Removal of wrath

Skander

I main a templar in heavy in pvp, so before you rage i must tell you this.

I'm really fine with wrath removal from heavy. It was not in its role, and will never be.

But damage is still kinda high if you think about it, did they buff it's survaivability on recources, or just swap the passives?

Alpheu5

Skander wrote: »

I main a templar in heavy in pvp, so before you rage i must tell you this.

I'm really fine with wrath removal from heavy. It was not in its role, and will never be.

But damage is still kinda high if you think about it, did they buff it's survaivability on recources, or just swap the passives?

They removed one passive, took one of another passive's 2 effects, and made that effect its own passive.

Aelakhaii_De_Mythos

Wrath: This passive ability has been replaced with the Revitalize passive, which increases the resources your Heavy Attacks restore by 12/25%.

Rapid Mending: This passive ability no longer increases the amount of resources your Heavy Attacks restore, as that effect has been moved to the new Revitalize passive. It continues to increase your healing received by 4/8%.

Skander

So it's a straight up nerf. Mh, Bad. Like sorcs woudn't do dmg already

SirAndy

Skander wrote: »

So it's a straight up nerf.

That was the whole point, to tone down the damage on a heavy armor build, which actually makes a lot of sense.

ak_pvp

Ahem.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/375983/the-heavy-armour-meta-isnt-as-2d-as-everyone-thinks-zoss-blanket-fixes-will-not-work#latest

*** blanket nerf is *** blanket nerf.

I run light.

Skander

SirAndy wrote: »

Skander wrote: »

So it's a straight up nerf.

That was the whole point, to tone down the damage on a heavy armor build, which actually makes a lot of sense.

It would make sense, if they buffed survaivabilty. Dmg buffs heals.

Sixty5

Skander wrote: »

SirAndy wrote: »

Skander wrote: »

So it's a straight up nerf.

That was the whole point, to tone down the damage on a heavy armor build, which actually makes a lot of sense.

It would make sense, if they buffed survaivabilty. Dmg buffs heals.

Heavy already offers 'enough' bonus healing and survivability already. Adding to that wouldn't fix the issue of it being overbearing.

lucky_Sage

I am fine with wrath removal but not what the changed it to or lack of changed to just moved and buffed a passive that does nothing to all magicka build that run heavy because 99% mag builds running heavy arnt using a destro staff and even If they where destroy heavy attack takes to long to charge
destroy staff in pvp doest help magdk or most magplars ive seen one decent build only because the passives on destroy helps them more dks don't have room to slot a destroy abilty or lose 5/5/2

idk

The bigger issue with the removal of Wrath is Zos already removed a passive to add Wrath yet they are not replacing wrath with anything else. This makes HA passives weaker than it has ever been since the game was released.

GeorgeBlack

Sixty5 wrote: »

Skander wrote: »

SirAndy wrote: »

Skander wrote: »

So it's a straight up nerf.

That was the whole point, to tone down the damage on a heavy armor build, which actually makes a lot of sense.

It would make sense, if they buffed survaivabilty. Dmg buffs heals.

Heavy already offers 'enough' bonus healing and survivability already. Adding to that wouldn't fix the issue of it being overbearing.

HA is actually worse since release. If u recall everybody was using either light or medium for.
How is it overbearing?

Skander

Sixty5 wrote: »

Skander wrote: »

SirAndy wrote: »

Skander wrote: »

So it's a straight up nerf.

That was the whole point, to tone down the damage on a heavy armor build, which actually makes a lot of sense.

It would make sense, if they buffed survaivabilty. Dmg buffs heals.

Heavy already offers 'enough' bonus healing and survivability already. Adding to that wouldn't fix the issue of it being overbearing.

Heavy isn't good for recources, is just good for tankiness, getting away the damage of it just kills your heals.

Valencer

idk wrote: »

The bigger issue with the removal of Wrath is Zos already removed a passive to add Wrath yet they are not replacing wrath with anything else. This makes HA passives weaker than it has ever been since the game was released.

Not even close to the truth.

Constitution is about twice as strong. (Multiplied by ~4 with the DB update, then almost halved with morrowind)
+25% heavy attack resource restore.
More max health and healing received

No block cost reduction anymore, but now there's the sturdy trait to optimise that instead

Skander

Valencer wrote: »

idk wrote: »

The bigger issue with the removal of Wrath is Zos already removed a passive to add Wrath yet they are not replacing wrath with anything else. This makes HA passives weaker than it has ever been since the game was released.

Not even close to the truth.

