Why is Max Attribute Damage Scaling Still in the Game?

Zagnut123Zagnut123

Could you please explain a way they would prevent stacking all attributes into health. I have no issues with changes like the one you suggested but it appears to me that ask for a change with out detailing a clear path to get there that won't brake the game. Saying the devs will figure it out with testing doesn't make anyone feel easy about your suggestion. The devs have done a poor job in the past with listening to player feedback (I know that's subjective but I assume we're talking about end game pve) so simply requesting the change with no solution makes us question how zos would implement your idea.

Malacthulhu

If stat pools reduced dmg gain by a floating sum based off how much resource is left it might work for hybrids. People would have to set up a stam bar and a magic bar but to not pigeonhole this make them choose between that or great recovery if they want to stay straight magic or stam, to maintain same damage. Removal of spelldmg and weapon would be required most likely for this to work. It would still mess everyone up.

CyrusArya

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

That's the kind of attitude ("but nothing is broken") that would have prevented an awesome update like One Tamriel, which was a significant overhaul to central game mechanics that included:

- completely reconstructed enemy level scaling instead of static level-dependent areas
- zones are accessible to every player, regardless of alliance
- set-specific drops in zones
- delves, world bosses, and dolmens contain specific drops and unique named drops

You're entirely ruling out improvement by way of your "nothing is broken" attitude.

What a ridiculous logical fallacy. My point is, its not an improvement just because your unfounded and half baked opinions say so. Damage scaling is deeply ingrained into every single combat system. It would lead to serious balance issues. Damage scaling with max stats regulates builds by requiring them to hit a certain threshold of stats to do good damage. You remove that, the game will be nothing but tanks stacking damage.

You're asking for a huge shake up of the game and allocation of development resources for a very marginal, unwanted, and unnecessary change. Completely reimagine every system and affect all content in the process so you can play your snowflake hybrid? No thanks. If you can't tell from how this thread is going, people don't support your proposal. Just as I have already figured out, the devs should just ignore and dismiss this and pretty much every single post you make.

STEVIL

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Read my comments in this thread and you will see that the only things I argue with you about is 1) your continued denial of and refusal to recognize that the game promotes binary damage builds for end-game, and 2) your insistence that everyone would simply stack health if attribute damage scaling were to be removed.

Segregating this quote out to spotlight the shuffle and misrepresentation you are consistently engaging in.

Show me where i have denied "that the game promotes binary damage builds for end-game," in this thread? you just made the outright claim that i denied it and/or continued to deny it.

But lets look at some quotes you made which i was responding to...

"Max attribute damage scaling doesn't say, "your choices matter." It says, " here are your two binary choices. Pick one.""

"I don't know why you're calling the current attribute damage scaling system an "alleged" binary, because it is. "

Now @GrumpyDuckling i ask you a straight up question to back up your claim.

Can you provide one clear quote from this thread where i do in fact challenge the notion that " the game promotes binary damage builds for end-game," as opposed top my repeated challenges to your claims that the lionkage between damage and pool size is what does that or that unlinking that tie between pool size and max damage would significantly impact the diversity seen in play (presumably from hybrid builds) in a positive way? You just claimed i have made continued denials of this "the game" aspect... but can you show me one clear one, if you can, without shuffle?

or is this maybe another shuffle where you swap around what you want to defend with what you say others said?

Waffennacht

I'd just invest in health and Regen stats - it'd make for Uber tank builds

I have no problem coming up with successful PvP builds of a large variety.

If you just want a pure DMG build, then yeah, it's gonna be all the same, but there's more to the game than that

STEVIL

Waffennacht wrote: »

I'd just invest in health and Regen stats - it'd make for Uber tank builds

I have no problem coming up with successful PvP builds of a large variety.

If you just want a pure DMG build, then yeah, it's gonna be all the same, but there's more to the game than that

As many others have said... and as we saw early on before pool-dam scaling was as much a thing - as we see every time stat-divorced damage gets good - etc etc etc.

hard to imagine how it could be so unfathomable to some that if you take three competitive stats and lower the value of two of them but keep the cost the same you would not produce a rise in the purchase of the third.

