Wuuffyy wrote: »

They really need to do something with streak. I am being fully honest, the CoE nerf isn't enough in all truthfulness.

1,500 'mag recov' + off resource on a single passive with 50k mag (and you recoup a ton of damage from 'Font of Power' as a result)

ZOS, there is a thread discussing the problematic behavior of streak here-

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/697979/streak-needs-a-cc-nerf

Wuuffyy wrote: »

Zyaneth_Bal wrote: »

And can we stop

Wuuffyy wrote: »

They really need to do something with streak. I am being fully honest, the CoE nerf isn't enough in all truthfulness.

1,500 'mag recov' + off resource on a single passive with 50k mag (and you recoup a ton of damage from 'Font of Power' as a result)

ZOS, there is a thread discussing the problematic behavior of streak here-

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/697979/streak-needs-a-cc-nerf

There’s nothing problematic about it and this is not a nerf anything thread but the opposite

Streak is ridiculous.

It's

-the single best mobility tool in the entire game
-a damage dealing skill
-a stun that goes through Block and Roll
-a skill without an AoE cap
-a skill that can literally be spammed without issue thanks to CoE (even post-nerf)+ 'Dark Exchange'

The thread is pretty enlightening to be honest. Has a lot of traction too.

Daoin wrote: »

Wuuffyy wrote: »

Zyaneth_Bal wrote: »

And can we stop

Wuuffyy wrote: »

They really need to do something with streak. I am being fully honest, the CoE nerf isn't enough in all truthfulness.

1,500 'mag recov' + off resource on a single passive with 50k mag (and you recoup a ton of damage from 'Font of Power' as a result)

ZOS, there is a thread discussing the problematic behavior of streak here-

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/697979/streak-needs-a-cc-nerf

There’s nothing problematic about it and this is not a nerf anything thread but the opposite

Streak is ridiculous.

It's

-the single best mobility tool in the entire game
-a damage dealing skill
-a stun that goes through Block and Roll
-a skill without an AoE cap
-a skill that can literally be spammed without issue thanks to CoE (even post-nerf)+ 'Dark Exchange'

The thread is pretty enlightening to be honest. Has a lot of traction too.

they say the same about some arcanist skill, just in another language, mass nerfs ahead

NovelliESO wrote: »

This is always such a level 1 engagement with anything. "less nerfs" There are plenty of things in ESO PvP worthy of nerfing. Power creep has come extremely far. Nerfs are not inherently bad and buffs are not inherently good but people keep echoing this sentiment as if they are.

Also, buffs and nerfs of these percentages are extremely common in ESO. It is generally better IMO to do them slower, but ZOS likes sweeping change for some reason.

Sometimes classes, skills, gear, etc. will need buffs, sometimes nerfs, that's just the reality of the game.

madmufffin wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

This is always such a level 1 engagement with anything. "less nerfs" There are plenty of things in ESO PvP worthy of nerfing. Power creep has come extremely far. Nerfs are not inherently bad and buffs are not inherently good but people keep echoing this sentiment as if they are.

Also, buffs and nerfs of these percentages are extremely common in ESO. It is generally better IMO to do them slower, but ZOS likes sweeping change for some reason.

Sometimes classes, skills, gear, etc. will need buffs, sometimes nerfs, that's just the reality of the game.

I mean everyone would enjoy everything being at DKs current power level in PVP more than everything being at Templar's current power level. Having everything be strong and viable allows for off meta builds to still be strong if at the cost of being not quite optimal. If every class has a 10 potential but you want to be a niche build at an 8, that still feels good to play. If you bring everything down to a 7 potential, then anything suboptimal is a 5, which just is just unfun to play. TTK, utility, etc should always be looked at from a maximum potential perspective as opposed to median. Just because x is as good as y but nothing is as good as it could be or once was, then it just feels like the opportunity cost is high at the onset.

Obviously the infinite sustain permablock DK we have now is an inherent issue on a different front since it's non-engaging for combat, but the general threat level of the class is what the goal should be.

s3dulo wrote: »

I keep saying it and they aren't listening.

Buff. The. Other. Classes.

Sorc was instantly competitive when the class masteries gave it all ther sustain it needed. DKs true OP source is Heart of Flame not whip. The other classes have to sacrifice sets or traits for sustain. Sorc and Dk are competitive against each other and are very fun to play. Instead of ruining that, just build more sustsain into the other classes and they will be instantly more competitive.

The nerfs are a joke because it doesn't create a need for these classes to sacrifice for sustain.

NovelliESO wrote: »

madmufffin wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

This is always such a level 1 engagement with anything. "less nerfs" There are plenty of things in ESO PvP worthy of nerfing. Power creep has come extremely far. Nerfs are not inherently bad and buffs are not inherently good but people keep echoing this sentiment as if they are.

Also, buffs and nerfs of these percentages are extremely common in ESO. It is generally better IMO to do them slower, but ZOS likes sweeping change for some reason.

