Thank you for sharing the detailed process behind balancing item sets, particularly around Set Bonus Efficiency and the complexities of real-world testing. However, after reading your article and reflecting on the core combat values, I believe the Sorcerer class sets need a complete rework to align better with both your SBE balancing standards and the overall class identity.

1. Set Bonus Efficiency and Sorcerer Sets
While SBE is a useful framework for balancing power, the Sorcerer class sets are fundamentally underwhelming in their current form. They lack both thematic depth and mechanical utility, essentially acting as dumbed-down versions of other sets already in the game. As a result, even though they might technically meet SBE standards, they don’t enhance the Sorcerer playstyle in any meaningful way, which should be the primary goal of class-specific sets.

For instance, the lack of support for lightning-based damage (a hallmark of Sorcerer identity) is a missed opportunity that could have been addressed by introducing sets that directly increase lightning damage, proc unique effects, or empower AoE spells tied to this theme. In their current form, these sets don’t cater to the unique strengths of the class, making them less appealing and underused.

2. Complexity and Engagement
Sorcerer sets also fail to provide the level of engagement or complexity expected from class-specific gear. While SBE factors in complexity to justify power, Sorcerer sets are overly simplistic without offering interesting mechanics or synergies that encourage dynamic play. As highlighted in your article, playtesting reveals when sets are too easy or hard to use in actual combat situations, and in the case of Sorcerer, these sets are neither engaging nor fun. This limits the potential for active combat and mastery, making them feel like wasted potential.

A rework should focus on introducing more interactive elements that align with the class’s core abilities—such as chain lightning, summoning, and high mobility. For example, sets that enhance spell weaving, resource management, or empower lightning-based AoE attacks would give Sorcerer players exciting options for combat, reinforcing the idea that class sets should enhance identity and playstyle.

3. Content Alignment
You mention in your article that sets are balanced based on their intended content, but Sorcerer class sets fail to perform optimally in any content—whether Trial, PvP, or dungeons. While you aim for sets to shine in their specific content, these Sorcerer sets are outperformed in every scenario by general sets that offer better utility, damage, or defensive capabilities. This goes against the goal of making class sets viable, especially for players who want to immerse themselves fully in the Sorcerer class without sacrificing performance.

An SBE-balanced Sorcerer set should enhance the class fantasy while being usable in both PvE and PvP environments without feeling lackluster or niche.

4. Community Feedback and Real-World Data
As you’ve noted, monitoring player feedback is crucial, and the community has consistently raised concerns about the Sorcerer sets. Despite being on the Public Test Server, these sets haven’t seen meaningful changes, which leaves players frustrated and disconnected.
You’ve mentioned that the team takes player creativity and feedback seriously, and this is an ideal opportunity to listen and improve these sets. A rework based on community input and real-use data would align the Sorcerer class sets with the goals of making all sets viable for various players, without one-size-fits-all solutions.


TLDR; while the SBE model offers a great baseline for balancing sets, the Sorcerer class sets need a complete rework to be in line with both SBE efficiency and the broader goals of class identity and combat engagement. They are currently too simple, not thematic, and don’t provide the excitement or mastery the class deserves. By addressing these issues and creating more interesting mechanics that align with Sorcerer’s core abilities—particularly lightning magic and mobility—you can better meet the expectations of players and the vision for ESO’s combat system.

Thank you for considering my feedback.

The article claims Set Bonus Efficiency (SBE) is integral to item set balance. Could you please shed more insight into why the following sets provide different values for their 5-piece bonuses?

SET BONUSES:
(2 items) Adds 657 Critical Chance
(3 items) Adds 1096 Maximum Magicka (or Stam)
(4 items) Adds 129 Weapon and Spell Damage
(5 items)
Silks of the Sun: +400 SD for Flame
Netch's Touch: +400 SD for Shock
Ysgramor's: +400 SD for Frost
War Maiden: +600 SD for Magic
Automaton: +400 SD for Physical & Bleed
Swamp Raider: +600 SD for Poison & Disease

Item Set sourcing and the number of Damage Types buffed by each set are varied here so it can’t be that.