Constitution is about twice as strong. (Multiplied by ~4 with the DB update, then almost halved with morrowind)
+25% heavy attack resource restore.
More max health and healing received

No block cost reduction anymore, but now there's the sturdy trait to optimise that instead

Sturdy is only good on dk, becouse you can actually block with it. If you use sturdy you won't use impenetrable, no impen=death by a 8k incap

Chilly-McFreeze

Valencer wrote: »

idk wrote: »

The bigger issue with the removal of Wrath is Zos already removed a passive to add Wrath yet they are not replacing wrath with anything else. This makes HA passives weaker than it has ever been since the game was released.

Not even close to the truth.

Constitution is about twice as strong. (Multiplied by ~4 with the DB update, then almost halved with morrowind)
+25% heavy attack resource restore.
More max health and healing received

No block cost reduction anymore, but now there's the sturdy trait to optimise that instead

So it's no bonus from HA anymore, which makes it weaker since you could get "sturdy" from the passives and wear another armor trait. It's like saying "templars aren't nerfed when they removed major mending because there's that buff in the resto skill line."

Also, I like how you "forgot" to include that MW was an all across resource management nerf with the removal of cost reduction CP and how they gutted the Black Rose set when you write about how constitution being so strong.

Sixty5 wrote: »

Skander wrote: »

SirAndy wrote: »

Skander wrote: »

So it's a straight up nerf.

That was the whole point, to tone down the damage on a heavy armor build, which actually makes a lot of sense.

It would make sense, if they buffed survaivabilty. Dmg buffs heals.

Heavy already offers 'enough' bonus healing and survivability already. Adding to that wouldn't fix the issue of it being overbearing.

Does it?

Wrath removal not only guts offense, but also the strength of their heals.
Consitution was nerfed so they can't sustain as easily without sacrificing something (e.g. dmg glyphs for regen on jewls which means again, lower heals).
And don't forget the shuffle lockout. Not only the evasion buff (but to be honest, with so much unblockable stuff already evasion hardly mattered), but primarily it forces HA to either have a hard time to line of sight or loose a burst heal.

And now tell me where the survivability comes from? Permablocking? That's a problem of how block costs are calculated. Heavy armor passives have no cost decrease in it. All you could say about it is that constitution (which is nerfed, just like BR) or the strong damage sets synergyze better with it.

But that's it. If permablocking is the problem, change that, not heavy armor.
If 1.2k dmg bonus from sets is the problem, change them, not heavy armor.
However, HA was already no choice for PvE DD, besides some niche hybrid builds. But these hardly matter.


I hope you know what these changes will bring. In PvP people chose HA over MA because medium sucks, and it will still suck after the patch. All these changes bring is to force even more HA user, who weren't permablocking or wearing 7th + fury before, to do exactly that. Just to compensate for survivability, dmg and heals lost. And it will just be the same issue as before. GG ZOS. GG to all who thinks this solves anything.

Azurya

Aelakhaii_De_Mythos wrote: »

Wrath: This passive ability has been replaced with the Revitalize passive, which increases the resources your Heavy Attacks restore by 12/25%.

Rapid Mending: This passive ability no longer increases the amount of resources your Heavy Attacks restore, as that effect has been moved to the new Revitalize passive. It continues to increase your healing received by 4/8%.

If you really look at this, it is hilarious.........
it says clear one thing about the devs at ZOS: WE DON´T KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING, BUT WE ARE DOING IT!

lucky_Sage

if say I did want to make use of the heavy attack passive for sustain a build be similar to this how viable would this be. I don't think at all

I really want to know why removing a passive and splitting one without buffing makes since I am fine with wrath going away but just splitting a passive instead of adding one is stupid

edit I had a link but didn't show it so bar set up would be like with destro fire and resto

talons, burning embers, whip ,entropy, and either ele drain or ele blockade ult-leap
healing ward, elusive mist, petrify , engulfing flames ( if using ele blockade possible flex spot), volatile armor ult- lights champion

don't see being viable at all this theory crafted build gives up 5/5/2

Valencer

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

Valencer wrote: »

idk wrote: »

The bigger issue with the removal of Wrath is Zos already removed a passive to add Wrath yet they are not replacing wrath with anything else. This makes HA passives weaker than it has ever been since the game was released.

Not even close to the truth.

Constitution is about twice as strong. (Multiplied by ~4 with the DB update, then almost halved with morrowind)
+25% heavy attack resource restore.
More max health and healing received

No block cost reduction anymore, but now there's the sturdy trait to optimise that instead

So it's no bonus from HA anymore, which makes it weaker since you could get "sturdy" from the passives and wear another armor trait. It's like saying "templars aren't nerfed when they removed major mending because there's that buff in the resto skill line."

Also, I like how you "forgot" to include that MW was an all across resource management nerf with the removal of cost reduction CP and how they gutted the Black Rose set when you write about how constitution being so strong.