Sometimes classes, skills, gear, etc. will need buffs, sometimes nerfs, that's just the reality of the game.

I mean everyone would enjoy everything being at DKs current power level in PVP more than everything being at Templar's current power level. Having everything be strong and viable allows for off meta builds to still be strong if at the cost of being not quite optimal. If every class has a 10 potential but you want to be a niche build at an 8, that still feels good to play. If you bring everything down to a 7 potential, then anything suboptimal is a 5, which just is just unfun to play. TTK, utility, etc should always be looked at from a maximum potential perspective as opposed to median. Just because x is as good as y but nothing is as good as it could be or once was, then it just feels like the opportunity cost is high at the onset.

Obviously the infinite sustain permablock DK we have now is an inherent issue on a different front since it's non-engaging for combat, but the general threat level of the class is what the goal should be.

This is just logically fallacious for multiple reasons. Power is relative, if everything is at templar's level or everything is at DK's level, everything is still at the same level which is healthier overall for PvP. There is no "strong" when they are all the same relative strength, that just doesn't make sense. There is no 10, 5, 7, whatever number you want to use. You can't make everything a 10 because you are only making that scale relative to everything else, if everything is a 10 nothing is a 10.

The only argument you can make is you want things to deal more damage and have people be less tanky so we aren't in a meta of people staying alive too long, like your TTK example, but that is a completely different line of argumentation than what you originally said.

madmufffin wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

madmufffin wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

This is always such a level 1 engagement with anything. "less nerfs" There are plenty of things in ESO PvP worthy of nerfing. Power creep has come extremely far. Nerfs are not inherently bad and buffs are not inherently good but people keep echoing this sentiment as if they are.

Also, buffs and nerfs of these percentages are extremely common in ESO. It is generally better IMO to do them slower, but ZOS likes sweeping change for some reason.

Sometimes classes, skills, gear, etc. will need buffs, sometimes nerfs, that's just the reality of the game.

I mean everyone would enjoy everything being at DKs current power level in PVP more than everything being at Templar's current power level. Having everything be strong and viable allows for off meta builds to still be strong if at the cost of being not quite optimal. If every class has a 10 potential but you want to be a niche build at an 8, that still feels good to play. If you bring everything down to a 7 potential, then anything suboptimal is a 5, which just is just unfun to play. TTK, utility, etc should always be looked at from a maximum potential perspective as opposed to median. Just because x is as good as y but nothing is as good as it could be or once was, then it just feels like the opportunity cost is high at the onset.

Obviously the infinite sustain permablock DK we have now is an inherent issue on a different front since it's non-engaging for combat, but the general threat level of the class is what the goal should be.

This is just logically fallacious for multiple reasons. Power is relative, if everything is at templar's level or everything is at DK's level, everything is still at the same level which is healthier overall for PvP. There is no "strong" when they are all the same relative strength, that just doesn't make sense. There is no 10, 5, 7, whatever number you want to use. You can't make everything a 10 because you are only making that scale relative to everything else, if everything is a 10 nothing is a 10.

The only argument you can make is you want things to deal more damage and have people be less tanky so we aren't in a meta of people staying alive too long, like your TTK example, but that is a completely different line of argumentation than what you originally said.

That's just not true. Being a 10 isn't relative to other classes. Being a 10 means you can do everything at a top end level. Good burst, good mobility, good defense, good sustain, etc. Every class should just have full parity of access to the various facets of the game at the highest level. Player skill should be a defining factor. Not an inherent imbalance of the game. Over the years of the games existence, we know what the ceiling of the various components look like. There should he an active effort to push things up close to the ceiling in all facets on all classes. Each class can have a small outlier that helps maintain a level of uniqueness like mobility in streak, shields on arc, etc.

madmufffin wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

madmufffin wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

madmufffin wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

This is always such a level 1 engagement with anything. "less nerfs" There are plenty of things in ESO PvP worthy of nerfing. Power creep has come extremely far. Nerfs are not inherently bad and buffs are not inherently good but people keep echoing this sentiment as if they are.

Also, buffs and nerfs of these percentages are extremely common in ESO. It is generally better IMO to do them slower, but ZOS likes sweeping change for some reason.

Sometimes classes, skills, gear, etc. will need buffs, sometimes nerfs, that's just the reality of the game.

I mean everyone would enjoy everything being at DKs current power level in PVP more than everything being at Templar's current power level. Having everything be strong and viable allows for off meta builds to still be strong if at the cost of being not quite optimal. If every class has a 10 potential but you want to be a niche build at an 8, that still feels good to play. If you bring everything down to a 7 potential, then anything suboptimal is a 5, which just is just unfun to play. TTK, utility, etc should always be looked at from a maximum potential perspective as opposed to median. Just because x is as good as y but nothing is as good as it could be or once was, then it just feels like the opportunity cost is high at the onset.

