Zos need to make mechanic in dungeon/trial were you cant use aoe damage.
If you use them is a wipe for group.
Only use mono target damage.
Fatecarver is op because is AOE,Beam,Channelled Skill,dealt damage every 0.3s and buffed by crux...

Also that "solution" would work for that singular encounter in a dungeon or trial and, seeing how blackrose prison with lightning netches already sort of has that, would either have to be an instant kill or be ignored.

I think they should much rather just make the strongest dps skill by far not the strongest dps skill by far.

They won't change anything, they have no idea how their game works :'D

I mean, it's the same people who wanted you to do 5 weekly endeavours in a month, they can't do the math

Liukke wrote: »

They won't change anything, they have no idea how their game works :'D

I mean, it's the same people who wanted you to do 5 weekly endeavours in a month, they can't do the math

They have very good idea how many players are getting through the content because of beam builds. This is the main reason why they are looking for workarounds to nerf coordinated gameplay without touching the glaringly obvious problem.

All they have to do:

"Fate Carver now does X% less damage after hitting the first target"

Adjust X to feel. Maybe start at 30%. Arc's dominate due to amazing cleave (which is now mandatory due to Azure nerf). They also dominate because they have the unique ability to do 90% of their damage 20m in front of them and 7m behind them at the same time.

It's not a hard problem to solve. Reduce their cleave. Maintain their unique dps ability. Give other class's way's to compete with their insane cleave. Instead of taking it away (like you did with azure).

I'm so close to being done with this game. It's just non sensical changes from people I can only assume don't really play or understand the game.

Narvuntien wrote: »

What is going on with this? Why can't they nerf Arcanist???

I get that it is nice that you can deal damage without light attacks, great for new players, but my god it's too strong for experienced players.

Most of Arcanist really isn't a problem. Hell, if Fatecarver didn't just deal immense ranged AoE damage and you used the debuff flail as your "usual" crux dump for DPS, then deciding between keeping empowered runeblades for single target or casting a Fatecarver might even be a meaningful choice. Sadly Fatecarver deals insane damage so there is just one answer always. On every class.

I don't think the casual player doing normal dungeons, questing and other overland content would notice much of a difference. The casual content in ESO is already by design very easy.

Why can't we, oh I don't know, buff other class skills instead? Why must we nerf?

Reginald_leBlem wrote: »

Why can't we, oh I don't know, buff other class skills instead? Why must we nerf?

-Because you can't buff other classes without indirectly buffing arcanist since subclassing. That would just increase everyone's dps but B E A M would remain on top.

-Because we can't trust zos with buffing all other classes without breaking the balance (especially in pvp) whereas literally just lowering the numbers on fatecarver would fix the pve DD balance without screwing up everything, with no chance of backfiring.

-Because, sometimes, if a specific skill is leagues ahead of everything else, nerfs are warranted.

Simplest thing to reign in Fatecarver would be to adjust the tic rate to 0.4 from 0.3….

A nerf needs to come hand in hand with buffs in other class’s skill lines as the cleave required in trash pack heavy trials now was built around FC.

Liukke wrote: »

They won't change anything, they have no idea how their game works :'D

I mean, it's the same people who wanted you to do 5 weekly endeavours in a month, they can't do the math

This was the biggest lul i had at this game lmao

Islyn wrote: »

Narvuntien wrote: »

What is going on with this? Why can't they nerf Arcanist???

I get that it is nice that you can deal damage without light attacks, great for new players, but my god it's too strong for experienced players.

I mean another option is: DON'T USE IT! Be the change you want to see in the World.

This is a good point. I know in my organic chemistry class, even though I knew the material, I would deliberately answer wrong on the exams because things were too easy if I answered right so I wanted to challenge myself in the future by getting lower grades.

For some reason, med schools aren't accepting me even though I explain that I find it more fun to struggle.

Ingenon wrote: »

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

[

You are correct by saying there will always be a meta option.

However, you fail to see that the meta usually isn't miles ahead of the next best option nor the easiest to perform.
With beam you have both.