Magic, Poison, and Disease Damage cannot buff any Light Attacks so this may be the reason. However, if we account for the use of non-buffed attacks, then the formula requires refining since it does not currently account for prevalent scenarios with other one-element builds, such as how Frost Magdens slot multiple skills with other Damage types.

What determines whether these sets should have 400 Spell Damage bonus vs a 600 Spell Damage bonus? Or maybe, should they all provide a 600 SD bonus?

Full Descriptions for Sets

The statements made in this deep dive do not seem at all representative of the reality of itemization and set balance within ESO.

More often than not during PTS cycles, there are obviously overperforming sets that are thoroughly tested by the players, which are subsequently allowed to go live by zenimax. It was stated here that internal QA testers test these things as well and that you can "never always catch everything/players find unpredictable ways to use them", but is that really the case? Take maras balm for example - there were DOZENS of posts regarding how disgustingly overpowered it was. There were detailed videos examples given, and the behavior was hardly "unpredictable" - you simply had to be hit by other players for the set to immediately and drastically overperform. If zenimax had truthfully tested the set like they claim they do here in this article, or if they had listened to the dozens of feedback posts during the PTS cycle, the set would have been adjusted. Instead it went live and received multiple misinformed, insignificant nerfs before finally being brought in line MONTHS later.

There are many examples like this.

Furthermore, the article mentions the challenges of balancing PVP and PVE together in regards to sets. Why hasn't zenimax chosen to balance the two separately? There is already a tool in game to do this in the form of battle spirit, and yet it never seems to be utilized. PvP balance right now is absolutely atrocious, with some extremely egregious pain points ruining the experience for many (ex, hot stacking, group shield stacking, max hp, effectiveness of buff sets in pvp, etc). Why hasn't zenimax utilized battle spirit to even TEST changes directed at these things without impacting the wider game?

Whichever team was responsible for the answers given in this deep dive seems like they might be disconnected from the reality of the game, from a player's perspective.

This article enrages me so much.

Do you know why the first comment is a detail break down about why monolith of storms is garbage?

Because it's garbage.
We said it was garbage on PTS from the moment we started testing it. We went to great lengths to point out how exactly it was garbage for all content and no one should use it.
Do you know what your response was for that entire PTS? You fixed a bug that meant the damage proc wasn't critting, addressing none of the actual concerns with the set.
It's been out for 12 months now and no further changes or tweaks have been made, and no one uses it for anything other than a cool glow.

but further more there are so many holes in this explanation as @Stafford197 has pointed out. Adding to their point, silks of the sun has long been the best of the elemental sets, since DK's can stack into fire damage, while every other class has a bunch of magicka damage skills that reduce their effectiveness, and silks of the sun is an overland set while netch and automaton are dungeon sets.

You don't even come close to meeting the standards you lay out in the article.

I was extremely surprised to see that sets are supposedly balanced to be most effective in the game mode where they drop. If that's the case, something is seriously wrong with the SBE calculation.

• You over tune sets and nerf them to the scrap pile as unusable (Azureblight).
• You have redundant sets that are no longer useable due to ability changes/scribe abilities (Tormentor, Yolnahkriin etc.)
• Someone on your team views PVP are a justifiable means to nerf sets without considering how they will go in PVE (you don't even care to give PVP an update to begin with so why care about op sets?)
• New players [50cp-300cp] starting the game are so weak and do no damage. There is no progress gear they can use without joining a guild, finding a master crafter, or a friend in the game. The guilds in this game barely interact with their members and have no system to encourage communications/events/reward system.
• Your combat team must be just as confused with the tooltip as we are. It needs an update.

How about you just stop caring about balancing and aim to make sets fun instead? Then we you have accomplished that, you can lightly adjust stats or formulas lightly. You have yet to prove to your player base that you test your game or have enough devs to test the game.

Make skills and set procs more about graphic effects. PPL love eye candy.

