap between strong and weak builds compared to what it is right now. Especially if the proc sets are balanced with each other to have the same, or at least close enough the same dps. In the current state of the game if you opt to use a non meta set, you are at a much greater disadvantage because now half of your build is objectively weaker than it could be.

1. The gap between "strong" builds and "weak" builds would grow even more.
2. No one is making people use strictly "meta" sets except for some raid leads. what's the problem with that?
3. Why stop at 3-pc sets? Why not go with twelve 1-pc sets having only the full set bonus? 3-pc sets is NOT the answer - it will break the game.

Most overland sets and non-DLC dungeon sets are trash, but no one's making anyone wear them. Decon them or sell them. Get over the fact that they are useless. The old sets helped build the game in the beginning but like most old technology, new technology takes over. Are you still using dial-up internet service? No (I hope not), but it still exists. Would you switch back to dial-up if it got a buff - or is broadband and FIOS more than good enough?

ssewallb14_ESO

Yeah the massive overhaul that would be converting 5-pc to 3-pc would come with many, many externalities, which given the reality of the game's development, could take literal years to settle out.

I'm pretty much done with overhauls.

The relative balance of item set needs to get looked at though, especially monster sets in light of mythics being so strong.

chessalavakia_ESO

BananaBender wrote: »

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

I think it looks like an absolutely incredible effort but, I think it might not necessarily be an ideal fit. But, it's possible that with more detail and context it is a better fit.

For example, the big reason I've done many of the dungeons lots of times is because I need specific items to be able to run the combination of five piece sets that I want. If you drop down to needing three pieces for a set that would be a significant reduction in the number of runs people would need to do.

Many of the sets I glanced at quickly in the video appear to have an increase in power per piece which may drive the gap between players that are running an optimized build and those with a garbage build even higher.

With the single piece set bonuses on everything you'd also potentially have the question of why even have items that aren't part of a set exist at all.

Further, the change to three piece would mean that everyone with an existing build would need to redo their build if they wanted to optimize on every character. You could end up hitting the point where some people just throw in the towel and just toss on the Torc of the Last Ayleid King.

While it is true that reducing the set requirement to needing three would make it easier for people that are questing to get a full set the same thing could be achieved by just making the quest rewards all be set items.

Personally, my confusion with stats tends to be less about the number displayed and more about what the number displayed does. If I was adjusting for confusion I'd be focusing more on making it clear what x or y does and making sure x or y is actually good at something. Much of the time stamina and magicka lines on items feel like a less effective and more inconvenient version of weapon and spell damage.

I think that the amount of people who only run a dungeon to get only the pieces they absolutely need and not more than that is not large enough to make a difference in the amount of people doing dungeons. Even now dungeons that have no good sets to begin with see a bunch of play.

There isn't really a reason for non set items to exist even now in my opinion. They are only there to be deconstructed or sold.

I think the move to 3 piece sets would reduce the gap between strong and weak builds compared to what it is right now. Especially if the proc sets are balanced with each other to have the same, or at least close enough the same dps. In the current state of the game if you opt to use a non meta set, you are at a much greater disadvantage because now half of your build is objectively weaker than it could be. With three sets the weight of one set would of course be reduced. In addition this would also make niche, but good sets more viable, since it would lower your base power nearly as much as it does right now. For example Kvatch Gladiator, it does have its uses right now in the game, but you will be playing effectively without a second set, meaning almost half of your kit, for 75% of the fight, which leads to many players not using this set even in situations where it is effective. Also there is a problem with build variety in dungeons and trials due to having to run a Minor Slayer set, this of course limits your choices to one trial set and one non trial set, and the vast majority of even okay sets will never see use no matter how cool they are or how thematic they are because of how much of a loss in power it would be to use them.
Of course there would be some new top tier sets that see more use than other sets, that will always be the case, but if the balancing of the sets would be done as Skinny mentioned in the video and how he had done it in his examples, there would be much less of a gap in builds compared to what it is right now.

Major set and combat change like this would of course drive away some players, but so will any major change in the game. I think this would be so much better for the health of the game in long term. But limiting changes just because there will be some players who can't be bothered to adjust and choose to leave is just so extremely short sighted.

