Dear ESO, please don't change critical surge!

Shunravi

Gyudan wrote: »

Questions:
- Should sorcerers get a great boost to spellcrafting when it's released?
- Where are the destro/resto saves in the previous ES games?
- How would you describe the current effectiveness of summons in the game?

1. Imo, power stone, capacitor, and unholy knowledge will give sorcs an edge in spellcrafting.
2. http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Staves
3. Poor

Kyotee0071

NordJitsu wrote: »

There are only for classes in this game guys. It's pretty clear they were trying to make one for each archetype. The Sorc is the caster.

Your convoluted logic trying to say that isn't so doesn't fly.

And let's not forget that many of these Devs are from DAoC. The existence of the Dragon Knight class ought to show you that they are not going for TES purity in the classes.

No clue why this received a LOL. Post is spot on and I agree.

Shunravi wrote: »

Please explain to me exactly how, other that the name, a sorc is designed to be a caster. Especially compared to the other classes.

This has nothing to do with class purity. It has everything to do with what they are basing the design around.

So, please explain your logic that says sorc is designed as a caster class, and I will explain mine.

And I assume you are one of those people who thinks that nightblades are an exclusively stealth class. Well, I've got news for you buddy.

So, if sorcerer isn't supposed to fill the role of a bursty robe wearing, staff wielding pure caster that covers a more traditional wizard role in gaming - what other class out of the 3 would you suggest cover that role?

Yes all classes here can put on a robe and staff and cast spells, but none of them actually feel like a wizard / mage like the sorcerer actually does.

Your logic is flawed.

NordJitsu wrote: »

Let's see... They're the class that has Crystal Shards, Daedric curse, MAGE'S Fury, Lightning Pool, and skill that exchanges stamina for magicka.

They're class description says:

Sorcerers summon and control weather phenomenon: hurling lightning bolts and creating electrified fields, summoning tornadoes and impenetrable fog, and calling upon Daedric forces to summon Storm Atronachs and magical armor.

And then yes, there's the name. Because a developer would have to be truly idiotic to make a class named Sorcerer and NOT make it a viable caster. Especially when there are only 4 classes to choose from and none of the other fit this archetype at all.

Does that mean you have to be a caster? Of course not. It's an open class system.

But each class has a natural bias or tradition. NB is the rogue. DK is the tanky warrior. Templar is the healer paladin. It's classic fantasy stuff. Nothing confusing going on.

You can defy those archetypes, because freedom, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Edit: let's not forget that in addition to the name and the description, the default armor on the character select screen is Light Armor robes for this class. ZOS is clearly sending a certain message to new players that you somehow missed.

Again, Spot on.

I just don't see how people are bringing up classes from older Elder Scrolls games to compare to here.

Where's my Acrobat class? Agent? Pilgrim? Monk? Witch hunter?

Where's my luck, personality, or speed stat?

Please don't bring up older games when trying to discuss classes. This one is very different.

Since folks seem to like to bring up older TES classes when discussing things let me ask you which of the 4 available classes do you think is more catered to the default class of "MAGE" from Oblivion?



My pick would 100 % be the class named "SORCERER" in this game.

Shunravi

Kyotee0071 wrote: »

NordJitsu wrote: »

There are only for classes in this game guys. It's pretty clear they were trying to make one for each archetype. The Sorc is the caster.

Your convoluted logic trying to say that isn't so doesn't fly.

And let's not forget that many of these Devs are from DAoC. The existence of the Dragon Knight class ought to show you that they are not going for TES purity in the classes.

No clue why this received a LOL. Post is spot on and I agree.

Shunravi wrote: »

Please explain to me exactly how, other that the name, a sorc is designed to be a caster. Especially compared to the other classes.

This has nothing to do with class purity. It has everything to do with what they are basing the design around.

So, please explain your logic that says sorc is designed as a caster class, and I will explain mine.

And I assume you are one of those people who thinks that nightblades are an exclusively stealth class. Well, I've got news for you buddy.

So, if sorcerer isn't supposed to fill the role of a bursty robe wearing, staff wielding pure caster that covers a more traditional wizard role in gaming - what other class out of the 3 would you suggest cover that role?

Yes all classes here can put on a robe and staff and cast spells, but none of them actually feel like a wizard / mage like the sorcerer actually does.

Your logic is flawed.

NordJitsu wrote: »

Let's see... They're the class that has Crystal Shards, Daedric curse, MAGE'S Fury, Lightning Pool, and skill that exchanges stamina for magicka.

They're class description says:

Sorcerers summon and control weather phenomenon: hurling lightning bolts and creating electrified fields, summoning tornadoes and impenetrable fog, and calling upon Daedric forces to summon Storm Atronachs and magical armor.

And then yes, there's the name. Because a developer would have to be truly idiotic to make a class named Sorcerer and NOT make it a viable caster. Especially when there are only 4 classes to choose from and none of the other fit this archetype at all.

Does that mean you have to be a caster? Of course not. It's an open class system.

But each class has a natural bias or tradition. NB is the rogue. DK is the tanky warrior. Templar is the healer paladin. It's classic fantasy stuff. Nothing confusing going on.

You can defy those archetypes, because freedom, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Edit: let's not forget that in addition to the name and the description, the default armor on the character select screen is Light Armor robes for this class. ZOS is clearly sending a certain message to new players that you somehow missed.

Again, Spot on.

I just don't see how people are bringing up classes from older Elder Scrolls games to compare to here.

Where's my Acrobat class? Agent? Pilgrim? Monk? Witch hunter?

Where's my luck, personality, or speed stat?

Please don't bring up older games when trying to discuss classes. This one is very different.

Since folks seem to like to bring up older TES classes when discussing things let me ask you which of the 4 available classes do you think is more catered to the default class of "MAGE" from Oblivion?



My pick would 100 % be the class named "SORCERER" in this game.

Did you read my response to him?

But in response to you, I have no care or claim to being right. It really doesn't matter to me. If the sorcerer class feels more like a mage type to you, that's fine. It just doesn't feel that way to me. I go into more detail in the response above. My original post that started all this was simply stating that ZOS seemed to be basing its sorc design after the TES sorc. Hence, I linked the morrowind description to clarify.

And how exactly is my logic flawed? Can you give me an actual breakdown of why you think the sorcerer feels like more of a bursty caster mage? I can say that my nightblade feels like a bursty caster mage far more than my sorc, but that is subjective. Please extrapolate your argument, because it's more name calling than actual debate.

Your logic is flawed.

If you actually read my counter argument, you will see that I really don't care about the classes in previous games. Or what their names are in ESO. My only statement on the matter should have been that it seemed ZOS was basing and tweaking (if you saw ESO live you would have seen where they talked about sorcs) the design of the sorc class to be in line with the concept of the TES sorc.

But if you want to argue where this guy fits in.

My pick would be 25% DK, 25% NB, 25% Sorc, 25% temp. Because magic is spread out between the classes.

This is an open class system. No one class is designed to be the 'caster' class (my successful attempt to start an argument notwithstanding)

Your logic is flawed.

NordJitsu

Shunravi wrote: »

NordJitsu wrote: »

Shunravi wrote: »

NordJitsu wrote: »

There are only for classes in this game guys. It's pretty clear they were trying to make one for each archetype. The Sorc is the caster.

Your convoluted logic trying to say that isn't so doesn't fly.

