ElderSmitter wrote: »

madmufffin wrote: »

Spent all weekend very excited after the midweek update just to get this need a math degree nonsense... With 25k of each resistance and 6 templar skills front barred this is only 650 damage. You got that from minor sorcery alone in PVE content.

Based on my math this provides Templar with much more Weapon and Spell damage if you build your Plar correctly.

VinnyGambini wrote: »

madmufffin wrote: »

VinnyGambini wrote: »

Firstmep wrote: »

VinnyGambini wrote: »

Militan1404 wrote: »

madmufffin wrote: »

Spent all weekend very excited after the midweek update just to get this need a math degree nonsense... With 25k of each resistance and 6 templar skills front barred this is only 650 damage. You got that from minor sorcery alone in PVE content.

Yeah and you get more from slotting fighters guild ability than slotting templar ability on a templar

Does anybody know if this is for skills slotted on both bars, or only on active bar?

Only active bar.

If it's only active bar, so realistically 4 skills, then we have 4*75 = 300 + the armor part so realistically 40 000 *0,4% = 160, so 460 in total.

Before it was 6%, and of course minor sorcery so 16% in total. 460 is much less than 16%. This is STILL a huge nerf.

Even if we go MAX 6 skills, it will still result in +- 620 spell dmg, still lower than 16%.

@ZOS_Kevin dissapointed again.

50k combined resistances is pretty easy to hit in medium armor, so it is TECHNICALLY a buff, but man you really have to put in a concerted effort to make it work out that way.

With major + minor breach it is not. On PvP scenario it's definetely a nerf. On PvE, 6 templar abilities stotted, it may be on par. Such a dissapointment.

ceruulean wrote: »

VinnyGambini wrote: »

Firstmep wrote: »

Balanced warrior:

My suggestion for this passive is this: Increases your armor by 2% and your weapon and spell damage by 3% and 2% per templar ability slotted.
This solves 2 things: it simplifies the passive and unlinks armor for damage.
In pve with the current pts iteration slotting fighters guild passives is still a net gain over templar abilities, assuming around 20k armor which is very obtainable even for dps players.
This would break even for spell damage at 3 templar skills over 3 fighters guild abilities, so you would have more freedom.
For pvp you can enjoy some extra armor and weapon damage and you won't feel forced to build into excessive amounts of armor for a tiny damage increase.

It's absulutely hilarious how players find better solution than game developers in basically just minutes of thinking. Disgrace.

Devs don't talk to their customers or consider player needs and are too prideful. We can see in the introduction of the VFX reduction option that they conveniently "left out" the option to set VFX to 0%. Because they want to force players to admire the artists VFX.
Look, some players maybe hate the VFX but I bet most players are not turning off VFX because they hate the artists but because they want to enjoy the game, and ESO combat is very intensive and some people need simpler graphics to function and play the game. It's why we have options to turn off screen shake. And there are plenty of players who leave the VFX on and enjoy the fireworks.

MSattrtand wrote: »

Since EU characters were copied, I could easily compare the same build on live and on PTS.

I just took my dummy-parse build and parsed on the 6-mil dummy without any changes. N.B.: I couldn't finish the parse since Plar-sustain is abysmal.

Live:

PTS:

So, I got 500 WPD and 3k Armour for changing nothing. I'll take that.

And now with the light armour:

Live:

PTS:

400 WPD and 3k armour again for changing nothing, once again.

The change definitely outweighs the DPS loss from losing Minor Sorcery in PvE.

Zallion wrote: »

On Templar, so now getting breached will lower your healing and offense as well? Respectfully, what a complete and utterly awful lack of foresight. Templar is already struggling and you found a way to make it even worse. That’s really, and I mean REALLY poor design. Nerfing an already underperforming class is wild. The atheric lancer change is good, but you’re robbing damage from the class in other areas here. Up that damage value, and change the skills slotted + armor to a % damage mitigation.

VinnyGambini wrote: »

ceruulean wrote: »

VinnyGambini wrote: »

Firstmep wrote: »

Balanced warrior:

My suggestion for this passive is this: Increases your armor by 2% and your weapon and spell damage by 3% and 2% per templar ability slotted.
This solves 2 things: it simplifies the passive and unlinks armor for damage.
In pve with the current pts iteration slotting fighters guild passives is still a net gain over templar abilities, assuming around 20k armor which is very obtainable even for dps players.
This would break even for spell damage at 3 templar skills over 3 fighters guild abilities, so you would have more freedom.
For pvp you can enjoy some extra armor and weapon damage and you won't feel forced to build into excessive amounts of armor for a tiny damage increase.

It's absulutely hilarious how players find better solution than game developers in basically just minutes of thinking. Disgrace.