I did a word search in the article for "fun" and that word only came up once in the following context.

ZOS wrote:

We don't want to create item sets that have the potential to be abused in PvP and make the game less fun, and we don't want item sets that will encourage a limited number of viable playstyles.

So, just talking about making the game less fun, which is unfortunately my experience with the itemization in ESO and has been for a long time.

I feel the #1 goal for developing an entertainment product should be making it fun. It's not stated here. We have "Set Bonus Efficiency" (SBE), i.e., the balance by spreadsheet approach ZOS which is why my class Dot lasts 20 Seconds, cost X magica and does Y damage is the same as your class DoT that lasts 20 seconds, costs X magicka, and does Y damage. We have an admission that crafted sets are supposed to be less complex and thus, weaker (so RIP crafters). And we have assurances that PTS feedback is taken very seriously, but as a Sorcerer player who was looking for a little, ehem, fun to have with a class set that only I as a Sorcerer player could use, it's hard for me to believe that.

Whatever the SBE is, it doesn't work. We have an 8 year track record of proc damage and defensive sets dominating PvP. From Viper to Tarnished, ZOS keeps repeating the same basic error that a large incoming amount of damage triggered by a trivial condition far outperforms stat bonuses, our class abilities, or any other sort of benefits other sets provide. It's almost like they don;t understand that sudden bursts in damage that exceed ultimates requiring nothing but a light attack or a DoT ticking is not fun to be on the receiving end. I don't PvE as much as I used to, but when a 6 year old proc damage set like Relequen (trivially procced by light attacks) is still something of a standard that led to the nerf of an actual interesting set like Pyrebrand that might make DKs somewhat excited to be a DK, that basically why I don;t PvE much anymore. I play fantasy games to imagine how I as a magic using wizard, or a primal spirit oriented tribal warrior, or a retired mercenary skilled in traditional combat might use my unique and distinctive powers to overcome dangerous foes and legendary challenges. But ESO's gearing philosophy reduces all I am to a standardized 5 set piece bonus that just delivers generic proc damage, no different from the other 8 DPS in my group (many of whom are using the same armor pieces I am, despite the articles reference to 650+ sets in the game).

Aside from the reality that a 6 year old generic proc set is seen as a baseline for PvE DPS, recent experiences on the PTS have epitomized my frustrations with ESO's gearing system that I think should prompt a change in how ZOS approaches itemization.

The class sets from IA. Because there is the almighty SBE, these are just mostly decon trash. By ZOS's own design philosophy, they are not allowed to deviate from the spreadsheet and excel at what they are supposed to be doing: enhancing a very, very, very narrow subset of abilities - just five - so of course they are never going to match up to the generic sets that offer the same amount of power but far more flexibly. IT's absolutely ridiculous that the Monolith of Storms was supposed to be this awesome lightning themed set, yet was uninspiring and awkward to use. Something like Storm-Cursed Revenge or other lightning themed sets were far more flexible in allowing for greater bar space flexibility, and almost always produced superior results. Whenever a sets dares to be different and threatens the balance by spreadsheet approach, of course it got nerfed.

This absolutely felt like a punishment. I went through the trouble of grinding Pyrebrand in IA. I used my gold mats. I for the first time in a long time felt legit excited about using something that wasn;t generic and made me happy to be a DK. No, can't possibly have any of that. And for what?

balancing sets against content can be tricky, as both PvE and PvP are complex in their own ways. For example, if we buffed every item set in the game, we'd make every single dungeon boss much easier, and we can't do that.

Of course, we always need to consider PvP when balancing sets, too. We don't want to create item sets that have the potential to be abused in PvP and make the game less fun, and we don't want item sets that will encourage a limited number of viable playstyles.