Obviously the infinite sustain permablock DK we have now is an inherent issue on a different front since it's non-engaging for combat, but the general threat level of the class is what the goal should be.

This is just logically fallacious for multiple reasons. Power is relative, if everything is at templar's level or everything is at DK's level, everything is still at the same level which is healthier overall for PvP. There is no "strong" when they are all the same relative strength, that just doesn't make sense. There is no 10, 5, 7, whatever number you want to use. You can't make everything a 10 because you are only making that scale relative to everything else, if everything is a 10 nothing is a 10.

The only argument you can make is you want things to deal more damage and have people be less tanky so we aren't in a meta of people staying alive too long, like your TTK example, but that is a completely different line of argumentation than what you originally said.

That's just not true. Being a 10 isn't relative to other classes. Being a 10 means you can do everything at a top end level. Good burst, good mobility, good defense, good sustain, etc. Every class should just have full parity of access to the various facets of the game at the highest level. Player skill should be a defining factor. Not an inherent imbalance of the game. Over the years of the games existence, we know what the ceiling of the various components look like. There should he an active effort to push things up close to the ceiling in all facets on all classes. Each class can have a small outlier that helps maintain a level of uniqueness like mobility in streak, shields on arc, etc.

Again, this just doesn't hold up. How do you have everything do all of these things relative to each other? How is every class good at defense and offence? Being good at offense would mean being able to perform good relative to other classes defense, but how then does every class also at the same time have good defense if there are other classes with their offense performing good relative to it? It 's just paradoxical and doesn't logically hold up.

You should have the toolkit to do it. Ultimately everything is limited by bar space, sets, and resources. You should be able to take a class every which way at the highest level while still meeting in the middle at a respectable level. Right now DK does literally everything at a peak level while no one else does. That is the fundamental issue with the class in that it can peak on every facet with no sacrifice.

NovelliESO wrote: »

Wuuffyy wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

s3dulo wrote: »

I keep saying it and they aren't listening.

Buff. The. Other. Classes.

Sorc was instantly competitive when the class masteries gave it all ther sustain it needed. DKs true OP source is Heart of Flame not whip. The other classes have to sacrifice sets or traits for sustain. Sorc and Dk are competitive against each other and are very fun to play. Instead of ruining that, just build more sustsain into the other classes and they will be instantly more competitive.

The nerfs are a joke because it doesn't create a need for these classes to sacrifice for sustain.

Again, this is the same level 1 engaging with everything. If there are 200 skills, 195 are balanced and 5 are too strong, you don't buff the other 195 skills, that takes way too much in terms of dev resources, you simply nerf the 5 skills that are overperforming. Regardless of if that is the case or not, that is what the devs see at the moment and nerfing those skills is more efficient than buffing every single other skill or kit in the game.

Also, the whip thing has been beaten to death and I still haven't seen a single good faith interpretation of how it wasn't strong pre PTS nerfs.

Honestly sounds like lazy balancing to me. Especially when the 195 (let's put this in the frame of 'sets') contains things like-



This will always be the last choice. It isn't fun, it isn't interesting, it isn't powerful.

You could hammer down those 5, and then the 5 that replace them, and then the 5 to replace those and it will never bring ^^^ that up to a point where it's fun AND viable without targeted adjustments (buffs) to that thing.

With that being said, CoE and CoF are still LEAGUES above everything else and we either give everyone 'infinite sustain' or those two can't have it; streak is legitimately FAR too overloaded and has been for a long time. The CC needs to be affected WAY before the rework for sorc comes.

If they were to give sorc power in any way, it'd be a PROBLEM (it already is) if it retained streak in the current capacity.

Well this is a set and not a skill, but regardless I agree CoF and CoE are still strong relative to everything else, but the person who created this post to begin with complained about large sweeping changes, to make them even bigger would incur huge outrage. I have always said slower less sweeping changes are better, and realistically everything will be buffed up slowly to a level of an even playing field, the issue is that it is 100% going to be contingent upon class reworks. With this being the case, as classes get reworked, rather than buffing everything else, they should just nerf those changes that are overperforming way too much.

For instance, right now necro, nb, and templar are probably the 3 classes that need the rework the most(also arc if you are talking purely PvP), but if you buffed literally all of them to be in line with DK and Sorc, by the time the "rework" came around what would you even do? I think the rework system is a little odd but it is what they've chosen, and it wouldn't make sense to waste a bunch of time buffing stuff to all be in line, to then rework it, to then nerf it again after. We should be taking the reworks we get, however slow, and then balancing them as they come out. The issue is they take forever to make meaningful balance changes. DK overperformed for too long.