" need change for a 50? your options are now 5 tens OR 2 twenties OR 8 fives OR some combo of fives and twenties that comes out to 40. So which you want?"

That is so obviously a change that would lead to more fives and twenties in use, right!?!?!?

Luigi_Vampa

Solariken wrote: »

I'm having a good chuckle at all the naysayers who don't remember that max stat damage scaling wasn't always in the game - it was simply added to make ZOS' four crappy classes SEEM like they were eight crappy classes. You know, to avoid having to design and develop actual new classes and instill more artificial replayability to the game.

On the one hand, removing it now would make ESO stat mechanics even more bland and maybe cause a few problems; however I agree with OP's sentiment that it destroyed a large aspect of what TES fans love about character-building.

Back then we had soft caps which made people spread stuff out more. Everyone still put heavily into health because health had the least diminishing returns. Without soft and hard caps not having damage scaling with max stats would have everyone put all attributes and enchants into health and stack recovery and spell / weapon damage. Nothing would change gameplay wise except everyone running around with 30k health. You would still be better off stacking spell or weapon damage so it doesn't really make hybrids better unless you want to wear Pelinals.

Luigi_Vampa

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

The attribute placement choices matter a lot more if attribute damage scaling is removed because you're not simply dumping all attribute points into one resource, but instead making more decisions on how you want your character to play.

This game used to not have attribute damage scaling. It didn't make your choices more important. You put your points into health and stacked recovery and damage or you were stupid. Those were your two choices.

Destruent

Luigi_Vampa wrote: »

Solariken wrote: »

I'm having a good chuckle at all the naysayers who don't remember that max stat damage scaling wasn't always in the game - it was simply added to make ZOS' four crappy classes SEEM like they were eight crappy classes. You know, to avoid having to design and develop actual new classes and instill more artificial replayability to the game.

On the one hand, removing it now would make ESO stat mechanics even more bland and maybe cause a few problems; however I agree with OP's sentiment that it destroyed a large aspect of what TES fans love about character-building.

Back then we had soft caps which made people spread stuff out more. Everyone still put heavily into health because health had the least diminishing returns. Without soft and hard caps not having damage scaling with max stats would have everyone put all attributes and enchants into health and stack recovery and spell / weapon damage. Nothing would change gameplay wise except everyone running around with 30k health. You would still be better off stacking spell or weapon damage so it doesn't really make hybrids better unless you want to wear Pelinals.

There would be more or less one change compared to now, sets with lots of mag/stam-boni would be useless (especially draugr hulk and necropotence...). It wouldn't increase diversity but decrease it...like i already stated in my first post here...

GrumpyDuckling

STEVIL wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Read my comments in this thread and you will see that the only things I argue with you about is 1) your continued denial of and refusal to recognize that the game promotes binary damage builds for end-game, and 2) your insistence that everyone would simply stack health if attribute damage scaling were to be removed.

Segregating this quote out to spotlight the shuffle and misrepresentation you are consistently engaging in.

Show me where i have denied "that the game promotes binary damage builds for end-game," in this thread? you just made the outright claim that i denied it and/or continued to deny it.

But lets look at some quotes you made which i was responding to...

"Max attribute damage scaling doesn't say, "your choices matter." It says, " here are your two binary choices. Pick one.""

"I don't know why you're calling the current attribute damage scaling system an "alleged" binary, because it is. "

Now @GrumpyDuckling i ask you a straight up question to back up your claim.

Can you provide one clear quote from this thread where i do in fact challenge the notion that " the game promotes binary damage builds for end-game," as opposed top my repeated challenges to your claims that the lionkage between damage and pool size is what does that or that unlinking that tie between pool size and max damage would significantly impact the diversity seen in play (presumably from hybrid builds) in a positive way? You just claimed i have made continued denials of this "the game" aspect... but can you show me one clear one, if you can, without shuffle?

or is this maybe another shuffle where you swap around what you want to defend with what you say others said?

I'll do you one better. I'll provide a quote from the very post in which you asked me for proof.

I say that tying damage into max attributes creates binary damage builds. Example: end-game damage builds put most, if not all, attribute points into a single attribute because damage is increased by pool size. FACT.