And let's not forget that many of these Devs are from DAoC. The existence of the Dragon Knight class ought to show you that they are not going for TES purity in the classes.

Please explain to me exactly how, other that the name, a sorc is designed to be a caster. Especially compared to the other classes.

This has nothing to do with class purity. It has everything to do with what they are basing the design around.

So, please explain your logic that says sorc is designed as a caster class, and I will explain mine.

And I assume you are one of those people who thinks that nightblades are an exclusively stealth class. Well, I've got news for you buddy.

Let's see... They're the class that has Crystal Shards, Daedric curse, MAGE'S Fury, Lightning Pool, and skill that exchanges stamina for magicka.

They're class description says:

Sorcerers summon and control weather phenomenon: hurling lightning bolts and creating electrified fields, summoning tornadoes and impenetrable fog, and calling upon Daedric forces to summon Storm Atronachs and magical armor.

And then yes, there's the name. Because a developer would have to be truly idiotic to make a class named Sorcerer and NOT make it a viable caster. Especially when there are only 4 classes to choose from and none of the other fit this archetype at all.

Does that mean you have to be a caster? Of course not. It's an open class system.

But each class has a natural bias or tradition. NB is the rogue. DK is the tanky warrior. Templar is the healer paladin. It's classic fantasy stuff. Nothing confusing going on.

You can defy those archetypes, because freedom, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Edit: let's not forget that in addition to the name and the description, the default armor on the character select screen is Light Armor robes for this class. ZOS is clearly sending a certain message to new players that you somehow missed.

Alright, good points. And my post was more reactionary to yours than it should have been. I'm not saying sorcs should not be casters, I'm challenging your assesment that they are the 'caster class.' And I did structure my previous comments to get a rise and spark a heated discussion...

First argument;

Now, pretty much everything you listed has do do with names and descriptions, not actual designs and mechanics. Fine and all, but it doesn't actually say much about the design. Of course, my original argument was essentially the same. So

The current sorcerer description reads; 'Sorcerers can use conjuration and destruction spells to hurl lightning bolts and create shock fields, weild dark magic to snare and stun, and summon Daedric combat followers from Oblivion to assist them.'

So not to much different from yours. Maybe more specific, but moving on.

Lets look at the TES precedent that I am referencing and claiming they are basing the class off of. And specifically the points highlighted in the descriptions.

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Morrowind:Classes#Sorcerer wrote:

Sorcerer

In-game Description: Though spellcasters by vocation, sorcerers rely most on summonings and enchantments. They are greedy for magic scrolls, rings, armor and weapons, and commanding undead and Daedric servants gratifies their egos.

Specialization: Magic
Attributes: Intelligence, Endurance

Major Skills:

Enchant
Conjuration
Mysticism
Destruction
Alteration



Minor Skills:
Illusion
Medium Armor
Heavy Armor
Marksman
Short Blade

Spells:

Shield(Shield 5pts for 30sec on self)
Water Walking (Water Walking for 60sec on self)
Bound Dagger (Bound Dagger for 60 sec on self)
Summon Ancestral Ghost (Summon Ancestral Ghost for 60sec on self)
Fire Bite (Fire Damage 15-30pts on touch)
Detect Creature (Detect Animal 50-150ft for 5sec on self)

Alright. You will notice; "Though spellcasters by vocation, sorcerers rely most on summonings and enchantments." So, still casters. But the thing is I was not originally arguing against them being casters. Just the method and use of these abilities. And honestly it was just a knee-jerk reaction to his assessment of the class and incredulity that someone would go a melee build.

Now, you may be thinking, "hey, your main and only v14 toon, according to your signature, is a nightblade! and yet you say; 'And I assume you are one of those people who thinks that nightblades are an exclusively stealth class. Well, I've got news for you buddy.' But if you are claiming that nightblade does more than stealth then you are not following the precedent of your class >>> http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Morrowind:Classes#Nightblade see??? why are you so adamant about sorcs following theirs?" Well, that's the thing... I'm not. I'm saying ZOS is.

When I chose nightblade, I didn't go in for the rouge stabby-stab because I wanted to play rouge (because I don't play a rouge). I did an objective comparison between classes and chose the one that had skills that were closest to what I wanted to play, because I absolutely DESPISE the implementation of classes in ESO. While previous games had classes, they were more like springboards to work off of, as you could use any weapon, skill, and spell in the game.

Second argument;

How exactly do the other classes 'not fit the archetype'? lets see how good o'l wikipedia defines a caster

wikipedia wrote:

A spell-caster is a character archetype in gaming with the ability (usually magical, but sometimes spiritual) to cast spells, based on the magic users of folklore. Spell-casters can take the form of sorcerers, wizards, warlocks and healers. Spell-casters usually are limited in the number and type of spells they can cast by an expendable resource, often called magic points, which generally regenerates with time. Often, these characters do not have direct methods of attack(or insignificant), and so rely on their special magical attacks and on other, more combative, game units to fend for them. Spell-casters generally have less health and are less tough than other units (for instance, the tank). Due to their high damage output but low damage resistance, they are sometimes colloquially referred to as glass cannons. They are also labelled as "squishy" by many game-players, due to the relative ease with which they can die due to low health.

So how exactly do DKs not make good (squishy) pyromages? Or nightblades not make good dark/blood mages? Or templars good healers and solar/holy mages? I guess I just don't understand how you can claim no other class can fit. Ah well...

Third argument;

So now I get to actual mechanics and design. So, this is really my interpretation, and it obviously differs from yours.

So lets look at available skills. There are three defensive abilities one is your standard shield. Two, however, grant armor. I would think armor would be more appreciated in a melee build... but whatever.

Surge grants weapon damage. Even if it were not for staves using weapon damage, I think its kinda odd that weapon power is whats boosted. Because, you know, spells are always associated with weapon power.

Pretty much the entire dark magic skill line consists of CC. Usefull at range certainly... More usefull when you are up close and personal imo.

Concept for dark exchange; if you are maxed in stamina and stamina regen, why not exchange a bit of it for majica. You have BE to gain range after all... (yea, very costly for that... but that's what i came up with.)

And then the Daedric Summoning line. Three summons, one being an ult. Pretty much the crux of my argument. And a delayed explosion curse. And two of the afore mentioned defensive skills. All packed conveniently together as if its saying, 'bind your armor, summon your pets, cast your curse, and then wail away with your weapon.' Yea, they are activated and thus require precious space on your bar. But still, that's what it feels like to me.

There isn't much that's actually spammable, other than mages fury. everything seems like its designed to be used in between weapon attacks, or to create and zone areas. There isn't much that screams 'caster' to me. Summoner, yes. Defensive and Zoning, yes. Casting not so much. But thats just me I guess...

Of course, I love arguing with strangers on the internet, otherwise I wouldn't be on forums. So, disagree? Agree? Hate my guts?

Just FYI, that was not me who said the thing about the night Blade.

Anyway, this argument is pointless. All the classes are supposed to be viable in all the roles.


Sorcerer really isn't as a caster DPS. That's a problem whether or not we agree that it's their most natural role.

Shunravi

NordJitsu wrote: »

Shunravi wrote: »

NordJitsu wrote: »

Shunravi wrote: »

NordJitsu wrote: »

There are only for classes in this game guys. It's pretty clear they were trying to make one for each archetype. The Sorc is the caster.