As far as set balance, they have powercrept a ton of sets to a degree that isn't comparable to what goes on with skills. Every few patches skills will get adjusted, you can go through the last year, two years, three years, etc. and see every single class is getting some sort of adjustments to their skills in some way. If you try to do that for sets it's a completely different reality. When was the last time hundings was touched? There are sets that just beat it in every single scenario. They like change for the sake of change, and they rarely try to balance the sets relative to older ones, or older ones relative to new ones, but balancing classes relative to others is more important to begin with IMO.

madmufffin wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

madmufffin wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

madmufffin wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

madmufffin wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

This is always such a level 1 engagement with anything. "less nerfs" There are plenty of things in ESO PvP worthy of nerfing. Power creep has come extremely far. Nerfs are not inherently bad and buffs are not inherently good but people keep echoing this sentiment as if they are.

Also, buffs and nerfs of these percentages are extremely common in ESO. It is generally better IMO to do them slower, but ZOS likes sweeping change for some reason.

Sometimes classes, skills, gear, etc. will need buffs, sometimes nerfs, that's just the reality of the game.

I mean everyone would enjoy everything being at DKs current power level in PVP more than everything being at Templar's current power level. Having everything be strong and viable allows for off meta builds to still be strong if at the cost of being not quite optimal. If every class has a 10 potential but you want to be a niche build at an 8, that still feels good to play. If you bring everything down to a 7 potential, then anything suboptimal is a 5, which just is just unfun to play. TTK, utility, etc should always be looked at from a maximum potential perspective as opposed to median. Just because x is as good as y but nothing is as good as it could be or once was, then it just feels like the opportunity cost is high at the onset.

Obviously the infinite sustain permablock DK we have now is an inherent issue on a different front since it's non-engaging for combat, but the general threat level of the class is what the goal should be.

This is just logically fallacious for multiple reasons. Power is relative, if everything is at templar's level or everything is at DK's level, everything is still at the same level which is healthier overall for PvP. There is no "strong" when they are all the same relative strength, that just doesn't make sense. There is no 10, 5, 7, whatever number you want to use. You can't make everything a 10 because you are only making that scale relative to everything else, if everything is a 10 nothing is a 10.

The only argument you can make is you want things to deal more damage and have people be less tanky so we aren't in a meta of people staying alive too long, like your TTK example, but that is a completely different line of argumentation than what you originally said.

That's just not true. Being a 10 isn't relative to other classes. Being a 10 means you can do everything at a top end level. Good burst, good mobility, good defense, good sustain, etc. Every class should just have full parity of access to the various facets of the game at the highest level. Player skill should be a defining factor. Not an inherent imbalance of the game. Over the years of the games existence, we know what the ceiling of the various components look like. There should he an active effort to push things up close to the ceiling in all facets on all classes. Each class can have a small outlier that helps maintain a level of uniqueness like mobility in streak, shields on arc, etc.

Again, this just doesn't hold up. How do you have everything do all of these things relative to each other? How is every class good at defense and offence? Being good at offense would mean being able to perform good relative to other classes defense, but how then does every class also at the same time have good defense if there are other classes with their offense performing good relative to it? It 's just paradoxical and doesn't logically hold up.

You should have the toolkit to do it. Ultimately everything is limited by bar space, sets, and resources. You should be able to take a class every which way at the highest level while still meeting in the middle at a respectable level. Right now DK does literally everything at a peak level while no one else does. That is the fundamental issue with the class in that it can peak on every facet with no sacrifice.

I agree, but that's why DK needed to be nerfed, it was an outlier in the fact that it did everything too strong, which I myself have stated. But again, nerfing DK was a faster more logical step than finding a relatively balanced way to buff literally everything else that wasn't up to par. They don't know how to make changes like that in such a broad fashion and end up hitting the nail on the head with them all. It would cause a bunch of issues, and at the same time it costs them more resources, and we know they don't have much to spare right now with what has happened.

I'm not saying never to nerf things. Monstrous outliers need to be addressed in the moment with the intention of bringing parity. The issue is the parity follow up never comes. They nerf DK and Sorc, but they'll never buff the other classes to bring them up to the everyone being a 7 stage so that there can eventually be a push to make everything a 10. DK got a refresh, got pushed to being very strong in PVE and PVP and then gets hammered back down to the pack. Then Warden will get the same treatment, and Sorc, and Templar, etc. There's just ups and downs of single classes based off of flavor of the month combat changes. Every time it's at the detriment of pretty much every other class just being awful. Imo it's a very bad and unhealthy approach to the game.

NovelliESO wrote: »

madmufffin wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

madmufffin wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

madmufffin wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

madmufffin wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

This is always such a level 1 engagement with anything. "less nerfs" There are plenty of things in ESO PvP worthy of nerfing. Power creep has come extremely far. Nerfs are not inherently bad and buffs are not inherently good but people keep echoing this sentiment as if they are.

Also, buffs and nerfs of these percentages are extremely common in ESO. It is generally better IMO to do them slower, but ZOS likes sweeping change for some reason.

Sometimes classes, skills, gear, etc. will need buffs, sometimes nerfs, that's just the reality of the game.

