Do players account for lore when reading the patch notes?

Knowledge

JKorr wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

(Knowledge, the way you go back and forth on "the lore should be respected" and "the lore should be thrown out for player satisfaction" has me confused. I mean, we were just talking on the other thread about how you think the lore should be changed to let players grab different racial passives. And here you are all "respect the lore, magicka should be more powerful". I'm just a little confused.)

Varanis, it's *Knowledge*. I don't really think he has any strong personal opinions about anything, lore included. However he is incredibly adept at finding the baiting/trolling/clickbait/trigger issues that will generate the most reactions on the forum. He brings to mind a poster from Beth's forum a long time ago; he was a psych major, and just liked to get as much of a reaction as possible because he thought it was fun manipulating people.

Hey! I do have strong person opinions. I'm not trying to generate reactions I really do think magic is powerful and in most fantasy settings it has less limitations than physical combat.

Guarlet

I increasingly find myself thanking my lucky stars that this ironically-named "Knowledge" person isn't on the ESO dev team.

VaranisArano

Knowledge wrote: »

JKorr wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

(Knowledge, the way you go back and forth on "the lore should be respected" and "the lore should be thrown out for player satisfaction" has me confused. I mean, we were just talking on the other thread about how you think the lore should be changed to let players grab different racial passives. And here you are all "respect the lore, magicka should be more powerful". I'm just a little confused.)

Varanis, it's *Knowledge*. I don't really think he has any strong personal opinions about anything, lore included. However he is incredibly adept at finding the baiting/trolling/clickbait/trigger issues that will generate the most reactions on the forum. He brings to mind a poster from Beth's forum a long time ago; he was a psych major, and just liked to get as much of a reaction as possible because he thought it was fun manipulating people.

Hey! I do have strong person opinions. I'm not trying to generate reactions I really do think magic is powerful and in most fantasy settings it has less limitations than physical combat.

The Elder Scrolls =/= most fantasy settings.

For one, in most fantasy settings, the dwarves aren't also elves.

In the Elder Scrolls, magic is quite powerful, none of which has stopped my Dragonborn, Hero of Kvatch, Nerevarine from destroying a god, false gods, and extremely powerful mages with nothing more than melee weapons and a few potions/cheese wheels.

The true powerhouses, on the other hand, are those select few who master the arts of combining enchanting and alchemy to create feedback loops. Until they in their turn are destroyed by the almighty stealth archer...

Wrecking_Blow_Spam

Is ironic calling yourself knowledge, I appreciate that. Ask whatever you like, for knowledge will help you out.

Knowledge

VaranisArano wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

JKorr wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

(Knowledge, the way you go back and forth on "the lore should be respected" and "the lore should be thrown out for player satisfaction" has me confused. I mean, we were just talking on the other thread about how you think the lore should be changed to let players grab different racial passives. And here you are all "respect the lore, magicka should be more powerful". I'm just a little confused.)

Varanis, it's *Knowledge*. I don't really think he has any strong personal opinions about anything, lore included. However he is incredibly adept at finding the baiting/trolling/clickbait/trigger issues that will generate the most reactions on the forum. He brings to mind a poster from Beth's forum a long time ago; he was a psych major, and just liked to get as much of a reaction as possible because he thought it was fun manipulating people.

Hey! I do have strong person opinions. I'm not trying to generate reactions I really do think magic is powerful and in most fantasy settings it has less limitations than physical combat.

The Elder Scrolls =/= most fantasy settings.

For one, in most fantasy settings, the dwarves aren't also elves.

In the Elder Scrolls, magic is quite powerful, none of which has stopped my Dragonborn, Hero of Kvatch, Nerevarine from destroying a god, false gods, and extremely powerful mages with nothing more than melee weapons and a few potions/cheese wheels.

The true powerhouses, on the other hand, are those select few who master the arts of combining enchanting and alchemy to create feedback loops. Until they in their turn are destroyed by the almighty stealth archer...

You can't possibly be a Dragonborn.