Your convoluted logic trying to say that isn't so doesn't fly.

And let's not forget that many of these Devs are from DAoC. The existence of the Dragon Knight class ought to show you that they are not going for TES purity in the classes.

Please explain to me exactly how, other that the name, a sorc is designed to be a caster. Especially compared to the other classes.

This has nothing to do with class purity. It has everything to do with what they are basing the design around.

So, please explain your logic that says sorc is designed as a caster class, and I will explain mine.

And I assume you are one of those people who thinks that nightblades are an exclusively stealth class. Well, I've got news for you buddy.

Let's see... They're the class that has Crystal Shards, Daedric curse, MAGE'S Fury, Lightning Pool, and skill that exchanges stamina for magicka.

They're class description says:

Sorcerers summon and control weather phenomenon: hurling lightning bolts and creating electrified fields, summoning tornadoes and impenetrable fog, and calling upon Daedric forces to summon Storm Atronachs and magical armor.

And then yes, there's the name. Because a developer would have to be truly idiotic to make a class named Sorcerer and NOT make it a viable caster. Especially when there are only 4 classes to choose from and none of the other fit this archetype at all.

Does that mean you have to be a caster? Of course not. It's an open class system.

But each class has a natural bias or tradition. NB is the rogue. DK is the tanky warrior. Templar is the healer paladin. It's classic fantasy stuff. Nothing confusing going on.

You can defy those archetypes, because freedom, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Edit: let's not forget that in addition to the name and the description, the default armor on the character select screen is Light Armor robes for this class. ZOS is clearly sending a certain message to new players that you somehow missed.

Alright, good points. And my post was more reactionary to yours than it should have been. I'm not saying sorcs should not be casters, I'm challenging your assesment that they are the 'caster class.' And I did structure my previous comments to get a rise and spark a heated discussion...

First argument;

Now, pretty much everything you listed has do do with names and descriptions, not actual designs and mechanics. Fine and all, but it doesn't actually say much about the design. Of course, my original argument was essentially the same. So

The current sorcerer description reads; 'Sorcerers can use conjuration and destruction spells to hurl lightning bolts and create shock fields, weild dark magic to snare and stun, and summon Daedric combat followers from Oblivion to assist them.'

So not to much different from yours. Maybe more specific, but moving on.

Lets look at the TES precedent that I am referencing and claiming they are basing the class off of. And specifically the points highlighted in the descriptions.

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Morrowind:Classes#Sorcerer wrote:

Sorcerer

In-game Description: Though spellcasters by vocation, sorcerers rely most on summonings and enchantments. They are greedy for magic scrolls, rings, armor and weapons, and commanding undead and Daedric servants gratifies their egos.

Specialization: Magic
Attributes: Intelligence, Endurance

Major Skills:

Enchant
Conjuration
Mysticism
Destruction
Alteration



Minor Skills:
Illusion
Medium Armor
Heavy Armor
Marksman
Short Blade

Spells:

Shield(Shield 5pts for 30sec on self)
Water Walking (Water Walking for 60sec on self)
Bound Dagger (Bound Dagger for 60 sec on self)
Summon Ancestral Ghost (Summon Ancestral Ghost for 60sec on self)
Fire Bite (Fire Damage 15-30pts on touch)
Detect Creature (Detect Animal 50-150ft for 5sec on self)

Alright. You will notice; "Though spellcasters by vocation, sorcerers rely most on summonings and enchantments." So, still casters. But the thing is I was not originally arguing against them being casters. Just the method and use of these abilities. And honestly it was just a knee-jerk reaction to his assessment of the class and incredulity that someone would go a melee build.

Now, you may be thinking, "hey, your main and only v14 toon, according to your signature, is a nightblade! and yet you say; 'And I assume you are one of those people who thinks that nightblades are an exclusively stealth class. Well, I've got news for you buddy.' But if you are claiming that nightblade does more than stealth then you are not following the precedent of your class >>> http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Morrowind:Classes#Nightblade see??? why are you so adamant about sorcs following theirs?" Well, that's the thing... I'm not. I'm saying ZOS is.

When I chose nightblade, I didn't go in for the rouge stabby-stab because I wanted to play rouge (because I don't play a rouge). I did an objective comparison between classes and chose the one that had skills that were closest to what I wanted to play, because I absolutely DESPISE the implementation of classes in ESO. While previous games had classes, they were more like springboards to work off of, as you could use any weapon, skill, and spell in the game.

Second argument;

How exactly do the other classes 'not fit the archetype'? lets see how good o'l wikipedia defines a caster

wikipedia wrote:

A spell-caster is a character archetype in gaming with the ability (usually magical, but sometimes spiritual) to cast spells, based on the magic users of folklore. Spell-casters can take the form of sorcerers, wizards, warlocks and healers. Spell-casters usually are limited in the number and type of spells they can cast by an expendable resource, often called magic points, which generally regenerates with time. Often, these characters do not have direct methods of attack(or insignificant), and so rely on their special magical attacks and on other, more combative, game units to fend for them. Spell-casters generally have less health and are less tough than other units (for instance, the tank). Due to their high damage output but low damage resistance, they are sometimes colloquially referred to as glass cannons. They are also labelled as "squishy" by many game-players, due to the relative ease with which they can die due to low health.

So how exactly do DKs not make good (squishy) pyromages? Or nightblades not make good dark/blood mages? Or templars good healers and solar/holy mages? I guess I just don't understand how you can claim no other class can fit. Ah well...

Third argument;

So now I get to actual mechanics and design. So, this is really my interpretation, and it obviously differs from yours.

So lets look at available skills. There are three defensive abilities one is your standard shield. Two, however, grant armor. I would think armor would be more appreciated in a melee build... but whatever.

Surge grants weapon damage. Even if it were not for staves using weapon damage, I think its kinda odd that weapon power is whats boosted. Because, you know, spells are always associated with weapon power.

Pretty much the entire dark magic skill line consists of CC. Usefull at range certainly... More usefull when you are up close and personal imo.

Concept for dark exchange; if you are maxed in stamina and stamina regen, why not exchange a bit of it for majica. You have BE to gain range after all... (yea, very costly for that... but that's what i came up with.)

And then the Daedric Summoning line. Three summons, one being an ult. Pretty much the crux of my argument. And a delayed explosion curse. And two of the afore mentioned defensive skills. All packed conveniently together as if its saying, 'bind your armor, summon your pets, cast your curse, and then wail away with your weapon.' Yea, they are activated and thus require precious space on your bar. But still, that's what it feels like to me.

There isn't much that's actually spammable, other than mages fury. everything seems like its designed to be used in between weapon attacks, or to create and zone areas. There isn't much that screams 'caster' to me. Summoner, yes. Defensive and Zoning, yes. Casting not so much. But thats just me I guess...

Of course, I love arguing with strangers on the internet, otherwise I wouldn't be on forums. So, disagree? Agree? Hate my guts?

Just FYI, that was not me who said the thing about the night Blade.

Anyway, this argument is pointless. All the classes are supposed to be viable in all the roles.


Sorcerer really isn't as a caster DPS. That's a problem whether or not we agree that it's their most natural role.

No, I said the thing about the nightblade.