I wonder how long some of you have even played ESO. You know what people used the old Bracing passive (you know, the one that gave -20% block cost) for? Nothing, because holding block was a death sentence after they cut stamina regen while blocking. Builds that ran heavy in Cyrodiil usually used it exclusively for the extra passive tankiness (e.g. raid healers) and definitely *not* for blocking more. The old block cost passive was for all intents and purposes useless in PvP.

You know why people can block a lot more now? Among other reasons, the introduction of sturdy and the greatly increased potency of passives like Constitution (which make block sustainable by providing a form of resource sustain even while blocking). So no, heavy armour lost practically nothing and gained a lot when they made all those passive changes.

And last I checked the blanket sustain nerfs of morrowind also affect light and medium armour setups (in fact, light and medium got their own cost reduction passives nerfed too, just like heavy's constitution passive). In terms of CP theres certainly no difference - cost reduction from CP was widely used for both light/medium and heavy builds. So what's your point?

Skander

Whoever says that sturdy is good. Actually doesn't know that is *** outside DK.

When you don't block that trait is useless, if you block too much, one fear and it's over.

Skander

Don't mistake me, removal of wrath is GOOD

But give Heavy something BACK for it. Even if not as powerful. But still SOMETHING

Sixty5

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

Valencer wrote: »

idk wrote: »

The bigger issue with the removal of Wrath is Zos already removed a passive to add Wrath yet they are not replacing wrath with anything else. This makes HA passives weaker than it has ever been since the game was released.

Not even close to the truth.

Constitution is about twice as strong. (Multiplied by ~4 with the DB update, then almost halved with morrowind)
+25% heavy attack resource restore.
More max health and healing received

No block cost reduction anymore, but now there's the sturdy trait to optimise that instead

So it's no bonus from HA anymore, which makes it weaker since you could get "sturdy" from the passives and wear another armor trait. It's like saying "templars aren't nerfed when they removed major mending because there's that buff in the resto skill line."

Also, I like how you "forgot" to include that MW was an all across resource management nerf with the removal of cost reduction CP and how they gutted the Black Rose set when you write about how constitution being so strong.

Sixty5 wrote: »

Skander wrote: »

SirAndy wrote: »

Skander wrote: »

So it's a straight up nerf.

That was the whole point, to tone down the damage on a heavy armor build, which actually makes a lot of sense.

It would make sense, if they buffed survaivabilty. Dmg buffs heals.

Heavy already offers 'enough' bonus healing and survivability already. Adding to that wouldn't fix the issue of it being overbearing.

Does it?

Wrath removal not only guts offense, but also the strength of their heals.
Consitution was nerfed so they can't sustain as easily without sacrificing something (e.g. dmg glyphs for regen on jewls which means again, lower heals).
And don't forget the shuffle lockout. Not only the evasion buff (but to be honest, with so much unblockable stuff already evasion hardly mattered), but primarily it forces HA to either have a hard time to line of sight or loose a burst heal.

And now tell me where the survivability comes from? Permablocking? That's a problem of how block costs are calculated. Heavy armor passives have no cost decrease in it. All you could say about it is that constitution (which is nerfed, just like BR) or the strong damage sets synergyze better with it.

But that's it. If permablocking is the problem, change that, not heavy armor.
If 1.2k dmg bonus from sets is the problem, change them, not heavy armor.
However, HA was already no choice for PvE DD, besides some niche hybrid builds. But these hardly matter.


I hope you know what these changes will bring. In PvP people chose HA over MA because medium sucks, and it will still suck after the patch. All these changes bring is to force even more HA user, who weren't permablocking or wearing 7th + fury before, to do exactly that. Just to compensate for survivability, dmg and heals lost. And it will just be the same issue as before. GG ZOS. GG to all who thinks this solves anything.

First off I did a bit of math, and vigor tooltips scale about 2:1 with weapon damage before battle spirit, so losing Wrath removes about 240 points of healing total, before factoring in crits, this hardly "guts" the self healing of a heavy build.

Secondly, let's compare the raw sustain values of constitution and Light/Medium armour.
With 5 armour pieces constitution breaks even with the recovery passives of Light/Medium at about 1350 base recovery, and remember this regen is not cut off by block and gives back both magicka and stamina. The extra regen from heavy attacks is also nothing to sneeze at.
All this means that Heavy armour is actually the king of in-combat sustain.

Survivability wise Heavy Armour offers the best base resists, as well as percentage health amplifications and healing bonuses, which provide significantly more survivability than medium or light armour on it's own.

The removal of Wrath removes about 1-2k damage from a burst combo and a miniscule amount of healing. They haven't cut the sustain or the durabillity of heavy builds, only cut down on some of the unnecessary damage they had.