In the current state of the game the devs are way too scared to add any new interesting and meta shifting sets. The last time we saw something like that was on High Isle with the introduction of Pillager's Profit. This will get even worse if the changes on PTS go through in this state. They are even further limiting the choices of viable builds from the current ~5-8 sets (highly depending on class) to ~2-4, with the worst offenders being Arc and DK, with Arc who now is going to use Deadly Strikes on all encounters paired with either Coral Riptide or Sul-Xan. DK will lose two viable sets forcing them to use Runecarver on every single boss encounter.
What this means is that the set design is just going to the wrong direction right now and a drastic change in set design philosophy is greatly needed.

I don't really get this "It's a bad idea to balance around the 1%" mindset either in this case. None of these proposed changes are solely focused on endgame content. What I've mentioned about the sets applies to all levels of content, in easier content and more relaxed groups people just don't care. But even with these changes you can continue not caring about group compositions and nothing will change for you. I understand people being against having too much of your damage behind LA weaving and high cps etc. and even if I would love to see more of that, I don't think it would be healthy for the game. But the changes Skinny proposed are none of that. A more interesting and interactive set design and philosophy would benefit everyone, no matter your skill level.

Change is only worth attempting if it has a good chance of providing a greater return than what it costs.

The odds of you changing how sets work and hundreds of sets in the process and ending up not messing up in the process and leaving some of them overpowered is basically nil.

As the people clamoring for such a rework are also the people that will be upset if things aren't balanced it isn't likely you will get a great return considering all of the people you will be making mad in the process.

If you wanted to implement three piece sets that aren't Jewelry Sets the easy way to do that is to axe the two piece bonus so that you can get more power into the three piece bonus so that while it would be a bit weaker than a five piece bonus it wouldn't be by huge amounts. You could toss in a dozen or so new sets in that design and see how they panned out. If people enjoy them, you can add more. If people don't then you can just call it a fun experiment that failed and move on.

silky_soft

CatoUnchained wrote: »

silky_soft wrote: »

Did they delete the previous post on this?

Yes, they did. I read the post in offline mode yesterday and came on today to comment, but there is only this thread now, and other posters have already brought up the points I came to the thread to make. But there was a different thread that had at least a dozen posts before it disappeared.

Yea exact same thing, but was going to reply something useful instead of what I wrote about middle management. Them being threated by someone new with superior organisational skills and ideas. I'm not suprised it was deleted.

I'd like to see stats on 1 piece of a set and the actual useful values presented in game.

3 peice set seem fun, but you'd have to tone then down a lot and put lots more cleanse or dot transfer in the game.

Even now something as basic as every month they could rework 10 sets that are unused. They have the stats for dungeons and pvp. Don't need to do full overhaul. Just alter cooldowns and power.

ESO_Nightingale

edward_frigidhands wrote: »

sarahthes wrote: »

alternatelder wrote: »

Taking ideas from streamers should probably on the very bottom of the list of things Zos should be doing.

Why?

The ideas are usually terrible and involve balancing the game around how the top 1% of the playerbase enjoys the game.

Real life is balanced that way. You tell me how that's working out for most people playing that game

I should mention however that I like SkinnyCheeks and enjoy his content and there are good intentions and some good ideas in this.

I don't like the us vs them mentality here. These ideas benefit everyone.

ESO_Nightingale

BananaBender wrote: »

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

I think it looks like an absolutely incredible effort but, I think it might not necessarily be an ideal fit. But, it's possible that with more detail and context it is a better fit.

For example, the big reason I've done many of the dungeons lots of times is because I need specific items to be able to run the combination of five piece sets that I want. If you drop down to needing three pieces for a set that would be a significant reduction in the number of runs people would need to do.

Many of the sets I glanced at quickly in the video appear to have an increase in power per piece which may drive the gap between players that are running an optimized build and those with a garbage build even higher.

With the single piece set bonuses on everything you'd also potentially have the question of why even have items that aren't part of a set exist at all.

Further, the change to three piece would mean that everyone with an existing build would need to redo their build if they wanted to optimize on every character. You could end up hitting the point where some people just throw in the towel and just toss on the Torc of the Last Ayleid King.

While it is true that reducing the set requirement to needing three would make it easier for people that are questing to get a full set the same thing could be achieved by just making the quest rewards all be set items.

Personally, my confusion with stats tends to be less about the number displayed and more about what the number displayed does. If I was adjusting for confusion I'd be focusing more on making it clear what x or y does and making sure x or y is actually good at something. Much of the time stamina and magicka lines on items feel like a less effective and more inconvenient version of weapon and spell damage.

