How do you feel as a sorcerer with Spell Resistance so prominent

firestorm_rmb16_ESO

I think I'm doing something wrong =/

Right now I see DKs and NBs basically killing other vet ranks single handedly and jumping around + stunning and shield bashing people to death without a single prospect of resistance in melee. The damage is pretty huge. Even with 3k armor as a clothie a DK with a 2H is neigh unkillable from my perspective.

Now, I'm only VR3 atm but I've managed to eek out a play style suitable to my gear and skills I've trained in. But my play style is more for being a nuisance to enemy players who want to try and kill ME than it is for me actually trying to kill them. I currently run, Crystal Fragments + Pulsar + Mist Form + Drain Essence + Mage Light and Meteor with the usual Morphs (EI: Reduced cost on CF / 15% max health debil / Gen Ultimate / Extra crit) But for Mist Form I have the Poison Morph. Basically I'm Mist Forming into an enemy Raid, no one actually sees me since I dont have the alliance reticule over my body, I'm poisoning everyone around me, when I leave Mist Form I perform a quick Pulsar then enter the Mist Form again and continue poisoning people. It can take almost 10 minutes for raids to figure out I'm there, why they are constantly losing Health and can't regen.

My question right now on game play is this. I have this annoying build. I get it. I'm scum for this. lol But why on earth do melee champions get free armor on their gear to levels that negate other melee champions massive surges of damage - and also have access to absurd amounts of Spell Resistances that can completely nullify incoming damage on a player. When the person they are fighting most likely cannot take a beating in CC (1-2 2H hits to me in CC and I, like most sorcerers in Light Cloth, Die) Even If we outfit our Bars with armor boosting, shielding abilities we won't come close to being as a tanky as a simple Plate wearing DK. Why should Spell Resistance be a thing on armor and not be something actively needing placement on bars in order to increase?

I find it rather silly that a DK in plate can totes around some grotesque amount of armor, making him neigh un-slashable only to be ALSO using Enhancements and Chants that boost his Spell Resistances to amounts that make him unkillable by the source he didn't build to mitigate. I can understand if it were a modest amount of both Armor & Spell Resistance in equal amounts making him not as a tanky as a full tank, and not as resisting to spell harm as a full Spell Resistant. But right now it's starting to get out of hand. This is why I've decided on the play style I have chosen.

It's starting to come to fruition that sorcerers are either good against ill properly geared lower ranked VR and level players 1v1 and basically support classes for raids in team fights.

So, It's my opinion that if you aren't in Full Cloth gaining from the Spell Resistance perks, simply using Enchants shouldn't being you anywhere near the levels of Resistances that are currently being brought to the fields in such easy access as they are.

Sleepydan

Don't you get through like 40% spell resist with the last light armor passive?

thefreezingvoid

Sleepydan wrote: »

Don't you get through like 40% spell resist with the last light armor passive?

For light armor its 8% per piece equipped, so 7 pieces = 56% increased spell resistance.
Heavy armor gets 3% per piece equipped, so 7 pieces = 21% increased spell resistance.

Now this may sound substantial, until someone actually looks at the numbers.

At VR8 I have 1100 base Spell resistance.
With just armor alone, I have 1716 spell resistance with 7 pieces of light armor, However I would have 1331 spell resistance with 7 pieces of heavy armor.
The actual difference is only 28% in spell resistance with light armor.


Now compare this to armor.
With 7 pieces of light armor (None of which has armor traits) my armor is 800. I am not entirely certain what my armor would be with 7 peices of heavy armor, as I don't wear heavy armor. However it would likely be around 1800.
This means the heavy armor results in over 100% increased mitigation.

So what this means, without including traits and glyphs, is that while most players derive the bulk of their armor and physical mitigation from their choice in armor. They then however derive most of their spell mitigation from their level.