VaranisArano

Knowledge wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

JKorr wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

(Knowledge, the way you go back and forth on "the lore should be respected" and "the lore should be thrown out for player satisfaction" has me confused. I mean, we were just talking on the other thread about how you think the lore should be changed to let players grab different racial passives. And here you are all "respect the lore, magicka should be more powerful". I'm just a little confused.)

Varanis, it's *Knowledge*. I don't really think he has any strong personal opinions about anything, lore included. However he is incredibly adept at finding the baiting/trolling/clickbait/trigger issues that will generate the most reactions on the forum. He brings to mind a poster from Beth's forum a long time ago; he was a psych major, and just liked to get as much of a reaction as possible because he thought it was fun manipulating people.

Hey! I do have strong person opinions. I'm not trying to generate reactions I really do think magic is powerful and in most fantasy settings it has less limitations than physical combat.

The Elder Scrolls =/= most fantasy settings.

For one, in most fantasy settings, the dwarves aren't also elves.

In the Elder Scrolls, magic is quite powerful, none of which has stopped my Dragonborn, Hero of Kvatch, Nerevarine from destroying a god, false gods, and extremely powerful mages with nothing more than melee weapons and a few potions/cheese wheels.

The true powerhouses, on the other hand, are those select few who master the arts of combining enchanting and alchemy to create feedback loops. Until they in their turn are destroyed by the almighty stealth archer...

You can't possibly be a Dragonborn.

I...would you like to try reading for comprehension? I wasn't claiming the Vestige was a dragonborn.

I have 3 major heroes of past games, none of who needed more than melee weapons and potions (and the Thu'um in the case of the Dragonborn) to take down extremely powerful enemies.

Seriously, my Nerevarine killed a false god

Almalexia, who chucked as much magic as she wanted before swapping to Hopesfire and back to magic

with a spear and potions.

Hero of Kvatch? Yeah, barely had to learn any magic for the Arcane University questline and can defeat Mannimarco without any magic whatsoever besides, you guessed it, trusty potions.

Dragonborn? Aside from the thu'um, practically no magic needed to become Archmage, and win the help of the Psijic order (which can be done before you even know the thu'um assuming you avoid the main quest like the plague - gotta love the Elder Scrolls for letting you do that). And aside from the required thu'ums to complete the main quest, you can defeat Alduin with practically nothing but melee weapons, potions, and cheese wheels.

There you go, three heroes who are perfectly capable of doing a very nearly entirely magic-less playthrough (not actually fully possible without mods, and in the case of the Dragonborn, the thu'um is plot-required for Alduin but not for the College of Winterhold questline) with only the power of enchanted weapons and endless potions to lead them to victory.

Enchanters and Alchemists are the real powerhouses in Tamriel.

But if you can't manage to respond to what I'm actually saying, I think we're done here.

Scorpiodisc

Knowledge wrote: »

I see some posts on the forums regarding the changes such as "Elder staves Online". When I see this I often wonder if the players take into account the lore of the game when considering these changes? Think about it for a second, a sorcerer is a mortal user of magic that has spent countless years refining their abilities in the art of magic.

In my view, even a stamina-based combatant that has spent the same amount of time training or learning their arts would be less powerful than a magic user. Magic is very strong and I believe the game balance should duly reflect that fact. A sword is not superior to the arcane arts in any capacity and a magic user should be the strongest.

Balance > your immersion. /thread

Lysette

Knowledge wrote: »

JKorr wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

(Knowledge, the way you go back and forth on "the lore should be respected" and "the lore should be thrown out for player satisfaction" has me confused. I mean, we were just talking on the other thread about how you think the lore should be changed to let players grab different racial passives. And here you are all "respect the lore, magicka should be more powerful". I'm just a little confused.)

Varanis, it's *Knowledge*. I don't really think he has any strong personal opinions about anything, lore included. However he is incredibly adept at finding the baiting/trolling/clickbait/trigger issues that will generate the most reactions on the forum. He brings to mind a poster from Beth's forum a long time ago; he was a psych major, and just liked to get as much of a reaction as possible because he thought it was fun manipulating people.