I think that the amount of people who only run a dungeon to get only the pieces they absolutely need and not more than that is not large enough to make a difference in the amount of people doing dungeons. Even now dungeons that have no good sets to begin with see a bunch of play.

There isn't really a reason for non set items to exist even now in my opinion. They are only there to be deconstructed or sold.

I think the move to 3 piece sets would reduce the gap between strong and weak builds compared to what it is right now. Especially if the proc sets are balanced with each other to have the same, or at least close enough the same dps. In the current state of the game if you opt to use a non meta set, you are at a much greater disadvantage because now half of your build is objectively weaker than it could be. With three sets the weight of one set would of course be reduced. In addition this would also make niche, but good sets more viable, since it would lower your base power nearly as much as it does right now. For example Kvatch Gladiator, it does have its uses right now in the game, but you will be playing effectively without a second set, meaning almost half of your kit, for 75% of the fight, which leads to many players not using this set even in situations where it is effective. Also there is a problem with build variety in dungeons and trials due to having to run a Minor Slayer set, this of course limits your choices to one trial set and one non trial set, and the vast majority of even okay sets will never see use no matter how cool they are or how thematic they are because of how much of a loss in power it would be to use them.
Of course there would be some new top tier sets that see more use than other sets, that will always be the case, but if the balancing of the sets would be done as Skinny mentioned in the video and how he had done it in his examples, there would be much less of a gap in builds compared to what it is right now.

Major set and combat change like this would of course drive away some players, but so will any major change in the game. I think this would be so much better for the health of the game in long term. But limiting changes just because there will be some players who can't be bothered to adjust and choose to leave is just so extremely short sighted.

In the current state of the game the devs are way too scared to add any new interesting and meta shifting sets. The last time we saw something like that was on High Isle with the introduction of Pillager's Profit. This will get even worse if the changes on PTS go through in this state. They are even further limiting the choices of viable builds from the current ~5-8 sets (highly depending on class) to ~2-4, with the worst offenders being Arc and DK, with Arc who now is going to use Deadly Strikes on all encounters paired with either Coral Riptide or Sul-Xan. DK will lose two viable sets forcing them to use Runecarver on every single boss encounter.
What this means is that the set design is just going to the wrong direction right now and a drastic change in set design philosophy is greatly needed.

I don't really get this "It's a bad idea to balance around the 1%" mindset either in this case. None of these proposed changes are solely focused on endgame content. What I've mentioned about the sets applies to all levels of content, in easier content and more relaxed groups people just don't care. But even with these changes you can continue not caring about group compositions and nothing will change for you. I understand people being against having too much of your damage behind LA weaving and high cps etc. and even if I would love to see more of that, I don't think it would be healthy for the game. But the changes Skinny proposed are none of that. A more interesting and interactive set design and philosophy would benefit everyone, no matter your skill level.

Wholeheartedly agree here. Skinny's ideas make it possible to use more sets and for all sorts of sets to be good. I don't get people on here trying to say that the top 1% are greedy or whatever. I swear, these people are so obsessed with a "class divide" that they themselves are making when it comes to people putting forth ideas on this forum. From what i see, a grand majority of people putting forth massive rework scale ideas try to think about who the changes effect and to create something positive for everyone.

Everyone in the game would benefit from being able to run more sets and from a lot of sets being reworked to fill niches that currently lack. Such as with the pure elemental sets like ysgramors.

Pelanora

Amazing how weird this thread is compared with the one on reddit, which was just so nice and supportive of skinny.

This forum really is a unique set of people.

JonesFPS

silky_soft wrote: »

Did they delete the previous post on this?

Yup they removed my post because of "baiting". Lets see how long this will be there.

JonesFPS

Btw he will probably post his google doc with all his rebalancing on his discord soon. So people can have a look at it.

BananaBender

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

BananaBender wrote: »

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

I think it looks like an absolutely incredible effort but, I think it might not necessarily be an ideal fit. But, it's possible that with more detail and context it is a better fit.

For example, the big reason I've done many of the dungeons lots of times is because I need specific items to be able to run the combination of five piece sets that I want. If you drop down to needing three pieces for a set that would be a significant reduction in the number of runs people would need to do.

Many of the sets I glanced at quickly in the video appear to have an increase in power per piece which may drive the gap between players that are running an optimized build and those with a garbage build even higher.