Devs don't talk to their customers or consider player needs and are too prideful. We can see in the introduction of the VFX reduction option that they conveniently "left out" the option to set VFX to 0%. Because they want to force players to admire the artists VFX.
Look, some players maybe hate the VFX but I bet most players are not turning off VFX because they hate the artists but because they want to enjoy the game, and ESO combat is very intensive and some people need simpler graphics to function and play the game. It's why we have options to turn off screen shake. And there are plenty of players who leave the VFX on and enjoy the fireworks.

What you said is rather disturbing. Imagine car company, lets say Ford. Customers communicate to Ford, that they would like biggers cars, with higher suspension, preferably SUVs. But Ford don't listen, and makes smaller cars, with even lower suspension. Do you know what happens? Ford do not sell cars anymore, and go bankrupt.

I start to think, that ZOS goes exactly this way:



Maybe layoffs happened because population is getting lower since 2021, because of bad developer decisions?

MSattrtand wrote: »

madmufffin wrote: »

Did you run your normal bars or did you have to stuff a bunch of Templar skills front bar?

Normal bars. I've tried swapping Dawnsbreaker for Sweep, and WPD was lower. It's kinda sad that FG passive is still stronger.

twing1_ wrote: »

This new passive is definitely overly engineered and complex, but its potency is pretty on par with the old balanced warrior and minor brutality combo.

What a lot of you are failing to realize is that the weapon damage granted by this passive is affected by % modifiers to weapon damage, like medium armor passives and major brutality. The previous passive of 6% weapon damage acted as a modifier itself, and thus was not increased by other % modifiers.

In an organized trial group, ~23k resistances should be your bare minimum with medium armor, major resolve, and the new Templar unique 2974 resistances. 4 Templar skills on front bar is pretty standard (blazing spear, power of the light, jabs, beam). Lets use this scenario as a case study.

Under these conditions, the new Templar passive will grant:

• 10% armor (2% base + 2% x 4 templar skills)
• 503 Spell/Weapon Damage (23k resistances x 1.1 armor modifiers x .004 spell/weapon damage conversion + 75 x 4 Templar skills)

This 503 Spell/Weapon damage is then subject to % modifiers, such as medium armor passives, fighter guild skills, and major brutality. Lets assume 2 fighters guild skills are being run (barbed trap and dawnbreaker on a standard build). The % modifiers to spell/weapon damage would then be 1.4. (1+ .03 x 2 fighters guild skills + .02 x 7 medium armor pieces + .2 major brutality). These modifiers would bring up that 503 spell/weapon damage to 704 (503 x 1.4). This is almost perfectly in line with the 720 weapon damage people in these comments are claiming the old balanced warrior and minor brutality got them.

The scenario I walked through above doesn't even include minor brutality which is no longer part of the Templar toolkit. But in a situation where minor brutality is present, like in an organized trial group, that 503 spell/weapon damage granted by the new passive would be buffed to 754 spell/weapon damage, which actually raises the Templar's offensive ceiling above what it used to be with the new balanced warrior.

Keep in mind that this is all on a standard build, without making any changes specifically geared toward the passive changes.

ceruulean wrote: »

twing1_ wrote: »

This new passive is definitely overly engineered and complex, but its potency is pretty on par with the old balanced warrior and minor brutality combo.

What a lot of you are failing to realize is that the weapon damage granted by this passive is affected by % modifiers to weapon damage, like medium armor passives and major brutality. The previous passive of 6% weapon damage acted as a modifier itself, and thus was not increased by other % modifiers.

In an organized trial group, ~23k resistances should be your bare minimum with medium armor, major resolve, and the new Templar unique 2974 resistances. 4 Templar skills on front bar is pretty standard (blazing spear, power of the light, jabs, beam). Lets use this scenario as a case study.

Under these conditions, the new Templar passive will grant:

• 10% armor (2% base + 2% x 4 templar skills)
• 503 Spell/Weapon Damage (23k resistances x 1.1 armor modifiers x .004 spell/weapon damage conversion + 75 x 4 Templar skills)

This 503 Spell/Weapon damage is then subject to % modifiers, such as medium armor passives, fighter guild skills, and major brutality. Lets assume 2 fighters guild skills are being run (barbed trap and dawnbreaker on a standard build). The % modifiers to spell/weapon damage would then be 1.4. (1+ .03 x 2 fighters guild skills + .02 x 7 medium armor pieces + .2 major brutality). These modifiers would bring up that 503 spell/weapon damage to 704 (503 x 1.4). This is almost perfectly in line with the 720 weapon damage people in these comments are claiming the old balanced warrior and minor brutality got them.

The scenario I walked through above doesn't even include minor brutality which is no longer part of the Templar toolkit. But in a situation where minor brutality is present, like in an organized trial group, that 503 spell/weapon damage granted by the new passive would be buffed to 754 spell/weapon damage, which actually raises the Templar's offensive ceiling above what it used to be with the new balanced warrior.

