Whether or not it's a downgrade doesn't really matter, the entire mentality of "buffs my class = good, nerfs my class = bad" mindset people have on this forums; let's just say I'm glad they're not in charge of designing and balancing the game.

I think it makes sense in the context of the game to have different classes bring different party utility to the table, the class power level can easily be fixed by tweaking numbers. Whether it's the armour buff or the minor force is ultimately inconsequential to me, but the armour would be more likely to be something people don't already have.

AScarlato wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

AScarlato wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

thechalkdust wrote: »

Templar main. I don't want to lose my group offensive buff for a defensive buff, either. That sucks.

I'd prefer Minor Force or maybe even Minor Empower, which would mitigate the stealth nerf to Mora's Scribe and other buff-counting effects.

Feels bad eating nerfs as a base game class, while watching DLC classes get refreshed first. They even nerfed the aesthetics and theme of our class, changing the "divine warrior" spear into a Nighthollow Vampire clan motif. Someone on that dev team simply hates Templar.

As someone who only has a Templar, I couldn't disagree more. The group offensive buff is not needed or wanted by groups. Templar needs something that is. This is a positive step forward.

I have used my group DPS buff even as a tank all the time to help with low DPS teammmates. I have never seen anyone wish for armor buff.

Then you've not run harder content, where damage mitigation on the group matters. A 10% weapon damage buff on a low dps group is 10% of low. In a high dps group they source increases elsewhere, not from Templars.

No, I guess I don't do content where I'd want this buff. I'm sure most players don't. Most situations in the game this change is a downgrade. Just because it's unique doesn't make it good.

ESO Logs is used by a large chunk of the end-game raid community. It's a solid indicator of activity. All data taken from U48:

Dreadsail Reef:


Lucent Citadel:


Ossein Cage:


Sunspire:


Kyne's Aegis:


Notice a pattern?!

As for that spike of Templar tanks in Kyne's Aegis doing exceptionally well? That's me, because I am one of the handful of Templar tanks in end-game, who worked damn hard for my spots.

The reason there aren't more? No decent group buffs. A group damage mitigation buff in the same vein as something like Expansive Frost Cloak that Warden's have, that IS a good group buff.

Agreed, massive let down to see armor added while losing a damage buff... Still have to wait 12 months for Templar overhaul 😞

Gabriel_H wrote: »

James-Wayne wrote: »

Agreed, massive let down to see armor added while losing a damage buff... Still have to wait 12 months for Templar overhaul 😞

A dead DD does 0 damage.

how many DDs are always dead without this Templar Armor buff that has never existed? It's not an issue lol

Dead mobs also do zero damage.

Gabriel_H wrote: »

The reason there aren't more? No decent group buffs. A group damage mitigation buff in the same vein as something like Expansive Frost Cloak that Warden's have, that IS a good group buff.

I mean it's a good support buff. I don't think anyone is arguing that Templar tanks can't be shown some love. It just shouldn't come at the expense of damage for a class that is already underperforming in damage.

I just get sorcery off the Mage Guild.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

The reason there aren't more? No decent group buffs. A group damage mitigation buff in the same vein as something like Expansive Frost Cloak that Warden's have, that IS a good group buff.

I mean it's a good support buff. I don't think anyone is arguing that Templar tanks can't be shown some love. It just shouldn't come at the expense of damage for a class that is already underperforming in damage.

It makes no difference to Templar damage anywhere except solo, and in solo there is no issue with Templar damage. How can this be? Because the Minor Brutality is already being given by others. Minor Sorcery is, as ZOS said, a redundant buff. It adds no value overall.

Me. Solo. Seasoned Difficulty. Farming mobs in a public dungeon.

With Illuminate & Bright Harbinger:


Without Illuminate & Bright Harbinger:

Sluggy wrote: »

I'm confused as to why we still have separate stats for spells and weapons in the first place. I can only assume it's some kind of database issue because I can't imagine the code for selecting which stat is larger is any less complicated than simply eradicating one of each paired stat in the first place.

