Design apparently doesnt mind cheesy play archetypes (ininite heal ult), but Magma Shell working with ult gen was a step too far! Honk honk!

I really wish this community would think before posting emotionally

The point isnt that anyone wants to shut out healers, its that healing in this game is way too strong and has been for a very long time. That said, even though this is true for solo queue, because its uncomp'd gameplay and the team with a healer typically beats the one without, grouped bgs is almost always dominated by 4 dk, no healer, or, 2 dk 2 wws

A healer in most cases, even 2 is nice, but the dk four mans are far better. So while I agree with nerfing heal stacking specifically and shield stacking for cyrodiil, I dont agree that healers should be nerfed, if they were theyd have zero role to fill in bgs at all right now

I wonder what the forum record is for PvP complaint threads in a single week. We have to be getting close at this point.

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

I really wish this community would think before posting emotionally

The point isnt that anyone wants to shut out healers, its that healing in this game is way too strong and has been for a very long time. That said, even though this is true for solo queue, because its uncomp'd gameplay and the team with a healer typically beats the one without, grouped bgs is almost always dominated by 4 dk, no healer, or, 2 dk 2 wws

A healer in most cases, even 2 is nice, but the dk four mans are far better. So while I agree with nerfing heal stacking specifically and shield stacking for cyrodiil, I dont agree that healers should be nerfed, if they were theyd have zero role to fill in bgs at all right now

Its not too strong individually though. A good healer SHOULD make a big difference in battle.

The problem is that it is too strong CUMULATIVELY. Meaning that when you have too many healers together, it is too strong. This is due to a number of factors:

1) In coordinated groups, damage dealers on their back bars are typically equipped with a few HOT's to stack with healer-based heals;

2) healing output scales with offensive stats, so again, damage builds heal very strongly

3) Damage is just way to freaking high right now and there is no real penalty to carrying 8-10 healers in a big group.

4) Even if #3 weren't true, there is no mechanics in game punishing groups who are stacked 24 deep and are running 10-12 healers.

5) Group buff sets make it so that EVERYONE in the group can invest into survivability stats, ignore resource pools and sustain, and make the choice to go with survivability over damage, and STILL have enough damage buffs to be able to kill.

That is really it. What ACTUALLY needs to happen to solve these things - which is going to draw a negative reaction to the game because ESO players want to have their cake and eat it to - but THESE kinds of changes are necessary to fix this:

1. Fixed roles - Characters need to have their roles fixed where they DO NOT have role flexibility. This will allow the system to be created to do a healer check, and if you have more than X number of healers in a group, shield strength and heal strength are exponentially weaker with each additional healer.

2. As a result of #1, ONLY HEALERS should have strong heals - and no other class of player. This is, after all, a role playing game. Yes, I know this hurts solo players, but at the same time, you can't keep everyone happy with the same thing, AND this is an MMO after all. Nobody goes into war as a "solo" soldier.

3. Damage done needs to be brought down, or we need more sets to increase survivability so that groups NEED to carry more damage in order to be able to burst people down. This will get people away from playing healers and get them back to playing damage dealers.

4. There needs to be more effective counters to healing in general. Sets that proc large AOE's that have heal absorption over time. Sets like Snake in the Stars that actually does damage upon a player receiving heals and that actually has good uptime. And more ways to dispel shields, because the only two ways we have come from scribed abilities that are really janky to try to use in the first place.

AND

5. Shields from multiple sources should not stack, and there should be a cooldown on how often you can apply shields so they cannot be spammed.

If you did some or ALL of these things you would fix a lot of issues with this game, but I don't think Zos will ever do any of this because it will hurt the viability of solo players who want to be able to have survivability on their own. But some sacrifices need to be made if you want to put a stop to 24 man groups running 10+ healers/shielders and are virtually unkillable.

IZZEFlameLash wrote: »

Luneca wrote: »

Wow, so templars are doing the only thing they are good at and you are saying it needs a nerf?

If they nerf the mastery, who cares because a subclassed templar still outputs more healing than a pure one.

Also warden tree is an infinitely better ult, and so are the skills and passives in their skill lines. And it's getting a buff -- I mean "rework" -- soon. Go figure. But yeah, let's complain that tanky damage dealers couldn't beat a templar's heal output.