Keep in mind that this is all on a standard build, without making any changes specifically geared toward the passive changes.

Technically, Templar does not need a buff in 12-man content. It can parse close to 190k and has an excellent group class mastery, decent cleave, and a bonkers execute in PvE only. Making Aetheric Lancer set "easier" to use is kinda a step in the right direction (it's not really easy if the condition is to stand still. Stand-still sets are the least used sets in the game for a reason). So these passive changes are meaningless for comped groups.

However they affect casual players who are not in comped groups by making it more hard to understand, harder to build, and nerfing their damage. Overall this change is a net negative because casual uncomped groups are the majority of the playerbase.

ceruulean wrote: »

twing1_ wrote: »

ceruulean wrote: »

twing1_ wrote: »

This new passive is definitely overly engineered and complex, but its potency is pretty on par with the old balanced warrior and minor brutality combo.

What a lot of you are failing to realize is that the weapon damage granted by this passive is affected by % modifiers to weapon damage, like medium armor passives and major brutality. The previous passive of 6% weapon damage acted as a modifier itself, and thus was not increased by other % modifiers.

In an organized trial group, ~23k resistances should be your bare minimum with medium armor, major resolve, and the new Templar unique 2974 resistances. 4 Templar skills on front bar is pretty standard (blazing spear, power of the light, jabs, beam). Lets use this scenario as a case study.

Under these conditions, the new Templar passive will grant:

• 10% armor (2% base + 2% x 4 templar skills)
• 503 Spell/Weapon Damage (23k resistances x 1.1 armor modifiers x .004 spell/weapon damage conversion + 75 x 4 Templar skills)

This 503 Spell/Weapon damage is then subject to % modifiers, such as medium armor passives, fighter guild skills, and major brutality. Lets assume 2 fighters guild skills are being run (barbed trap and dawnbreaker on a standard build). The % modifiers to spell/weapon damage would then be 1.4. (1+ .03 x 2 fighters guild skills + .02 x 7 medium armor pieces + .2 major brutality). These modifiers would bring up that 503 spell/weapon damage to 704 (503 x 1.4). This is almost perfectly in line with the 720 weapon damage people in these comments are claiming the old balanced warrior and minor brutality got them.

The scenario I walked through above doesn't even include minor brutality which is no longer part of the Templar toolkit. But in a situation where minor brutality is present, like in an organized trial group, that 503 spell/weapon damage granted by the new passive would be buffed to 754 spell/weapon damage, which actually raises the Templar's offensive ceiling above what it used to be with the new balanced warrior.

Keep in mind that this is all on a standard build, without making any changes specifically geared toward the passive changes.

Technically, Templar does not need a buff in 12-man content. It can parse close to 190k and has an excellent group class mastery, decent cleave, and a bonkers execute in PvE only. Making Aetheric Lancer set "easier" to use is kinda a step in the right direction (it's not really easy if the condition is to stand still. Stand-still sets are the least used sets in the game for a reason). So these passive changes are meaningless for comped groups.

However they affect casual players who are not in comped groups by making it more hard to understand, harder to build, and nerfing their damage. Overall this change is a net negative because casual uncomped groups are the majority of the playerbase.

It might be harder to understand, sure. But saying it is a net negative, even in casual play, is disingenuous. I just ran the numbers for you on your standard build for casual group play. The weapon damage is almost identical to what it was with the old 6% passive, buffed beyond that in organized group content, and in both cases they are also gaining a sizeable increase to their resistances.

In PvP, where resistances on the average player are even higher, it is even a more substantial buff.

I'm okay trading some clarity of the skill for added stat density. If you would prefer a simpler skill with less potent effects, a "nerf templar" thread should be started.

Templars lost Minor Sorcery. The added resistances do not make up for that. In hard content, resistance is useless compared to sustain (for roll dodge) or damage mitigation (Vestige mode or PvP corrosive Onslaught)

DKs got a free 15% dmg reduction on their channel. I'd rather have that on jabs than this new passive.

twing1_ wrote: »

ceruulean wrote: »

twing1_ wrote: »

ceruulean wrote: »

twing1_ wrote: »

ceruulean wrote: »

twing1_ wrote: »

This new passive is definitely overly engineered and complex, but its potency is pretty on par with the old balanced warrior and minor brutality combo.

What a lot of you are failing to realize is that the weapon damage granted by this passive is affected by % modifiers to weapon damage, like medium armor passives and major brutality. The previous passive of 6% weapon damage acted as a modifier itself, and thus was not increased by other % modifiers.

In an organized trial group, ~23k resistances should be your bare minimum with medium armor, major resolve, and the new Templar unique 2974 resistances. 4 Templar skills on front bar is pretty standard (blazing spear, power of the light, jabs, beam). Lets use this scenario as a case study.