Now, see that part of your quote in the bold above? The fact that you're challenging "[linkage] between damage and pool size" as it relates to attribute choice diversity shows me how ridiculous you are being. Removing damage from resources allows players to allocate attribute points as they wish instead of forcing them to stack into one attribute. AUTOMATICALLY we get more diversity of options. I'm really sorry that you can't see that.

GrumpyDuckling

Luigi_Vampa wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

The attribute placement choices matter a lot more if attribute damage scaling is removed because you're not simply dumping all attribute points into one resource, but instead making more decisions on how you want your character to play.

This game used to not have attribute damage scaling. It didn't make your choices more important. You put your points into health and stacked recovery and damage or you were stupid. Those were your two choices.

ZOS had the right idea, initially.

Instead of introducing attribute damage-scaling as a solution I wish that they would have tested/tweaked resource management for players who just stacked everything into health.

GrumpyDuckling

CyrusArya wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

That's the kind of attitude ("but nothing is broken") that would have prevented an awesome update like One Tamriel, which was a significant overhaul to central game mechanics that included:

- completely reconstructed enemy level scaling instead of static level-dependent areas
- zones are accessible to every player, regardless of alliance
- set-specific drops in zones
- delves, world bosses, and dolmens contain specific drops and unique named drops

You're entirely ruling out improvement by way of your "nothing is broken" attitude.

What a ridiculous logical fallacy. My point is, its not an improvement just because your unfounded and half baked opinions say so. Damage scaling is deeply ingrained into every single combat system. It would lead to serious balance issues. Damage scaling with max stats regulates builds by requiring them to hit a certain threshold of stats to do good damage. You remove that, the game will be nothing but tanks stacking damage.

You're asking for a huge shake up of the game and allocation of development resources for a very marginal, unwanted, and unnecessary change. Completely reimagine every system and affect all content in the process so you can play your snowflake hybrid? No thanks. If you can't tell from how this thread is going, people don't support your proposal. Just as I have already figured out, the devs should just ignore and dismiss this and pretty much every single post you make.

Actually, the most insightful posts in this thread have been by the people who understand the value of a damage system that is removed from max resources. You can side yourself with the loudest people, though. I'll be fine without your support.

Luigi_Vampa

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Luigi_Vampa wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

The attribute placement choices matter a lot more if attribute damage scaling is removed because you're not simply dumping all attribute points into one resource, but instead making more decisions on how you want your character to play.

This game used to not have attribute damage scaling. It didn't make your choices more important. You put your points into health and stacked recovery and damage or you were stupid. Those were your two choices.

ZOS had the right idea, initially.

Instead of introducing attribute damage-scaling as a solution I wish that they would have tested/tweaked resource management for players who just stacked everything into health.

It was soft caps that was the right idea. Attribute damage scaling actually had people finally put things into something other than health. It was crazy back then. Healer? Stack health. Damage Dealer? Stack health and of course Tanks stack health too. Soft caps are what cause people to branch out or live with the diminishing returns if they felt it was worth it.

GrumpyDuckling

Luigi_Vampa wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Luigi_Vampa wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

The attribute placement choices matter a lot more if attribute damage scaling is removed because you're not simply dumping all attribute points into one resource, but instead making more decisions on how you want your character to play.

This game used to not have attribute damage scaling. It didn't make your choices more important. You put your points into health and stacked recovery and damage or you were stupid. Those were your two choices.

ZOS had the right idea, initially.

Instead of introducing attribute damage-scaling as a solution I wish that they would have tested/tweaked resource management for players who just stacked everything into health.

It was soft caps that was the right idea. Attribute damage scaling actually had people finally put things into something other than health. It was crazy back then. Healer? Stack health. Damage Dealer? Stack health and of course Tanks stack health too. Soft caps are what cause people to branch out or live with the diminishing returns if they felt it was worth it.

That works too. But if resource pools were to be balanced, then Healers, Damage Dealers, and Tanks would have more options than health.

All attribute damage scaling did was tip the scales in the other direction. Damage Dealers go from all health to all magicka or stamina.

code65536

LOL.

Simple answer: Because choosing a stat needs to have meaning/consequences. If you opt for more health for tankiness, you sacrifice damage. Tradeoff is how we have balance and meaningful choices.

