I propose that Vampirism should have a high upkeep cost and should be reworked in its entirety.

KanedaSyndrome

The fix is to give an alternative and make vampirism an immersion/love thing instead, and let it have an impact on your game world, let there be places you can't go, NPCs that would know, let the daylight give you a debuff.

Generally, people go where there is a bonus to be had. If I can get a different bonus from being just healthy and not undead, perhaps that would get me to get rid of Vampirism. I'm only a vamp for the passives.

Basically, people don't have a choice if they want to be competitive.

KanedaSyndrome

TequilaFire wrote: »

Yep, lets nerf all the things that make people want to play ESO.
Congrats on finding subjects that push peoples buttons!

Being a vampire doesn't make me more likely to play ESO. Actually, all these bad design choices and poor game balance is making me want to quit rather than stay.

Knowledge

KanedaSyndrome wrote: »

The fix is to give an alternative and make vampirism an immersion/love thing instead, and let it have an impact on your game world, let there be places you can't go, NPCs that would know, let the daylight give you a debuff.

Generally, people go where there is a bonus to be had. If I can get a different bonus from being just healthy and not undead, perhaps that would get me to get rid of Vampirism. I'm only a vamp for the passives.

Basically, people don't have a choice if they want to be competitive.

Yes and that is a problem. Having "no choice" if you want to remain competitive is really a bad design.

Knowledge

KanedaSyndrome wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

Yep, lets nerf all the things that make people want to play ESO.
Congrats on finding subjects that push peoples buttons!

Being a vampire doesn't make me more likely to play ESO. Actually, all these bad design choices and poor game balance is making me want to quit rather than stay.

Well said.

VaranisArano

Knowledge wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

The lore is that the longer Elder Scrolls vampires go without feeding, the greater both the advantages and disadvantages of being a vampire get. That's true in the games, especially say, Dawnguard, an entire DLC based in part around vampires.

The thirstier an Elder Scrolls vampire is for blood, the stronger their vampire abilities and the more damaging their disadvantages like fire weaknesses are.

Yes, thats contrary to an awful lot of other vampire from other series, but why does that matter? This is the Elder Scrolls. Any upkeep system you want added needs to follow the existing Elder Scrolls lore for vampires.

Do you advocate an upkeep system, think the system is fine currently, or wish it to be changed in any capacity?

Honestly, I don't play an vampires, don't feel the need to play vampires, and I kill plenty of vampires in PVP.

So aside from my interest in making sure any new systems fit the well established TES lore for vampires, I really have neither the interest nor experience in playing vampires to redesign or assess the current system in any more detail than "I dont play them, don't feel disadvantaged for not playing them, and kill plenty of them in raid."

But I certainly can assess suggestions based on how well they fit the lore, and your initial suggestion doesn't much fit the established lore.

Beardimus

VaranisArano wrote: »

The lore is that the longer Elder Scrolls vampires go without feeding, the greater both the advantages and disadvantages of being a vampire get. That's true in the games, especially say, Dawnguard, an entire DLC based in part around vampires.

The thirstier an Elder Scrolls vampire is for blood, the stronger their vampire abilities and the more damaging their disadvantages like fire weaknesses are.

Yes, thats contrary to an awful lot of other vampire from other series, but why does that matter? This is the Elder Scrolls. Any upkeep system you want added needs to follow the existing Elder Scrolls lore for vampires.

@VaranisArano has nailed that one. And its a key part of the OP justification to change, which is unfounded.

I'm all for less common Vamps / Vamp to mean something. But using non ESO Lore is not part of the debate.

TequilaFire

KanedaSyndrome wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

Yep, lets nerf all the things that make people want to play ESO.
Congrats on finding subjects that push peoples buttons!

Being a vampire doesn't make me more likely to play ESO. Actually, all these bad design choices and poor game balance is making me want to quit rather than stay.

Speaking from a PvE point of view a lot of the casual playerbase wants to RP as a vampire or a werewolf as they have in previous TES games. From a PvP point of view reverting the fire damage and undaunted skills to their previous state would balance it out.