Hey! I do have strong person opinions. I'm not trying to generate reactions I really do think magic is powerful and in most fantasy settings it has less limitations than physical combat.

In most you don't get to run around in heavy armor when you are a mage as well. You have much longer cast times and you need stuff to perform your magic - it is not all for free and with every gear choice you might like - like it is in ESO. Also everyone and his dog is using magic in ESO, it is not something that special, that it should be overly powerful - and like the mage guilds says, they are still researching magic, they are far from being a powerful guild yet, nor are mages powerful yet.

Knowledge

Lysette wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

JKorr wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

(Knowledge, the way you go back and forth on "the lore should be respected" and "the lore should be thrown out for player satisfaction" has me confused. I mean, we were just talking on the other thread about how you think the lore should be changed to let players grab different racial passives. And here you are all "respect the lore, magicka should be more powerful". I'm just a little confused.)

Varanis, it's *Knowledge*. I don't really think he has any strong personal opinions about anything, lore included. However he is incredibly adept at finding the baiting/trolling/clickbait/trigger issues that will generate the most reactions on the forum. He brings to mind a poster from Beth's forum a long time ago; he was a psych major, and just liked to get as much of a reaction as possible because he thought it was fun manipulating people.

Hey! I do have strong person opinions. I'm not trying to generate reactions I really do think magic is powerful and in most fantasy settings it has less limitations than physical combat.

In most you don't get to run around in heavy armor when you are a mage as well. You have much longer cast times and you need stuff to perform your magic - it is not all for free and with every gear choice you might like - like it is in ESO. Also everyone and his dog is using magic in ESO, it is not something that special, that it should be overly powerful - and like the mage guilds says, they are still researching magic, they are far from being a powerful guild yet, nor are mages powerful yet.

The mage guild might be researching magic but the Psijic order isn't.

Beardimus

Apples are apples and pears are pears.

NewBlacksmurf

I think there is a much more important concern far before lore comes into play....

1. I mean, lets just talk about how instant travel from anywhere in the game to a home you've never been to but otherwise only wayshrines you've visited....and then back if you don't purchase the home.

But you can travel to a friends house or to a friend/Guild members online, anywhere in the game.

2. Anyone care to explain how I've completely forgotten how to heal (Templar changes) only in front of me for some spells but for years I was an expert otherwise. Maybe the question should be posed to the devs first....

Beardimus

I guess the point here is magic should be more OP like it is in real life.it's more 'realistic' that magic is stronger at fighting than melee.

Oh hang on...........

Knowledge

Beardimus wrote: »

I guess the point here is magic should be more OP like it is in real life.it's more 'realistic' that magic is stronger at fighting that melee.

Oh hang on...........

Well, someone that chooses a fighter in D&D acknowledges a similarly leveled wizard is going to be more powerful than them.

Don't get me wrong this only deals with outgoing damage. I am not saying a magic user can't be killed by a fighter or stamina-based character. I am just saying they would be more powerful.

VaranisArano

Knowledge wrote: »

Beardimus wrote: »

I guess the point here is magic should be more OP like it is in real life.it's more 'realistic' that magic is stronger at fighting that melee.

Oh hang on...........

Well, someone that chooses a fighter in D&D acknowledges a similarly leveled wizard is going to be more powerful than them.

Don't get me wrong this only deals with outgoing damage. I am not saying a magic user can't be killed by a fighter or stamina-based character. I am just saying they would be more powerful.

So you do agree with the D&D style? What do you think of Book of Nine Swords, which allows Melee characters access to certain stances (somewhat analogous to skills in ESO) and thus lets them level up on the same exponential power gain as magic users?

Not to mention that awkward little fact that The Elder Scrolls isn't actually D&D and that in the Elder Scrolls the only really exponential power growth comes from Enchanting and Alchemy feedback loops. Because, I remind you, nonmagical melee characters are perfectly capable of taking on powerful mages in the gameplay.

Knowledge

VaranisArano wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

Beardimus wrote: »

I guess the point here is magic should be more OP like it is in real life.it's more 'realistic' that magic is stronger at fighting that melee.

