Should (Damage) Shields take extra damage from lightning attacks? (Old)

s7732425ub17_ESO

Nah

How about Ice? It would actually make ice damage useful.

idk

Nah

Just looked at the OP again and nothing has been added to justify why? If op cannot provide reasoning then why bother with the conversation. Pointless.

The_Smilemeister

Other

@Giles.floydub17_ESO Can't teach stupid.

Megabear

Nah

How about Sorc damage shields take extra damage from melee attacks?

Banana

I Don't Care

I think anyone with a shield shouldn't be able to see properly either because it obscures your vision

Phica_Lovic

Nah

KochDerDamonen wrote: »

Phica_Lovic wrote: »

KochDerDamonen wrote: »

Phica_Lovic wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Well, think of lightning as magicka disruption. In Skyrim Shock Damage saps a targets magicka.

Currently for DW the standard for PvP is Disease (for the Diseased Proc Chance) and Poison (For the DoT). This beginning to be usurped by the flat damage of Oblivion damage just about everywhere.

If shields took bonus damage from Lightning, depending on how it functions, it could be the 'shield shredding' element. Meaning that Sorcs are innately good against one another's shields and players can slot Shock Damage enchantments on their weapons for that extra umph against shielded opponents.

Sorc and Desto are not the only sources of lighting damage. There are Enchantments and sets as well. Think sets like thunderbugs carapace, or storm knights plate. This could be expanded further with future sets.

I just assume that this kind of thought process is standard among forum goers. If it is indeed not, remember, you can always choose not to read this.

This isn't Skyrim. Can't mix balance with Skyrim lightning roleplay.

Balance > roleplay

@Phica_Lovic If ZOS didn't make defenses as absolutely lazy as possible, elemental damage types would be part of the game's balance. Instead they're basically pointless, only good for stacking buffs from passives instead of considering what will do damage against what and who...

Except for vampires, kind of, haha. If you manage to die to a daedroth in PvE, the game tells you that they are 'weak to shock'. This comes into gameplay in roughly no way at all. May just as well remove elemental damage types and leave them in as cosmetic options for roleplay.

I'd give a hard disagree with that. I believe the reason that elemental resistances died in waaaay early game was because it gives a huge advantage to certain classes.

Getting your ass-kicked by sorcs? Lightning resist.
Can't beat that DK? Flame.
Etc. etc.

Same thing with PvE mobs. It'd be "okay, we need 3 dps sorcs, and 2 dks, and we'll throw some other classes in for that magic damage that no one is vulnerable to".

@Phica_Lovic Game's broken from the ground up in these terms. I'm not advocating for a sudden addition of lightning damage v.s. shields, just saying that this is a totally boring aspect of the game. It would be a lot more interesting if this sort of mechanic encouraged a trial group to pack 2 or 3 of each class to ensure a good elemental spread for different bosses, along with encouragement to focus on using different destruction staves for different situations other than singletarget and AoE.

@KochDerDamonen - I agree. In PvE, this would be interesting. But in PvP, doing anything remotely similar to OP's suggestion, you're creating a rock-paper-scissors scenario with the classes which is no bueno.

"Let's see here, If my lightning mage can beat his Flame Knight, but his Ice Druid can beat me.... then all I need is my assassin friend who has no role in any of it to win. Checkmate!"