This is a slap in the face of sorcerer's as nearly all their abilities count as spells and go through spell resistance. (This is what keeps sorcerer's from being nukers IMO)
They are then pretty much forced to live with sub par damage, rely on non class based skills, or wear light armor for the passive that allows spells to bypass 6% enemy spell resistance per piece equipped (7 pieces = 56% spell resistance bypass.)
However if they choose the latter, they then give up over 50% physical mitigation, depending on how many pieces of light armor they choose to equip.

So I feel base spell resistance is too high, and there is not enough difference between wearing heavy and light armor as far as it is concerned.
This results in class or at least a play style that is hurt quite severely, and also buffs a certain play style.

Archetype mages that will never truly be the nukers they could be.
And tanks that basically can be protected against any type of damage.

At least that's my two cents.

Cydone

thefreezingvoid wrote: »

Sleepydan wrote: »

Don't you get through like 40% spell resist with the last light armor passive?

For light armor its 8% per piece equipped, so 7 pieces = 56% increased spell resistance.
Heavy armor gets 3% per piece equipped, so 7 pieces = 21% increased spell resistance.

Now this may sound substantial, until someone actually looks at the numbers.

At VR8 I have 1100 base Spell resistance.
With just armor alone, I have 1716 spell resistance with 7 pieces of light armor, However I would have 1331 spell resistance with 7 pieces of heavy armor.
The actual difference is only 28% in spell resistance with light armor.


Now compare this to armor.
With 7 pieces of light armor (None of which has armor traits) my armor is 800. I am not entirely certain what my armor would be with 7 peices of heavy armor, as I don't wear heavy armor. However it would likely be around 1800.
This means the heavy armor results in over 100% increased mitigation.

So what this means, without including traits and glyphs, is that while most players derive the bulk of their armor and physical mitigation from their choice in armor. They then however derive most of their spell mitigation from their level.

This is a slap in the face of sorcerer's as nearly all their abilities count as spells and go through spell resistance. (This is what keeps sorcerer's from being nukers IMO)
They are then pretty much forced to live with sub par damage, rely on non class based skills, or wear light armor for the passive that allows spells to bypass 6% enemy spell resistance per piece equipped (7 pieces = 56% spell resistance bypass.)
However if they choose the latter, they then give up over 50% physical mitigation, depending on how many pieces of light armor they choose to equip.

So I feel base spell resistance is too high, and there is not enough difference between wearing heavy and light armor as far as it is concerned.
This results in class or at least a play style that is hurt quite severely, and also buffs a certain play style.

Archetype mages that will never truly be the nukers they could be.
And tanks that basically can be protected against any type of damage.

At least that's my two cents.

Far be it for a person to actually have to choose carefully with what they equip. And god forbid there be some risk vs reward in what you choose as your setup.

dietlime

durrr wrote: »

Far be it for a person to actually have to choose carefully with what they equip. And god forbid there be some risk vs reward in what you choose as your setup.

What a well written and insightful reply to a post containing actual numbers and a reasoned argument.

Cydone

dietlime wrote: »

durrr wrote: »

Far be it for a person to actually have to choose carefully with what they equip. And god forbid there be some risk vs reward in what you choose as your setup.

What a well written and insightful reply to a post containing actual numbers and a reasoned argument.

Doesn't matter how well written or what numbers are thrown out. Fact remains that ZOS gives you the ability to mix and match as you please in order to get the best setup for your playstyle. If you want the increased spell penetration, then use all light armor, but you trade off damage mitigation. You want all heavy? You gain increased damage mitigation, but then you trade off the increased spell penetration. Seems balanced to me.

dietlime

His complaint is that there isn't a trade-off. Heavy users aren't deprived of much of anything. Light users aren't allowed to buff their armor. Literally the skills the buff armor don't even work. Bound armor literally does nothing.

Cydone

dietlime wrote: »

His complaint is that there isn't a trade-off. Heavy users aren't deprived of much of anything. Light users aren't allowed to buff their armor. Literally the skills the buff armor don't even work. Bound armor literally does nothing.