With the single piece set bonuses on everything you'd also potentially have the question of why even have items that aren't part of a set exist at all.

Further, the change to three piece would mean that everyone with an existing build would need to redo their build if they wanted to optimize on every character. You could end up hitting the point where some people just throw in the towel and just toss on the Torc of the Last Ayleid King.

While it is true that reducing the set requirement to needing three would make it easier for people that are questing to get a full set the same thing could be achieved by just making the quest rewards all be set items.

Personally, my confusion with stats tends to be less about the number displayed and more about what the number displayed does. If I was adjusting for confusion I'd be focusing more on making it clear what x or y does and making sure x or y is actually good at something. Much of the time stamina and magicka lines on items feel like a less effective and more inconvenient version of weapon and spell damage.

I think that the amount of people who only run a dungeon to get only the pieces they absolutely need and not more than that is not large enough to make a difference in the amount of people doing dungeons. Even now dungeons that have no good sets to begin with see a bunch of play.

There isn't really a reason for non set items to exist even now in my opinion. They are only there to be deconstructed or sold.

I think the move to 3 piece sets would reduce the gap between strong and weak builds compared to what it is right now. Especially if the proc sets are balanced with each other to have the same, or at least close enough the same dps. In the current state of the game if you opt to use a non meta set, you are at a much greater disadvantage because now half of your build is objectively weaker than it could be. With three sets the weight of one set would of course be reduced. In addition this would also make niche, but good sets more viable, since it would lower your base power nearly as much as it does right now. For example Kvatch Gladiator, it does have its uses right now in the game, but you will be playing effectively without a second set, meaning almost half of your kit, for 75% of the fight, which leads to many players not using this set even in situations where it is effective. Also there is a problem with build variety in dungeons and trials due to having to run a Minor Slayer set, this of course limits your choices to one trial set and one non trial set, and the vast majority of even okay sets will never see use no matter how cool they are or how thematic they are because of how much of a loss in power it would be to use them.
Of course there would be some new top tier sets that see more use than other sets, that will always be the case, but if the balancing of the sets would be done as Skinny mentioned in the video and how he had done it in his examples, there would be much less of a gap in builds compared to what it is right now.

Major set and combat change like this would of course drive away some players, but so will any major change in the game. I think this would be so much better for the health of the game in long term. But limiting changes just because there will be some players who can't be bothered to adjust and choose to leave is just so extremely short sighted.

In the current state of the game the devs are way too scared to add any new interesting and meta shifting sets. The last time we saw something like that was on High Isle with the introduction of Pillager's Profit. This will get even worse if the changes on PTS go through in this state. They are even further limiting the choices of viable builds from the current ~5-8 sets (highly depending on class) to ~2-4, with the worst offenders being Arc and DK, with Arc who now is going to use Deadly Strikes on all encounters paired with either Coral Riptide or Sul-Xan. DK will lose two viable sets forcing them to use Runecarver on every single boss encounter.
What this means is that the set design is just going to the wrong direction right now and a drastic change in set design philosophy is greatly needed.

I don't really get this "It's a bad idea to balance around the 1%" mindset either in this case. None of these proposed changes are solely focused on endgame content. What I've mentioned about the sets applies to all levels of content, in easier content and more relaxed groups people just don't care. But even with these changes you can continue not caring about group compositions and nothing will change for you. I understand people being against having too much of your damage behind LA weaving and high cps etc. and even if I would love to see more of that, I don't think it would be healthy for the game. But the changes Skinny proposed are none of that. A more interesting and interactive set design and philosophy would benefit everyone, no matter your skill level.

Change is only worth attempting if it has a good chance of providing a greater return than what it costs.

The odds of you changing how sets work and hundreds of sets in the process and ending up not messing up in the process and leaving some of them overpowered is basically nil.

As the people clamoring for such a rework are also the people that will be upset if things aren't balanced it isn't likely you will get a great return considering all of the people you will be making mad in the process.

If you wanted to implement three piece sets that aren't Jewelry Sets the easy way to do that is to axe the two piece bonus so that you can get more power into the three piece bonus so that while it would be a bit weaker than a five piece bonus it wouldn't be by huge amounts. You could toss in a dozen or so new sets in that design and see how they panned out. If people enjoy them, you can add more. If people don't then you can just call it a fun experiment that failed and move on.