Also, I play healer and a templar one in BGs. Enjoy. it's true I've never lost in BGs even once, but it's also true that if I heal in Cyrodiil I can support over a ball vs an entire faction stack OR a random group of people in my faction vs an entire faction stack without sweating. BGs are a cakewalk, and even without the ult and masteries, guess what? My healing still won't be beaten.

That's the only other thing I do besides fire siege after all. I have to make sure to do it properly and maximize the trauma on the opponent's side when it looks like every enemy's HP isn't moving. Had fun?

Personofsecrets wrote: »

Design apparently doesnt mind cheesy play archetypes (ininite heal ult), but Magma Shell working with ult gen was a step too far! Honk honk!

False equivalence. A shield is essentially an increase in max HP, but healing only brings your HP up to the original amount. That's an important distinction because no matter how powerful you are in the game, if you take damage equivalent to your HP in the right instant (actually near-instant) of time, then you will die.

In the same situation, shields provide protection and increase that threshold. You can also stack other shields on top of it, and ...get this: also heal your base HP. So that means that shields in that same situation above, are actually better than healing.

But it gets even more better. Shields inherit damage reduction. What that means is that you can utilize shielding to survive way more damage than just healing alone.

Change the templar to put a shield on repeatedly instead of heal and we'll see how the forums explodes, rather than just you and the guy you are agreeing with while trying to advocate for a buff to an ult that doesn't need it.

I mean, if we are going to complain about the infinite sustain of DK and how that allows DK to survive, why not be consistent about it and complain about infinite ult healing. Wasn't it the community sentiment that anything infinite is bad? Sounds mighty fair thing to pick bones about if we are in that route.

We can find false equivalence anywhere if we look hard enough. They can nerf it and his problem still won't be solved. At the end of the day, the lack of a healer was his issue and his team's inability to focus.

I'd say go for it. It won't make a difference because pure templar healer is still inferior to subclass'd templar heals. Especially ones stacking ground HoTs.

evLRise wrote: »

Luneca wrote: »

False equivalence. A shield is essentially an increase in max HP, but healing only brings your HP up to the original amount. That's an important distinction because no matter how powerful you are in the game, if you take damage equivalent to your HP in the right instant (actually near-instant) of time, then you will die.

In the same situation, shields provide protection and increase that threshold. You can also stack other shields on top of it, and ...get this: also heal your base HP. So that means that shields in that same situation above, are actually better than healing.

But it gets even more better. Shields inherit damage reduction. What that means is that you can utilize shielding to survive way more damage than just healing alone.

Change the templar to put a shield on repeatedly instead of heal and we'll see how the forums explodes, rather than just you and the guy you are agreeing with while trying to advocate for a buff to an ult that doesn't need it.

Except when I press a 8k shield, half of it is gone by the time I'm out of GCD and it has 50% efficiency at most, since it eats chip damage like burning, poisoned and meek DoTs which I wouldn't even have felt on me while purify, rune and vigor heals are up due to my HP staying at effective 100%. Not only that but a shield will never get even close to what I can get from healing output, since its more difficult to scale and can't crit.

Shields are good vs burst. If I have hots running and I shield while at 100% HP but there's no burst incoming, the only actual result of shields is to heavily inflate my overheal for heals and basically waste some resources. They look like big numbers since they don't overheal, so it's easy to bait people on logs if they only understand part of the layers. With how much damage exists in the game right now, having some healthy shields is rather mandatory for any sort of group play, since it's close to impossible to survive a 3 2 1 Leap & Whip combo from a duo, let alone a bigger group.

Literal build decision. An 8K shield on me, on a semi-tanky build does not disappear in a GCD. Also, nothing stops you from rolling damage that would instantly destroy it and using the shield to soak up the rest of the damage in that case.

Lastly, we're talking about an ult. 8K damage shield is achievable without ult skills. If not, examine your build. Really.

And you literally just argued that shields are better than HoTs or heals in general because they allow you to soak up damage you otherwise could not, even with healing. Which, wow, is exactly what I said.

IZZEFlameLash wrote: »

Luneca wrote: »

Wow, so templars are doing the only thing they are good at and you are saying it needs a nerf?

If they nerf the mastery, who cares because a subclassed templar still outputs more healing than a pure one.