What this thread advocates for is utterly ridiculous.

GrumpyDuckling

code65536 wrote: »

LOL.

Simple answer: Because choosing a stat needs to have meaning/consequences. If you opt for more health for tankiness, you sacrifice damage. Tradeoff is how we have balance and meaningful choices.

What this thread advocates for is utterly ridiculous.

If we make that choice only about resource management (by removing damage from resources), then we can mix/diversify attributes for builds instead of having to choose either 64 into stamina or magicka.

STEVIL

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Read my comments in this thread and you will see that the only things I argue with you about is 1) your continued denial of and refusal to recognize that the game promotes binary damage builds for end-game, and 2) your insistence that everyone would simply stack health if attribute damage scaling were to be removed.

Segregating this quote out to spotlight the shuffle and misrepresentation you are consistently engaging in.

Show me where i have denied "that the game promotes binary damage builds for end-game," in this thread? you just made the outright claim that i denied it and/or continued to deny it.

But lets look at some quotes you made which i was responding to...

"Max attribute damage scaling doesn't say, "your choices matter." It says, " here are your two binary choices. Pick one.""

"I don't know why you're calling the current attribute damage scaling system an "alleged" binary, because it is. "

Now @GrumpyDuckling i ask you a straight up question to back up your claim.

Can you provide one clear quote from this thread where i do in fact challenge the notion that " the game promotes binary damage builds for end-game," as opposed top my repeated challenges to your claims that the lionkage between damage and pool size is what does that or that unlinking that tie between pool size and max damage would significantly impact the diversity seen in play (presumably from hybrid builds) in a positive way? You just claimed i have made continued denials of this "the game" aspect... but can you show me one clear one, if you can, without shuffle?

or is this maybe another shuffle where you swap around what you want to defend with what you say others said?

I'll do you one better. I'll provide a quote from the very post in which you asked me for proof.

I say that tying damage into max attributes creates binary damage builds. Example: end-game damage builds put most, if not all, attribute points into a single attribute because damage is increased by pool size. FACT.

Now, see that part of your quote in the bold above? The fact that you're challenging "[linkage] between damage and pool size" as it relates to attribute choice diversity shows me how ridiculous you are being. Removing damage from resources allows players to allocate attribute points as they wish instead of forcing them to stack into one attribute. AUTOMATICALLY we get more diversity of options. I'm really sorry that you can't see that.

And there we have it... you choose to responmd to a request for proof that i challnge the "game" pushes nbinary as opposed to my challenge that the binary is driven by pool size link and the removal etc... with a quote about pool size...

net result, you are again shuffling what others say who disagree with your conclusions into what you want to defend even if what you defend is not what they said.

In short, you are arguing with stuff you made up.

Its the Grumpy Shuffle.

Thanks for the best example there could be.

STEVIL

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

code65536 wrote: »

LOL.

Simple answer: Because choosing a stat needs to have meaning/consequences. If you opt for more health for tankiness, you sacrifice damage. Tradeoff is how we have balance and meaningful choices.

What this thread advocates for is utterly ridiculous.

If we make that choice only about resource management (by removing damage from resources), then we can mix/diversify attributes for builds instead of having to choose either 64 into stamina or magicka.

Not true as long as the rest of the game drives the magica or stamina option.

There is no way that depowering 64 mag and 64 stamina helps split hybrid stam-mag builds get any stronger... it just weakens them and leaves health based builds just fine.

How many different folks have to point out that when we used to have no pool damage boosts health builds all 64 were in vogue or that if this change were made that they would swap to health builds or provides recent references to results when non-pool damage was high and we saw proc-health builds rise before you choose to stop ignoring that weakening stam and mag based builds does not help hybrid builds become stronger?!?!?

your proposed change wont produce the results you seek, any more than the recent sustain nerfs gave rise to all those expected sustain-set builds or recovery ring glyphs did.

GrumpyDuckling

Zagnut123Zagnut123 wrote: »

Could you please explain a way they would prevent stacking all attributes into health. I have no issues with changes like the one you suggested but it appears to me that ask for a change with out detailing a clear path to get there that won't brake the game. Saying the devs will figure it out with testing doesn't make anyone feel easy about your suggestion. The devs have done a poor job in the past with listening to player feedback (I know that's subjective but I assume we're talking about end game pve) so simply requesting the change with no solution makes us question how zos would implement your idea.