I might be just living inside my own bubble, but I just don't see how this sort of a change in set philosophy has any downsides to anyone. The only people who will be upset are the players who hate that they have to change how they play the game. You see that with every change so far in the game (just look at the feedback on the NB changes for example). If the changes are good and will positively affect the game, they shouldn't be dismissed just because some people will be upset at having to change something. Why am I so sure this would be a good change? Because in the current state of sets people are not excited or interested in the 2-4pc bonuses. The chances are that many people here don't even know the stat bonuses their sets give, they only know the last line, because that's what makes the most difference and is the reason you use the set to begin with. This change would allow us to cut down on those boring stat boosts and actually get something exciting in their place.
I think sets being 3pc would be the perfect middle ground without making it much too overwhelming (like having to slot 12 individual 1pc sets for example).

Of course some sets will be stronger than others and that's why we have updates. It's not like the situation could be any worse than it is right now where handful of sets dominate and the vast majority of sets are just beyond bad.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

BlueRaven wrote: »

alternatelder wrote: »

Taking ideas from streamers should probably on the very bottom of the list of things Zos should be doing.

Unfortunately it appears that is exactly what they do.

This is correct - they hold 'stream team' meetings for feedback and also regularly make changes based on stream team member complaints.


In terms of the topic.
The stat rebalancing suggested skews the system of health having more weight than mag and stam
converting spell and weapon damage to a single damage further reduces the build variety as you'd need to also then change mundus bonuses, class passives (templar and dk) and the hybridization system already made the game objectively worse.

manukartofanu

Actually, rephrasing set descriptions in a more understandable way would be really helpful. It's not necessarily that Skinny Cheeks offers the best wording, but the problem with the current set descriptions is a real pain. They now feel more like a cipher that ideally no one should understand except super late-game players.

JonesFPS

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

BlueRaven wrote: »

alternatelder wrote: »

Taking ideas from streamers should probably on the very bottom of the list of things Zos should be doing.

Unfortunately it appears that is exactly what they do.

This is correct - they hold 'stream team' meetings for feedback and also regularly make changes based on stream team member complaints.


In terms of the topic.
The stat rebalancing suggested skews the system of health having more weight than mag and stam
converting spell and weapon damage to a single damage further reduces the build variety as you'd need to also then change mundus bonuses, class passives (templar and dk) and the hybridization system already made the game objectively worse.

Do you have prove of the "Stream Team Meetings" in regards to balance and how they affected balance. Most streamers i watch are mostly dissatisfied with patch notes which means it definetly wasnt their feedback and im mostly watching endgame streamers. Hell a lot of "endgame" streamer kinda gave up on ESO because of certain patches. Mostly speaks against the "endgamers" ruin the game.

o_Primate_o

Pelanora wrote: »

Amazing how weird this thread is compared with the one on reddit, which was just so nice and supportive of skinny.

This forum really is a unique set of people.

Where is the reddit forum? Sounds like it's an echo chamber that is in need of a debate.


Thanks. I checked it out. Just a thread of sympathies so I'll leave it alone.

sarahthes

JonesFPS wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

BlueRaven wrote: »

alternatelder wrote: »

Taking ideas from streamers should probably on the very bottom of the list of things Zos should be doing.

Unfortunately it appears that is exactly what they do.

This is correct - they hold 'stream team' meetings for feedback and also regularly make changes based on stream team member complaints.


In terms of the topic.
The stat rebalancing suggested skews the system of health having more weight than mag and stam
converting spell and weapon damage to a single damage further reduces the build variety as you'd need to also then change mundus bonuses, class passives (templar and dk) and the hybridization system already made the game objectively worse.

Do you have prove of the "Stream Team Meetings" in regards to balance and how they affected balance. Most streamers i watch are mostly dissatisfied with patch notes which means it definetly wasnt their feedback and im mostly watching endgame streamers. Hell a lot of "endgame" streamer kinda gave up on ESO because of certain patches. Mostly speaks against the "endgamers" ruin the game.

Compare stream team member list to endgame streamers list and you will see why this is.

chessalavakia_ESO

BananaBender wrote: »

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

BananaBender wrote: »

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

I think it looks like an absolutely incredible effort but, I think it might not necessarily be an ideal fit. But, it's possible that with more detail and context it is a better fit.

For example, the big reason I've done many of the dungeons lots of times is because I need specific items to be able to run the combination of five piece sets that I want. If you drop down to needing three pieces for a set that would be a significant reduction in the number of runs people would need to do.