But anyways, I agree. We really are arguing semantics and subjective opinion.
If the big focus (according to what I heard) of their sorcerer fixes is summons with everything else being 'fine', it just feels to me that they are building around the TES precident. Regardless if you see yours as caster, frontliner or whatever.

Edit because there is a disconnect between what I type and what I mean.

Kyotee0071

Shunravi wrote: »

Kyotee0071 wrote: »

NordJitsu wrote: »

There are only for classes in this game guys. It's pretty clear they were trying to make one for each archetype. The Sorc is the caster.

Your convoluted logic trying to say that isn't so doesn't fly.

And let's not forget that many of these Devs are from DAoC. The existence of the Dragon Knight class ought to show you that they are not going for TES purity in the classes.

No clue why this received a LOL. Post is spot on and I agree.

Shunravi wrote: »

Please explain to me exactly how, other that the name, a sorc is designed to be a caster. Especially compared to the other classes.

This has nothing to do with class purity. It has everything to do with what they are basing the design around.

So, please explain your logic that says sorc is designed as a caster class, and I will explain mine.

And I assume you are one of those people who thinks that nightblades are an exclusively stealth class. Well, I've got news for you buddy.

So, if sorcerer isn't supposed to fill the role of a bursty robe wearing, staff wielding pure caster that covers a more traditional wizard role in gaming - what other class out of the 3 would you suggest cover that role?

Yes all classes here can put on a robe and staff and cast spells, but none of them actually feel like a wizard / mage like the sorcerer actually does.

Your logic is flawed.

NordJitsu wrote: »

Let's see... They're the class that has Crystal Shards, Daedric curse, MAGE'S Fury, Lightning Pool, and skill that exchanges stamina for magicka.

They're class description says:

Sorcerers summon and control weather phenomenon: hurling lightning bolts and creating electrified fields, summoning tornadoes and impenetrable fog, and calling upon Daedric forces to summon Storm Atronachs and magical armor.

And then yes, there's the name. Because a developer would have to be truly idiotic to make a class named Sorcerer and NOT make it a viable caster. Especially when there are only 4 classes to choose from and none of the other fit this archetype at all.

Does that mean you have to be a caster? Of course not. It's an open class system.

But each class has a natural bias or tradition. NB is the rogue. DK is the tanky warrior. Templar is the healer paladin. It's classic fantasy stuff. Nothing confusing going on.

You can defy those archetypes, because freedom, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Edit: let's not forget that in addition to the name and the description, the default armor on the character select screen is Light Armor robes for this class. ZOS is clearly sending a certain message to new players that you somehow missed.

Again, Spot on.

I just don't see how people are bringing up classes from older Elder Scrolls games to compare to here.

Where's my Acrobat class? Agent? Pilgrim? Monk? Witch hunter?

Where's my luck, personality, or speed stat?

Please don't bring up older games when trying to discuss classes. This one is very different.

Since folks seem to like to bring up older TES classes when discussing things let me ask you which of the 4 available classes do you think is more catered to the default class of "MAGE" from Oblivion?



My pick would 100 % be the class named "SORCERER" in this game.

Did you read my response to him?

But in response to you, I have no care or claim to being right. It really doesn't matter to me. If the sorcerer class feels more like a mage type to you, that's fine. It just doesn't feel that way to me. I go into more detail in the response above. My original post that started all this was simply stating that ZOS seemed to be basing its sorc design after the TES sorc. Hence, I linked the morrowind description to clarify.

And how exactly is my logic flawed? Can you give me an actual breakdown of why you think the sorcerer feels like more of a bursty caster mage? I can say that my nightblade feels like a bursty caster mage far more than my sorc, but that is subjective. Please extrapolate your argument, because it's more name calling than actual debate.

Your logic is flawed.

If you actually read my counter argument, you will see that I really don't care about the classes in previous games. Or what their names are in ESO. My only statement on the matter should have been that it seemed ZOS was basing and tweaking (if you saw ESO live you would have seen where they talked about sorcs) the design of the sorc class to be in line with the concept of the TES sorc.

But if you want to argue where this guy fits in.

My pick would be 25% DK, 25% NB, 25% Sorc, 25% temp. Because magic is spread out between the classes.

This is an open class system. No one class is designed to be the 'caster' class (my successful attempt to start an argument notwithstanding)

Your logic is flawed.

Settle down friend. I never called you a name anywhere in my post. My "your logic is flawed" comment was to your comment as to what the sorcerer is in older TES games. It was nothing personal.

I wasn't attacking you personally. I was just contributing to the debate here. In my eyes that is what this is - a fun debate to read, learn, and participate in.

Take a breath and relax. I'm harmless.

P.S. I apologize if my "Your logic is flawed" comment was out of line. I didn't mean it in an attacking manner.

Have a great night.

Shunravi

Kyotee0071 wrote: »

Shunravi wrote: »

Kyotee0071 wrote: »

NordJitsu wrote: »

There are only for classes in this game guys. It's pretty clear they were trying to make one for each archetype. The Sorc is the caster.

Your convoluted logic trying to say that isn't so doesn't fly.

And let's not forget that many of these Devs are from DAoC. The existence of the Dragon Knight class ought to show you that they are not going for TES purity in the classes.

No clue why this received a LOL. Post is spot on and I agree.

Shunravi wrote: »

Please explain to me exactly how, other that the name, a sorc is designed to be a caster. Especially compared to the other classes.

This has nothing to do with class purity. It has everything to do with what they are basing the design around.

So, please explain your logic that says sorc is designed as a caster class, and I will explain mine.

And I assume you are one of those people who thinks that nightblades are an exclusively stealth class. Well, I've got news for you buddy.

So, if sorcerer isn't supposed to fill the role of a bursty robe wearing, staff wielding pure caster that covers a more traditional wizard role in gaming - what other class out of the 3 would you suggest cover that role?

Yes all classes here can put on a robe and staff and cast spells, but none of them actually feel like a wizard / mage like the sorcerer actually does.

Your logic is flawed.

NordJitsu wrote: »

Let's see... They're the class that has Crystal Shards, Daedric curse, MAGE'S Fury, Lightning Pool, and skill that exchanges stamina for magicka.

They're class description says:

Sorcerers summon and control weather phenomenon: hurling lightning bolts and creating electrified fields, summoning tornadoes and impenetrable fog, and calling upon Daedric forces to summon Storm Atronachs and magical armor.

And then yes, there's the name. Because a developer would have to be truly idiotic to make a class named Sorcerer and NOT make it a viable caster. Especially when there are only 4 classes to choose from and none of the other fit this archetype at all.

Does that mean you have to be a caster? Of course not. It's an open class system.

But each class has a natural bias or tradition. NB is the rogue. DK is the tanky warrior. Templar is the healer paladin. It's classic fantasy stuff. Nothing confusing going on.

You can defy those archetypes, because freedom, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Edit: let's not forget that in addition to the name and the description, the default armor on the character select screen is Light Armor robes for this class. ZOS is clearly sending a certain message to new players that you somehow missed.

Again, Spot on.

I just don't see how people are bringing up classes from older Elder Scrolls games to compare to here.

Where's my Acrobat class? Agent? Pilgrim? Monk? Witch hunter?

Where's my luck, personality, or speed stat?

Please don't bring up older games when trying to discuss classes. This one is very different.

Since folks seem to like to bring up older TES classes when discussing things let me ask you which of the 4 available classes do you think is more catered to the default class of "MAGE" from Oblivion?