I mean everyone would enjoy everything being at DKs current power level in PVP more than everything being at Templar's current power level. Having everything be strong and viable allows for off meta builds to still be strong if at the cost of being not quite optimal. If every class has a 10 potential but you want to be a niche build at an 8, that still feels good to play. If you bring everything down to a 7 potential, then anything suboptimal is a 5, which just is just unfun to play. TTK, utility, etc should always be looked at from a maximum potential perspective as opposed to median. Just because x is as good as y but nothing is as good as it could be or once was, then it just feels like the opportunity cost is high at the onset.

Obviously the infinite sustain permablock DK we have now is an inherent issue on a different front since it's non-engaging for combat, but the general threat level of the class is what the goal should be.

This is just logically fallacious for multiple reasons. Power is relative, if everything is at templar's level or everything is at DK's level, everything is still at the same level which is healthier overall for PvP. There is no "strong" when they are all the same relative strength, that just doesn't make sense. There is no 10, 5, 7, whatever number you want to use. You can't make everything a 10 because you are only making that scale relative to everything else, if everything is a 10 nothing is a 10.

The only argument you can make is you want things to deal more damage and have people be less tanky so we aren't in a meta of people staying alive too long, like your TTK example, but that is a completely different line of argumentation than what you originally said.

That's just not true. Being a 10 isn't relative to other classes. Being a 10 means you can do everything at a top end level. Good burst, good mobility, good defense, good sustain, etc. Every class should just have full parity of access to the various facets of the game at the highest level. Player skill should be a defining factor. Not an inherent imbalance of the game. Over the years of the games existence, we know what the ceiling of the various components look like. There should he an active effort to push things up close to the ceiling in all facets on all classes. Each class can have a small outlier that helps maintain a level of uniqueness like mobility in streak, shields on arc, etc.

Again, this just doesn't hold up. How do you have everything do all of these things relative to each other? How is every class good at defense and offence? Being good at offense would mean being able to perform good relative to other classes defense, but how then does every class also at the same time have good defense if there are other classes with their offense performing good relative to it? It 's just paradoxical and doesn't logically hold up.

You should have the toolkit to do it. Ultimately everything is limited by bar space, sets, and resources. You should be able to take a class every which way at the highest level while still meeting in the middle at a respectable level. Right now DK does literally everything at a peak level while no one else does. That is the fundamental issue with the class in that it can peak on every facet with no sacrifice.

I agree, but that's why DK needed to be nerfed, it was an outlier in the fact that it did everything too strong, which I myself have stated. But again, nerfing DK was a faster more logical step than finding a relatively balanced way to buff literally everything else that wasn't up to par. They don't know how to make changes like that in such a broad fashion and end up hitting the nail on the head with them all. It would cause a bunch of issues, and at the same time it costs them more resources, and we know they don't have much to spare right now with what has happened.

I'm not saying never to nerf things. Monstrous outliers need to be addressed in the moment with the intention of bringing parity. The issue is the parity follow up never comes. They nerf DK and Sorc, but they'll never buff the other classes to bring them up to the everyone being a 7 stage so that there can eventually be a push to make everything a 10. DK got a refresh, got pushed to being very strong in PVE and PVP and then gets hammered back down to the pack. Then Warden will get the same treatment, and Sorc, and Templar, etc. There's just ups and downs of single classes based off of flavor of the month combat changes. Every time it's at the detriment of pretty much every other class just being awful. Imo it's a very bad and unhealthy approach to the game.

I don't quite understand this message. You say they'll never buff the classes to bring them up to everyone being a stage 7. Again this whole stage 10 thing doesn't make sense, it is all relative to each other, but even if I follow your logic, they are all getting a refresh. DK is, or at the very least should be strong right now because of the refresh it got. Before someone misunderstand I'm not saying it should be strong, I am saying if it is, that should be the rationale they give. With that being the case, the other classes that get reworked should also come up to that power level, the issue is they are just taking forever to do it. So, when you say they won't be brought up to 7, I don't understand because you also in the next vein say they will all get this treatment. I think the big misunderstanding it your conflation of thinking DK is now hammered back down.

DK was massively overperforming as far as PvP was concerned. With the nerfs, as someone else mention, CoF is still absurdly strong, I have seen multiple threads and people calling for additional nerfs to it, understandably so. Regardless of what people think, whip is still great, DK also has wings which is pretty overloaded, CoF, and plenty of other skills and ults in its kit. So, as far as it being hammered down, sure it got nerfed, but it still performs as an outlier, just not something so far above the others that it's screaming for nerfs.

NovelliESO wrote: »

madmufffin wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

madmufffin wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

madmufffin wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

madmufffin wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

madmufffin wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

This is always such a level 1 engagement with anything. "less nerfs" There are plenty of things in ESO PvP worthy of nerfing. Power creep has come extremely far. Nerfs are not inherently bad and buffs are not inherently good but people keep echoing this sentiment as if they are.