Many of the sets I glanced at quickly in the video appear to have an increase in power per piece which may drive the gap between players that are running an optimized build and those with a garbage build even higher.

With the single piece set bonuses on everything you'd also potentially have the question of why even have items that aren't part of a set exist at all.

Further, the change to three piece would mean that everyone with an existing build would need to redo their build if they wanted to optimize on every character. You could end up hitting the point where some people just throw in the towel and just toss on the Torc of the Last Ayleid King.

While it is true that reducing the set requirement to needing three would make it easier for people that are questing to get a full set the same thing could be achieved by just making the quest rewards all be set items.

Personally, my confusion with stats tends to be less about the number displayed and more about what the number displayed does. If I was adjusting for confusion I'd be focusing more on making it clear what x or y does and making sure x or y is actually good at something. Much of the time stamina and magicka lines on items feel like a less effective and more inconvenient version of weapon and spell damage.

I think that the amount of people who only run a dungeon to get only the pieces they absolutely need and not more than that is not large enough to make a difference in the amount of people doing dungeons. Even now dungeons that have no good sets to begin with see a bunch of play.

There isn't really a reason for non set items to exist even now in my opinion. They are only there to be deconstructed or sold.

I think the move to 3 piece sets would reduce the gap between strong and weak builds compared to what it is right now. Especially if the proc sets are balanced with each other to have the same, or at least close enough the same dps. In the current state of the game if you opt to use a non meta set, you are at a much greater disadvantage because now half of your build is objectively weaker than it could be. With three sets the weight of one set would of course be reduced. In addition this would also make niche, but good sets more viable, since it would lower your base power nearly as much as it does right now. For example Kvatch Gladiator, it does have its uses right now in the game, but you will be playing effectively without a second set, meaning almost half of your kit, for 75% of the fight, which leads to many players not using this set even in situations where it is effective. Also there is a problem with build variety in dungeons and trials due to having to run a Minor Slayer set, this of course limits your choices to one trial set and one non trial set, and the vast majority of even okay sets will never see use no matter how cool they are or how thematic they are because of how much of a loss in power it would be to use them.
Of course there would be some new top tier sets that see more use than other sets, that will always be the case, but if the balancing of the sets would be done as Skinny mentioned in the video and how he had done it in his examples, there would be much less of a gap in builds compared to what it is right now.

Major set and combat change like this would of course drive away some players, but so will any major change in the game. I think this would be so much better for the health of the game in long term. But limiting changes just because there will be some players who can't be bothered to adjust and choose to leave is just so extremely short sighted.

In the current state of the game the devs are way too scared to add any new interesting and meta shifting sets. The last time we saw something like that was on High Isle with the introduction of Pillager's Profit. This will get even worse if the changes on PTS go through in this state. They are even further limiting the choices of viable builds from the current ~5-8 sets (highly depending on class) to ~2-4, with the worst offenders being Arc and DK, with Arc who now is going to use Deadly Strikes on all encounters paired with either Coral Riptide or Sul-Xan. DK will lose two viable sets forcing them to use Runecarver on every single boss encounter.
What this means is that the set design is just going to the wrong direction right now and a drastic change in set design philosophy is greatly needed.

I don't really get this "It's a bad idea to balance around the 1%" mindset either in this case. None of these proposed changes are solely focused on endgame content. What I've mentioned about the sets applies to all levels of content, in easier content and more relaxed groups people just don't care. But even with these changes you can continue not caring about group compositions and nothing will change for you. I understand people being against having too much of your damage behind LA weaving and high cps etc. and even if I would love to see more of that, I don't think it would be healthy for the game. But the changes Skinny proposed are none of that. A more interesting and interactive set design and philosophy would benefit everyone, no matter your skill level.

Change is only worth attempting if it has a good chance of providing a greater return than what it costs.

The odds of you changing how sets work and hundreds of sets in the process and ending up not messing up in the process and leaving some of them overpowered is basically nil.

As the people clamoring for such a rework are also the people that will be upset if things aren't balanced it isn't likely you will get a great return considering all of the people you will be making mad in the process.

If you wanted to implement three piece sets that aren't Jewelry Sets the easy way to do that is to axe the two piece bonus so that you can get more power into the three piece bonus so that while it would be a bit weaker than a five piece bonus it wouldn't be by huge amounts. You could toss in a dozen or so new sets in that design and see how they panned out. If people enjoy them, you can add more. If people don't then you can just call it a fun experiment that failed and move on.