Skander

Sixty5 wrote: »

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

Valencer wrote: »

idk wrote: »

The bigger issue with the removal of Wrath is Zos already removed a passive to add Wrath yet they are not replacing wrath with anything else. This makes HA passives weaker than it has ever been since the game was released.

Not even close to the truth.

Constitution is about twice as strong. (Multiplied by ~4 with the DB update, then almost halved with morrowind)
+25% heavy attack resource restore.
More max health and healing received

No block cost reduction anymore, but now there's the sturdy trait to optimise that instead

So it's no bonus from HA anymore, which makes it weaker since you could get "sturdy" from the passives and wear another armor trait. It's like saying "templars aren't nerfed when they removed major mending because there's that buff in the resto skill line."

Also, I like how you "forgot" to include that MW was an all across resource management nerf with the removal of cost reduction CP and how they gutted the Black Rose set when you write about how constitution being so strong.

Sixty5 wrote: »

Skander wrote: »

SirAndy wrote: »

Skander wrote: »

So it's a straight up nerf.

That was the whole point, to tone down the damage on a heavy armor build, which actually makes a lot of sense.

It would make sense, if they buffed survaivabilty. Dmg buffs heals.

Heavy already offers 'enough' bonus healing and survivability already. Adding to that wouldn't fix the issue of it being overbearing.

Does it?

Wrath removal not only guts offense, but also the strength of their heals.
Consitution was nerfed so they can't sustain as easily without sacrificing something (e.g. dmg glyphs for regen on jewls which means again, lower heals).
And don't forget the shuffle lockout. Not only the evasion buff (but to be honest, with so much unblockable stuff already evasion hardly mattered), but primarily it forces HA to either have a hard time to line of sight or loose a burst heal.

And now tell me where the survivability comes from? Permablocking? That's a problem of how block costs are calculated. Heavy armor passives have no cost decrease in it. All you could say about it is that constitution (which is nerfed, just like BR) or the strong damage sets synergyze better with it.

But that's it. If permablocking is the problem, change that, not heavy armor.
If 1.2k dmg bonus from sets is the problem, change them, not heavy armor.
However, HA was already no choice for PvE DD, besides some niche hybrid builds. But these hardly matter.


I hope you know what these changes will bring. In PvP people chose HA over MA because medium sucks, and it will still suck after the patch. All these changes bring is to force even more HA user, who weren't permablocking or wearing 7th + fury before, to do exactly that. Just to compensate for survivability, dmg and heals lost. And it will just be the same issue as before. GG ZOS. GG to all who thinks this solves anything.

First off I did a bit of math, and vigor tooltips scale about 2:1 with weapon damage before battle spirit, so losing Wrath removes about 240 points of healing total, before factoring in crits, this hardly "guts" the self healing of a heavy build.

Secondly, let's compare the raw sustain values of constitution and Light/Medium armour.
With 5 armour pieces constitution breaks even with the recovery passives of Light/Medium at about 1350 base recovery, and remember this regen is not cut off by block and gives back both magicka and stamina. The extra regen from heavy attacks is also nothing to sneeze at.
All this means that Heavy armour is actually the king of in-combat sustain.

Survivability wise Heavy Armour offers the best base resists, as well as percentage health amplifications and healing bonuses, which provide significantly more survivability than medium or light armour on it's own.

The removal of Wrath removes about 1-2k damage from a burst combo and a miniscule amount of healing. They haven't cut the sustain or the durabillity of heavy builds, only cut down on some of the unnecessary damage they had.

Indeed, magicka heavy armor will be the one with the shortest stick. 100 spell damage, on a templar is roughly 1k more healing with BoL.
1-2k is not huge viewed from a burst combo. It is if you see that heavy armor is about sustained dmg, not burst.

GeorgeBlack

I wonder how many non SnB builds we will see wearing HA.

It's funny... all I wanted back before dark brotherhood was to see a 2handed warrior with heavy, a dual wielder warrior with heavy.. lord gives and lord takes.

Larsay

Eh, Wrath is gone... love or hate it being removed is irrelevant when they don't replace it with something else. That just seems like a poor choice

But if you want Heavy to be sustain armor ZoS, give it innate regens, cost reductions to both stam and magicka... or just revert all the way back and give us block cost reduction back.

Sixty5

Skander wrote: »

Sixty5 wrote: »

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

Valencer wrote: »

idk wrote: »

The bigger issue with the removal of Wrath is Zos already removed a passive to add Wrath yet they are not replacing wrath with anything else. This makes HA passives weaker than it has ever been since the game was released.

Not even close to the truth.

