Spell resistance and armor

Eddzo101 · March 2015

Spell resistance and armor

Whilst I can agree with the reduction in physical resistance to light armor I think you’ve got it the wrong way round with spell resistance
Maybe projectile spells, but not elemental spells
I understand that the traditional fantasy fiction magic-less barbarian tank has no place in this type of game, nonetheless heavy armor should never have very much elemental resistance
Physical resistance yes, including projectile spells like Crystal Fragments but not elemental like shock or flame
You can’t just take all types of resistance away from a mage
No self respecting sorc would weaken himself by wearing light armor without building some kind of magical resistance into it
I’m not talking about enchanting here, but about base resistance without having to enchant
For heavy armor you should have to enchant elemental resistance into it, with light armor enchant physical resistance
You are basically giving the heavy armored thug resistance to everything while taking it all away from the scholarly mage
Solution
Change spell resistance to elemental resistance
You changed armor to physical resistance so why not
Elemental resistance would include resistance to any elemental damage
Give light armor higher elemental resistance than heavy armor
Maybe buff the light armor passives

eventide03b14a_ESO · March 2015

I found this to be a bit unbalanced too. Why can't light offer better spell resistance and heavy offer better physical resistance with leather falling somewhere in between. I honestly thought this was supposed to be the intention all along but 1.6 has made me think otherwise.

eol · March 2015

I understand why they made the change, but a LA/MA/HA ratio of 1.33/1.67/2 would make a lot more sense than 1.25/1.75/2. I think the current change overly nerfs LA and buffs MA too much. I also think that if LA provides the least defense, it should be stealthier, or at least have sets that provide stealth for pvp while in a magicka role.

Hutuldur · March 2015

"No self respecting sorc would weaken himself by wearing light armor without building some kind of magical resistance into it"

That's why they got damage shields.

Eddzo101 · March 2015

Hutuldur wrote: »

"No self respecting sorc would weaken himself by wearing light armor without building some kind of magical resistance into it"

That's why they got damage shields.

Every body has damage shields
It's about taking everything away from light armor and giving it to heavy with nothing inreturn

Sharee · March 2015

Why don't you just use heavy armor for your mage then.

Adephx · March 2015

Why would cloth resist fire better than the full plate armor? Or any other element for that matter. Let's not forget, if we're applying logic, that plate is usually padded with cloth anyway to offer some comfort.

I never understood the concept of robes offering more magic protection than the armor meant to protect at the first place.

deepseamk20b14_ESO · March 2015

I figured light armor is associated with magic therefore low armor higher spell resist. Medium armor would be in between but lower spell that light armor and lower armor than heavy, but a good middle ground. Heavy would be high armor and lower spell resist.

redspecter23 · March 2015

I get the logic behind heavy armor having high armor and spell resist. It allows you to fill a tank role against both physical bosses and magical bosses. If light armor was the best armor against magical foes then a tank would need 2 armor sets depending on the boss he's fighting and light armor would still be the best tanking armor for many encounters.

I'm not saying I agree 100% with it, but I see where they're coming from.

Jules · March 2015

Totally agree with OP. In full LA I'm incredibly squishy post 1.6 in comparison with before. I know this was intended, but it feels a tad excessive imo. ESPECIALLY on the DK who are pigeonholed into melee range as a caster. With melee range comes all kinds of AOE. This means straight up imminent death or bulk heals on you at all times as a caster DK. Meanwhile, my NB in medium can run into full trash with little more than a mutagen & brawler.

Cody · March 2015

What you want is almost exactly how it was before 1.6, and it was utterly unbalanced.

we do not need to go back to that.

LA puts out high DPS, has weak resistance. Medium armor falls somewhere in the middle, and Heavy armor puts out low DPs but has higher resistance.

I don't see the problem with that. Players in most-all light armor still gain extra cost reductions to spells and mana recovery. A player in HA would have to go all spell cost reduction with their jewelry enchants to get even half the cost reduction LA gives.

deepseamk20b14_ESO · March 2015

I will say LA is squishy but with the right spells you can be pretty beefy and since these particular skills are magicka based, LA goes perfect with them.

byrom101b16_ESO · March 2015

Sharee wrote: »

Why don't you just use heavy armor for your mage then.

Because of the still very necessary spell cost reduction - obviously...

byrom101b16_ESO · March 2015

Light Armour spell resistance should be at least doubled, or the resistance passive associated with it at least tripled, maybe quadrupled.

I don't mind being armoured with tissue paper as long as it protects as well as heavy armour does against magicka damage.

Lava_Croft · March 2015

Yeah, those Sorcerers in Light Armor really need some more buffs.

byrom101b16_ESO · March 2015

Lava_Croft wrote: »

Yeah, those Sorcerers in Light Armor really need some more buffs.

Sarcasm aside - 'more buffs'?

You're also a comedian, obviously...