AhPook_Is_Here

It would be better imo, to just make some aedra or light focused world skill tree line that had essentially the same passives and abilities as vampires except give them light animations, maybe even make it modestly better statistically from passives, and modestly less effective in abilities and ultimate, and of course make it preclude vampirism. This way people can choose this as an option if they have just gone vampire for statistical reasons.

Vampires would retain their unique feel and people who just go vampire to be on the same level playing field as people who go there because they want to would have a reasonable option.

Knowledge

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

It would be better imo, to just make some aedra or light focused world skill tree line that had essentially the same passives and abilities as vampires except give them light animations, maybe even make it modestly better statistically from passives, and modestly less effective in abilities and ultimate, and of course make it preclude vampirism. This way people can choose this as an option if they have just gone vampire for statistical reasons.

Vampires would retain their unique feel and people who just go vampire to be on the same level playing field as people who go there because they want to would have a reasonable option.

That's a very good idea.

starkerealm

Knowledge wrote: »

Despite everything you've just said people in this thread and other threads do agree with me and like some of my ideas.

That doesn't really mean much.

Right now, there's a thread where people are arguing that Shieldbreaker is detrimental to the game because it prevents them from running shield stacking sorcs in Cyrodiil, with DPS tier outgoing damage and tank survivability. Nevermind that Shieldbreaker is a 5pc set, and that's a substantial chunk of your build to counter one playstyle. Also, nevermind that almost no one actually runs shieldbreaker, or that its damage is hilariously low. Finally, let's forget that the set was created to deal with a rather uninteresting playstyle, which they'd like to bring back in full force.

Knowledge wrote: »

I would encourage you to avoid my threads if you don't like them or me.

Please observe whether people are agreeing with me in the future before attacking me falsely.

Just because someone agrees with you, doesn't make you correct. It simply means that, for whatever reason, someone else has signed on to your idea. Now, that can be emotionally gratifying, but it does not represent a coherent, rational, endorsement of your position.

For example: Many players, including some in this thread, hate vampires with a passion. They want to see vampires eliminated from the game entirely. They have their own, diverse, reasons, ranging from the aesthetic, the idea that they're evil creatures who should be stamped out, or even (in some cases) resentment over the bite market from back at launch.

Now, if you present an objectively bad balance suggestion for vampires, which would make them unplayable, of course those people will sign on. They'll agree with you, because they want vampires out of the game.

That doesn't validate your idea, it doesn't even suggest it's a good one, just that someone, somewhere, has a personal position which aligns with yours.

Or, the alternative is that we simply sum our Agrees and decide who is correct by voting fiat... at which point I've got 9,758 agrees and you have... 734. Yeah, let's not automatically devalue your input like that. Sounds like a bad idea.

Gilvoth

Knowledge wrote: »

dwemer_paleologist wrote: »

another "nerf nightblade thread" hidden and disguised by the wording in the title.

pretty much 80% of nightblades like me that play sneak rogue playstyle are vampires and only for that sneak speed passive vampire has.
everyone knows nightbladeds that play rouge stealth types that rely on sneak speeds and fast sneak speeds, if you rework and destroy that fast sneak speed passive from vampirism you cripple and destroy nightblade play.

i am all for removing the bad health decrease of 75%
and also removing that extreme damage from fire.

but that sneak speed is the only must remain and infact be increased if vampire is reworked.

please stop making threads designed to destroy what we have in eso.

This has nothing to do with Nightblades. Tanks use Vampirism, Templars do in PVP, a lot of classes benefit from it, even Sorc.

you said in the title and i quote:

I propose that Vampirism has a high upkeep cost and should be reworked in its entirety.

the part i was refering to that makes this a nerf thread is the part:


should be reworked in its entirety.

if that is done it will remove the sneak speeds we nightlbades [whom use it for stealth and rogue type play] [which is 80+% of us nightblades] need.

and that is also what makes this a nerf skill thread as well.

please stop making these types of threads to remove skills and weapons and ultimates and passives and entire class dependent items and kits from eso.

if eso needed rebuilt it would be from the devs decision and should not be something that is made by threads on the public forums that we have to see daily from the same few people.

starkerealm

Knowledge wrote: »

KanedaSyndrome wrote: »

The fix is to give an alternative and make vampirism an immersion/love thing instead, and let it have an impact on your game world, let there be places you can't go, NPCs that would know, let the daylight give you a debuff.