Also warden tree is an infinitely better ult, and so are the skills and passives in their skill lines. And it's getting a buff -- I mean "rework" -- soon. Go figure. But yeah, let's complain that tanky damage dealers couldn't beat a templar's heal output.

Also, I play healer and a templar one in BGs. Enjoy. it's true I've never lost in BGs even once, but it's also true that if I heal in Cyrodiil I can support over a ball vs an entire faction stack OR a random group of people in my faction vs an entire faction stack without sweating. BGs are a cakewalk, and even without the ult and masteries, guess what? My healing still won't be beaten.

That's the only other thing I do besides fire siege after all. I have to make sure to do it properly and maximize the trauma on the opponent's side when it looks like every enemy's HP isn't moving. Had fun?

Personofsecrets wrote: »

Design apparently doesnt mind cheesy play archetypes (ininite heal ult), but Magma Shell working with ult gen was a step too far! Honk honk!

False equivalence. A shield is essentially an increase in max HP, but healing only brings your HP up to the original amount. That's an important distinction because no matter how powerful you are in the game, if you take damage equivalent to your HP in the right instant (actually near-instant) of time, then you will die.

In the same situation, shields provide protection and increase that threshold. You can also stack other shields on top of it, and ...get this: also heal your base HP. So that means that shields in that same situation above, are actually better than healing.

But it gets even more better. Shields inherit damage reduction. What that means is that you can utilize shielding to survive way more damage than just healing alone.

Change the templar to put a shield on repeatedly instead of heal and we'll see how the forums explodes, rather than just you and the guy you are agreeing with while trying to advocate for a buff to an ult that doesn't need it.

I mean, if we are going to complain about the infinite sustain of DK and how that allows DK to survive, why not be consistent about it and complain about infinite ult healing. Wasn't it the community sentiment that anything infinite is bad? Sounds mighty fair thing to pick bones about if we are in that route.

You have a vested interest in protecting the class you like. I don't. That's where we differ. If they nerf this, it won't matter anyway because subclass healing with 1 templar line is superior in every way. Warden heals along with the templar line is superior to pure class healing anyway.

What is being enabled is not a better outcome overall, it's a better outcome if the healer was never skilled enough to be healing in the first place OR isn't actually a healer except when they press the ult button. Both of those two things are arguments for it to be nerfed because it does offer you the ability to do a role you don't have to actually build for. <-- but even that kind of argumentation becomes a slippery slope because ZOS never restricted roles.

Let's not pretend it's the same as DK's Core skill where nothing else comes close to that kind of power and you can even stop heavy attacking. It's not the same because there's superior options if someone is actually a healer anyway. Problem with DK's sustain? Ain't no better option.

And you seriously are comparing an ult that needs you to channel, to a skill that can be used on demand and has no real limitation? At face it's a bad comparison.

Major_Mangle wrote: »

As strong as healing is, remembrance spam is not in the top 5 "offenders". That type of healer is easily shut down with a negate + some burst.

I tested this remembrance spam build today in BG and in fact, negate+burst is quite a counter, especially with the arcanist eye ult. However there was only one negate player in like 15 Games so mostly I was not bothered with my ult spam.

While healing is strong overall, i think they should start with self healing. I think healing yourself by percentages of your health is dumb. Atleast as a spammalbe its dumb.

If you spec'd as a healer and you do no damage or minimal damage, then sure, you should be able to do some good healing.

Its that on top of that healing, players can also self heal like crazy.

You should only be able to heal significantly well if a majority of your build is positioned in the healing direction.

Tell me how you heal a 40k+ burst that occurs in like 1.5 seconds mate.

My biggest problem with healers in PvP is that they can run 40k+ health and spec heavily into survivability and they can still put out decent to good healing. It would be better if they had to build a little more for healing at the expense of tankiness.

Additionally, I think it's more important to get health pools and overall mitigation a bit lower in PvP before going after healing. Back in the day healing ward used to be a really good shield if you used it at low health. It was like a whole health bar shield sometimes. However, I never found it to be OP because if a player had the chance to cast healing ward, I failed my burst anyway. The same goes for any healing, it's a lot less OP in burst metas because a clean burst doesn't even give the target a chance to survive and heal back up. I think the devs should aim to go back to this sort of environment. It's still fair as long as the burst has counterplay through block, roll, or shield.