Also, buffs and nerfs of these percentages are extremely common in ESO. It is generally better IMO to do them slower, but ZOS likes sweeping change for some reason.

Sometimes classes, skills, gear, etc. will need buffs, sometimes nerfs, that's just the reality of the game.

I mean everyone would enjoy everything being at DKs current power level in PVP more than everything being at Templar's current power level. Having everything be strong and viable allows for off meta builds to still be strong if at the cost of being not quite optimal. If every class has a 10 potential but you want to be a niche build at an 8, that still feels good to play. If you bring everything down to a 7 potential, then anything suboptimal is a 5, which just is just unfun to play. TTK, utility, etc should always be looked at from a maximum potential perspective as opposed to median. Just because x is as good as y but nothing is as good as it could be or once was, then it just feels like the opportunity cost is high at the onset.

Obviously the infinite sustain permablock DK we have now is an inherent issue on a different front since it's non-engaging for combat, but the general threat level of the class is what the goal should be.

This is just logically fallacious for multiple reasons. Power is relative, if everything is at templar's level or everything is at DK's level, everything is still at the same level which is healthier overall for PvP. There is no "strong" when they are all the same relative strength, that just doesn't make sense. There is no 10, 5, 7, whatever number you want to use. You can't make everything a 10 because you are only making that scale relative to everything else, if everything is a 10 nothing is a 10.

The only argument you can make is you want things to deal more damage and have people be less tanky so we aren't in a meta of people staying alive too long, like your TTK example, but that is a completely different line of argumentation than what you originally said.

That's just not true. Being a 10 isn't relative to other classes. Being a 10 means you can do everything at a top end level. Good burst, good mobility, good defense, good sustain, etc. Every class should just have full parity of access to the various facets of the game at the highest level. Player skill should be a defining factor. Not an inherent imbalance of the game. Over the years of the games existence, we know what the ceiling of the various components look like. There should he an active effort to push things up close to the ceiling in all facets on all classes. Each class can have a small outlier that helps maintain a level of uniqueness like mobility in streak, shields on arc, etc.

Again, this just doesn't hold up. How do you have everything do all of these things relative to each other? How is every class good at defense and offence? Being good at offense would mean being able to perform good relative to other classes defense, but how then does every class also at the same time have good defense if there are other classes with their offense performing good relative to it? It 's just paradoxical and doesn't logically hold up.

You should have the toolkit to do it. Ultimately everything is limited by bar space, sets, and resources. You should be able to take a class every which way at the highest level while still meeting in the middle at a respectable level. Right now DK does literally everything at a peak level while no one else does. That is the fundamental issue with the class in that it can peak on every facet with no sacrifice.

I agree, but that's why DK needed to be nerfed, it was an outlier in the fact that it did everything too strong, which I myself have stated. But again, nerfing DK was a faster more logical step than finding a relatively balanced way to buff literally everything else that wasn't up to par. They don't know how to make changes like that in such a broad fashion and end up hitting the nail on the head with them all. It would cause a bunch of issues, and at the same time it costs them more resources, and we know they don't have much to spare right now with what has happened.

I'm not saying never to nerf things. Monstrous outliers need to be addressed in the moment with the intention of bringing parity. The issue is the parity follow up never comes. They nerf DK and Sorc, but they'll never buff the other classes to bring them up to the everyone being a 7 stage so that there can eventually be a push to make everything a 10. DK got a refresh, got pushed to being very strong in PVE and PVP and then gets hammered back down to the pack. Then Warden will get the same treatment, and Sorc, and Templar, etc. There's just ups and downs of single classes based off of flavor of the month combat changes. Every time it's at the detriment of pretty much every other class just being awful. Imo it's a very bad and unhealthy approach to the game.

I don't quite understand this message. You say they'll never buff the classes to bring them up to everyone being a stage 7. Again this whole stage 10 thing doesn't make sense, it is all relative to each other, but even if I follow your logic, they are all getting a refresh. DK is, or at the very least should be strong right now because of the refresh it got. Before someone misunderstand I'm not saying it should be strong, I am saying if it is, that should be the rationale they give. With that being the case, the other classes that get reworked should also come up to that power level, the issue is they are just taking forever to do it. So, when you say they won't be brought up to 7, I don't understand because you also in the next vein say they will all get this treatment. I think the big misunderstanding it your conflation of thinking DK is now hammered back down.

DK was massively overperforming as far as PvP was concerned. With the nerfs, as someone else mention, CoF is still absurdly strong, I have seen multiple threads and people calling for additional nerfs to it, understandably so. Regardless of what people think, whip is still great, DK also has wings which is pretty overloaded, CoF, and plenty of other skills and ults in its kit. So, as far as it being hammered down, sure it got nerfed, but it still performs as an outlier, just not something so far above the others that it's screaming for nerfs.