Constitution is about twice as strong. (Multiplied by ~4 with the DB update, then almost halved with morrowind)
+25% heavy attack resource restore.
More max health and healing received

No block cost reduction anymore, but now there's the sturdy trait to optimise that instead

So it's no bonus from HA anymore, which makes it weaker since you could get "sturdy" from the passives and wear another armor trait. It's like saying "templars aren't nerfed when they removed major mending because there's that buff in the resto skill line."

Also, I like how you "forgot" to include that MW was an all across resource management nerf with the removal of cost reduction CP and how they gutted the Black Rose set when you write about how constitution being so strong.

Sixty5 wrote: »

Skander wrote: »

SirAndy wrote: »

Skander wrote: »

So it's a straight up nerf.

That was the whole point, to tone down the damage on a heavy armor build, which actually makes a lot of sense.

It would make sense, if they buffed survaivabilty. Dmg buffs heals.

Heavy already offers 'enough' bonus healing and survivability already. Adding to that wouldn't fix the issue of it being overbearing.

Does it?

Wrath removal not only guts offense, but also the strength of their heals.
Consitution was nerfed so they can't sustain as easily without sacrificing something (e.g. dmg glyphs for regen on jewls which means again, lower heals).
And don't forget the shuffle lockout. Not only the evasion buff (but to be honest, with so much unblockable stuff already evasion hardly mattered), but primarily it forces HA to either have a hard time to line of sight or loose a burst heal.

And now tell me where the survivability comes from? Permablocking? That's a problem of how block costs are calculated. Heavy armor passives have no cost decrease in it. All you could say about it is that constitution (which is nerfed, just like BR) or the strong damage sets synergyze better with it.

But that's it. If permablocking is the problem, change that, not heavy armor.
If 1.2k dmg bonus from sets is the problem, change them, not heavy armor.
However, HA was already no choice for PvE DD, besides some niche hybrid builds. But these hardly matter.


I hope you know what these changes will bring. In PvP people chose HA over MA because medium sucks, and it will still suck after the patch. All these changes bring is to force even more HA user, who weren't permablocking or wearing 7th + fury before, to do exactly that. Just to compensate for survivability, dmg and heals lost. And it will just be the same issue as before. GG ZOS. GG to all who thinks this solves anything.

First off I did a bit of math, and vigor tooltips scale about 2:1 with weapon damage before battle spirit, so losing Wrath removes about 240 points of healing total, before factoring in crits, this hardly "guts" the self healing of a heavy build.

Secondly, let's compare the raw sustain values of constitution and Light/Medium armour.
With 5 armour pieces constitution breaks even with the recovery passives of Light/Medium at about 1350 base recovery, and remember this regen is not cut off by block and gives back both magicka and stamina. The extra regen from heavy attacks is also nothing to sneeze at.
All this means that Heavy armour is actually the king of in-combat sustain.

Survivability wise Heavy Armour offers the best base resists, as well as percentage health amplifications and healing bonuses, which provide significantly more survivability than medium or light armour on it's own.

The removal of Wrath removes about 1-2k damage from a burst combo and a miniscule amount of healing. They haven't cut the sustain or the durabillity of heavy builds, only cut down on some of the unnecessary damage they had.

Indeed, magicka heavy armor will be the one with the shortest stick. 100 spell damage, on a templar is roughly 1k more healing with BoL.
1-2k is not huge viewed from a burst combo. It is if you see that heavy armor is about sustained dmg, not burst.

Can't say I would be sad to see templars in heavy spamming breath go into the dumpster.

The thing about sustained damage in pvp is that unless you have a lot of it, to the point where you outstrip the opponents ability to heal or run away, it typically won't pick up kills.

I'm not sure on the exact numbers for what 200 weapon/spell damage equates to in terms of DPS, but you can equate it to Nirnhoned which is about a 4-5% DPS buff overall, so again, in terms of PVP pressure it isn't a huge loss.

Skander

Sixty5 wrote: »

Skander wrote: »

Sixty5 wrote: »

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

Valencer wrote: »

idk wrote: »

The bigger issue with the removal of Wrath is Zos already removed a passive to add Wrath yet they are not replacing wrath with anything else. This makes HA passives weaker than it has ever been since the game was released.

Not even close to the truth.

Constitution is about twice as strong. (Multiplied by ~4 with the DB update, then almost halved with morrowind)
+25% heavy attack resource restore.
More max health and healing received

No block cost reduction anymore, but now there's the sturdy trait to optimise that instead

So it's no bonus from HA anymore, which makes it weaker since you could get "sturdy" from the passives and wear another armor trait. It's like saying "templars aren't nerfed when they removed major mending because there's that buff in the resto skill line."

Also, I like how you "forgot" to include that MW was an all across resource management nerf with the removal of cost reduction CP and how they gutted the Black Rose set when you write about how constitution being so strong.