So, losing double the spell penetration isn't much of anything?? And the difference in protection isn't really THAT much between light and heavy. I have tried them both as a VR5 and I haven't seen a HUGE difference between the two as far as damage received. Maybe around 300-400 less damage received when wearing heavy armor.....which really isn't much when you consider that wearing heavy armor is supposed to essentially double the amount of armor you have and therefore damage mitigation.

EDIT:
Oh, and as a light armor user you are also forgetting to take into account the magicka regen that wearing all light armor grants, whereas you don't get that with heavy.

thefreezingvoid

Cydone wrote: »

dietlime wrote: »

You don't even read posts before you reply you belligerent ***. His complaint is that there isn't a trade-off. Heavy users aren't deprived of much of anything. Light users aren't allowed to buff their armor. Literally the skills the buff armor don't even work. Bound armor literally does nothing.

So, losing double the spell penetration isn't much of anything?? And the difference in protection isn't really THAT much between light and heavy. I have tried them both as a VR5 and I haven't seen a HUGE difference between the two as far as damage received. Maybe around 300-400 less damage received when wearing heavy armor.....which really isn't much when you consider that wearing heavy armor is supposed to essentially double the amount of armor you have and therefore damage mitigation.

EDIT:
Oh, and as a magicka user you are also forgetting to take into account the magicka regen that wearing all light armor grants, whereas you don't get that with heavy.

Really? Because I do notice quite a bit of difference between heavy and light armor. For instance 800 and 1800 armor. The difference is with 1800 armor I take over 50% less damage compared to 800.
This is with bound armor in pve, (As in pvp, bound armor seems bugged and does not provide armor as it should.)

My main complaints, if you read carefully, was the fact that the difference in spell mitigation from heavy armor vs light armor is rather small when compared to the difference between physical resistances between armor types. As well as the fact that people get free spell resistance from their level.

Granted without knowing what spell resistance means in terms actual spell resistance or armor means in terms of physical mitigation, its hard to say what it actually means.

Cydone

thefreezingvoid wrote: »

Cydone wrote: »

dietlime wrote: »

You don't even read posts before you reply you belligerent ***. His complaint is that there isn't a trade-off. Heavy users aren't deprived of much of anything. Light users aren't allowed to buff their armor. Literally the skills the buff armor don't even work. Bound armor literally does nothing.

So, losing double the spell penetration isn't much of anything?? And the difference in protection isn't really THAT much between light and heavy. I have tried them both as a VR5 and I haven't seen a HUGE difference between the two as far as damage received. Maybe around 300-400 less damage received when wearing heavy armor.....which really isn't much when you consider that wearing heavy armor is supposed to essentially double the amount of armor you have and therefore damage mitigation.

EDIT:
Oh, and as a magicka user you are also forgetting to take into account the magicka regen that wearing all light armor grants, whereas you don't get that with heavy.

Really? Because I do notice quite a bit of difference between heavy and light armor. For instance 800 and 1800 armor. The difference is with 1800 armor I take over 50% less damage compared to 800.
This is with bound armor in pve, (As in pvp, bound armor seems bugged and does not provide armor as it should.)

My main complaints, if you read carefully, was the fact that the difference in spell mitigation from heavy armor vs light armor is rather small when compared to the difference between physical resistances between armor types. As well as the fact that people get free spell resistance from their level.

Granted without knowing what spell resistance means in terms actual spell resistance or armor means in terms of physical mitigation, its hard to say what it actually means.

I use a damage meter at almost all times, which also tracks the amount of incoming damage. That being said, most encounters last about 30 secs, in PvE. In that 30 secs, I only take about 300-400 MORE damage wearing ALL light armor. Now, I have run a 5-2 setup(5 light/2 heavy) and that number goes down to around 275-325 more damage compared to wearing FULL heavy. These numbers are almost the same when talking about PvP. Although the encounters in PvP don't last as long in most cases, when compared to PvE....the numbers stay about the same.