OK, let's talk about this. Frist off, every single dungeon boss was *not* "much easier." They were potentially slightly easier provided I actually followed the complex rotation the set required to maximize its use if I just happened to be a DK who spent hours and hours and hours in IA. It's ridiculously to use that as a justification. As it is, the vast majority of content in the game is already easy peasy: that bridge of the dungeon bosses being too easy has already been crossed and burned years ago. But have no fear, the are still 1000 CP groups still struggling on say Sunspire and spend their Saturday nights wiping, wiping, wiping, and wiping again. You honestly think that nerfing Pyrebrand is going to make the game more fun for them? No way. This is why people get frustrated when they feel ESO is balanced around a very tiny top tier of players. I don;t blame them.

And as far as PvP goes, I can tell you without question what makes Cyrodiil less fun has nothing to do with Pyrebrand. I have never logged out of Cyrodiil in frustration because some DK using a Pyrebrand set killed me. That has literally never happened to me. What does make me log out are the low population caps and the disproportionate power of organized groups have because 1) there just aren't enough PuGs to fight them and 2) because of the actual broken mechanics and sets in the game that ZOS still allows them to run rampant. HoT stacking, shield spam, DPS functioning just as good as healers, and the rule-breaking Rush of Agony set are all abused to the hilt and cause far more frustration than the Pyrebrand set.

The nerfing priorities are out of whack and that's a huge frustration. It certianly does not feel like fun is a prioirty in ESO's development process.

Joy_Division wrote: »

I did a word search in the article for "fun" and that word only came up once in the following context.

ZOS wrote:

We don't want to create item sets that have the potential to be abused in PvP and make the game less fun, and we don't want item sets that will encourage a limited number of viable playstyles.

So, just talking about making the game less fun, which is unfortunately my experience with the itemization in ESO and has been for a long time.

I feel the #1 goal for developing an entertainment product should be making it fun. It's not stated here. We have "Set Bonus Efficiency" (SBE), i.e., the balance by spreadsheet approach ZOS which is why my class Dot lasts 20 Seconds, cost X magica and does Y damage is the same as your class DoT that lasts 20 seconds, costs X magicka, and does Y damage. We have an admission that crafted sets are supposed to be less complex and thus, weaker (so RIP crafters). And we have assurances that PTS feedback is taken very seriously, but as a Sorcerer player who was looking for a little, ehem, fun to have with a class set that only I as a Sorcerer player could use, it's hard for me to believe that.

Whatever the SBE is, it doesn't work. We have an 8 year track record of proc damage and defensive sets dominating PvP. From Viper to Tarnished, ZOS keeps repeating the same basic error that a large incoming amount of damage triggered by a trivial condition far outperforms stat bonuses, our class abilities, or any other sort of benefits other sets provide. It's almost like they don;t understand that sudden bursts in damage that exceed ultimates requiring nothing but a light attack or a DoT ticking is not fun to be on the receiving end. I don't PvE as much as I used to, but when a 6 year old proc damage set like Relequen (trivially procced by light attacks) is still something of a standard that led to the nerf of an actual interesting set like Pyrebrand that might make DKs somewhat excited to be a DK, that basically why I don;t PvE much anymore. I play fantasy games to imagine how I as a magic using wizard, or a primal spirit oriented tribal warrior, or a retired mercenary skilled in traditional combat might use my unique and distinctive powers to overcome dangerous foes and legendary challenges. But ESO's gearing philosophy reduces all I am to a standardized 5 set piece bonus that just delivers generic proc damage, no different from the other 8 DPS in my group (many of whom are using the same armor pieces I am, despite the articles reference to 650+ sets in the game).

Aside from the reality that a 6 year old generic proc set is seen as a baseline for PvE DPS, recent experiences on the PTS have epitomized my frustrations with ESO's gearing system that I think should prompt a change in how ZOS approaches itemization.

The class sets from IA. Because there is the almighty SBE, these are just mostly decon trash. By ZOS's own design philosophy, they are not allowed to deviate from the spreadsheet and excel at what they are supposed to be doing: enhancing a very, very, very narrow subset of abilities - just five - so of course they are never going to match up to the generic sets that offer the same amount of power but far more flexibly. IT's absolutely ridiculous that the Monolith of Storms was supposed to be this awesome lightning themed set, yet was uninspiring and awkward to use. Something like Storm-Cursed Revenge or other lightning themed sets were far more flexible in allowing for greater bar space flexibility, and almost always produced superior results. Whenever a sets dares to be different and threatens the balance by spreadsheet approach, of course it got nerfed.