Oh hang on...........

Well, someone that chooses a fighter in D&D acknowledges a similarly leveled wizard is going to be more powerful than them.

Don't get me wrong this only deals with outgoing damage. I am not saying a magic user can't be killed by a fighter or stamina-based character. I am just saying they would be more powerful.

So you do agree with the D&D style? What do you think of Book of Nine Swords, which allows Melee characters access to certain stances (somewhat analogous to skills in ESO) and thus lets them level up on the same exponential power gain as magic users?

Not to mention that awkward little fact that The Elder Scrolls isn't actually D&D and that in the Elder Scrolls the only really exponential power growth comes from Enchanting and Alchemy feedback loops. Because, I remind you, nonmagical melee characters are perfectly capable of taking on powerful mages in the gameplay.

I'm pretty sure the Book of the Nine Swords was a 3.5e supplement. We're now on 5th edition.

xbobx

Knowledge wrote: »

I see some posts on the forums regarding the changes such as "Elder staves Online". When I see this I often wonder if the players take into account the lore of the game when considering these changes? Think about it for a second, a sorcerer is a mortal user of magic that has spent countless years refining their abilities in the art of magic.

In my view, even a stamina-based combatant that has spent the same amount of time training or learning their arts would be less powerful than a magic user. Magic is very strong and I believe the game balance should duly reflect that fact. A sword is not superior to the arcane arts in any capacity and a magic user should be the strongest.

its one reason why i refuse to make a stamina sorc. i think its against nature. Templar also. In every game i have always seen them has a hybrid mage/melee using magic to heal and deal

Thogard

I agree completely. It is ridiculous that people using swords and Spears can compete with magic users.

We need to increase mag damage across the board by at least 20% like OP suggested.

But we should also make sure that not everyone can be a Magicka user to stay true to lore. I suggest only allowing 5% of players to make a mag class. It should be completely random too.

We’d have to delete 95% of current mag classes but that shouldn’t be an issue because those players can reroll to stam. I’m sure OP wouldn’t mind volunteering for the deletion because it’s he understands how important lore is for balance.

Knowledge

Thogard wrote: »

I agree completely. It is ridiculous that people using swords and Spears can compete with magic users.

We need to increase mag damage across the board by at least 20% like OP suggested.

But we should also make sure that not everyone can be a Magicka user to stay true to lore. I suggest only allowing 5% of players to make a mag class. It should be completely random too.

We’d have to delete 95% of current mag classes but that shouldn’t be an issue because those players can reroll to stam. I’m sure OP wouldn’t mind volunteering for the deletion because it’s he understands how important lore is for balance.

I want to be a magic user.

VaranisArano

Knowledge wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

Beardimus wrote: »

I guess the point here is magic should be more OP like it is in real life.it's more 'realistic' that magic is stronger at fighting that melee.

Oh hang on...........

Well, someone that chooses a fighter in D&D acknowledges a similarly leveled wizard is going to be more powerful than them.

Don't get me wrong this only deals with outgoing damage. I am not saying a magic user can't be killed by a fighter or stamina-based character. I am just saying they would be more powerful.

So you do agree with the D&D style? What do you think of Book of Nine Swords, which allows Melee characters access to certain stances (somewhat analogous to skills in ESO) and thus lets them level up on the same exponential power gain as magic users?

Not to mention that awkward little fact that The Elder Scrolls isn't actually D&D and that in the Elder Scrolls the only really exponential power growth comes from Enchanting and Alchemy feedback loops. Because, I remind you, nonmagical melee characters are perfectly capable of taking on powerful mages in the gameplay.

I'm pretty sure the Book of the Nine Swords was a 3.5e supplement. We're now on 5th edition.

Yeah, well, my D&D group plays 3.5, so sue me.

That also doesnt answer the question, given that 3.5 which has the fighters scale linearly, magic users scale exponentially also has a supplement aimed at addressing that disparity.