Generally, people go where there is a bonus to be had. If I can get a different bonus from being just healthy and not undead, perhaps that would get me to get rid of Vampirism. I'm only a vamp for the passives.

Basically, people don't have a choice if they want to be competitive.

Yes and that is a problem. Having "no choice" if you want to remain competitive is really a bad design.

You have a choice. It's not even a binary, "do this or suck," that it sometimes gets presented as. Vampire does come with disadvantages, including increased damage from Fighters Guild abilities.

You can choose not to be a vampire. That's up to you.

starkerealm

Tan9oSuccka wrote: »

There needs to be some meaningful negatives for balance. There’s really no drawbacks.

Cyrodiil is littered with the foul creatures.

Revert original fire damage and make the Fighters guild abilities work like before. Hitting a vamp with a crossbow used to knock down and do significant damage.

The problem with Silver Bolts as it existed was, it just wasn't fun for either player. You could pin a vampire (or werewolf) to the ground, casually stroll over, and slowly beat them to death, while periodically reapplying bolts as needed.

For the player on the ground there was basically no option (it's possible you were supposed to be able to break free from bolts, but I think that was bugged), you just sat there and died. As the attacker it was an opportunity to demonstrate that you really didn't know what you were doing, and just got lucky.

As is, FG does apply additional damage to vampires, and Dawnbreaker of Smiting can be a real handful.

starkerealm

Knowledge wrote: »

Minyassa wrote: »

I'm not familiar with that change, had to have been before I started playing and have not heard anyone discussing it. They really made a very large change to game mechanics solely for the sake of lore?

With the launch of Morrowind resource sustain and how it worked changed dramatically.

Which had nothing to do with lore. Prior to the sustain nerf, you were seeing burst grade DPS sustained throughout a fight, so most of the class specific resource return systems were seriously reduced.

Knowledge

starkerealm wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

Despite everything you've just said people in this thread and other threads do agree with me and like some of my ideas.

That doesn't really mean much.

Right now, there's a thread where people are arguing that Shieldbreaker is detrimental to the game because it prevents them from running shield stacking sorcs in Cyrodiil, with DPS tier outgoing damage and tank survivability. Nevermind that Shieldbreaker is a 5pc set, and that's a substantial chunk of your build to counter one playstyle. Also, nevermind that almost no one actually runs shieldbreaker, or that its damage is hilariously low. Finally, let's forget that the set was created to deal with a rather uninteresting playstyle, which they'd like to bring back in full force.

Knowledge wrote: »

I would encourage you to avoid my threads if you don't like them or me.

Please observe whether people are agreeing with me in the future before attacking me falsely.

Just because someone agrees with you, doesn't make you correct. It simply means that, for whatever reason, someone else has signed on to your idea. Now, that can be emotionally gratifying, but it does not represent a coherent, rational, endorsement of your position.

For example: Many players, including some in this thread, hate vampires with a passion. They want to see vampires eliminated from the game entirely. They have their own, diverse, reasons, ranging from the aesthetic, the idea that they're evil creatures who should be stamped out, or even (in some cases) resentment over the bite market from back at launch.

Now, if you present an objectively bad balance suggestion for vampires, which would make them unplayable, of course those people will sign on. They'll agree with you, because they want vampires out of the game.

That doesn't validate your idea, it doesn't even suggest it's a good one, just that someone, somewhere, has a personal position which aligns with yours.

Or, the alternative is that we simply sum our Agrees and decide who is correct by voting fiat... at which point I've got 9,758 agrees and you have... 734. Yeah, let's not automatically devalue your input like that. Sounds like a bad idea.

Basically what you're saying is that your opinion should be read as fact or law on the forums. Despite everything you just said it's still your opinion, which you're entitled to, and I have my own.

You can't take away my ability to formulate my own opinions and you seek only to silence me because my opinion does not align well with your own. I will not let you silence me.