Sixty5 wrote: »

Skander wrote: »

SirAndy wrote: »

Skander wrote: »

So it's a straight up nerf.

That was the whole point, to tone down the damage on a heavy armor build, which actually makes a lot of sense.

It would make sense, if they buffed survaivabilty. Dmg buffs heals.

Heavy already offers 'enough' bonus healing and survivability already. Adding to that wouldn't fix the issue of it being overbearing.

Does it?

Wrath removal not only guts offense, but also the strength of their heals.
Consitution was nerfed so they can't sustain as easily without sacrificing something (e.g. dmg glyphs for regen on jewls which means again, lower heals).
And don't forget the shuffle lockout. Not only the evasion buff (but to be honest, with so much unblockable stuff already evasion hardly mattered), but primarily it forces HA to either have a hard time to line of sight or loose a burst heal.

And now tell me where the survivability comes from? Permablocking? That's a problem of how block costs are calculated. Heavy armor passives have no cost decrease in it. All you could say about it is that constitution (which is nerfed, just like BR) or the strong damage sets synergyze better with it.

But that's it. If permablocking is the problem, change that, not heavy armor.
If 1.2k dmg bonus from sets is the problem, change them, not heavy armor.
However, HA was already no choice for PvE DD, besides some niche hybrid builds. But these hardly matter.


I hope you know what these changes will bring. In PvP people chose HA over MA because medium sucks, and it will still suck after the patch. All these changes bring is to force even more HA user, who weren't permablocking or wearing 7th + fury before, to do exactly that. Just to compensate for survivability, dmg and heals lost. And it will just be the same issue as before. GG ZOS. GG to all who thinks this solves anything.

First off I did a bit of math, and vigor tooltips scale about 2:1 with weapon damage before battle spirit, so losing Wrath removes about 240 points of healing total, before factoring in crits, this hardly "guts" the self healing of a heavy build.

Secondly, let's compare the raw sustain values of constitution and Light/Medium armour.
With 5 armour pieces constitution breaks even with the recovery passives of Light/Medium at about 1350 base recovery, and remember this regen is not cut off by block and gives back both magicka and stamina. The extra regen from heavy attacks is also nothing to sneeze at.
All this means that Heavy armour is actually the king of in-combat sustain.

Survivability wise Heavy Armour offers the best base resists, as well as percentage health amplifications and healing bonuses, which provide significantly more survivability than medium or light armour on it's own.

The removal of Wrath removes about 1-2k damage from a burst combo and a miniscule amount of healing. They haven't cut the sustain or the durabillity of heavy builds, only cut down on some of the unnecessary damage they had.

Indeed, magicka heavy armor will be the one with the shortest stick. 100 spell damage, on a templar is roughly 1k more healing with BoL.
1-2k is not huge viewed from a burst combo. It is if you see that heavy armor is about sustained dmg, not burst.

Can't say I would be sad to see templars in heavy spamming breath go into the dumpster.

The thing about sustained damage in pvp is that unless you have a lot of it, to the point where you outstrip the opponents ability to heal or run away, it typically won't pick up kills.

I'm not sure on the exact numbers for what 200 weapon/spell damage equates to in terms of DPS, but you can equate it to Nirnhoned which is about a 4-5% DPS buff overall, so again, in terms of PVP pressure it isn't a huge loss.

Let alone that Nirn is not available yet to dropped sets, 200 w/s dmg is huge for pressure, it's like having or not eveing the entroy/rally buff on your heavy armor character

Chilly-McFreeze

Valencer wrote: »

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

Valencer wrote: »

idk wrote: »

The bigger issue with the removal of Wrath is Zos already removed a passive to add Wrath yet they are not replacing wrath with anything else. This makes HA passives weaker than it has ever been since the game was released.

Not even close to the truth.

Constitution is about twice as strong. (Multiplied by ~4 with the DB update, then almost halved with morrowind)
+25% heavy attack resource restore.
More max health and healing received

No block cost reduction anymore, but now there's the sturdy trait to optimise that instead

So it's no bonus from HA anymore, which makes it weaker since you could get "sturdy" from the passives and wear another armor trait. It's like saying "templars aren't nerfed when they removed major mending because there's that buff in the resto skill line."

Also, I like how you "forgot" to include that MW was an all across resource management nerf with the removal of cost reduction CP and how they gutted the Black Rose set when you write about how constitution being so strong.

I wonder how long some of you have even played ESO. You know what people used the old Bracing passive (you know, the one that gave -20% block cost) for? Nothing, because holding block was a death sentence after they cut stamina regen while blocking. Builds that ran heavy in Cyrodiil usually used it exclusively for the extra passive tankiness (e.g. raid healers) and definitely *not* for blocking more. The old block cost passive was for all intents and purposes useless in PvP.