I might be just living inside my own bubble, but I just don't see how this sort of a change in set philosophy has any downsides to anyone. The only people who will be upset are the players who hate that they have to change how they play the game. You see that with every change so far in the game (just look at the feedback on the NB changes for example). If the changes are good and will positively affect the game, they shouldn't be dismissed just because some people will be upset at having to change something. Why am I so sure this would be a good change? Because in the current state of sets people are not excited or interested in the 2-4pc bonuses. The chances are that many people here don't even know the stat bonuses their sets give, they only know the last line, because that's what makes the most difference and is the reason you use the set to begin with. This change would allow us to cut down on those boring stat boosts and actually get something exciting in their place.
I think sets being 3pc would be the perfect middle ground without making it much too overwhelming (like having to slot 12 individual 1pc sets for example).

Of course some sets will be stronger than others and that's why we have updates. It's not like the situation could be any worse than it is right now where handful of sets dominate and the vast majority of sets are just beyond bad.

A change in set philosophy means that everyone that is trying to optimize at all needs to re-gear on every single character that they care about optimization on. If they aren't following a guide they'll also need to look over every set in the game again to decide what they want because all of them will have changed.

One of the things people like about ESO is the Horizontal Progression that doesn't place people in the position of needing to re-gear with a high frequency.

o_Primate_o wrote: »

Pelanora wrote: »

Amazing how weird this thread is compared with the one on reddit, which was just so nice and supportive of skinny.

This forum really is a unique set of people.

Where is the reddit forum? Sounds like it's an echo chamber that is in need of a debate.

https://old.reddit.com/r/elderscrollsonline/comments/1g14eji/sorry_you_didnt_get_the_job_skinny/

Here is the reddit thread.

KromedeTheCorrupt

Rather his ideas would've been good overall for the community is besides the point. I don't care for YT, twitch or youtubers ect. But it feels kinda wrong on them anyway and tbh we and him pretty much already knew he wasn't going to get the job.

I just find it weird how when you have literally people who've put 10,00 hours into your product, shows their homework and knows your game as good as anybody can with the data they have then what gives ? He is knowledge in EVERY aspect of the game and engages with the community and more importantly shares the same core problems the rest of the player base have issues with. He's what we think of Henry Cavil he's one of the boys. [Snip].

[Snip]

[Snip]

[Edited for Bashing and Conspiracy Theories]

o_Primate_o

KromedeTheCorrupt wrote: »

Rather his ideas would've been good overall for the community is besides the point. I don't care for YT, twitch or youtubers ect. But it feels kinda wrong on them anyway and tbh we and him pretty much already knew he wasn't going to get the job.

I just find it weird how when you have literally people who've put 10,00 hours into your product, shows their homework and knows your game as good as anybody can with the data they have then what gives ? He is knowledge in EVERY aspect of the game and engages with the community and more importantly shares the same core problems the rest of the player base have issues with. He's what we think of Henry Cavil he's one of the boys. [Snip]

[Snip]

[Snip]

SMH
That's a lot of assumptions

[Edited quote]

Rkindaleft

Pelanora wrote: »

Amazing how weird this thread is compared with the one on reddit, which was just so nice and supportive of skinny.

This forum really is a unique set of people.

I'd surmise a lot of the active people on the Reddit are just old forum users that got banned due to this forum's overmoderation. You really have to be careful with your words here because any criticism regardless of how constructive it is will usually just get snipped for bashing

I'd also say close to 90% of the people who are active on the forums are either overland questers who play the game solo or housing players, who these threads aren't for.

Ilumia

Is zos didn't hire skinny I really don't understand why. I mean, I wasn't at the interviews, but he is clearly passionate and incredible knowledgeable about eso and it's balance and mechanics. In my opinion, he makes the best content, and covers builds in depth, and so that they are useful for quite casual players and also are great input to skilled players. It's much like trying to study medicine on youtube (I am in uni, and some of the professors are excellent, some are less riveting than my vacuum cleaner), there are some people on there that are the best teachers in their subjects, and it's accessible and understandable while still having a lot of detail to help advanced students too. Skinny is like that for eso.
As a streamer he does cover a role for zos already, and they might not be happy about loosing that. But he would probably have been great to have for them.
I really hope he doesn't leave, that would not be good for eso at all.