In your opinion, it's a bad idea. In my opinion and others, it's a good idea. You don't like that but that's too bad.

Knowledge

dwemer_paleologist wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

dwemer_paleologist wrote: »

another "nerf nightblade thread" hidden and disguised by the wording in the title.

pretty much 80% of nightblades like me that play sneak rogue playstyle are vampires and only for that sneak speed passive vampire has.
everyone knows nightbladeds that play rouge stealth types that rely on sneak speeds and fast sneak speeds, if you rework and destroy that fast sneak speed passive from vampirism you cripple and destroy nightblade play.

i am all for removing the bad health decrease of 75%
and also removing that extreme damage from fire.

but that sneak speed is the only must remain and infact be increased if vampire is reworked.

please stop making threads designed to destroy what we have in eso.

This has nothing to do with Nightblades. Tanks use Vampirism, Templars do in PVP, a lot of classes benefit from it, even Sorc.

you said in the title and i quote:

I propose that Vampirism has a high upkeep cost and should be reworked in its entirety.

the part i was refering to that makes this a nerf thread is the part:


should be reworked in its entirety.

if that is done it will remove the sneak speeds we nightlbades [whom use it for stealth and rogue type play] [which is 80+% of us nightblades] need.

and that is also what makes this a nerf skill thread as well.

please stop making these types of threads to remove skills and weapons and ultimates and passives and entire class dependent items and kits from eso.

if eso needed rebuilt it would be from the devs decision and should not be something that is made by threads on the public forums that we have to see daily from the same few people.

I am allowed to make threads and express my opinions as long as I follow the forum rules. Nothing you say will prevent me from doing that.

starkerealm

Knowledge wrote: »

Basically what you're saying is that your opinion should be read as fact or law on the forums.

No. I'm simply pointing out that saying, "well someone liked my position," grants it neither validity, nor superpowers.

notimetocare

Knowledge wrote: »

I believe Vampirism is rampant in ESO. This is very strange, lore evading, lore breaking - especially for Templar's, and seems to need some changes. The obvious change would be to make it so Vampires just weren't as powerful by nerfing their passives but a more realistic solution would be to apply an upkeep to the Vampirism system.

The upkeep system would provide that you lose power over time in a system of stages. This would change the values for things like Undeath and Supernatural Recovery. For example, without paying the upkeep you would lose the strength of Undeath and Supernatural Recovery every three to six hours.

So, if you don't go around feeding you would perhaps go down to 7% Resource Regeneration then 5% and then 3% until Supernatural Reovery would no longer benefit you at all! However, regardless of whether or not you pay the upkeep you would still suffer the fire damage penalty and health recovery reduction.

This makes much more sense as Vampires in 99% of all fantasy must feed or they become weakened or might even die. In the case of this proposed system you would just be weaker.

As you lose levels of Vampirism due to lack of feeding the amount of Upkeep you must pay would be greater. For example, in order to maintain maximum Supernatural Recovery and Undeath you may need to feed on ten NPCs before the timer expires which then renews the timer or adds x time to it.

But for each level you go down you must feed on an additional five NPCs.

This system is superior to the current system in several ways.

• It makes more sense
• Vampires should be weakened from not feeding
• It doesn't make vampirism effortless

If you find it lorebreaking, you dont know lore at all.

The player population, in realistic lore terms it but a small percentage of the population.
Templar are not immune to affliction. Nor would it do anything to their magic, it isnt real aedric magic. Mortals cannot wield the power of aedra with few exceptions (like heros in main plots).

Many Vampire strains in TESO get more powerful with age and with infrequent feeding.

Mechanics for gameplay should not be frustrating. You are annoyed at vampirism, and mechanics, out of ignorance so you want it to be made annoying.

The answer you should get: No.

Knowledge

starkerealm wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

Basically what you're saying is that your opinion should be read as fact or law on the forums.

No. I'm simply pointing out that saying, "well someone liked my position," grants it neither validity, nor superpowers.

This thread has brought forth meaningful suggestions and ideas surrounding vampirism. It has created constructive discussion that you wish to derail.