Ordinator199 wrote: »

Just cut healing in battlegrounds by 75% imo, nothing like running into a healer+60k health tank in 4vs4 troll group.

Blanket nerfs to healing are a bad idea IMO, but I think you do have a point about groups filled with all tanks and healers. ZOS really clings to the "play it your way" philosophy, but role enforcement would solve so many issues in PvP.

Personally I would do this through role specific skill lines that reinforce the role through passives and maybe optional slottable skills to help with the role.

So for example, the PvP DPS skill line might boost damage by some percent or grant weapon/spell damage or critical. As a drawback it would cap health at say 30k and reduce healing done to others by x% per member in your group, all the way up to 100%.

The PvP healer skill line might have a higher health cap than the DPS skill line, and it would also grant sustain and healing done. As a drawback it would reduce damage done or something.

Then to complete this system, limit the amount of people who can have the tank or healer roles in a PvP group to 1 healer and 1 tank per 4 group members.

Reinforcing these roles through skill lines would prevent role faking. Battlegrounds would be more balanced. Cross Healing would be way less of an issue, because of the DPS skill line healing penalty. Smallscale and solo would be totally fine.

I doubt ZOS would do this though as they would see it as too restrictive.

Luneca wrote: »

IZZEFlameLash wrote: »

Luneca wrote: »

Wow, so templars are doing the only thing they are good at and you are saying it needs a nerf?

If they nerf the mastery, who cares because a subclassed templar still outputs more healing than a pure one.

Also warden tree is an infinitely better ult, and so are the skills and passives in their skill lines. And it's getting a buff -- I mean "rework" -- soon. Go figure. But yeah, let's complain that tanky damage dealers couldn't beat a templar's heal output.

Also, I play healer and a templar one in BGs. Enjoy. it's true I've never lost in BGs even once, but it's also true that if I heal in Cyrodiil I can support over a ball vs an entire faction stack OR a random group of people in my faction vs an entire faction stack without sweating. BGs are a cakewalk, and even without the ult and masteries, guess what? My healing still won't be beaten.

That's the only other thing I do besides fire siege after all. I have to make sure to do it properly and maximize the trauma on the opponent's side when it looks like every enemy's HP isn't moving. Had fun?

Personofsecrets wrote: »

Design apparently doesnt mind cheesy play archetypes (ininite heal ult), but Magma Shell working with ult gen was a step too far! Honk honk!

False equivalence. A shield is essentially an increase in max HP, but healing only brings your HP up to the original amount. That's an important distinction because no matter how powerful you are in the game, if you take damage equivalent to your HP in the right instant (actually near-instant) of time, then you will die.

In the same situation, shields provide protection and increase that threshold. You can also stack other shields on top of it, and ...get this: also heal your base HP. So that means that shields in that same situation above, are actually better than healing.

But it gets even more better. Shields inherit damage reduction. What that means is that you can utilize shielding to survive way more damage than just healing alone.

Change the templar to put a shield on repeatedly instead of heal and we'll see how the forums explodes, rather than just you and the guy you are agreeing with while trying to advocate for a buff to an ult that doesn't need it.

I mean, if we are going to complain about the infinite sustain of DK and how that allows DK to survive, why not be consistent about it and complain about infinite ult healing. Wasn't it the community sentiment that anything infinite is bad? Sounds mighty fair thing to pick bones about if we are in that route.

We can find false equivalence anywhere if we look hard enough. They can nerf it and his problem still won't be solved. At the end of the day, the lack of a healer was his issue and his team's inability to focus.

I'd say go for it. It won't make a difference because pure templar healer is still inferior to subclass'd templar heals. Especially ones stacking ground HoTs.

evLRise wrote: »

Luneca wrote: »

False equivalence. A shield is essentially an increase in max HP, but healing only brings your HP up to the original amount. That's an important distinction because no matter how powerful you are in the game, if you take damage equivalent to your HP in the right instant (actually near-instant) of time, then you will die.

In the same situation, shields provide protection and increase that threshold. You can also stack other shields on top of it, and ...get this: also heal your base HP. So that means that shields in that same situation above, are actually better than healing.

But it gets even more better. Shields inherit damage reduction. What that means is that you can utilize shielding to survive way more damage than just healing alone.

Change the templar to put a shield on repeatedly instead of heal and we'll see how the forums explodes, rather than just you and the guy you are agreeing with while trying to advocate for a buff to an ult that doesn't need it.