Under these conditions, the new Templar passive will grant:

• 10% armor (2% base + 2% x 4 templar skills)
• 503 Spell/Weapon Damage (23k resistances x 1.1 armor modifiers x .004 spell/weapon damage conversion + 75 x 4 Templar skills)

This 503 Spell/Weapon damage is then subject to % modifiers, such as medium armor passives, fighter guild skills, and major brutality. Lets assume 2 fighters guild skills are being run (barbed trap and dawnbreaker on a standard build). The % modifiers to spell/weapon damage would then be 1.4. (1+ .03 x 2 fighters guild skills + .02 x 7 medium armor pieces + .2 major brutality). These modifiers would bring up that 503 spell/weapon damage to 704 (503 x 1.4). This is almost perfectly in line with the 720 weapon damage people in these comments are claiming the old balanced warrior and minor brutality got them.

The scenario I walked through above doesn't even include minor brutality which is no longer part of the Templar toolkit. But in a situation where minor brutality is present, like in an organized trial group, that 503 spell/weapon damage granted by the new passive would be buffed to 754 spell/weapon damage, which actually raises the Templar's offensive ceiling above what it used to be with the new balanced warrior.

Keep in mind that this is all on a standard build, without making any changes specifically geared toward the passive changes.

Technically, Templar does not need a buff in 12-man content. It can parse close to 190k and has an excellent group class mastery, decent cleave, and a bonkers execute in PvE only. Making Aetheric Lancer set "easier" to use is kinda a step in the right direction (it's not really easy if the condition is to stand still. Stand-still sets are the least used sets in the game for a reason). So these passive changes are meaningless for comped groups.

However they affect casual players who are not in comped groups by making it more hard to understand, harder to build, and nerfing their damage. Overall this change is a net negative because casual uncomped groups are the majority of the playerbase.

It might be harder to understand, sure. But saying it is a net negative, even in casual play, is disingenuous. I just ran the numbers for you on your standard build for casual group play. The weapon damage is almost identical to what it was with the old 6% passive, buffed beyond that in organized group content, and in both cases they are also gaining a sizeable increase to their resistances.

In PvP, where resistances on the average player are even higher, it is even a more substantial buff.

I'm okay trading some clarity of the skill for added stat density. If you would prefer a simpler skill with less potent effects, a "nerf templar" thread should be started.

Templars lost Minor Sorcery. The added resistances do not make up for that. In hard content, resistance is useless compared to sustain (for roll dodge) or damage mitigation (Vestige mode or PvP corrosive Onslaught)

DKs got a free 15% dmg reduction on their channel. I'd rather have that on jabs than this new passive.

I literally just outlined for you how the current change to the passive gives the same amount of weapon/spell damage that Templar's old 6% balanced warrior and minor brutality used to provide.

You are claiming that the loss of minor sorcery has not yet been made up for, but it has. Templars, on a standard build and without the requirement of organized group play, can still obtain the same damage value that the old 6% balanced warrior and minor sorcery used to provide them. I ran the numbers, and I posted them here for you to see. Maybe you didn't get that far.

In addition to this, Templars are now getting additional resistances that serve as a cherry on top and not a replacement. That doesn't hurt them at all.

"In an organized trial group, ~23k resistances should be your bare minimum with medium armor,"

How does that describe solo/4 man or templars wearing light armor?

Why would you wear light armor on a damage dealer? Light armor is already a suboptimal choice for all kinds of content as a damage dealer because critical damage (granted by medium armor) is much more difficult to source than penetration (granted by light armor). This is only getting worse next patch, where Sorcerers grant an additional 2974 penetration to the party, completely removing the need for any pieces of light armor to be worn at all in organized play.

As much as I disagree with the decision they made, ZOS seems intent on keeping light armor specifically for healers and medium armor for damage dealers.

But, to entertain you, I will run the numbers once again utilizing light armor.

In full light armor, ~44k total resistances (can't just use resistances x2 because light armor doesn't provide equal amounts of both) should be your bare minimum with full light armor, major resolve, and the new Templar unique 2974 resistances. 4 Templar skills on front bar is pretty standard (blazing spear, power of the light, jabs, beam). This is the scenario we are using as a case study.

Under these conditions, the new Templar passive will grant:
10% armor (2% base + 2% x 4 templar skills)
493 Spell/Weapon Damage (44k total resistances x 1.1 armor modifiers x .004 spell/weapon damage conversion + 75 x 4 Templar skills)

This 493 Spell/Weapon damage is then subject to % modifiers, such as fighter guild skills and major brutality. Lets assume 2 fighters guild skills are being run (barbed trap and dawnbreaker on a standard build). The % modifiers to spell/weapon damage would then be 1.26. (1+ .03 x 2 fighters guild skills + .2 major brutality). These modifiers would bring up that 493 spell/weapon damage up to 622 spell/weapon damage (493 x 1.26). This is about 100 spell/weapon damage less than what people are claiming they receive from minor sorcery and the old 6% balanced warrior on live based off of the 4500 base spell/weapon damage.