And it also neatly sidesteps the point that The Elder Scrolls ain't D&D and the gameplay of TES definitely supports nonmagical melee characters beating powerful mages, with the use of enchanted objects and potions, a point you have yet to address.

BTW, have I mentioned yet how tiresome it is when you borrow my ideas out of context? My original comment makes it clear that I'm talking about D&D 3.5, which makes this even more of an insulting brush-off.

When you decide to actually respond to the meat of my rebuttals, instead of side points, I'll be here. Until then, I have to confess I'm steadily coming to the conclusion that you have no rebuttal...

josiahva

Knowledge wrote: »

I see some posts on the forums regarding the changes such as "Elder staves Online". When I see this I often wonder if the players take into account the lore of the game when considering these changes? Think about it for a second, a sorcerer is a mortal user of magic that has spent countless years refining their abilities in the art of magic.

In my view, even a stamina-based combatant that has spent the same amount of time training or learning their arts would be less powerful than a magic user. Magic is very strong and I believe the game balance should duly reflect that fact. A sword is not superior to the arcane arts in any capacity and a magic user should be the strongest.

I don't think this is the case. Why would you assume magic to be superior? Lets take the example of say lockpicking...turning that lock with a pick or turning it with magic is going to take the EXACT SAME amount of energy. Why wouldnt it? There is still X mass to turn regardless of the tool used to turn it. From my particular view on it whether the means are conventional or magical, the energy expenditure is going to be the same to accomplish a given task. So if you run for 5 miles to a certain destination or teleport there magically, it will use the same amount of energy. So how does a fireball hit any harder than an arrow? It doesnt. The only difference is that the bow uses the potential energy stored in the string to launch the arrow where the fireball uses the potential energy stored in the staff to launch it.

Kendaric

Knowledge wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

Beardimus wrote: »

I guess the point here is magic should be more OP like it is in real life.it's more 'realistic' that magic is stronger at fighting that melee.

Oh hang on...........

Well, someone that chooses a fighter in D&D acknowledges a similarly leveled wizard is going to be more powerful than them.

Don't get me wrong this only deals with outgoing damage. I am not saying a magic user can't be killed by a fighter or stamina-based character. I am just saying they would be more powerful.

So you do agree with the D&D style? What do you think of Book of Nine Swords, which allows Melee characters access to certain stances (somewhat analogous to skills in ESO) and thus lets them level up on the same exponential power gain as magic users?

Not to mention that awkward little fact that The Elder Scrolls isn't actually D&D and that in the Elder Scrolls the only really exponential power growth comes from Enchanting and Alchemy feedback loops. Because, I remind you, nonmagical melee characters are perfectly capable of taking on powerful mages in the gameplay.

I'm pretty sure the Book of the Nine Swords was a 3.5e supplement. We're now on 5th edition.

True, but in D&D 5th Ed. mages (wizards, sorcerors & warlocks) aren't that overpowered compared to martial classes (fighters, barbarians, paladins). At least not in the core rules.

Knowledge

VaranisArano wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

Beardimus wrote: »

I guess the point here is magic should be more OP like it is in real life.it's more 'realistic' that magic is stronger at fighting that melee.

Oh hang on...........

Well, someone that chooses a fighter in D&D acknowledges a similarly leveled wizard is going to be more powerful than them.

Don't get me wrong this only deals with outgoing damage. I am not saying a magic user can't be killed by a fighter or stamina-based character. I am just saying they would be more powerful.

So you do agree with the D&D style? What do you think of Book of Nine Swords, which allows Melee characters access to certain stances (somewhat analogous to skills in ESO) and thus lets them level up on the same exponential power gain as magic users?

Not to mention that awkward little fact that The Elder Scrolls isn't actually D&D and that in the Elder Scrolls the only really exponential power growth comes from Enchanting and Alchemy feedback loops. Because, I remind you, nonmagical melee characters are perfectly capable of taking on powerful mages in the gameplay.

I'm pretty sure the Book of the Nine Swords was a 3.5e supplement. We're now on 5th edition.

Yeah, well, my D&D group plays 3.5, so sue me.