My limited experience on PS/NA with prog groups is that you are pointed to a build that they expect you to use, and they check your DPS. You don't get to pick your build if you want to be in the prog. And you don't get to join if you cannot perform - you need to hit the DPS number. What does "miles ahead" and "easiest to perform" matter to a Veteran Hard Mode/Trifecta prog group? Nerfing Fatecarver does not change the fact that you will be told which build to use and which DPS number you need to exceed if you want to be a member of the group.

My much less limited experience with prog groups on PCNA is that there are several different types of raid leads:

1. The ones who are at the tippy top scorepushing world records
2. The ones who are very good and trust their players
3. The ones who think they are very good and don't trust their players
4. The ones who are not being sweaty about it

Group 1 of course is going to demand the best of the best setup. No question there. Group 3 will look at what group 1 does, and then demand that setup for their groups, because they think that's the only way to do things and don't realize that not everyone is at Group 1 level. Those are the ones you see that will make specific demands.

But there are groups 2 and 4. Now group 4 has really not existed since U35, since all of the patient raid leads who wanted to bring guilds through either left or moved up to HMs. That means that there's really no on-ramp to vet content anymore, and there's definitely a massive gap between the social guilds who strugglebus through normals and the hypersweats who blow through trials in their sleep.

Group 2 is your good groups - those that are doing high level content - maybe not at the 0.001% level, but still HM level - but they essentially let their players bring what they're most comfortable with. Those are the ones that allow you to bring an off-meta setup since they know you're good with it, and can be on par with the other DDs in the group. This was how my group was - here's our log for DB (U44, before Subclassing)

6/7 classes represented, 5 of which were on a DPS role. Necro with a top parse, and all non-support DPS non-Arcanists in the top 4 of DPS. Because our raid lead understood that some people prefer playing on a different role and can do better with it.

The idea is that each class can do a range of numbers, not just one. So someone who's good at e.g. NB DPS can push it to (making up numbers here) 120k, but that's finicky so most people can only do like 70k. Let's also assume an Arc pro can do like 110k and a new player does around 90k. Which is better? Obviously having everyone on NBs to get the highest numbers right? No, of course not - give a bunch of people NBs and most are doing the 70k instead of the 120k. That's why people gravitate to Arc since you have a high floor. But that pro NB can do more, so let them and you get even higher numbers.

The problem is that Subclassing made it so Herald/Assassination Arcanist was so ridiculously much better than anything else that you can't do that anymore. Now instead of having one class with a 70-120k spread and another with 90-110k, you've got something like 50-100k for anything else, and 130-150k for the meta. So why would anyone want a pro who can do 100k with their setup when a new player can break 130 on something else?

And yes, power creep is not a good thing. If something is doing stupidly higher than everything else, the answer is to pull it down (the other side is that if something is stupidly low if should be brought up as well). But we see this with inflation in the real world too - why does everyone think the answer to the Jeff Bezoses and Elon Musks of the world is to tax the heck out of billionaires? Wouldn't it be better to just print more money and just give a billion dollars to everyone?
(spoiler, no it wouldn't)
So yes, something that's as grossly OP as Fatecarver does absolutely deserve a nerf. Especially since the only ways for non-Fatecarver builds to get close to having that much AoE cleave damage (aka Azureblight) were neutered, so literally only Fatecarver is able to do what it does anymore.

Arc has better cleave, range, and survivability than most dps classes. Why do destruction staff and bows do less damage than dual wield, but in live content destro staves and bows are competitive with dual wield?

ZoS would not nerf arc to oblivion like they did with Necro. Arc is popular, a success story, and they know it.

However, high end raiding is gatekept by weaving builds, not by how easy arc is to play. You cannot clear HM trials and dungeons without healers or DPS who can weave properly. So even if arcanist increases accessibility and the pool of DPS, they will be competing for limited roster slots because endgame groups are bottlenecked by the lack of weaving support DPS and healers. If Arcanist gets nerfed slightly, it's not going to make endgame bleed any more than it has. As soon as an arc main, who plays arc because it's the easiest, is asked to switch to a harder to play build, they're going to quit anyway. If the raid lead does not get support DPS slots filled, usually they end up failing the HM for being unable to meet damage checks, and the team breaks apart because content takes too long to clear.