Except when I press a 8k shield, half of it is gone by the time I'm out of GCD and it has 50% efficiency at most, since it eats chip damage like burning, poisoned and meek DoTs which I wouldn't even have felt on me while purify, rune and vigor heals are up due to my HP staying at effective 100%. Not only that but a shield will never get even close to what I can get from healing output, since its more difficult to scale and can't crit.

Shields are good vs burst. If I have hots running and I shield while at 100% HP but there's no burst incoming, the only actual result of shields is to heavily inflate my overheal for heals and basically waste some resources. They look like big numbers since they don't overheal, so it's easy to bait people on logs if they only understand part of the layers. With how much damage exists in the game right now, having some healthy shields is rather mandatory for any sort of group play, since it's close to impossible to survive a 3 2 1 Leap & Whip combo from a duo, let alone a bigger group.

Literal build decision. An 8K shield on me, on a semi-tanky build does not disappear in a GCD. Also, nothing stops you from rolling damage that would instantly destroy it and using the shield to soak up the rest of the damage in that case.

Lastly, we're talking about an ult. 8K damage shield is achievable without ult skills. If not, examine your build. Really.

And you literally just argued that shields are better than HoTs or heals in general because they allow you to soak up damage you otherwise could not, even with healing. Which, wow, is exactly what I said.

IZZEFlameLash wrote: »

Luneca wrote: »

Wow, so templars are doing the only thing they are good at and you are saying it needs a nerf?

If they nerf the mastery, who cares because a subclassed templar still outputs more healing than a pure one.

Also warden tree is an infinitely better ult, and so are the skills and passives in their skill lines. And it's getting a buff -- I mean "rework" -- soon. Go figure. But yeah, let's complain that tanky damage dealers couldn't beat a templar's heal output.

Also, I play healer and a templar one in BGs. Enjoy. it's true I've never lost in BGs even once, but it's also true that if I heal in Cyrodiil I can support over a ball vs an entire faction stack OR a random group of people in my faction vs an entire faction stack without sweating. BGs are a cakewalk, and even without the ult and masteries, guess what? My healing still won't be beaten.

That's the only other thing I do besides fire siege after all. I have to make sure to do it properly and maximize the trauma on the opponent's side when it looks like every enemy's HP isn't moving. Had fun?

Personofsecrets wrote: »

Design apparently doesnt mind cheesy play archetypes (ininite heal ult), but Magma Shell working with ult gen was a step too far! Honk honk!

False equivalence. A shield is essentially an increase in max HP, but healing only brings your HP up to the original amount. That's an important distinction because no matter how powerful you are in the game, if you take damage equivalent to your HP in the right instant (actually near-instant) of time, then you will die.

In the same situation, shields provide protection and increase that threshold. You can also stack other shields on top of it, and ...get this: also heal your base HP. So that means that shields in that same situation above, are actually better than healing.

But it gets even more better. Shields inherit damage reduction. What that means is that you can utilize shielding to survive way more damage than just healing alone.

Change the templar to put a shield on repeatedly instead of heal and we'll see how the forums explodes, rather than just you and the guy you are agreeing with while trying to advocate for a buff to an ult that doesn't need it.

I mean, if we are going to complain about the infinite sustain of DK and how that allows DK to survive, why not be consistent about it and complain about infinite ult healing. Wasn't it the community sentiment that anything infinite is bad? Sounds mighty fair thing to pick bones about if we are in that route.

You have a vested interest in protecting the class you like. I don't. That's where we differ. If they nerf this, it won't matter anyway because subclass healing with 1 templar line is superior in every way. Warden heals along with the templar line is superior to pure class healing anyway.

What is being enabled is not a better outcome overall, it's a better outcome if the healer was never skilled enough to be healing in the first place OR isn't actually a healer except when they press the ult button. Both of those two things are arguments for it to be nerfed because it does offer you the ability to do a role you don't have to actually build for. <-- but even that kind of argumentation becomes a slippery slope because ZOS never restricted roles.

Let's not pretend it's the same as DK's Core skill where nothing else comes close to that kind of power and you can even stop heavy attacking. It's not the same because there's superior options if someone is actually a healer anyway. Problem with DK's sustain? Ain't no better option.