This is a slight nerf to the offensive output of a light armor templar. But again, why are you using light armor in the first place.

Its also important to note that resistances are more impactful on a light armor build than a medium armor build due to their lower base resistances, so the additional resistances granted to Templars under the new passives would help them out more in this scenario than the previous scenario.

From a stat density perspective, light armor templars are losing less than a single 2-4 pc item set bonus to spell/weapon damage (they are only losing ~100 spell/weapon damage), but gaining 4,734 resistances, which is the equivalent of ~1.6 standard 2-4pc item set bonuses.

They are still gaining stat density, though they are trading 100 weapon damage for almost 5k of resistances.

In casual/solo play, I would argue even this is a buff as a Templar in these scenarios will likely not have a dedicated healer and would appreciate the boost to their survivability.

twing1_ wrote: »

ceruulean wrote: »

twing1_ wrote: »

ceruulean wrote: »

twing1_ wrote: »

ceruulean wrote: »

twing1_ wrote: »

ceruulean wrote: »

twing1_ wrote: »

This new passive is definitely overly engineered and complex, but its potency is pretty on par with the old balanced warrior and minor brutality combo.

What a lot of you are failing to realize is that the weapon damage granted by this passive is affected by % modifiers to weapon damage, like medium armor passives and major brutality. The previous passive of 6% weapon damage acted as a modifier itself, and thus was not increased by other % modifiers.

In an organized trial group, ~23k resistances should be your bare minimum with medium armor, major resolve, and the new Templar unique 2974 resistances. 4 Templar skills on front bar is pretty standard (blazing spear, power of the light, jabs, beam). Lets use this scenario as a case study.

Under these conditions, the new Templar passive will grant:

• 10% armor (2% base + 2% x 4 templar skills)
• 503 Spell/Weapon Damage (23k resistances x 1.1 armor modifiers x .004 spell/weapon damage conversion + 75 x 4 Templar skills)

This 503 Spell/Weapon damage is then subject to % modifiers, such as medium armor passives, fighter guild skills, and major brutality. Lets assume 2 fighters guild skills are being run (barbed trap and dawnbreaker on a standard build). The % modifiers to spell/weapon damage would then be 1.4. (1+ .03 x 2 fighters guild skills + .02 x 7 medium armor pieces + .2 major brutality). These modifiers would bring up that 503 spell/weapon damage to 704 (503 x 1.4). This is almost perfectly in line with the 720 weapon damage people in these comments are claiming the old balanced warrior and minor brutality got them.

The scenario I walked through above doesn't even include minor brutality which is no longer part of the Templar toolkit. But in a situation where minor brutality is present, like in an organized trial group, that 503 spell/weapon damage granted by the new passive would be buffed to 754 spell/weapon damage, which actually raises the Templar's offensive ceiling above what it used to be with the new balanced warrior.

Keep in mind that this is all on a standard build, without making any changes specifically geared toward the passive changes.

Technically, Templar does not need a buff in 12-man content. It can parse close to 190k and has an excellent group class mastery, decent cleave, and a bonkers execute in PvE only. Making Aetheric Lancer set "easier" to use is kinda a step in the right direction (it's not really easy if the condition is to stand still. Stand-still sets are the least used sets in the game for a reason). So these passive changes are meaningless for comped groups.

However they affect casual players who are not in comped groups by making it more hard to understand, harder to build, and nerfing their damage. Overall this change is a net negative because casual uncomped groups are the majority of the playerbase.

It might be harder to understand, sure. But saying it is a net negative, even in casual play, is disingenuous. I just ran the numbers for you on your standard build for casual group play. The weapon damage is almost identical to what it was with the old 6% passive, buffed beyond that in organized group content, and in both cases they are also gaining a sizeable increase to their resistances.

In PvP, where resistances on the average player are even higher, it is even a more substantial buff.

I'm okay trading some clarity of the skill for added stat density. If you would prefer a simpler skill with less potent effects, a "nerf templar" thread should be started.

Templars lost Minor Sorcery. The added resistances do not make up for that. In hard content, resistance is useless compared to sustain (for roll dodge) or damage mitigation (Vestige mode or PvP corrosive Onslaught)

DKs got a free 15% dmg reduction on their channel. I'd rather have that on jabs than this new passive.

I literally just outlined for you how the current change to the passive gives the same amount of weapon/spell damage that Templar's old 6% balanced warrior and minor brutality used to provide.

You are claiming that the loss of minor sorcery has not yet been made up for, but it has. Templars, on a standard build and without the requirement of organized group play, can still obtain the same damage value that the old 6% balanced warrior and minor sorcery used to provide them. I ran the numbers, and I posted them here for you to see. Maybe you didn't get that far.