All classes whose builds rely on magicka are suffering, as they can't get away from the need for magicka cost reduction due to very high skill costs, but have to accomodate the new lack of protection.

This was probably the biggest nerf in the game between 1.5-1.6. and at the same time a massive buff to Medium and Heavy Armours because of the new formula of 1 Armour Point = 1 Spell Resistance.

It needs fixing for everyone, not just Sorcerers!

Sharee · March 2015

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

Why don't you just use heavy armor for your mage then.

Because of the still very necessary spell cost reduction - obviously...

It does not seem so obvious to the person i quoted tho, seeing that he said "It's about taking everything away from light armor and giving it to heavy with nothing inreturn " (emphasis on 'everything')

Apparently, he does not share your view, and believes heavy armor is utterly superior to light. Thus, my suggestion to use that instead.

Astute players like yourself who understand the big advantage light armor gives in the, among other things, spell cost reduction are surely astute enough to also understand such an advantage has to come at a price, and the price needs to be high enough to make the choice between light and heavy armor a real dilemma, instead of a no-brainer.

Skafsgaard · March 2015

Sharee wrote: »

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

Why don't you just use heavy armor for your mage then.

Because of the still very necessary spell cost reduction - obviously...

It does not seem so obvious to the person i quoted tho, seeing that he said "It's about taking everything away from light armor and giving it to heavy with nothing inreturn " (emphasis on 'everything')

Apparently, he does not share your view, and believes heavy armor is utterly superior to light. Thus, my suggestion to use that instead.

Astute players like yourself who understand the big advantage light armor gives in the, among other things, spell cost reduction are surely astute enough to also understand such an advantage has to come at a price, and the price needs to be high enough to make the choice between light and heavy armor a real dilemma, instead of a no-brainer.

Lucky for medium user they dont have to make that choice, tanky yes, high dps, yes, range, yes.

Cody · March 2015

Skafsgaard wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

Why don't you just use heavy armor for your mage then.

Because of the still very necessary spell cost reduction - obviously...

It does not seem so obvious to the person i quoted tho, seeing that he said "It's about taking everything away from light armor and giving it to heavy with nothing inreturn " (emphasis on 'everything')

Apparently, he does not share your view, and believes heavy armor is utterly superior to light. Thus, my suggestion to use that instead.

Astute players like yourself who understand the big advantage light armor gives in the, among other things, spell cost reduction are surely astute enough to also understand such an advantage has to come at a price, and the price needs to be high enough to make the choice between light and heavy armor a real dilemma, instead of a no-brainer.

Lucky for medium user they dont have to make that choice, tanky yes, high dps, yes, range, yes.

you do realize a LA player can also be tanky with damage shield spam?

Sharee · March 2015

Skafsgaard wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

Why don't you just use heavy armor for your mage then.

Because of the still very necessary spell cost reduction - obviously...

It does not seem so obvious to the person i quoted tho, seeing that he said "It's about taking everything away from light armor and giving it to heavy with nothing inreturn " (emphasis on 'everything')

Apparently, he does not share your view, and believes heavy armor is utterly superior to light. Thus, my suggestion to use that instead.

Astute players like yourself who understand the big advantage light armor gives in the, among other things, spell cost reduction are surely astute enough to also understand such an advantage has to come at a price, and the price needs to be high enough to make the choice between light and heavy armor a real dilemma, instead of a no-brainer.

Lucky for medium user they dont have to make that choice, tanky yes, high dps, yes, range, yes.

They also have to make a choice: do i want to sacrifice the ability to effectively use the majority of my class abilities or not?

Lirkin · March 2015

All I have to say about the issue of Armor. I would hate to be in metal in a fire or lightning event. I would also hate to have it be 40 below and wearing metal. I would much rather be in leather or cloth.

So the logic of Heavy armor protecting against fire, lightning or cold better than cloth never makes sense to me.

Cody · March 2015

c00lmon wrote: »

All I have to say about the issue of Armor. I would hate to be in metal in a fire or lightning event. I would also hate to have it be 40 below and wearing metal. I would much rather be in leather or cloth.

So the logic of Heavy armor protecting against fire, lightning or cold better than cloth never makes sense to me.

screw logic. its a video game. the way it was before was bad, and now it is fixed.

Robbmrp · March 2015

eol wrote: »

I understand why they made the change, but a LA/MA/HA ratio of 1.33/1.67/2 would make a lot more sense than 1.25/1.75/2. I think the current change overly nerfs LA and buffs MA too much. I also think that if LA provides the least defense, it should be stealthier, or at least have sets that provide stealth for pvp while in a magicka role.

Rather than them having to rework two armor's they should just improve light. They could go with 1.5/1.75/2 and up the spell resistance a bit. The reason magicka users go with light armor should be for the spell resistance as well as the magicka bonuses. The whole point of LA should be greater damage and greater spell resistance otherwise why use it. Heavy armor should be exactly like it is with lower spell resistance. HA should not be the best of both. Just my OP.