My pick would 100 % be the class named "SORCERER" in this game.

Did you read my response to him?

But in response to you, I have no care or claim to being right. It really doesn't matter to me. If the sorcerer class feels more like a mage type to you, that's fine. It just doesn't feel that way to me. I go into more detail in the response above. My original post that started all this was simply stating that ZOS seemed to be basing its sorc design after the TES sorc. Hence, I linked the morrowind description to clarify.

And how exactly is my logic flawed? Can you give me an actual breakdown of why you think the sorcerer feels like more of a bursty caster mage? I can say that my nightblade feels like a bursty caster mage far more than my sorc, but that is subjective. Please extrapolate your argument, because it's more name calling than actual debate.

Your logic is flawed.

If you actually read my counter argument, you will see that I really don't care about the classes in previous games. Or what their names are in ESO. My only statement on the matter should have been that it seemed ZOS was basing and tweaking (if you saw ESO live you would have seen where they talked about sorcs) the design of the sorc class to be in line with the concept of the TES sorc.

But if you want to argue where this guy fits in.

My pick would be 25% DK, 25% NB, 25% Sorc, 25% temp. Because magic is spread out between the classes.

This is an open class system. No one class is designed to be the 'caster' class (my successful attempt to start an argument notwithstanding)

Your logic is flawed.

Settle down friend. I never called you a name anywhere in my post. My "your logic is flawed" comment was to your comment as to what the sorcerer is in older TES games. It was nothing personal.

I wasn't attacking you personally. I was just contributing to the debate here. In my eyes that is what this is - a fun debate to read, learn, and participate in.

Take a breath and relax. I'm harmless.

P.S. I apologize if my "Your logic is flawed" comment was out of line. I didn't mean it in an attacking manner.

Have a great night.

Sorry if I'm coming across a bit strong... I guess after spending so much time at Alessia bridge and in the SO feeding pit I'm feeling a bit trollish

Reading it over, its definitely more intense than intended. I just used the 'your logic is flawed' thing because it was said to me twice in this discussion. And since there was no further argument on the subject, I was really just hoping you would elaborate.. Saying it was name calling was a bit too far. And a bit of a stretch.

But yea, I'm also looking for debate. I guess I need to tone down my writing. there is just so much to convey, and a limited format to convey it. (I even broke my other response with spoiler tags so it would not be all 'wall of text') :P

Nightreaver

Shunravi wrote: »

Please explain to me exactly how, other that the name, a sorc is designed to be a caster. Especially compared to the other classes.
This has nothing to do with class purity. It has everything to do with what they are basing the design around.
So, please explain your logic that says sorc is designed as a caster class, and I will explain mine.
And I assume you are one of those people who thinks that nightblades are an exclusively stealth class. Well, I've got news for you buddy.

When I chose nightblade, I didn't go in for the rouge stabby-stab because I wanted to play rouge .

Well first off it has always amazed me how people can spend years playing a Rogue and still not know how to spell it. Not that I have anything against someone in rouge and heels but in ESO we have Rogues with heals.

Second, in a world where Magic is as common as technology in our world I would imagine that just as there are many uses for technology in our world that there would be many uses for Magic in theirs other than casting fireballs and lightning bolts. Healers use magic to heal, Rogues use Magic to become invisible, Tanks use magic to protect themselves and those around them. Just being able to use Magic doesn't make them a Spell caster. "All are not huntsmen who can blow the huntsman's horn"

Now as far as my reasons for believing Sorcerer is designed as a caster class.
The basic setup in fantasy games and MMOs for a long time (even long before WoW was ever conceived) has been a Healer, Melee Fighter/Tank, Rogue and Spell caster.

Even though in ESO any class can theoretically fill any role, each of the four ESO classes seems designed to be better suited toward one of those four base roles.

Healer - Only Templar has an entire tree devoted to healing so I see Templars better suited for the Healer role than the other classes.

Rogue - Nightblades with one tree called "Assassination" and another called "Shadow" do we really need to look further to see what role the designers had in mind for this class?

Fighter/Tank - Dragonknight abilities are designed for melee and excel in physical damage better than any of the other class.

Spell Caster - Sorcerer abilities revolve around (casting)ranged magic (spell) attacks. Sorcerers can't heal like a Templar. They can't sneak attack from stealth like a Nightblade. They aren't able to do physical damage like a Dragonknight. And their offensive abilities are intended for range, not melee. But they are the only class that can summon magical creatures to do their bidding and are able to control the elements of Fire, Ice and Lightning better than any of the other classes. To me at least they better fit the description of a spell caster than any of the other three ESO classes.

Shunravi

Nightreaver wrote: »

Shunravi wrote: »

Please explain to me exactly how, other that the name, a sorc is designed to be a caster. Especially compared to the other classes.
This has nothing to do with class purity. It has everything to do with what they are basing the design around.
So, please explain your logic that says sorc is designed as a caster class, and I will explain mine.
And I assume you are one of those people who thinks that nightblades are an exclusively stealth class. Well, I've got news for you buddy.

When I chose nightblade, I didn't go in for the rouge stabby-stab because I wanted to play rouge .

Well first off it has always amazed me how people can spend years playing a Rogue and still not know how to spell it. Not that I have anything against someone in rouge and heels but in ESO we have Rogues with heals.

Second, in a world where Magic is as common as technology in our world I would imagine that just as there are many uses for technology in our world that there would be many uses for Magic in theirs other than casting fireballs and lightning bolts. Healers use magic to heal, Rogues use Magic to become invisible, Tanks use magic to protect themselves and those around them. Just being able to use Magic doesn't make them a Spell caster. "All are not huntsmen who can blow the huntsman's horn"

Now as far as my reasons for believing Sorcerer is designed as a caster class.
The basic setup in fantasy games and MMOs for a long time (even long before WoW was ever conceived) has been a Healer, Melee Fighter/Tank, Rogue and Spell caster.

Even though in ESO any class can theoretically fill any role, each of the four ESO classes seems designed to be better suited toward one of those four base roles.

Healer - Only Templar has an entire tree devoted to healing so I see Templars better suited for the Healer role than the other classes.

Rogue - Nightblades with one tree called "Assassination" and another called "Shadow" do we really need to look further to see what role the designers had in mind for this class?

Fighter/Tank - Dragonknight abilities are designed for melee and excel in physical damage better than any of the other class.

Spell Caster - Sorcerer abilities revolve around (casting)ranged magic (spell) attacks. Sorcerers can't heal like a Templar. They can't sneak attack from stealth like a Nightblade. They aren't able to do physical damage like a Dragonknight. And their offensive abilities are intended for range, not melee. But they are the only class that can summon magical creatures to do their bidding and are able to control the elements of Fire, Ice and Lightning better than any of the other classes. To me at least they better fit the description of a spell caster than any of the other three ESO classes.

Yay! Someone else to argue with!

Yea, I know I spell rogue wrong. But I kind of do it on purpose because I really don't care. I prefer to call the class 'red' (the translation from French). And it lets people who actually notice know that I'm not 100% serious. But enough on my spelling! (I don't play rogue)

I'm glad to see you at least read my other posts (even if it does seem selective).