@Zagnut123Zagnut123

The issue of stacking everything into health would come down to resource management. If a player has less magicka and stamina then they have less access to skills, block, dodge, sneak, and break free. If health overperforms in testing, then resource management for pure health builds would be examined. ZOS has a precedent for resource/sustain balancing (Morrowind).

GrumpyDuckling

STEVIL wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Read my comments in this thread and you will see that the only things I argue with you about is 1) your continued denial of and refusal to recognize that the game promotes binary damage builds for end-game, and 2) your insistence that everyone would simply stack health if attribute damage scaling were to be removed.

Segregating this quote out to spotlight the shuffle and misrepresentation you are consistently engaging in.

Show me where i have denied "that the game promotes binary damage builds for end-game," in this thread? you just made the outright claim that i denied it and/or continued to deny it.

But lets look at some quotes you made which i was responding to...

"Max attribute damage scaling doesn't say, "your choices matter." It says, " here are your two binary choices. Pick one.""

"I don't know why you're calling the current attribute damage scaling system an "alleged" binary, because it is. "

Now @GrumpyDuckling i ask you a straight up question to back up your claim.

Can you provide one clear quote from this thread where i do in fact challenge the notion that " the game promotes binary damage builds for end-game," as opposed top my repeated challenges to your claims that the lionkage between damage and pool size is what does that or that unlinking that tie between pool size and max damage would significantly impact the diversity seen in play (presumably from hybrid builds) in a positive way? You just claimed i have made continued denials of this "the game" aspect... but can you show me one clear one, if you can, without shuffle?

or is this maybe another shuffle where you swap around what you want to defend with what you say others said?

I'll do you one better. I'll provide a quote from the very post in which you asked me for proof.

I say that tying damage into max attributes creates binary damage builds. Example: end-game damage builds put most, if not all, attribute points into a single attribute because damage is increased by pool size. FACT.

Now, see that part of your quote in the bold above? The fact that you're challenging "[linkage] between damage and pool size" as it relates to attribute choice diversity shows me how ridiculous you are being. Removing damage from resources allows players to allocate attribute points as they wish instead of forcing them to stack into one attribute. AUTOMATICALLY we get more diversity of options. I'm really sorry that you can't see that.

And there we have it... you choose to responmd to a request for proof that i challnge the "game" pushes nbinary as opposed to my challenge that the binary is driven by pool size link and the removal etc... with a quote about pool size...

net result, you are again shuffling what others say who disagree with your conclusions into what you want to defend even if what you defend is not what they said.

In short, you are arguing with stuff you made up.

Its the Grumpy Shuffle.

Thanks for the best example there could be.

Everything I've said has been consistent (see past posts in this thread) because I'm consistently defending the same points. If anyone is spamming shuffle it's you, in 7/7 medium armor. You even created an ice cream parable

GrumpyDuckling

STEVIL wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

code65536 wrote: »

LOL.

Simple answer: Because choosing a stat needs to have meaning/consequences. If you opt for more health for tankiness, you sacrifice damage. Tradeoff is how we have balance and meaningful choices.

What this thread advocates for is utterly ridiculous.

If we make that choice only about resource management (by removing damage from resources), then we can mix/diversify attributes for builds instead of having to choose either 64 into stamina or magicka.

Not true as long as the rest of the game drives the magica or stamina option.

There is no way that depowering 64 mag and 64 stamina helps split hybrid stam-mag builds get any stronger... it just weakens them and leaves health based builds just fine.

How many different folks have to point out that when we used to have no pool damage boosts health builds all 64 were in vogue or that if this change were made that they would swap to health builds or provides recent references to results when non-pool damage was high and we saw proc-health builds rise before you choose to stop ignoring that weakening stam and mag based builds does not help hybrid builds become stronger?!?!?

your proposed change wont produce the results you seek, any more than the recent sustain nerfs gave rise to all those expected sustain-set builds or recovery ring glyphs did.

Resources.