A class refresh should be to refresh the class in terms of playstyle, effects, etc. It shouldn't be to make it king of the hill. DK is the reverse NB atm, so balance is kind of hard. It is dominant in PVP and bottom tier in PVE, so I get the balancing of it being slow and iterative. My main issue is the lack of floor raising elsewhere. Arc is bad in PVE and PVP, which means tooltip juicing is a pretty safe approach to bring it up in both game modes. NB has been in the basement since they messed with shadowy, so the easiest solution to help it in PVP is to revert those changes or give it some unique aspects of sustain/mobility to compensate the loss of power there so that it moves up in PVP but doesn't get more out of control in PVE. Necro is a hard one because a lot of issues are around the jankiness of blastbones, but I'm sure something could be tried to help it be more than a block tank meme. Templar and Warden just need sustain love to move up in both game modes (and give arctic blast it's heal back but at like 50% if it hits an enemy). Those are just super obvious long standing issues for the classes, which aren't even being discussed, mentioned, or tried. It's always just nerf one class but not buff anything else.

Yes, balance is hard, especially when you are trying to appease so many people who all have differing opinions. All the people saying you can do minor tweaks don't understand that a large portion of them would probably draw disagreement, and the devs themselves took over 6 months to make MINOR tweaks to the things that were obviously overperforming. With that being the case, how long do you think it would take them to make minor tweaks to 5x as many abilities?

The class refreshes they are doing, are going to address the exact problems people here are complaining about, they just live under the guise that it can be done quickly, which I think, it SHOULD be, but for whatever reason they are extremely slow. That is just the reality of it, and if they are so slow in doing it, if they were so slow in changing CoF from 15% to 12%, an extremely monotonous change, why does anyone believe they will be quick in tweaking so many other skills?

NovelliESO wrote: »

madmufffin wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

madmufffin wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

madmufffin wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

madmufffin wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

madmufffin wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

madmufffin wrote: »

NovelliESO wrote: »

This is always such a level 1 engagement with anything. "less nerfs" There are plenty of things in ESO PvP worthy of nerfing. Power creep has come extremely far. Nerfs are not inherently bad and buffs are not inherently good but people keep echoing this sentiment as if they are.

Also, buffs and nerfs of these percentages are extremely common in ESO. It is generally better IMO to do them slower, but ZOS likes sweeping change for some reason.

Sometimes classes, skills, gear, etc. will need buffs, sometimes nerfs, that's just the reality of the game.

I mean everyone would enjoy everything being at DKs current power level in PVP more than everything being at Templar's current power level. Having everything be strong and viable allows for off meta builds to still be strong if at the cost of being not quite optimal. If every class has a 10 potential but you want to be a niche build at an 8, that still feels good to play. If you bring everything down to a 7 potential, then anything suboptimal is a 5, which just is just unfun to play. TTK, utility, etc should always be looked at from a maximum potential perspective as opposed to median. Just because x is as good as y but nothing is as good as it could be or once was, then it just feels like the opportunity cost is high at the onset.

Obviously the infinite sustain permablock DK we have now is an inherent issue on a different front since it's non-engaging for combat, but the general threat level of the class is what the goal should be.

This is just logically fallacious for multiple reasons. Power is relative, if everything is at templar's level or everything is at DK's level, everything is still at the same level which is healthier overall for PvP. There is no "strong" when they are all the same relative strength, that just doesn't make sense. There is no 10, 5, 7, whatever number you want to use. You can't make everything a 10 because you are only making that scale relative to everything else, if everything is a 10 nothing is a 10.

The only argument you can make is you want things to deal more damage and have people be less tanky so we aren't in a meta of people staying alive too long, like your TTK example, but that is a completely different line of argumentation than what you originally said.

That's just not true. Being a 10 isn't relative to other classes. Being a 10 means you can do everything at a top end level. Good burst, good mobility, good defense, good sustain, etc. Every class should just have full parity of access to the various facets of the game at the highest level. Player skill should be a defining factor. Not an inherent imbalance of the game. Over the years of the games existence, we know what the ceiling of the various components look like. There should he an active effort to push things up close to the ceiling in all facets on all classes. Each class can have a small outlier that helps maintain a level of uniqueness like mobility in streak, shields on arc, etc.

Again, this just doesn't hold up. How do you have everything do all of these things relative to each other? How is every class good at defense and offence? Being good at offense would mean being able to perform good relative to other classes defense, but how then does every class also at the same time have good defense if there are other classes with their offense performing good relative to it? It 's just paradoxical and doesn't logically hold up.

You should have the toolkit to do it. Ultimately everything is limited by bar space, sets, and resources. You should be able to take a class every which way at the highest level while still meeting in the middle at a respectable level. Right now DK does literally everything at a peak level while no one else does. That is the fundamental issue with the class in that it can peak on every facet with no sacrifice.

I agree, but that's why DK needed to be nerfed, it was an outlier in the fact that it did everything too strong, which I myself have stated. But again, nerfing DK was a faster more logical step than finding a relatively balanced way to buff literally everything else that wasn't up to par. They don't know how to make changes like that in such a broad fashion and end up hitting the nail on the head with them all. It would cause a bunch of issues, and at the same time it costs them more resources, and we know they don't have much to spare right now with what has happened.