You know why people can block a lot more now? Among other reasons, the introduction of sturdy and the greatly increased potency of passives like Constitution (which make block sustainable by providing a form of resource sustain even while blocking). So no, heavy armour lost practically nothing and gained a lot when they made all those passive changes.

And last I checked the blanket sustain nerfs of morrowind also affect light and medium armour setups (in fact, light and medium got their own cost reduction passives nerfed too, just like heavy's constitution passive). In terms of CP theres certainly no difference - cost reduction from CP was widely used for both light/medium and heavy builds. So what's your point?

My point is? That heavy armor will be worse after the patch than in a long time.
Bracing gone. It's substitute gone. No replacement at all. Means overall less boni from passives. Constitution also halfed. (And spare me that it was buffed 1 1/2 years ago, if we compare everything only to how it was at X instead of how it is now most arguments become nonsense).
And in this arugment you shouldn't even care that blocking was a death sentence then. It sure isn't now. Actually, blocking becomes even more important for HA since they either miss a burst heal or a snare removal for fast LoS. So a return of bracing would indeed help a bit. But, and that is a big but, if they finally correct how block costs are calculated so that permablocking would become significantly harder in the first place (but then still easier on HA than on other types).

Sixty5 wrote: »

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

Valencer wrote: »

idk wrote: »

The bigger issue with the removal of Wrath is Zos already removed a passive to add Wrath yet they are not replacing wrath with anything else. This makes HA passives weaker than it has ever been since the game was released.

Not even close to the truth.

Constitution is about twice as strong. (Multiplied by ~4 with the DB update, then almost halved with morrowind)
+25% heavy attack resource restore.
More max health and healing received

No block cost reduction anymore, but now there's the sturdy trait to optimise that instead

So it's no bonus from HA anymore, which makes it weaker since you could get "sturdy" from the passives and wear another armor trait. It's like saying "templars aren't nerfed when they removed major mending because there's that buff in the resto skill line."

Also, I like how you "forgot" to include that MW was an all across resource management nerf with the removal of cost reduction CP and how they gutted the Black Rose set when you write about how constitution being so strong.

Sixty5 wrote: »

Skander wrote: »

SirAndy wrote: »

Skander wrote: »

So it's a straight up nerf.

That was the whole point, to tone down the damage on a heavy armor build, which actually makes a lot of sense.

It would make sense, if they buffed survaivabilty. Dmg buffs heals.

Heavy already offers 'enough' bonus healing and survivability already. Adding to that wouldn't fix the issue of it being overbearing.

Does it?

Wrath removal not only guts offense, but also the strength of their heals.
Consitution was nerfed so they can't sustain as easily without sacrificing something (e.g. dmg glyphs for regen on jewls which means again, lower heals).
And don't forget the shuffle lockout. Not only the evasion buff (but to be honest, with so much unblockable stuff already evasion hardly mattered), but primarily it forces HA to either have a hard time to line of sight or loose a burst heal.

And now tell me where the survivability comes from? Permablocking? That's a problem of how block costs are calculated. Heavy armor passives have no cost decrease in it. All you could say about it is that constitution (which is nerfed, just like BR) or the strong damage sets synergyze better with it.

But that's it. If permablocking is the problem, change that, not heavy armor.
If 1.2k dmg bonus from sets is the problem, change them, not heavy armor.
However, HA was already no choice for PvE DD, besides some niche hybrid builds. But these hardly matter.


I hope you know what these changes will bring. In PvP people chose HA over MA because medium sucks, and it will still suck after the patch. All these changes bring is to force even more HA user, who weren't permablocking or wearing 7th + fury before, to do exactly that. Just to compensate for survivability, dmg and heals lost. And it will just be the same issue as before. GG ZOS. GG to all who thinks this solves anything.

First off I did a bit of math, and vigor tooltips scale about 2:1 with weapon damage before battle spirit, so losing Wrath removes about 240 points of healing total, before factoring in crits, this hardly "guts" the self healing of a heavy build.

Secondly, let's compare the raw sustain values of constitution and Light/Medium armour.
With 5 armour pieces constitution breaks even with the recovery passives of Light/Medium at about 1350 base recovery, and remember this regen is not cut off by block and gives back both magicka and stamina. The extra regen from heavy attacks is also nothing to sneeze at.
All this means that Heavy armour is actually the king of in-combat sustain.

Survivability wise Heavy Armour offers the best base resists, as well as percentage health amplifications and healing bonuses, which provide significantly more survivability than medium or light armour on it's own.