Whether my position has validity or not is still your opinion. My opinion is that it does have validity and I don't think you have the power to take that away.

starkerealm

notimetocare wrote: »

Templar are not immune to affliction. Nor would it do anything to their magic, it isnt real aedric magic. Mortals cannot wield the power of aedra with few exceptions (like heros in main plots).

Yeah, the list here is basically aspects or incarnations of the divines. So, for example, Pelinal Whitestrake, or Tiber Septum. The Dragonborn may be a special case, but that kinda hinges on a question over the Dragon language.

starkerealm

Knowledge wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

Basically what you're saying is that your opinion should be read as fact or law on the forums.

No. I'm simply pointing out that saying, "well someone liked my position," grants it neither validity, nor superpowers.

This thread has brought forth meaningful suggestions and ideas surrounding vampirism. It has created constructive discussion that you wish to derail.

No, it has regurgitated talking points that haven't changed in almost two years.

Knowledge

notimetocare wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

I believe Vampirism is rampant in ESO. This is very strange, lore evading, lore breaking - especially for Templar's, and seems to need some changes. The obvious change would be to make it so Vampires just weren't as powerful by nerfing their passives but a more realistic solution would be to apply an upkeep to the Vampirism system.

The upkeep system would provide that you lose power over time in a system of stages. This would change the values for things like Undeath and Supernatural Recovery. For example, without paying the upkeep you would lose the strength of Undeath and Supernatural Recovery every three to six hours.

So, if you don't go around feeding you would perhaps go down to 7% Resource Regeneration then 5% and then 3% until Supernatural Reovery would no longer benefit you at all! However, regardless of whether or not you pay the upkeep you would still suffer the fire damage penalty and health recovery reduction.

This makes much more sense as Vampires in 99% of all fantasy must feed or they become weakened or might even die. In the case of this proposed system you would just be weaker.

As you lose levels of Vampirism due to lack of feeding the amount of Upkeep you must pay would be greater. For example, in order to maintain maximum Supernatural Recovery and Undeath you may need to feed on ten NPCs before the timer expires which then renews the timer or adds x time to it.

But for each level you go down you must feed on an additional five NPCs.

This system is superior to the current system in several ways.

• It makes more sense
• Vampires should be weakened from not feeding
• It doesn't make vampirism effortless

If you find it lorebreaking, you dont know lore at all.

The player population, in realistic lore terms it but a small percentage of the population.
Templar are not immune to affliction. Nor would it do anything to their magic, it isnt real aedric magic. Mortals cannot wield the power of aedra with few exceptions (like heros in main plots).

Many Vampire strains in TESO get more powerful with age and with infrequent feeding.

Mechanics for gameplay should not be frustrating. You are annoyed at vampirism, and mechanics, out of ignorance so you want it to be made annoying.

The answer you should get: No.

Since you want to get into the lore I am going to go over it with you.

The most defining characteristic of vampires is their unnatural, insatiable need for blood. A hybridization of a plant and vampiric blood led to plants with a similar, voracious hunger for blood, among other things.[10] Blood may not be needed to stay "alive", but doing without it can cause a vampire to become extremely weak and rabid, though some types of vampires will instead become stronger and more vampiric. However, they will still become rabid after too long without blood[7][11] and in some cases, can fall into a coma. Consuming blood also allows some vampire bloodlines to maintain a more inconspicuous appearance, dulling their vampiric qualities but may improve their health and regeneration. If a vampire's bite leaves its victim alive after a feeding, the vampire risks passing its disease to the victim. Blood itself may not be needed to keep a vampire healthy; it is suggested that vampires are able to drain a warmblooded creature's "life force" to replenish their own.

Vampires are essentially parasitic and don't actually need to kill their victims during feeding, however, either out of a frenzied blood-lust or to avoid potential competition, most victims are drained completely. Only two known bloodlines are shown to be able to restrain themselves by feeding without killing, though this is out pragmaticism and most victims suffer a fate worse than death by being kept captive by vampires to be fed on continuously.

Vampires are capable of eating mortal food with no ill effects but won't derive the sustance they need from it.