That also doesnt answer the question, given that 3.5 which has the fighters scale linearly, magic users scale exponentially also has a supplement aimed at addressing that disparity.

And it also neatly sidesteps the point that The Elder Scrolls ain't D&D and the gameplay of TES definitely supports nonmagical melee characters beating powerful mages, with the use of enchanted objects and potions, a point you have yet to address.

BTW, have I mentioned yet how tiresome it is when you borrow my ideas out of context? My original comment makes it clear that I'm talking about D&D 3.5, which makes this even more of an insulting brush-off.

When you decide to actually respond to the meat of my rebuttals, instead of side points, I'll be here. Until then, I have to confess I'm steadily coming to the conclusion that you have no rebuttal...

In all subsequent versions after 3.5 there was no scaling for fighters in the same way. 3.5 was special because it was made by a different writer and focused on knights and dragons. Due to this lore focus they made fighters stronger for that edition.

Thogard

Knowledge wrote: »

Thogard wrote: »

I agree completely. It is ridiculous that people using swords and Spears can compete with magic users.

We need to increase mag damage across the board by at least 20% like OP suggested.

But we should also make sure that not everyone can be a Magicka user to stay true to lore. I suggest only allowing 5% of players to make a mag class. It should be completely random too.

We’d have to delete 95% of current mag classes but that shouldn’t be an issue because those players can reroll to stam. I’m sure OP wouldn’t mind volunteering for the deletion because it’s he understands how important lore is for balance.

I want to be a magic user.

Sorry, but it appears you weren’t a part of the chosen 5%.

Your sacrifice will be remembered.

VaranisArano

Knowledge wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

Beardimus wrote: »

I guess the point here is magic should be more OP like it is in real life.it's more 'realistic' that magic is stronger at fighting that melee.

Oh hang on...........

Well, someone that chooses a fighter in D&D acknowledges a similarly leveled wizard is going to be more powerful than them.

Don't get me wrong this only deals with outgoing damage. I am not saying a magic user can't be killed by a fighter or stamina-based character. I am just saying they would be more powerful.

So you do agree with the D&D style? What do you think of Book of Nine Swords, which allows Melee characters access to certain stances (somewhat analogous to skills in ESO) and thus lets them level up on the same exponential power gain as magic users?

Not to mention that awkward little fact that The Elder Scrolls isn't actually D&D and that in the Elder Scrolls the only really exponential power growth comes from Enchanting and Alchemy feedback loops. Because, I remind you, nonmagical melee characters are perfectly capable of taking on powerful mages in the gameplay.

I'm pretty sure the Book of the Nine Swords was a 3.5e supplement. We're now on 5th edition.

Yeah, well, my D&D group plays 3.5, so sue me.

That also doesnt answer the question, given that 3.5 which has the fighters scale linearly, magic users scale exponentially also has a supplement aimed at addressing that disparity.

And it also neatly sidesteps the point that The Elder Scrolls ain't D&D and the gameplay of TES definitely supports nonmagical melee characters beating powerful mages, with the use of enchanted objects and potions, a point you have yet to address.

BTW, have I mentioned yet how tiresome it is when you borrow my ideas out of context? My original comment makes it clear that I'm talking about D&D 3.5, which makes this even more of an insulting brush-off.

When you decide to actually respond to the meat of my rebuttals, instead of side points, I'll be here. Until then, I have to confess I'm steadily coming to the conclusion that you have no rebuttal...

In all subsequent versions after 3.5 there was no scaling for fighters in the same way. 3.5 was special because it was made by a different writer and focused on knights and dragons. Due to this lore focus they made fighters stronger for that edition.

Thanks. Its good to know that D&D has shifted away from fighters being always less than magic users! Its a good call on their part.

I'm also glad that my TES heroes haven't been forced to be magic users in order to deal with powerful wizards and other magic users. Just bring enough potions and I can win any fight (as long as I have my plot required thu'um/wraithguard/sunder/keening/Martin Septim).

NyassaV

I've always had this mindset. Magic is supposed to be more powerful but that doesn't mean stam has to be donkey poop