But you are quite right. The traditional roles are indeed healer, rogue, caster, *warrior*. which is part of the reason I DESPISE the classes in ESO. Why? because people tend to automatically assign these roles to the classes because there are only four of them. And of course each has things that benefit each archetype more. And they designed it that way, so people could have classes to chose from and would not be too penalized for not researching beforehand and simply by choosing according to name.

I disagree with your assessment, however. Anyone can heal. Sure, Templars have an edge when it comes to flat healing values, but the are lacking in resource management. Anyone can sneak attack, and surge boosts weapon damage for an effective stealth hit. Nightblade can summon shadows to debuff an enemy. Sorcs are not strictly the only summoner. There is even an armor set that summons a Daedroth. DKs can use fire far more effectively than sorcerers. And what physical damage are you referring to in their class skills? Surge gives more of a physical boost than igneous weapons. Sorcerers have the edge with lightning, sure. But any other class can use frost effectively. What spells exactly are they casting? Fury, shard, and splash? Maybe curse? Encase and rune prison work very much like DK petrify and talons. Daedric mines are hardly ranged. they are more of a melee zoning skill. Lightning form is a pbaoe with armor and spell resist. Bound armor is armor.

Nightreaver

@Shunravi
Well I would say I prefer the word debate but that would sound like I'm arguing. And though it may have appeared that my reading of your posts was selective it was more of a case of my responding to your request for my reasons for believing that a Sorcerer is a spell caster then arguing with yours.

It's not just players that prefer one role over others for specific classes, I believe the designers do as well. Otherwise there would have been no need to even have different classes. They could have just eliminated classes and given players 300 skill points to choose from among 500 or so different skills.

Healing
Yes, anyone can heal but if a group announced in zone chat that they were looking for Heals and I replied "I can heal....myself" what is the likelihood that they would pick me? So yeah, although a Sorcerer can heal himself it very doubtful that a group would choose him over a Templar that can heal the entire group. So in my opinion, Templars best fit the role of Healer.

Sneak attack
True, anyone can stealth, but Nightblades can go invisible.
Anyone can attack from stealth but Nightblades get bonuses when doing so.
So again, in my opinion, Nightblades best fit the description of Rogue.

Summoning
Armor set is not a class.
Nightblades can summon a Shade but have no control over them and they only remain for a few seconds.
Sorcerers remain the only class that can summon creatures, control them and maintain that control over them indefinitely.

Control of Elements
Dragonknights are better than Sorcerers with one element, Sorcerers are better than Dragonknights as well as other classes with two. So I maintain that Sorcerers have the best control of Elements between the classes.

Physical damage
Dragonknight class skills using physical damage.
Dragon Leap - Deals (x) physical damage to all enemies around him
Stonefist - Deals (x) physical damage
Dark Talons - Deals (x) physical damage
Spiked Armor - Returns (x) physical damage to all melee attackers

Spells
well since you've already listed Fury, Shard, Splash and Curse (all ranged magicka attacks) as our offensive class abilities so I assume you are agreeing with me then that Sorcerers are spell casters?

Shunravi
Encase and rune prison work very much like DK petrify and talons

Except the DK abilities also do damage. Sorcerer versions don't add anything to DPS

Daedric mines, Bound armor, Lightning form, all nice ways to help a Sorcerer survive until he can put some distance between him and his attackers so he can get back to, you know, spell casting.

NordJitsu

Another difference between Talons and Encase is that Encase is a frontal cone and Talons is a radial move. One of these is clearly better suited to taking (walking in and locking everything down) while the other is clearly better suited to kiting (backpedaling while damaging and slowing your enemy.)

Encase even has a snare morph that makes it a clear kiting move.

Shunravi

Nightreaver wrote: »

@Shunravi
Well I would say I prefer the word debate but that would sound like I'm arguing. And though it may have appeared that my reading of your posts was selective it was more of a case of my responding to your request for my reasons for believing that a Sorcerer is a spell caster then arguing with yours.

It's not just players that prefer one role over others for specific classes, I believe the designers do as well. Otherwise there would have been no need to even have different classes. They could have just eliminated classes and given players 300 skill points to choose from among 500 or so different skills.

Healing
Yes, anyone can heal but if a group announced in zone chat that they were looking for Heals and I replied "I can heal....myself" what is the likelihood that they would pick me? So yeah, although a Sorcerer can heal himself it very doubtful that a group would choose him over a Templar that can heal the entire group. So in my opinion, Templars best fit the role of Healer.

Sneak attack
True, anyone can stealth, but Nightblades can go invisible.
Anyone can attack from stealth but Nightblades get bonuses when doing so.
So again, in my opinion, Nightblades best fit the description of Rogue.

Summoning
Armor set is not a class.
Nightblades can summon a Shade but have no control over them and they only remain for a few seconds.
Sorcerers remain the only class that can summon creatures, control them and maintain that control over them indefinitely.

Control of Elements
Dragonknights are better than Sorcerers with one element, Sorcerers are better than Dragonknights as well as other classes with two. So I maintain that Sorcerers have the best control of Elements between the classes.

Physical damage
Dragonknight class skills using physical damage.
Dragon Leap - Deals (x) physical damage to all enemies around him
Stonefist - Deals (x) physical damage
Dark Talons - Deals (x) physical damage
Spiked Armor - Returns (x) physical damage to all melee attackers

Spells
well since you've already listed Fury, Shard, Splash and Curse (all ranged magicka attacks) as our offensive class abilities so I assume you are agreeing with me then that Sorcerers are spell casters?

Shunravi
Encase and rune prison work very much like DK petrify and talons

Except the DK abilities also do damage. Sorcerer versions don't add anything to DPS

Daedric mines, Bound armor, Lightning form, all nice ways to help a Sorcerer survive until he can put some distance between him and his attackers so he can get back to, you know, spell casting.

...Or, you know, zone and control melee range.

Debate it is!

There is no need for different classes. The class system in this game is unwarranted and goes against the IP. Its an absolute abomination in an Elderscrolls game. Sure, classes existed in previous games, but they were never restrictive. There are any number of different ways they could have done skills diferently. Heck, they may have retained more ES fans if they did, but they chose to go with classes, while at the same time trying to keep the roles open.

It's not just players that prefer one role over others for specific classes, I believe the designers do as well.

Quite so. Now, my argument has been all over the place. It started with a knee jerk reaction to someone's incredulity of someone using a sorcerer for a melee build. Then it became more of a wild speculation that the developers were trying to base the class of the TES sorc based on what I heard in the ESO live, primaraly that they were buffing summons. (Thought, I did a poor job specifying that.) The whole bit about the armor is based on the two armor skills available, regardless of what actual armor lies beneath. Then I twisted it to questioning why the sorc specifically is ESO's caster class. And that's where we are now.

Now, more specifically regarding the quote. As I said above, they are apparently 'fine with where the sorc is' and just want to improve pets. Fine and all, but for where sorc dps is currently in endgame, there need to be more 'casty' improvements.

Now, I know in my first comment, I was saying I'm not so sure of the staves thing. Still feeling about the same. The class does not feel very casterish to me without staves. And if staves are the big thing, why not any other weapon? I can use a staff on my Nightblade and also be effective with it (and get higher dps than a sorcerer).Sorcerer abilities work well with weapons like staves, true. That same thing can be said of the other weapons

So, that was my bit on weapons. Now, for inherent class casterness (is that a viable word?) I feel like I have more inherent class abilities that feel 'casty' on my Nightblade. Abilities like strife, cripple, path of darkness, agony, shade, power extract, impale and fear. These abilities feel more 'casty' to me. And they are ranged. If your argument of what makes a class a caster is the number of ranged abilities, I have you beat on my Nightblade. And Templars have us both beat. So no, I'm not in agreement on that.