Luigi_Vampa

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Zagnut123Zagnut123 wrote: »

Could you please explain a way they would prevent stacking all attributes into health. I have no issues with changes like the one you suggested but it appears to me that ask for a change with out detailing a clear path to get there that won't brake the game. Saying the devs will figure it out with testing doesn't make anyone feel easy about your suggestion. The devs have done a poor job in the past with listening to player feedback (I know that's subjective but I assume we're talking about end game pve) so simply requesting the change with no solution makes us question how zos would implement your idea.

@Zagnut123Zagnut123

The issue of stacking everything into health would come down to resource management. If a player has less magicka and stamina then they have less access to skills, block, dodge, sneak, and break free. If health overperforms in testing, then resource management for pure health builds would be examined. ZOS has a precedent for resource/sustain balancing (Morrowind).

You don't need a ton of max stats to boost recovery. DK Tanks have been using high mag recovery, low max magicka builds for a long time. Enough mag regen to use their magicka utility spells and spam Igneous when needed.

Max stats are only used because they add damage. Otherwise you just build recovery and you don't need high attribute stats. If we go back away from attribute scaled damage you will see a lot of high health, high recovery, high damage builds. The only thing that would change is max stat sets would be useless and everyone would have a lot of health.

If you have ZOS tie attribute scaling to recovery you would be in the same exact position as now. All in one stat.

Only soft caps and significant diminishing returns has a chance of evening things. And even then, someone will figure out what is the best allocation and nearly everyone will do that.

Zagnut123Zagnut123

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Zagnut123Zagnut123 wrote: »

Could you please explain a way they would prevent stacking all attributes into health. I have no issues with changes like the one you suggested but it appears to me that ask for a change with out detailing a clear path to get there that won't brake the game. Saying the devs will figure it out with testing doesn't make anyone feel easy about your suggestion. The devs have done a poor job in the past with listening to player feedback (I know that's subjective but I assume we're talking about end game pve) so simply requesting the change with no solution makes us question how zos would implement your idea.

@Zagnut123Zagnut123

The issue of stacking everything into health would come down to resource management. If a player has less magicka and stamina then they have less access to skills, block, dodge, sneak, and break free. If health overperforms in testing, then resource management for pure health builds would be examined. ZOS has a precedent for resource/sustain balancing (Morrowind).

You still failed to provide a solution tho. If zos were to implement a idea like this which I doubt they would they would probably *** the bed. Kinda how they *** the bed with morrowind. They wanted none hvy atk builds to be viable but low and behold they aren't. Most people don't have issue with them tweaking the combat system for the betterment of the game but a change like you suggest would require an entire overhaul. Sets would need to changed hvy atk recourse returns would need to be lowered to promote people not stacking into health and so on.

STEVIL

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Read my comments in this thread and you will see that the only things I argue with you about is 1) your continued denial of and refusal to recognize that the game promotes binary damage builds for end-game, and 2) your insistence that everyone would simply stack health if attribute damage scaling were to be removed.

Segregating this quote out to spotlight the shuffle and misrepresentation you are consistently engaging in.

Show me where i have denied "that the game promotes binary damage builds for end-game," in this thread? you just made the outright claim that i denied it and/or continued to deny it.

But lets look at some quotes you made which i was responding to...

"Max attribute damage scaling doesn't say, "your choices matter." It says, " here are your two binary choices. Pick one.""

"I don't know why you're calling the current attribute damage scaling system an "alleged" binary, because it is. "

Now @GrumpyDuckling i ask you a straight up question to back up your claim.

Can you provide one clear quote from this thread where i do in fact challenge the notion that " the game promotes binary damage builds for end-game," as opposed top my repeated challenges to your claims that the lionkage between damage and pool size is what does that or that unlinking that tie between pool size and max damage would significantly impact the diversity seen in play (presumably from hybrid builds) in a positive way? You just claimed i have made continued denials of this "the game" aspect... but can you show me one clear one, if you can, without shuffle?

or is this maybe another shuffle where you swap around what you want to defend with what you say others said?

I'll do you one better. I'll provide a quote from the very post in which you asked me for proof.

I say that tying damage into max attributes creates binary damage builds. Example: end-game damage builds put most, if not all, attribute points into a single attribute because damage is increased by pool size. FACT.