Here we can see that "some types of vampires will instead become stronger and more vampiric" does not mean ALL Vampires would become stronger and more Vampiric. Further, it goes on to state they will "Still become rabid after too long without blood." This is not reflected in the game. No vampire eventually becomes "rabid" and no vampire "has to feed" in the game. This is against the lore.

Moreover, it states "Blood may not be needed to stay alive, but doing without it can cause a vampire to become extremely weak and rabid". Does taking less damage and having faster resource recovery convey weakness?

In this other example: http://en.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Vampires_of_the_Iliac_Bay,_Chapter_II

We see the following stated: " If I did not kill a warm blooded creature once a night and drink its blood, my hunger would gnaw at me, and any wounds I suffered would not heal no matter how much I rested." So tell me, does Undeath (less damage taken) convey someone not being able to heal?

In this other example: http://en.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Journal_of_the_Lord_Lovidicus

We see the following stated: " Entry 8: Two weeks. Two weeks have passed since Luktuv locked me in my quarters. Try as I might, I cannot free myself. I cannot breach the doors! If I don't feed soon, I feel I will go mad." Does anything in the game encourage us to feed else we go mad? Does anything even require us to feed?

Source with footnotes: http://en.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Vampire#cite_note-JOTLL-11

So, my suggestion would actually be more in line with the lore than the current system based on these examples.

Knowledge

Vampires are often recognizable by the exceptional paleness of their skin and alert eyes, as well as visible signs of restlessness.[7] They are also weak to the light of the sun, as exposure burns their skin[2] and makes the recovery of wounds impossible.[8] Another debilitating condition is hunger, which also prevents healing, and causes the infamous, signature lust for blood that affects all vampires.[2]

Does anything in the game follow this aspect of the lore? Do we have to avoid sunlight and does it burn our skin?

Source: http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Vampire

starkerealm

Knowledge wrote: »

Vampires are often recognizable by the exceptional paleness of their skin and alert eyes, as well as visible signs of restlessness.[7] They are also weak to the light of the sun, as exposure burns their skin[2] and makes the recovery of wounds impossible.[8] Another debilitating condition is hunger, which also prevents healing, and causes the infamous, signature lust for blood that affects all vampires.[2]

Does anything in the game follow this aspect of the lore? Do we have to avoid sunlight and does it burn our skin?

Source: http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Vampire

http://en.uesp.net/wiki/Online:Noxiphilic_Sanguivoria

The most important thing to remember about sufferers of Noxiphilic Sanguivoria is that, as the name implies, they are not weakened by daylight as in other strains of vampirism, but are, instead, strengthened during the nighttime hours.

VaranisArano

In Oblivion, the sun absolutely would burn your vampire skin. Stage 4 and sunlight was a NOPE! combination. In Skyrim, it did, unless you were a Volkihar vampire in which case you just got a debuff.

Note a crucial difference between Oblivion, Skyrim, and ESO: the ability to determine what time of in-game day you want to play. In Skyrim, I could play my vampires at night by waiting through the day. In ESO, players aren't allowed that option by the game itself.

Given that the Volkihar strain of vampires only had a rather minor debuff in sunlight, its not that shocking that Lamae Bal's strain of vampirism doesn't have a significant debuff in sunlight, especially in a game that isn't set up for player-controlled time. If vampire players could control the time to always be night, I'd be a lot more willing to accept sunlight-based debuffs/damage, but I don't see ESO adding that anytime soon.

Knowledge

Quoting ShadowHvo:

I recently bought the book "Tales of Tamriel - Book 1: The Land", and it was quite a nice read, really recommended for everyone that would like more insight into the lore of the Elder Scrolls.

However, as a self-proclaimed "Vampire Lorewhore" in the Elder Scrolls setting, I would like to point something rather strange out...

On page 230, (which is the second last page in the book.) Cinna Scholasticus writes the following in line 18:

"By night, these hunters are possessed of extreme fortitude and a powerful ability to recover from wounds."