This absolutely felt like a punishment. I went through the trouble of grinding Pyrebrand in IA. I used my gold mats. I for the first time in a long time felt legit excited about using something that wasn;t generic and made me happy to be a DK. No, can't possibly have any of that. And for what?

balancing sets against content can be tricky, as both PvE and PvP are complex in their own ways. For example, if we buffed every item set in the game, we'd make every single dungeon boss much easier, and we can't do that.

Of course, we always need to consider PvP when balancing sets, too. We don't want to create item sets that have the potential to be abused in PvP and make the game less fun, and we don't want item sets that will encourage a limited number of viable playstyles.

OK, let's talk about this. Frist off, every single dungeon boss was *not* "much easier." They were potentially slightly easier provided I actually followed the complex rotation the set required to maximize its use if I just happened to be a DK who spent hours and hours and hours in IA. It's ridiculously to use that as a justification. As it is, the vast majority of content in the game is already easy peasy: that bridge of the dungeon bosses being too easy has already been crossed and burned years ago. But have no fear, the are still 1000 CP groups still struggling on say Sunspire and spend their Saturday nights wiping, wiping, wiping, and wiping again. You honestly think that nerfing Pyrebrand is going to make the game more fun for them? No way. This is why people get frustrated when they feel ESO is balanced around a very tiny top tier of players. I don;t blame them.

And as far as PvP goes, I can tell you without question what makes Cyrodiil less fun has nothing to do with Pyrebrand. I have never logged out of Cyrodiil in frustration because some DK using a Pyrebrand set killed me. That has literally never happened to me. What does make me log out are the low population caps and the disproportionate power of organized groups have because 1) there just aren't enough PuGs to fight them and 2) because of the actual broken mechanics and sets in the game that ZOS still allows them to run rampant. HoT stacking, shield spam, DPS functioning just as good as healers, and the rule-breaking Rush of Agony set are all abused to the hilt and cause far more frustration than the Pyrebrand set.

The nerfing priorities are out of whack and that's a huge frustration. It certianly does not feel like fun is a prioirty in ESO's development process.

This is such a great feedback comment, and echoes many of the sentiments I've heard expressed by friends in various different communities within the game. @ZOS_Kevin This is a comment worth reading and discussing internally.

Despite the small number of comments on this thread, the sentiment is pretty unanimous - the design philosophy points referenced in the article are not at all representative of the reality of the game. Maybe it's time to discuss a different approach to itemization, and perhaps the overarching combat balance as a whole.

I don't understand what is balanced? Pretty much 600 useless sets WHY lol

The problem with nerfing the most used sets all the time is that the next best mediocre set on the list will just become the most used, then that one will eventually get nerfed to an unusable state as well, and the cycle repeats itself ad nauseam. This pretty much guarantees that any exciting new sets will be "reigned in" after everyone buys a new chapter or DLC.

It may not be intentionally punishing players but that is effectively what it is doing in ESO. Player creativity and ingenuity only get rewarded with wasted time, gear rendered useless, and materials gone; Like resetting a huge chunk of their progression that they spent hours on. It is why I haven't been genuinely excited for anything new anymore because I know that anything remotely popular or unique cannot live for long in this environment. It's like an oppressive regime stifling out anything that does not conform to an exhaustive list of regulations.

Stafford197 wrote: »

Mandragorane wrote: »

I don't understand what is balanced? Pretty much 600 useless sets WHY lol

Honestly I think this game being an Elder Scrolls game has been both a blessing and curse.

Great because the game will always have players since we love the TES franchise, but bad because the team seems to have standardized every aspect of the game they could to minimize workload. Yes, 95% of sets are useless, but the Excel spreadsheet says it’s fine

If they could make 100% of the sets useless, then they would all be useful.