And you seriously are comparing an ult that needs you to channel, to a skill that can be used on demand and has no real limitation? At face it's a bad comparison.

Don't we all? You and many ask for DK and WW nerf not because of true interest in the balance. You are also acting for your class.

IZZEFlameLash wrote: »

Luneca wrote: »

IZZEFlameLash wrote: »

Luneca wrote: »

Wow, so templars are doing the only thing they are good at and you are saying it needs a nerf?

If they nerf the mastery, who cares because a subclassed templar still outputs more healing than a pure one.

Also warden tree is an infinitely better ult, and so are the skills and passives in their skill lines. And it's getting a buff -- I mean "rework" -- soon. Go figure. But yeah, let's complain that tanky damage dealers couldn't beat a templar's heal output.

Also, I play healer and a templar one in BGs. Enjoy. it's true I've never lost in BGs even once, but it's also true that if I heal in Cyrodiil I can support over a ball vs an entire faction stack OR a random group of people in my faction vs an entire faction stack without sweating. BGs are a cakewalk, and even without the ult and masteries, guess what? My healing still won't be beaten.

That's the only other thing I do besides fire siege after all. I have to make sure to do it properly and maximize the trauma on the opponent's side when it looks like every enemy's HP isn't moving. Had fun?

Personofsecrets wrote: »

Design apparently doesnt mind cheesy play archetypes (ininite heal ult), but Magma Shell working with ult gen was a step too far! Honk honk!

False equivalence. A shield is essentially an increase in max HP, but healing only brings your HP up to the original amount. That's an important distinction because no matter how powerful you are in the game, if you take damage equivalent to your HP in the right instant (actually near-instant) of time, then you will die.

In the same situation, shields provide protection and increase that threshold. You can also stack other shields on top of it, and ...get this: also heal your base HP. So that means that shields in that same situation above, are actually better than healing.

But it gets even more better. Shields inherit damage reduction. What that means is that you can utilize shielding to survive way more damage than just healing alone.

Change the templar to put a shield on repeatedly instead of heal and we'll see how the forums explodes, rather than just you and the guy you are agreeing with while trying to advocate for a buff to an ult that doesn't need it.

I mean, if we are going to complain about the infinite sustain of DK and how that allows DK to survive, why not be consistent about it and complain about infinite ult healing. Wasn't it the community sentiment that anything infinite is bad? Sounds mighty fair thing to pick bones about if we are in that route.

We can find false equivalence anywhere if we look hard enough. They can nerf it and his problem still won't be solved. At the end of the day, the lack of a healer was his issue and his team's inability to focus.

I'd say go for it. It won't make a difference because pure templar healer is still inferior to subclass'd templar heals. Especially ones stacking ground HoTs.

evLRise wrote: »

Luneca wrote: »

False equivalence. A shield is essentially an increase in max HP, but healing only brings your HP up to the original amount. That's an important distinction because no matter how powerful you are in the game, if you take damage equivalent to your HP in the right instant (actually near-instant) of time, then you will die.

In the same situation, shields provide protection and increase that threshold. You can also stack other shields on top of it, and ...get this: also heal your base HP. So that means that shields in that same situation above, are actually better than healing.

But it gets even more better. Shields inherit damage reduction. What that means is that you can utilize shielding to survive way more damage than just healing alone.

Change the templar to put a shield on repeatedly instead of heal and we'll see how the forums explodes, rather than just you and the guy you are agreeing with while trying to advocate for a buff to an ult that doesn't need it.

Except when I press a 8k shield, half of it is gone by the time I'm out of GCD and it has 50% efficiency at most, since it eats chip damage like burning, poisoned and meek DoTs which I wouldn't even have felt on me while purify, rune and vigor heals are up due to my HP staying at effective 100%. Not only that but a shield will never get even close to what I can get from healing output, since its more difficult to scale and can't crit.

Shields are good vs burst. If I have hots running and I shield while at 100% HP but there's no burst incoming, the only actual result of shields is to heavily inflate my overheal for heals and basically waste some resources. They look like big numbers since they don't overheal, so it's easy to bait people on logs if they only understand part of the layers. With how much damage exists in the game right now, having some healthy shields is rather mandatory for any sort of group play, since it's close to impossible to survive a 3 2 1 Leap & Whip combo from a duo, let alone a bigger group.