I'm not saying never to nerf things. Monstrous outliers need to be addressed in the moment with the intention of bringing parity. The issue is the parity follow up never comes. They nerf DK and Sorc, but they'll never buff the other classes to bring them up to the everyone being a 7 stage so that there can eventually be a push to make everything a 10. DK got a refresh, got pushed to being very strong in PVE and PVP and then gets hammered back down to the pack. Then Warden will get the same treatment, and Sorc, and Templar, etc. There's just ups and downs of single classes based off of flavor of the month combat changes. Every time it's at the detriment of pretty much every other class just being awful. Imo it's a very bad and unhealthy approach to the game.

I don't quite understand this message. You say they'll never buff the classes to bring them up to everyone being a stage 7. Again this whole stage 10 thing doesn't make sense, it is all relative to each other, but even if I follow your logic, they are all getting a refresh. DK is, or at the very least should be strong right now because of the refresh it got. Before someone misunderstand I'm not saying it should be strong, I am saying if it is, that should be the rationale they give. With that being the case, the other classes that get reworked should also come up to that power level, the issue is they are just taking forever to do it. So, when you say they won't be brought up to 7, I don't understand because you also in the next vein say they will all get this treatment. I think the big misunderstanding it your conflation of thinking DK is now hammered back down.

DK was massively overperforming as far as PvP was concerned. With the nerfs, as someone else mention, CoF is still absurdly strong, I have seen multiple threads and people calling for additional nerfs to it, understandably so. Regardless of what people think, whip is still great, DK also has wings which is pretty overloaded, CoF, and plenty of other skills and ults in its kit. So, as far as it being hammered down, sure it got nerfed, but it still performs as an outlier, just not something so far above the others that it's screaming for nerfs.

A class refresh should be to refresh the class in terms of playstyle, effects, etc. It shouldn't be to make it king of the hill. DK is the reverse NB atm, so balance is kind of hard. It is dominant in PVP and bottom tier in PVE, so I get the balancing of it being slow and iterative. My main issue is the lack of floor raising elsewhere. Arc is bad in PVE and PVP, which means tooltip juicing is a pretty safe approach to bring it up in both game modes. NB has been in the basement since they messed with shadowy, so the easiest solution to help it in PVP is to revert those changes or give it some unique aspects of sustain/mobility to compensate the loss of power there so that it moves up in PVP but doesn't get more out of control in PVE. Necro is a hard one because a lot of issues are around the jankiness of blastbones, but I'm sure something could be tried to help it be more than a block tank meme. Templar and Warden just need sustain love to move up in both game modes (and give arctic blast it's heal back but at like 50% if it hits an enemy). Those are just super obvious long standing issues for the classes, which aren't even being discussed, mentioned, or tried. It's always just nerf one class but not buff anything else.

Yes, balance is hard, especially when you are trying to appease so many people who all have differing opinions. All the people saying you can do minor tweaks don't understand that a large portion of them would probably draw disagreement, and the devs themselves took over 6 months to make MINOR tweaks to the things that were obviously overperforming. With that being the case, how long do you think it would take them to make minor tweaks to 5x as many abilities?

The class refreshes they are doing, are going to address the exact problems people here are complaining about, they just live under the guise that it can be done quickly, which I think, it SHOULD be, but for whatever reason they are extremely slow. That is just the reality of it, and if they are so slow in doing it, if they were so slow in changing CoF from 15% to 12%, an extremely monotonous change, why does anyone believe they will be quick in tweaking so many other skills?

That's literally what patches are for. Try a bunch of changes, get data from performance, and then adjust up or down. Doing nothing but changing monstrous outliers by 20% every 2 months is a horrific and lazy approach. We've all played the game. We've seen how disgustingly out of control DK has been the whole patch. Obviously they aren't bothered by letting something stupidly broken hit live. They even removed Signet from PVP outright a week after the patch went live. There's clearly an ability to adjust anything too far out of their allotted margins. Try a bunch of changes and if something ends up broken, then you adjust next patch, or immediately if absolutely necessary. Sitting on your hands and saying "we'll refresh that class in 2 years" instead of fixing obvious pain points is an awful stance and trying to justify it is just dumb.

Yeah you are causing more problems with this, "TRY" a bunch of changes, yes and then end up upsetting the entire population. You aren't even engaging with what I said in the last message. If it took them over 6 months to change CoF from 15 to 12% which is such an easy, small change, why do you live under this impression that post layoffs they can do so much more so quickly? Even if you believe they should be able to, which I do as well, why do you then they think aren't doing it? They have obvious reservations with it, and they are doing class refreshes which will eventually address the issues you have. Until then, the more logical thing to do is nerf the smaller set of skill that overperform rather than make a bunch of changes.