The removal of Wrath removes about 1-2k damage from a burst combo and a miniscule amount of healing. They haven't cut the sustain or the durabillity of heavy builds, only cut down on some of the unnecessary damage they had.

Yes, 240 healing points from vigor alone may won't make a difference most of the times. And yes, HA is good for in combat sustain and "regen" while blocking, just how it should be.

But what you miss is the rest of my post. Don't know why you ignored that. It doesn't end at 240 hp from vigor. Does it?
You are loosing out on either the only burst heal (Rally) or the ability to shake of snares to quickly LoS (FW instead of shuffle).
I won't even start with major evasion and how great shields are if you aren't outnumbered.

People will feel this. They will realize that it's harder to survive and deal damage on HA. How do you think they will make up for it? If they haven't already given permablocking and/or 7th + Raveger/ Fury a try they have an incentive now. Or will they change to medium? Why should they, it's still worse than heavy. Wrath did nothing for that stigma, actually the issues didn't even came from heavy armor passives. But I'm tired of repeating myself.

If anyone thinks it's better to nerf HA across the board by stealing a passive of 200dmg instead of solving permablocking and sets like ravager, fury & 7th, then so be it. But please don't come around next patch and whine again about how MA underperformes and how OP HA still is.

Valencer

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

Valencer wrote: »

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

Valencer wrote: »

idk wrote: »

The bigger issue with the removal of Wrath is Zos already removed a passive to add Wrath yet they are not replacing wrath with anything else. This makes HA passives weaker than it has ever been since the game was released.

Not even close to the truth.

Constitution is about twice as strong. (Multiplied by ~4 with the DB update, then almost halved with morrowind)
+25% heavy attack resource restore.
More max health and healing received

No block cost reduction anymore, but now there's the sturdy trait to optimise that instead

So it's no bonus from HA anymore, which makes it weaker since you could get "sturdy" from the passives and wear another armor trait. It's like saying "templars aren't nerfed when they removed major mending because there's that buff in the resto skill line."

Also, I like how you "forgot" to include that MW was an all across resource management nerf with the removal of cost reduction CP and how they gutted the Black Rose set when you write about how constitution being so strong.

I wonder how long some of you have even played ESO. You know what people used the old Bracing passive (you know, the one that gave -20% block cost) for? Nothing, because holding block was a death sentence after they cut stamina regen while blocking. Builds that ran heavy in Cyrodiil usually used it exclusively for the extra passive tankiness (e.g. raid healers) and definitely *not* for blocking more. The old block cost passive was for all intents and purposes useless in PvP.

You know why people can block a lot more now? Among other reasons, the introduction of sturdy and the greatly increased potency of passives like Constitution (which make block sustainable by providing a form of resource sustain even while blocking). So no, heavy armour lost practically nothing and gained a lot when they made all those passive changes.

And last I checked the blanket sustain nerfs of morrowind also affect light and medium armour setups (in fact, light and medium got their own cost reduction passives nerfed too, just like heavy's constitution passive). In terms of CP theres certainly no difference - cost reduction from CP was widely used for both light/medium and heavy builds. So what's your point?

My point is? That heavy armor will be worse after the patch than in a long time.
Bracing gone. It's substitute gone. No replacement at all. Means overall less boni from passives. Constitution also halfed. (And spare me that it was buffed 1 1/2 years ago, if we compare everything only to how it was at X instead of how it is now most arguments become nonsense).
And in this arugment you shouldn't even care that blocking was a death sentence then. It sure isn't now. Actually, blocking becomes even more important for HA since they either miss a burst heal or a snare removal for fast LoS. So a return of bracing would indeed help a bit. But, and that is a big but, if they finally correct how block costs are calculated so that permablocking would become significantly harder in the first place (but then still easier on HA than on other types).

Why shouldnt I care that it was buffed 1.5 years ago? People love to cry about nerfs but then conveniently forget all the inane buffs ZOS has done the past year.

You cant say that Heavy Armour is worse than before while referencing an old passive that was literally useless at the time. How well an armour type and its' passives perform is entirely dependent on context.

People said that heavy armour would die out with Morrowind and somehow we ended up with even more tanks than before. When is it enough? Pretending like heavy armour is somehow struggling right now is just disingenuous

Chilly-McFreeze

What's so hard to get about it? They took away a passive and gave nothing in return.
They removed shuffle and force you to being snared or without burst heal.
And you tell me HA will be just as good next patch as it is now?

And frankly, I don't care if you care what was in the past. You where the one who came up with this kind of argument.

tplink3r1

That passive was bad anyway. I only had it up when multiple people were attacking me on open field.

Skander

tplink3r1 wrote: »

That passive was bad anyway. I only had it up when multiple people were attacking me on open field.

that's the passive. That's the meaning of that skill...