Not All Redundancy is Bad - Keep Templar and Sorcery Brutality/Sorcery Buffs Please

ItsNotLiving · June 12

I will say it’s not total doom and gloom since the mastery gives 300 spell damage to your group now.

Gabriel_H · June 12

spartaxoxo wrote: »

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.

DKs already bring Minor Brutality. DKs are already top choice for a group. Templar's are already not wanted. A unique buff changes that equation, especially for Templar tanks which are all but non-existent in not only end-game but the game period. As for solo play, as I said, it will not make any difference overall.

Gabriel_H · June 12

IZZEFlameLash wrote: »

What's wrong with letting Sorcs and Templars keep their original group buffs? Over penetration is so easily achieved too when it comes to PvE? And is new Templar armor buff enough to actually keep you from getting one shotted by a dungeon mechanic? No? Then why the change?

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/8487724/#Comment_8487724

Because sources matter. So, yes the penetration cap can be achieved in PvE with a fairly simple combo of Major/Minor Breach, Tremorscale, the DDs own penetration and Crusher (typically proccing off the backbar with WoE).

So, giving Sorcs a group penetration buff is over-penetration meaning one of those sources can be dropped, namely Crusher. That can be replaced by a different enchant. Personally, I'd be eyeing up Weakening on the backbar with infused trait. A near constant ~5% reduction to boss damage, which includes any boss AoEs is a powerful tool.

ZhuJiuyin · June 12

IZZEFlameLash wrote: »

What's wrong with letting Sorcs and Templars keep their original group buffs? Over penetration is so easily achieved too when it comes to PvE? And is new Templar armor buff enough to actually keep you from getting one shotted by a dungeon mechanic? No? Then why the change?

Agreed.In PvE, penetration and armor have caps, and these are easily reached. Critical hits and damage, however, have no cap. Therefore, removing Minor Prophecy and Minor Sorcery from Sorc and Templar classes without providing sufficient compensation (penetration and armor buffs are not ideal and are likely redundant in PvE) will undoubtedly kill the PvE playability of these two classes, especially since ZOS already gave Major Berserk to DK in U50.

In my opinion, this U51 change lacks careful consideration and will severely damage these two classes.

Firstmep · June 12

I know u51 is ways away, but I hope zos sees this thread and the feedback about the minor buffs for sorc and plar.

ceruulean · June 12

The problem is that now, if you take a templar+sorc as dps in dungeons, you're gonna do less damage than a NB+DK combo. Arcanist has insane burst and cleave so it providing a class defensive buff (Minor Evasion) is not too big of a deal when it has easy ranged AoE damage. Warden still needs a bit of help, arctic blast (the PvE morph that got nerfed due to PvP complaining about Polar Wind morph lol) nerfed to not guarantee a heal anymore. Necro also needs help to not crutch on corpseburster so much, but at least they have colo ult which is useful in some comps.

Gabriel_H · June 12

Pinktraining wrote: »

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

Yes, typically with Crusher which a Sorc would no longer need to have. They can swap out the enchant for something else. That's a gain. Whether it be a more selfish enchant to help with sustain, or a group orientated enchant that reduces mob/boss damage.

Neatle · June 12

Wouldn't it be great to let players choose the bonus, similar to how CPs and Class Masteries work, but for passives? I'd personally love that.

Another option would be to introduce a more generalized passive that benefits every build, perhaps even combine both approaches.

Armor doesn't really fit into that category. It's a defensive stat that tends to encourage players to stack more armor in order to maximize its value.
By the same logic, armor penetration doesn't seem like a good fit either, since it's essentially the offensive counterpart to armor.

some suggestions for stats that haven't really been explored before: what about Buff/Debuff effectiveness? Animation speed and GCD reduction could also be interesting options. From a stat design perspective, they feel more creative and could provide meaningful value across a wide variety of builds.

ZhuJiuyin · June 14

Whether viewed from a pure class or subclass perspective, Crystals and Minor Prophecy are among the few valuable abilities of Dark Magic; otherwise, Dark Magic would be practically useless. Now that Dark Magic has lost Minor Prophecy, a crucial source of the Critical attribute, it will be rendered obsolete in subclasses and severely weaken pure Warlocks.

It's truly incomprehensible why the developers would specifically target and further weaken the Sorc class, especially since countless people in the u50 PTS have already explained the Sorc's weaknesses to the developers.

ZhuJiuyin · June 15

Neatle wrote: »

Wouldn't it be great to let players choose the bonus, similar to how CPs and Class Masteries work, but for passives? I'd personally love that.

Another option would be to introduce a more generalized passive that benefits every build, perhaps even combine both approaches.

Armor doesn't really fit into that category. It's a defensive stat that tends to encourage players to stack more armor in order to maximize its value.
By the same logic, armor penetration doesn't seem like a good fit either, since it's essentially the offensive counterpart to armor.

some suggestions for stats that haven't really been explored before: what about Buff/Debuff effectiveness? Animation speed and GCD reduction could also be interesting options. From a stat design perspective, they feel more creative and could provide meaningful value across a wide variety of builds.

I don't think this is useful. It's not that the idea is bad, as other games have similar designs to reduce cast time/GCD. However, due to the limitations of the ESO's underlying code, I think it would be a huge undertaking, and it would create a problem: reducing the GCD of certain skills might make them too powerful. For example, you definitely don't want to be hit by two Grim Focuses in 0.1 seconds.

I think a more acceptable compensation solution would be to directly move the damage/critical lost by Templars/Sorc into their weakest skill line. Having Restoring Light provide Templars with 10% weapon/spell damage, and having Dark Magic provide Sorc with critical , only affecting themselves, would avoid buff redundancy and compensate for their loss. Especially since Templars won't respawn until next year, taking away their 10% weapon/spell damage now is like stealing a child's candy. And that candy is one of the child's few remaining possessions.