In addition to this, Templars are now getting additional resistances that serve as a cherry on top and not a replacement. That doesn't hurt them at all.

"In an organized trial group, ~23k resistances should be your bare minimum with medium armor,"

How does that describe solo/4 man or templars wearing light armor?

Why would you wear light armor on a damage dealer? Light armor is already a suboptimal choice for all kinds of content as a damage dealer because critical damage (granted by medium armor) is much more difficult to source than penetration (granted by light armor). This is only getting worse next patch, where Sorcerers grant an additional 2974 penetration to the party, completely removing the need for any pieces of light armor to be worn at all in organized play.

As much as I disagree with the decision they made, ZOS seems intent on keeping light armor specifically for healers and medium armor for damage dealers.

But, to entertain you, I will run the numbers once again utilizing light armor.

In full light armor, ~44k total resistances (can't just use resistances x2 because light armor doesn't provide equal amounts of both) should be your bare minimum with full light armor, major resolve, and the new Templar unique 2974 resistances. 4 Templar skills on front bar is pretty standard (blazing spear, power of the light, jabs, beam). This is the scenario we are using as a case study.

Under these conditions, the new Templar passive will grant:
10% armor (2% base + 2% x 4 templar skills)
493 Spell/Weapon Damage (44k total resistances x 1.1 armor modifiers x .004 spell/weapon damage conversion + 75 x 4 Templar skills)

This 493 Spell/Weapon damage is then subject to % modifiers, such as fighter guild skills and major brutality. Lets assume 2 fighters guild skills are being run (barbed trap and dawnbreaker on a standard build). The % modifiers to spell/weapon damage would then be 1.26. (1+ .03 x 2 fighters guild skills + .2 major brutality). These modifiers would bring up that 493 spell/weapon damage up to 622 spell/weapon damage (493 x 1.26). This is about 100 spell/weapon damage less than what people are claiming they receive from minor sorcery and the old 6% balanced warrior on live based off of the 4500 base spell/weapon damage.

This is a slight nerf to the offensive output of a light armor templar. But again, why are you using light armor in the first place.

Its also important to note that resistances are more impactful on a light armor build than a medium armor build due to their lower base resistances, so the additional resistances granted to Templars under the new passives would help them out more in this scenario than the previous scenario.

From a stat density perspective, light armor templars are losing less than a single 2-4 pc item set bonus to spell/weapon damage (they are only losing ~100 spell/weapon damage), but gaining 4,734 resistances, which is the equivalent of ~1.6 standard 2-4pc item set bonuses.

They are still gaining stat density, though they are trading 100 weapon damage for almost 5k of resistances.

In casual/solo play, I would argue even this is a buff as a Templar in these scenarios will likely not have a dedicated healer and would appreciate the boost to their survivability.

Would you rather have NB and DK damage nerfed and armor buffed? How about make sorc's damage contingent on HP stacking? We all know this is a stupid implementation of a passive. I don't play pure templar in PvE or PvP anymore because it's become limited and gimped as the patches go on. This change reinforces stale medium armor meta, makes a class tanky when their most useful masteries are already the tank masteries, and also lose damage and resistances when they barswap or are debuffed in PvP.

So for context, I DO play pure templar in both PvE and PvP.

For PvE, as I've outlined above, this change is a step in the right direction. It gives me pretty much identical spell/weapon damage to what I have on live in solo/small group play, but in organized group play when minor brutality is being provided to me, it actually increases my offensive ceiling.

I wear heavy armor in PvP because the extra survivability is needed. In this scenario, this change helps me out even more.

It actually doesn't reinforce the medium armor meta because it provides weapon/spell damage that scales with resistances, so heavy armor is king in this regard. This change does make Templar tankier because it increases the potency of their resistance modifier from 6% (old) to 10% (new), which only helps any Templar build. It also gives me the freedom to go full heavy armor and invest into a sustain set without feeling like I am losing out on a ton of damage.

Previously, the old 6% balanced warrior and 10% minor sorcery were entirely dependent on stacking high amounts of base weapon damage to get proper utilization out of them. I felt like I had to invest into a 2nd damage set in order to make the most out of them, but Templar's sustain needs never allowed me to do that.

On live, my templar build running Aetheric Lancer and Wretched Vitality, with the old 6% balanced warrior and minor sorcery, had 6742 spell damage and 29.6k resists.

Under these changes, the same build has 34k resists and 6670 spell damage with the new balanced warrior and without minor sorcery. Trading 72 spell damage for 5k resists is a trade I am happy to make.