In part because minor Bru/Sor are still a thing.

Group utility is a neat thing, but these are definitely nerfs for both Templar and Sorc. ZOS could either have it so templars/sorcs get minor brutality/savagery for themselves and then provide the new group buff, or they can change some the passives. For templar they could remove the armor buff from balanced warrior and then buff the bonus weapon and spell damage to 15%, and then put the armor buff on illuminate and have it shared with your group. For sorcs, depending on the amount of pen given there may not be a need to buff another passive, but if the amount of pen is low, either energized or expert mage could be buffed to give some crit chance or just boost the damage bonus of them.

While I'm pleased that Nightblade retained Minor Brutality, the other classes have indeed been excessively nerfed.

We all know that criticality is the most important attribute in both PvE and PvP, while weapon damage (depending on the situation) is second most important. Removing the first and second most important attributes from other classes is bound to cause discontent. I believe this change lacks justification, and unless the developers promise sufficient compensation for these classes when they refresh in the future, I don't think people will agree to this.

More likely, as others have pointed out, those nerfed classes will continue to use subclasses to obtain sufficient attributes. However, this would render U50 Class Mastery a joke, as its buffs wouldn't provide enough incentive for those nerfed classes to use pure classes.

Gabriel_H wrote: »

Sluggy wrote: »

I'm confused as to why we still have separate stats for spells and weapons in the first place. I can only assume it's some kind of database issue because I can't imagine the code for selecting which stat is larger is any less complicated than simply eradicating one of each paired stat in the first place.

In part because minor Bru/Sor are still a thing.

Doesn't matter. The strongest stat is always chosen and there is no other non-hybridized increase that could apply to the opposing damage stat from Minor Brut/Sorc which means there is absolutely no purpose unless they intended to add other single-stat increases. Which they don't. Because according to that post linked, Sorcery and Prophecy are going away anyway. Which is just begging the question at that point.

Gabriel_H wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

The reason there aren't more? No decent group buffs. A group damage mitigation buff in the same vein as something like Expansive Frost Cloak that Warden's have, that IS a good group buff.

I mean it's a good support buff. I don't think anyone is arguing that Templar tanks can't be shown some love. It just shouldn't come at the expense of damage for a class that is already underperforming in damage.

It makes no difference to Templar damage anywhere except solo, and in solo there is no issue with Templar damage. How can this be? Because the Minor Brutality is already being given by others. Minor Sorcery is, as ZOS said, a redundant buff. It adds no value overall.

Me. Solo. Seasoned Difficulty. Farming mobs in a public dungeon.

With Illuminate & Bright Harbinger:


Without Illuminate & Bright Harbinger:

They could have easily swapped it with minor brutality since minor brutality is gaining its effect. Templar is losing out on damage it can bring to the group and will not be a source of it. So any group that doesn't already have it will not want Templar. Not to mention how much it will suck for Templars solo compared to playing other classes.

Renato90085 wrote: »

if the buffs so good,can give up ozn or alk/co/arc class taunt
basically,for me it's a big buffs in all content
anyway, it's much better than having four classes fighting over two passive skills.

Only a few issues with that viewpoint that needs addressing:

1. The overall class balance and budget took into accound the OLD passives, that is why the classes being discussed lose a LOT of power

2. It's not better because it isn't universally better. It's better if you already have the other buff up. That isn't a buff when it's conditional on the fact that you must already have what's being taken away.

3. Trials aren't the only content that exist and are not the majority of content in the game. The game also has solo arenas, Infinite Archive, 4 man dungeons where this now makes templar unattractive, PvP, etc.

The idea that if it's good for a group, it's good for everyone is a terrible take on the situation because it means that everyone not in a group gets nerfed. Period.

And here's the strange thing, why doesn't ZOS just offer OPTIONS? Even if you agreed with the changes, it makes no sense to remove the option for others that disagree esp. after they wasted time with the masteries that supposedly would give such flexibility in balancing. ZOS claimed that they used dev time for that flexibility, if they don't exercise it, then it really proves that the dev time was wasted.