Literal build decision. An 8K shield on me, on a semi-tanky build does not disappear in a GCD. Also, nothing stops you from rolling damage that would instantly destroy it and using the shield to soak up the rest of the damage in that case.

Lastly, we're talking about an ult. 8K damage shield is achievable without ult skills. If not, examine your build. Really.

And you literally just argued that shields are better than HoTs or heals in general because they allow you to soak up damage you otherwise could not, even with healing. Which, wow, is exactly what I said.

IZZEFlameLash wrote: »

Luneca wrote: »

Wow, so templars are doing the only thing they are good at and you are saying it needs a nerf?

If they nerf the mastery, who cares because a subclassed templar still outputs more healing than a pure one.

Also warden tree is an infinitely better ult, and so are the skills and passives in their skill lines. And it's getting a buff -- I mean "rework" -- soon. Go figure. But yeah, let's complain that tanky damage dealers couldn't beat a templar's heal output.

Also, I play healer and a templar one in BGs. Enjoy. it's true I've never lost in BGs even once, but it's also true that if I heal in Cyrodiil I can support over a ball vs an entire faction stack OR a random group of people in my faction vs an entire faction stack without sweating. BGs are a cakewalk, and even without the ult and masteries, guess what? My healing still won't be beaten.

That's the only other thing I do besides fire siege after all. I have to make sure to do it properly and maximize the trauma on the opponent's side when it looks like every enemy's HP isn't moving. Had fun?

Personofsecrets wrote: »

Design apparently doesnt mind cheesy play archetypes (ininite heal ult), but Magma Shell working with ult gen was a step too far! Honk honk!

False equivalence. A shield is essentially an increase in max HP, but healing only brings your HP up to the original amount. That's an important distinction because no matter how powerful you are in the game, if you take damage equivalent to your HP in the right instant (actually near-instant) of time, then you will die.

In the same situation, shields provide protection and increase that threshold. You can also stack other shields on top of it, and ...get this: also heal your base HP. So that means that shields in that same situation above, are actually better than healing.

But it gets even more better. Shields inherit damage reduction. What that means is that you can utilize shielding to survive way more damage than just healing alone.

Change the templar to put a shield on repeatedly instead of heal and we'll see how the forums explodes, rather than just you and the guy you are agreeing with while trying to advocate for a buff to an ult that doesn't need it.

I mean, if we are going to complain about the infinite sustain of DK and how that allows DK to survive, why not be consistent about it and complain about infinite ult healing. Wasn't it the community sentiment that anything infinite is bad? Sounds mighty fair thing to pick bones about if we are in that route.

You have a vested interest in protecting the class you like. I don't. That's where we differ. If they nerf this, it won't matter anyway because subclass healing with 1 templar line is superior in every way. Warden heals along with the templar line is superior to pure class healing anyway.

What is being enabled is not a better outcome overall, it's a better outcome if the healer was never skilled enough to be healing in the first place OR isn't actually a healer except when they press the ult button. Both of those two things are arguments for it to be nerfed because it does offer you the ability to do a role you don't have to actually build for. <-- but even that kind of argumentation becomes a slippery slope because ZOS never restricted roles.

Let's not pretend it's the same as DK's Core skill where nothing else comes close to that kind of power and you can even stop heavy attacking. It's not the same because there's superior options if someone is actually a healer anyway. Problem with DK's sustain? Ain't no better option.

And you seriously are comparing an ult that needs you to channel, to a skill that can be used on demand and has no real limitation? At face it's a bad comparison.

Don't we all? You and many ask for DK and WW nerf not because of true interest in the balance. You are also acting for your class.

What's my class? I play them all

Then again, in PvP I also mainly fire siege. It works.

I've heard so many complaints about DKs and WWs being "too strong," followed by the signet builds, but now it's the healers that are the issue? Those players who keep you alive through those nasty attacks? The last thing I'd complain about just now is having a healer on my team. Or the opponent's team. I always slot a few group heals in team PvP, if both teams are on a flag together it's a bit spicy otherwise

I'm not opposed to changing healing so it is better balanced. Never have been. But healers can die if the opposite team focuses them down. Also, any healer will tell you that DDs don't always stay in the safety zone around them. I find it works nicely to focus any DD who breaks out of the group and try to tempt them to chase.