This change rewards Templar players that build into tankiness by reducing the amount of offensive power they lose by doing so.

twing1_ wrote: »

madmufffin wrote: »

twing1_ wrote: »

ceruulean wrote: »

twing1_ wrote: »

ceruulean wrote: »

twing1_ wrote: »

ceruulean wrote: »

twing1_ wrote: »

ceruulean wrote: »

twing1_ wrote: »

This new passive is definitely overly engineered and complex, but its potency is pretty on par with the old balanced warrior and minor brutality combo.

What a lot of you are failing to realize is that the weapon damage granted by this passive is affected by % modifiers to weapon damage, like medium armor passives and major brutality. The previous passive of 6% weapon damage acted as a modifier itself, and thus was not increased by other % modifiers.

In an organized trial group, ~23k resistances should be your bare minimum with medium armor, major resolve, and the new Templar unique 2974 resistances. 4 Templar skills on front bar is pretty standard (blazing spear, power of the light, jabs, beam). Lets use this scenario as a case study.

Under these conditions, the new Templar passive will grant:

• 10% armor (2% base + 2% x 4 templar skills)
• 503 Spell/Weapon Damage (23k resistances x 1.1 armor modifiers x .004 spell/weapon damage conversion + 75 x 4 Templar skills)

This 503 Spell/Weapon damage is then subject to % modifiers, such as medium armor passives, fighter guild skills, and major brutality. Lets assume 2 fighters guild skills are being run (barbed trap and dawnbreaker on a standard build). The % modifiers to spell/weapon damage would then be 1.4. (1+ .03 x 2 fighters guild skills + .02 x 7 medium armor pieces + .2 major brutality). These modifiers would bring up that 503 spell/weapon damage to 704 (503 x 1.4). This is almost perfectly in line with the 720 weapon damage people in these comments are claiming the old balanced warrior and minor brutality got them.

The scenario I walked through above doesn't even include minor brutality which is no longer part of the Templar toolkit. But in a situation where minor brutality is present, like in an organized trial group, that 503 spell/weapon damage granted by the new passive would be buffed to 754 spell/weapon damage, which actually raises the Templar's offensive ceiling above what it used to be with the new balanced warrior.

Keep in mind that this is all on a standard build, without making any changes specifically geared toward the passive changes.

Technically, Templar does not need a buff in 12-man content. It can parse close to 190k and has an excellent group class mastery, decent cleave, and a bonkers execute in PvE only. Making Aetheric Lancer set "easier" to use is kinda a step in the right direction (it's not really easy if the condition is to stand still. Stand-still sets are the least used sets in the game for a reason). So these passive changes are meaningless for comped groups.

However they affect casual players who are not in comped groups by making it more hard to understand, harder to build, and nerfing their damage. Overall this change is a net negative because casual uncomped groups are the majority of the playerbase.

It might be harder to understand, sure. But saying it is a net negative, even in casual play, is disingenuous. I just ran the numbers for you on your standard build for casual group play. The weapon damage is almost identical to what it was with the old 6% passive, buffed beyond that in organized group content, and in both cases they are also gaining a sizeable increase to their resistances.

In PvP, where resistances on the average player are even higher, it is even a more substantial buff.

I'm okay trading some clarity of the skill for added stat density. If you would prefer a simpler skill with less potent effects, a "nerf templar" thread should be started.

Templars lost Minor Sorcery. The added resistances do not make up for that. In hard content, resistance is useless compared to sustain (for roll dodge) or damage mitigation (Vestige mode or PvP corrosive Onslaught)

DKs got a free 15% dmg reduction on their channel. I'd rather have that on jabs than this new passive.

I literally just outlined for you how the current change to the passive gives the same amount of weapon/spell damage that Templar's old 6% balanced warrior and minor brutality used to provide.

You are claiming that the loss of minor sorcery has not yet been made up for, but it has. Templars, on a standard build and without the requirement of organized group play, can still obtain the same damage value that the old 6% balanced warrior and minor sorcery used to provide them. I ran the numbers, and I posted them here for you to see. Maybe you didn't get that far.

In addition to this, Templars are now getting additional resistances that serve as a cherry on top and not a replacement. That doesn't hurt them at all.

"In an organized trial group, ~23k resistances should be your bare minimum with medium armor,"

How does that describe solo/4 man or templars wearing light armor?

Why would you wear light armor on a damage dealer? Light armor is already a suboptimal choice for all kinds of content as a damage dealer because critical damage (granted by medium armor) is much more difficult to source than penetration (granted by light armor). This is only getting worse next patch, where Sorcerers grant an additional 2974 penetration to the party, completely removing the need for any pieces of light armor to be worn at all in organized play.

As much as I disagree with the decision they made, ZOS seems intent on keeping light armor specifically for healers and medium armor for damage dealers.

But, to entertain you, I will run the numbers once again utilizing light armor.