Direct responses;

I'm not sure if you understand healing... Sorcs make great group healers. Have you used a resto staff? Oh, healing is a caster thing too.

Yes, they gave nightblades an inherent class bonus to stealth. That does not mean a sorcerer can't boost their damage with surge or pop an invisible pot. (Then use BE to finish the escape) So, while nightblades do indeed fit a bit better, it's not exclusive to them.

I completely agree on summoning.

If using staves is where sorcs get their caster feel, no matter how well they do it, then it does not strictly come from the class.

Very nice, I had hoped you would point out the physical damage in DK abilities more specifically . They still use magic to cast though. And still scale like spells.

As I said earlier, nightblades have you beat in number of ranged spells. But I'm not saying that sorcerers are not a caster class, I'm sayin they are not the caster class.

And we can disagree on the use of sorc CC abilities. Yes they are different, but a DK does not have an ability like BE to reposition on the battlefield. They have to hold their ground once in a fight. Hence damage in the abilities. You can kite in melee range too you know...




[Its been really fun debating with you guys. Ever since I decided to stick to the argument I am debating, back when I first responded to @NordJitsu‌, the responses have certainly been entertaining.

Though, I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't mention passives. Or that self healing, especially in PvP, is a little scetchy in large groups with most weapons except for destro and impulse or resto offbar.]

Nightreaver

Need for different classes
From a balance perspective the elimination of classes would be the best route. The concern is that eventually there will be a *Best* build for Tanking and only that build will be acceptable for raids. The same will hold true for both Healing and DPS. There will be one build acceptable for Tanking, one for DPS and one for Healing, no other build options will be allowed regardless of play style preference.
The current method gives players a choice of play style options which ZOS then attempts to balance as best as possible. Of course there will still always be much QQing claiming any ability that one class possesses that your class does not is OP.
Spell Caster

Shunravi
If your argument of what makes a class a caster is the number of ranged abilities, I have you beat on my Nightblade. And Templars have us both beat. So no, I'm not in agreement on that.

You know what else NBs and Templars and DKs have more of than Sorcerers? Offensive melee abilities, which Sorcerers have NONE of. So if a Sorcerer isn't a caster then what is it? The fact that NBs and Templars have more ranged Offensive abilites than a class who has zero options for melee offense just seems like one more disadvantage to Sorcerers.

Shunravi

I'm not sure if you understand healing...

Well admittedly I may not be the best Healer but I do have 15 years of experience in MMOs as a Healer including main raid healer and Raid MT healer. And I do know enough about healing to know that you can't heal a raid or even a group with just self heals which if comparing classes, is all that a Sorcerer has. Yes a resto staff makes for some good healing but you do understand that a Resto staff isn't a class ability right? So if you are defining roles based on CLASS abilities then a Templar would best fit the role of Healer.

Shunravi

As I said earlier, nightblades have you beat in number of ranged spells. But I'm not saying that sorcerers are not a caster class, I'm sayin they are not the caster class.

True, but as the only class with no melee offensive abilities don't you think they should be?

Shunravi

@Nightreaver, very well said. I could argue that mines and lightning form are melee ranged, but I won't because they easily fail as an argument.

There are already 'best builds' with the current system. Having classes does not in any way reduce the most optimal builds from being formulated. Currently, and unfortunately, sorc is low on the comparison charts when it comes to pretty much everything. Including casting. I hope this improves with coming updates.

If we are talking about strictly class heals, then you are correct, a templar trumps all. Followed by nightblades, as funnel health, refreshing path, sap essence, bolstering darkness, and soul siphon all give group healing. The thing is though, resto staff is essential for high end healing. Even on a templar. A sorc can easily use one as well. As sorcs have passives that give good magica management, (seriously, why has no one used that in a defense of sorc as a spell caster. Heck, I asked for it on my last post.) and can boost their healing values with surge, they can make effective group healers.

Now, for the sake of this discussion, I feel sorcs make a good controller/weaponsmaster/summoner class. Sure, the only damaging abilities sorcs have are ranged casts. But from looking at the mechanics of these abilities, I feel they are better suited towards suplementing weapon abilities (either ranged or melee.) So, sorcs can effectively use destro staves to cast. They can also have similar effectiveness with melee weapons, and they have class skills that can boost armor, making them effective (defensively) in melee range. If you are a stamina sorc, you have an advantage in an armor ability that can be maintained throughout the fight that simply reserves a bit of majica, a resource that you do not need much of as stam. Or you can use a different one that also boosts magic resistance, boosts your kiting ability, and has a chance to proc the sorc passive execute, disintegrate. If anything, sorcs are an anti spell-caster. Negate magic, well, negates magic. And it's secondary benifits require you to be inside if I'm not mistaken.

Edit: And if you really want to get nitpicky with the anti-caster thing, traditionally lightning damage in TES drains magica. A sorcs direct damage abilities use lightning. Hence more of an anti caster feel, even if lightning doesn't drain magica. If annything, I would love for that to be the sorcerers strength; shutting down casters. Imagine draining a DK of his magica with your lightning form....

Derra

@Shunravi you always say that in your perception the sorcerer class in eso is based around the concept seen in morrowind or oblivion which is indeed a heavy armor wielding caster class. I agree with you on that point.
However your comparison is just not fitting for eso as heavy armor IN NO WAY supplements caster or magic builds (even in the morrowind and oblivion the sorc is described as a caster that IS wearing heavy armor but SHOULD stay out of harms way or use magic to boost defenses).
The Problem with your comparison is eso heavily defines roles via the chosen armor type. A caster pretty much has to wear light. Medium supplements weapons and stealth. Heavy armor is centered around tanking (Edit: Maybe one could argue about heavy being about outlasting an enemy but then you´d have the problem that it does not fit in a group environment apart from the tank - this is a multiplayer online game atleast. There is no place for build around outlasting your enemy. If you don´t put out the dmg you have no place).

Either your argument is flawed because this is eso and they did not base the sorcerer around the concept found in a previous game (that was released 8 years before eso) or they did a horrible job at creating said archetype found in previous games because pets/summons are not vaible (will never be in pvp encounters bc ai<player), heavy armor does not complement magic builds (but tanking) and the sorcerer class in general does not supplement the use of stamina weapons (as well as the other classes).

You can build a heavy armor sorcerer with pets. The problem is apart from solo pve play i don´t see where one would ever be needed. Hence i refuse to believe they build a class around a concept that fills no purpose in the game apart from being consistent with elderscrolls lore.

yodased

If they just allowed us to have skills that the pet used we would be so win.

I played a game once that had pets and it had pet abilities. Like if you got a turtle then it would lock people down and then shield itself, so useful in PvE.

Why not give the clanfear charge or the twilight heal an actual ability instead of the computer attempting it for you?

That would be fun.