And we're talking about removing options from classes that haven't been reworked and won't be until some arbitrary time in the future (yeah, imagine that roadmap getting delayed for whatever reason and being stuck after being made inferior further).

And all of this to provide a marginal benefit to a group, in what amounts to a small section of the game's overall content? A buff that isn't needed today and won't be needed tomorrow. Oh, but when it comes, it will cause an increase in DPS in those scenarios and then lead to more nerfing anyway down the line.

This sounds like a great tradeoff and a use of developer time.

I said it in another post, but balancing the game and using damage output as the game's sole content is not a good idea. The game's core loop being doing damage and grinding for it is not a good position either for the game, and it's showing.

Making changes like this are not going to bring people back, it will do the opposite. This change isn't the trump card ZOS thinks it is with reducing "redundancy" it's the joker card that will cause the game to decline further.

Even my brother that hasn't logged into the game is looking at this thread and he said , well what he said can't be repeated, bu t I can summarize it by saying he wasn't a fan of the changes.

Renato90085 wrote: »

Luneca wrote: »

Renato90085 wrote: »

if the buffs so good,can give up ozn or alk/co/arc class taunt
basically,for me it's a big buffs in all content
anyway, it's much better than having four classes fighting over two passive skills.

Only a few issues with that viewpoint that needs addressing:

1. The overall class balance and budget took into accound the OLD passives, that is why the classes being discussed lose a LOT of power

2. It's not better because it isn't universally better. It's better if you already have the other buff up. That isn't a buff when it's conditional on the fact that you must already have what's being taken away.

3. Trials aren't the only content that exist and are not the majority of content in the game. The game also has solo arenas, Infinite Archive, 4 man dungeons where this now makes templar unattractive, PvP, etc.

The idea that if it's good for a group, it's good for everyone is a terrible take on the situation because it means that everyone not in a group gets nerfed. Period.

And here's the strange thing, why doesn't ZOS just offer OPTIONS? Even if you agreed with the changes, it makes no sense to remove the option for others that disagree esp. after they wasted time with the masteries that supposedly would give such flexibility in balancing. ZOS claimed that they used dev time for that flexibility, if they don't exercise it, then it really proves that the dev time was wasted.

And we're talking about removing options from classes that haven't been reworked and won't be until some arbitrary time in the future (yeah, imagine that roadmap getting delayed for whatever reason and being stuck after being made inferior further).

And all of this to provide a marginal benefit to a group, in what amounts to a small section of the game's overall content? A buff that isn't needed today and won't be needed tomorrow. Oh, but when it comes, it will cause an increase in DPS in those scenarios and then lead to more nerfing anyway down the line.

This sounds like a great tradeoff and a use of developer time.

I said it in another post, but balancing the game and using damage output as the game's sole content is not a good idea. The game's core loop being doing damage and grinding for it is not a good position either for the game, and it's showing.

Making changes like this are not going to bring people back, it will do the opposite. This change isn't the trump card ZOS thinks it is with reducing "redundancy" it's the joker card that will cause the game to decline further.

Even my brother that hasn't logged into the game is looking at this thread and he said , well what he said can't be repeated, bu t I can summarize it by saying he wasn't a fan of the changes.

crit chance only in endgame is best/first stats,so it still a buff for solo/IA/4 man dungeon /pvp and overland
if the player really feel worng,just give the power to other skills,like arc skill Writhing Runeblades have a no-name crit chance

If penetration wasn't so easy to achieve and reach the cap, I would agree with that statement. But the reality is, reaching 18200 penetration in 4-man dungeons is very easy; IA prioritizes survival, so reaching the penetration cap isn't the most important factor, and there are fewer players focused on IA than in 12/4-man dungeons; PvP might be the only situation requiring more penetration, but even then, criticality is still more important, and PvP is an "endgame" environment. As for overland, should we really include that?