Now, see that part of your quote in the bold above? The fact that you're challenging "[linkage] between damage and pool size" as it relates to attribute choice diversity shows me how ridiculous you are being. Removing damage from resources allows players to allocate attribute points as they wish instead of forcing them to stack into one attribute. AUTOMATICALLY we get more diversity of options. I'm really sorry that you can't see that.

And there we have it... you choose to responmd to a request for proof that i challnge the "game" pushes nbinary as opposed to my challenge that the binary is driven by pool size link and the removal etc... with a quote about pool size...

net result, you are again shuffling what others say who disagree with your conclusions into what you want to defend even if what you defend is not what they said.

In short, you are arguing with stuff you made up.

Its the Grumpy Shuffle.

Thanks for the best example there could be.

Everything I've said has been consistent (see past posts in this thread) because I'm consistently defending the same points. If anyone is spamming shuffle it's you, in 7/7 medium armor. You even created an ice cream parable

you have been consistent - consistent at repackaging what others are saying and ignoring their counters.

there is a word for that kind of posting.

STEVIL

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Zagnut123Zagnut123 wrote: »

Could you please explain a way they would prevent stacking all attributes into health. I have no issues with changes like the one you suggested but it appears to me that ask for a change with out detailing a clear path to get there that won't brake the game. Saying the devs will figure it out with testing doesn't make anyone feel easy about your suggestion. The devs have done a poor job in the past with listening to player feedback (I know that's subjective but I assume we're talking about end game pve) so simply requesting the change with no solution makes us question how zos would implement your idea.

@Zagnut123Zagnut123

The issue of stacking everything into health would come down to resource management. If a player has less magicka and stamina then they have less access to skills, block, dodge, sneak, and break free. If health overperforms in testing, then resource management for pure health builds would be examined. ZOS has a precedent for resource/sustain balancing (Morrowind).

you cite Morrowind and ignore recent results post-morrowind.

the response to shortage of resources was to shift to non-resource damage even more. instead of finding ways to "live with" the sustain and the prior ability-spam rotations they shifted to more light/heavy and DOt centered builds where you gained and sustained resources actively, not passively. those same kinds of low-resource builds and rotations work fine for health centered builds as we have seen before and even now.

you are wishing that certain results will occur from this change, hoping and so on very imaginatively but you keep failing to look at what has been seen in play... with simple removal of pool-damage factors stam-mag becomes a second rate purchase vs health and it will be a new driving force to high health low-cost builds and rotations relying on low-to-no-resource-using damage coupled with the full benefits of high health builds.

Gank builds - based of quick combos - will do well.
High health huilds with low-cost damage routnies - also well.
stamina and magica builds - will suffer especially hybrids.

tearing down the "binary" builds is not a way to help hybrids and you keep ignoring the complexity of the system that weighs against them right now.

You need to start looking beyond your shoebox of variables and look at least into the rest of the closet if not the whole house if you want to have a prayer of dealing with your fetish about hybrid builds by improving their lot.

Destruent

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Zagnut123Zagnut123 wrote: »

Could you please explain a way they would prevent stacking all attributes into health. I have no issues with changes like the one you suggested but it appears to me that ask for a change with out detailing a clear path to get there that won't brake the game. Saying the devs will figure it out with testing doesn't make anyone feel easy about your suggestion. The devs have done a poor job in the past with listening to player feedback (I know that's subjective but I assume we're talking about end game pve) so simply requesting the change with no solution makes us question how zos would implement your idea.

@Zagnut123Zagnut123

The issue of stacking everything into health would come down to resource management. If a player has less magicka and stamina then they have less access to skills, block, dodge, sneak, and break free. If health overperforms in testing, then resource management for pure health builds would be examined. ZOS has a precedent for resource/sustain balancing (Morrowind).

This is so wrong....tanks atm don't skill anything into stamina/magicka and have more or less unlimited sustain. Your regen determine your sustain...not your max-stat...

STEVIL

Luigi_Vampa wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Zagnut123Zagnut123 wrote: »

Could you please explain a way they would prevent stacking all attributes into health. I have no issues with changes like the one you suggested but it appears to me that ask for a change with out detailing a clear path to get there that won't brake the game. Saying the devs will figure it out with testing doesn't make anyone feel easy about your suggestion. The devs have done a poor job in the past with listening to player feedback (I know that's subjective but I assume we're talking about end game pve) so simply requesting the change with no solution makes us question how zos would implement your idea.