Shunravi

@Derra‌, you have hit the nail on the head about my argument. Yes, I am arguing that the class is based off previous archetypes. Yes I am arguing that ZOS is focusing on balancing the class based on this archetype. Aka the improvement of pets. I am using intentionally flawed logic to support my argument, even asking those who I am arguing with to bring to bear things like passives and current game balance against my assessment. I even had to bring these up myself because no one would use them as an argument. I am not saying that the class should be restricted to heavy, or that I'm hardcore on TES purism (even though it obviously looks like I am.) What I'm saying is that that is what ZOS is focusing it's design around.

The fact of the matter is, the archetype I originally started my argument around is a caster. I was going to argue that point further, but I ran into the argument that the sorc is designed as the ESO caster. Then my argument changed to what's the rationale of calling the sorcerer ESO's caster class. there is no one class that fits that description. Every class can fill that role. It is an open system after all. And I was hoping for more substantial arguments than 'the class is called sorcerer' or 'they have skill lines called dark magic, stormcalling, and daedric summoning.' These are arguments of semantics. I was hoping to inspire arguments based off pasives, or how skills are designed to work together (especially those considered worthless.) So I argued in direct counter to these. Yes, that is more or less how my argument started off, as I said that sorcs didn't feel like the staff type (based on previous TES archetypes), but that was an admittedly knee jerk response to someone's incredulity about a melee sorc. After that, I decided to run with it. The thing is, ESO requires casters to wear light armor and non tank warriors to wear medium.


In PvE, if you don't have the damage, you don't win. But in PvP, it's all about outlasting your opponent. <(just a little counter argument to that bit.)
Of course, the current meta of sorcs can outlast other builds and classes, as shielding allows for.great defense, and BE allows them to quit the field entirely....

To summarize what my argument has essentially boiled down to is; 'the ESO sorcerer is based off the heavily armored summoner/caster of previous TES titles. However, because dealing damage requires one of the two damage dealing armors, they provided the class with two armor skills. One of these literally binds heavy armor to you. The intent behind the class design is to use pets, and to use the dark magic line to zone and control your opponent. Much like how, despite being in heavy armor, the TES sorcerer goes in for the big hits, but otherwise lets its summons go in first.' As the ESO class system is designed to be open, with every class able to adapt to any role, I believe they went with the TES sorc as a basis, because it is more inherently open.

Now, I'm not really arguing if this is viable. That has never been my argument. Simply that it is the apparent design intent of the class, based on what we have heard so far about class rebalancing. They say the sorc is in a good place, and they just want to focus on making pets more viable. (I'm paraphrasing the interview.)

You can build a heavy armor sorcerer with pets. The problem is apart from solo pve play i don´t see where one would ever be needed. Hence i refuse to believe they build a class around a concept that fills no purpose in the game apart from being consistent with elderscrolls lore.

And this right here is the biggest point. I am arguing with the intent of losing. This is not a debate where I want my perspective to win. However, based on the class skills and what I have heard about future improvements, it's certainly one that seems to really fit.

Derra

Shunravi wrote: »

In PvE, if you don't have the damage, you don't win. But in PvP, it's all about outlasting your opponent. <(just a little counter argument to that bit.)
Of course, the current meta of sorcs can outlast other builds and classes, as shielding allows for.great defense, and BE allows them to quit the field entirely....

Just real quick as i have to walk the doge :P.

While in pvp indeed everything is about outlasting your opponent in 1v1 situations, this won´t help you in the open world where you´ve got possible adds around every corner. Good solo open pvp builds (in my opinion) are about finding the sweet spot between endurance and packing the right punch.
With a heavy armor build all your opponent has to do is understand that he can only kill himself because he has to mismanage his resources else you won´t be able to beat him as heavy is simply lacking offensive capabilities (this is to some extend a general problem of the game imho).

I don´t like to play who gets add first as when running solo as i tend to be in locations populated by enemies not friends

I think the heavy pet build could be a great addition for the sorc. But many people including myself like playing a classic ranged caster role too and no other class does suggest that role with 2 out of 3 skilltrees (nb and templar both got 1 "ranged" skilltree and dk none).

Shunravi

Yea. I'm hopeful for 1.6. Those who want a pet build will find it more viable. I just hope it doesn't make pets a requirement. There look to be other options going into play with the overhaul, but we will see...

And very true about PvP. Damage is always important, and a good balanced build is definately something to run with. Heavy will make you a rock, but one with low damage. There are builds that take advantage of this, but they also have their counters. Really, it's best to find the build and playstyle that you find you can work with.

Darkonflare15

w3ng_vgeb17_ESO wrote: »

I'm afraid the designers' logic summarizes up as follows:

• Melee based sorcs get the crit surge heal, which uses magicka and heals them on crit hits.
• Magicka oriented sorcs shall use this questionable Dark Exchange skill, which uses stamina. What else do magicka based sorcs use stamiana for otherwise, right?
• Then there is this great healing pet, I will not consider this seriously.
• There is this Blood Magic passive for 5% health. It triggers once per spell and only if there's not yet an effect on the target. Enough is enough.

The problems I see with this apporach are:

• In pvp you have so many people with impenetrable gear, so that heal on crit does not work at all.
• A channeled heal will cause a drop in dps in pve for sure. And you will be easily interruptable in pvp.
• I don't know what I am doing wrong, but I never got any sustainable heal from the Blood Magic passive. And the Persistence passive even works against it.

Currently I play a melee oriented sorcerer and use Rally from the 2h skill line as my main heal (yes, I heal myself with a mace ...).
From my point of view they could get rid off crit surge completely and make dark exchange either a magicka or stamina based self heal like dragonknight's Dragon Blood. The current sorcerer mechanics are just too complicated to get it right.

Actually you healing your self with vigor which comes from training with your weapon.

Weng

Darkonflare15 wrote: »

w3ng_vgeb17_ESO wrote: »

...
Currently I play a melee oriented sorcerer and use Rally from the 2h skill line as my main heal (yes, I heal myself with a mace ...).
From my point of view they could get rid off crit surge completely and make dark exchange either a magicka or stamina based self heal like dragonknight's Dragon Blood. The current sorcerer mechanics are just too complicated to get it right.

Actually you healing your self with vigor which comes from training with your weapon.

I just checked it and vigor increases the stamina regen, which I have as racial passive on my Redguard.

I was referring to the morph of the 2-handed skill "Momentum" called "Rally", which has now a heal over time additionally to the increased weapon damage.

On the other hand that skill is using stamina for healing, so vigor is a good passive supporting the skill.

Darkonflare15

w3ng_vgeb17_ESO wrote: »

Darkonflare15 wrote: »

w3ng_vgeb17_ESO wrote: »

...
Currently I play a melee oriented sorcerer and use Rally from the 2h skill line as my main heal (yes, I heal myself with a mace ...).
From my point of view they could get rid off crit surge completely and make dark exchange either a magicka or stamina based self heal like dragonknight's Dragon Blood. The current sorcerer mechanics are just too complicated to get it right.

Actually you healing your self with vigor which comes from training with your weapon.

I just checked it and vigor increases the stamina regen, which I have as racial passive on my Redguard.

I was referring to the morph of the 2-handed skill "Momentum" called "Rally", which has now a heal over time additionally to the increased weapon damage.

On the other hand that skill is using stamina for healing, so vigor is a good passive supporting the skill.

@w3ng_vgeb17_ESO I was actually referring to actually life vigor not the passive. Since it makes better since that momentum increases vigor which heals you. Than the actually weapon healing you. I hope that the new flavor text for moves in 1.6 actually makes sense with lore.