In full light armor, ~44k total resistances (can't just use resistances x2 because light armor doesn't provide equal amounts of both) should be your bare minimum with full light armor, major resolve, and the new Templar unique 2974 resistances. 4 Templar skills on front bar is pretty standard (blazing spear, power of the light, jabs, beam). This is the scenario we are using as a case study.

Under these conditions, the new Templar passive will grant:
10% armor (2% base + 2% x 4 templar skills)
493 Spell/Weapon Damage (44k total resistances x 1.1 armor modifiers x .004 spell/weapon damage conversion + 75 x 4 Templar skills)

This 493 Spell/Weapon damage is then subject to % modifiers, such as fighter guild skills and major brutality. Lets assume 2 fighters guild skills are being run (barbed trap and dawnbreaker on a standard build). The % modifiers to spell/weapon damage would then be 1.26. (1+ .03 x 2 fighters guild skills + .2 major brutality). These modifiers would bring up that 493 spell/weapon damage up to 622 spell/weapon damage (493 x 1.26). This is about 100 spell/weapon damage less than what people are claiming they receive from minor sorcery and the old 6% balanced warrior on live based off of the 4500 base spell/weapon damage.

This is a slight nerf to the offensive output of a light armor templar. But again, why are you using light armor in the first place.

Its also important to note that resistances are more impactful on a light armor build than a medium armor build due to their lower base resistances, so the additional resistances granted to Templars under the new passives would help them out more in this scenario than the previous scenario.

From a stat density perspective, light armor templars are losing less than a single 2-4 pc item set bonus to spell/weapon damage (they are only losing ~100 spell/weapon damage), but gaining 4,734 resistances, which is the equivalent of ~1.6 standard 2-4pc item set bonuses.

They are still gaining stat density, though they are trading 100 weapon damage for almost 5k of resistances.

In casual/solo play, I would argue even this is a buff as a Templar in these scenarios will likely not have a dedicated healer and would appreciate the boost to their survivability.

Would you rather have NB and DK damage nerfed and armor buffed? How about make sorc's damage contingent on HP stacking? We all know this is a stupid implementation of a passive. I don't play pure templar in PvE or PvP anymore because it's become limited and gimped as the patches go on. This change reinforces stale medium armor meta, makes a class tanky when their most useful masteries are already the tank masteries, and also lose damage and resistances when they barswap or are debuffed in PvP.

So for context, I DO play pure templar in both PvE and PvP.

For PvE, as I've outlined above, this change is a step in the right direction. It gives me pretty much identical spell/weapon damage to what I have on live in solo/small group play, but in organized group play when minor brutality is being provided to me, it actually increases my offensive ceiling.

I wear heavy armor in PvP because the extra survivability is needed. In this scenario, this change helps me out even more.

It actually doesn't reinforce the medium armor meta because it provides weapon/spell damage that scales with resistances, so heavy armor is king in this regard. This change does make Templar tankier because it increases the potency of their resistance modifier from 6% (old) to 10% (new), which only helps any Templar build. It also gives me the freedom to go full heavy armor and invest into a sustain set without feeling like I am losing out on a ton of damage.

Previously, the old 6% balanced warrior and 10% minor sorcery were entirely dependent on stacking high amounts of base weapon damage to get proper utilization out of them. I felt like I had to invest into a 2nd damage set in order to make the most out of them, but Templar's sustain needs never allowed me to do that.

On live, my templar build running Aetheric Lancer and Wretched Vitality, with the old 6% balanced warrior and minor sorcery, had 6742 spell damage and 29.6k resists.

Under these changes, the same build has 34k resists and 6670 spell damage with the new balanced warrior and without minor sorcery. Trading 72 spell damage for 5k resists is a trade I am happy to make.

This change rewards Templar players that build into tankiness by reducing the amount of offensive power they lose by doing so.

The issue is that Templar is bad right now and needs active substantial buffs for PVP and a little bit more juice for PVE. This helps the PVE side of things, but does nothing for moving the needle really for PVP. The meta for both game modes is pretty stale at the moment and this doesn't really help that when a golden opportunity was sitting was right there. Templar rework still remains a long way away and this just feels like crap.

Unfortunately, until the entire Templar toolkit is completely overhauled when the rework happens, I don't think Templar will feel any better. Templar is in a rut so deep that simply overloading their stats with any amount of weapon damage, penetration, resistances, or any other desirable stat via their current set of skills will not solve the issue.

The problem with Templar runs much deeper, and until their skills are reworked to better synergize with each other in a way that is as effective as DKs stacking Incinerate and Heart of Flame timers or the like, I feel like they are more or less stuck here.

ceruulean wrote: »

So templars, in addition to getting nerfed by Cowardice debuff like normal players do, will now also get nerfed by Breach debuffs. Can anyone explain why tying OPPPOSITE stats, defense to offense, is a good idea? How about implement a passive where DKs deal more fire damage the more fire resistance they stack?