@Zagnut123Zagnut123

The issue of stacking everything into health would come down to resource management. If a player has less magicka and stamina then they have less access to skills, block, dodge, sneak, and break free. If health overperforms in testing, then resource management for pure health builds would be examined. ZOS has a precedent for resource/sustain balancing (Morrowind).

You don't need a ton of max stats to boost recovery. DK Tanks have been using high mag recovery, low max magicka builds for a long time. Enough mag regen to use their magicka utility spells and spam Igneous when needed.

Max stats are only used because they add damage. Otherwise you just build recovery and you don't need high attribute stats. If we go back away from attribute scaled damage you will see a lot of high health, high recovery, high damage builds. The only thing that would change is max stat sets would be useless and everyone would have a lot of health.

If you have ZOS tie attribute scaling to recovery you would be in the same exact position as now. All in one stat.

Only soft caps and significant diminishing returns has a chance of evening things. And even then, someone will figure out what is the best allocation and nearly everyone will do that.

As was stated before... and ignored. With binary at least you have a stamina and a magica best for each class... with it all hybrid or health you just got one.

personally, givien the numerous places where "magica groups" of damage and "stamina groups of damage" are now presented as a package deal in sets, in Cp, in passives and potions and buffs and the like - i dont even think SC/SDR will be sufficient anymore.

the closst i can come to as a paradigm shift that works is the double-recovery angle where **all** the recovery especially the active recoveries for stamina or magica also double up and provide the other stat recovery in full as well. The goal being that a hybrid build has a lower "base damage" since pool scaling is still a thing but can use more (heavier hitting) abilities spam sic ethey draw on two pools with double resource gains while solo-pool builds have to work in more and more light/heavy attacks and fewer pool-draining attacks because they are wasting half their recover in exchange for higher base damage due to bigger pool size.

this has the advantage of also producing a very different play style between hybrid (ability spam) and solo-pool (more light/heavy) allowing those differences to play-off to counter the various "one type boosts" throughout the system. The major changes would be limited to recovery (the double taps) and a few spammable damage levels and two distinct playstyles would emerge and **maybe** be viable.

But as always, odds are a best would likely work itself out

GrumpyDuckling

Destruent wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Zagnut123Zagnut123 wrote: »

Could you please explain a way they would prevent stacking all attributes into health. I have no issues with changes like the one you suggested but it appears to me that ask for a change with out detailing a clear path to get there that won't brake the game. Saying the devs will figure it out with testing doesn't make anyone feel easy about your suggestion. The devs have done a poor job in the past with listening to player feedback (I know that's subjective but I assume we're talking about end game pve) so simply requesting the change with no solution makes us question how zos would implement your idea.

@Zagnut123Zagnut123

The issue of stacking everything into health would come down to resource management. If a player has less magicka and stamina then they have less access to skills, block, dodge, sneak, and break free. If health overperforms in testing, then resource management for pure health builds would be examined. ZOS has a precedent for resource/sustain balancing (Morrowind).

This is so wrong....tanks atm don't skill anything into stamina/magicka and have more or less unlimited sustain. Your regen determine your sustain...not your max-stat...

Max stat plays a part in sustain (the more of a resource you have, the more skills/actions you can perform. But overall we agree, because right now regen is very important.

See that part where I say, "If health overperforms in testing, then resource management for pure health builds would be examined." Research management includes regen.

Izaki

Wut? This is just stupid.

Waffennacht

I think people keep thinking max resources has any influence on the Amount Of Abilities Used - this is not true

Regen/Resource return and cost to a lesser extent have the influence.

The only reason to stack so heavily into one resource pool is because it influences damage - not to cast more abilities

A resource pool of 12k more than enough to handle ability use if given the correct amount of resource return - look at any health based build.

The builds would not invest in Stam or Mag because it's unnecessary, and would be a better benefit in health

I would run a 12k Stam 50k health 12k mag build all day long if it's damage was close to a current DMG build