Now, here comes the killer, the lore studies in the book completely contradicts the ingame version of how the bloodline actually functions. In ESO, we have a 75% Decrease in Health Regen, the lore supporting this particular vampiric bloodline completely contradicts this.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/199211/noxiphilic-sanguivoria-lore-inconsistency

Again we see direct lore contradictions.

starkerealm

So, this is something you probably need to understand about vampires in The Elder Scrolls, @Knowledge. They aren't a single unified flavor of supernatural monster. There are radical differences between the different bloodlines scattered across Nirn. In this case, citing things from previous games can be extremely misleading because they refer to different bloodlines, not present in the current game. In fact, Daggerfall and Morrowind both include multiple Clans of vampires, with their own distinctive traits, while Oblivion, Skyrim, and ESO, all have completely unique vampire variations.

VaranisArano

Knowledge wrote: »

Quoting ShadowHvo:

I recently bought the book "Tales of Tamriel - Book 1: The Land", and it was quite a nice read, really recommended for everyone that would like more insight into the lore of the Elder Scrolls.

However, as a self-proclaimed "Vampire Lorewhore" in the Elder Scrolls setting, I would like to point something rather strange out...

On page 230, (which is the second last page in the book.) Cinna Scholasticus writes the following in line 18:

"By night, these hunters are possessed of extreme fortitude and a powerful ability to recover from wounds."

Now, here comes the killer, the lore studies in the book completely contradicts the ingame version of how the bloodline actually functions. In ESO, we have a 75% Decrease in Health Regen, the lore supporting this particular vampiric bloodline completely contradicts this.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/199211/noxiphilic-sanguivoria-lore-inconsistency

Again we see direct lore contradictions.

So are you now arguing that the vampirism passives should be more in line with the lore?

If so, that's a nice change from the beginning of the thread where you were arguing that the TES lore should be thrown out in favor of other fantasy series' lore about vampires, even though it does make your train of thought very confusing to follow.

Knowledge

VaranisArano wrote: »

In Oblivion, the sun absolutely would burn your vampire skin. Stage 4 and sunlight was a NOPE! combination. In Skyrim, it did, unless you were a Volkihar vampire in which case you just got a debuff.

Note a crucial difference between Oblivion, Skyrim, and ESO: the ability to determine what time of in-game day you want to play. In Skyrim, I could play my vampires at night by waiting through the day. In ESO, players aren't allowed that option by the game itself.

Given that the Volkihar strain of vampires only had a rather minor debuff in sunlight, its not that shocking that Lamae Bal's strain of vampirism doesn't have a significant debuff in sunlight, especially in a game that isn't set up for player-controlled time. If vampire players could control the time to always be night, I'd be a lot more willing to accept sunlight-based debuffs/damage, but I don't see ESO adding that anytime soon.

The Vampire lore still states there is an eventual need to feed or they will go "mad or comatose". It also states their health would recover faster but we see the contrary.

According to Tales of Tamriel - Book 1: The Land

On page 230, (which is the second last page in the book.) Cinna Scholasticus writes the following in line 18:

"By night, these hunters are possessed of extreme fortitude and a powerful ability to recover from wounds."

This is not reflected in the game.

With all due respect, VaranisArano. I do not think you know the lore very well.

starkerealm

Knowledge wrote: »

Quoting ShadowHvo:

I recently bought the book "Tales of Tamriel - Book 1: The Land", and it was quite a nice read, really recommended for everyone that would like more insight into the lore of the Elder Scrolls.

However, as a self-proclaimed "Vampire Lorewhore" in the Elder Scrolls setting, I would like to point something rather strange out...

On page 230, (which is the second last page in the book.) Cinna Scholasticus writes the following in line 18:

"By night, these hunters are possessed of extreme fortitude and a powerful ability to recover from wounds."

Now, here comes the killer, the lore studies in the book completely contradicts the ingame version of how the bloodline actually functions. In ESO, we have a 75% Decrease in Health Regen, the lore supporting this particular vampiric bloodline completely contradicts this.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/199211/noxiphilic-sanguivoria-lore-inconsistency

Again we see direct lore contradictions.

Then you should certainly write a sternly written letter to Cinna Scholasticus... assuming she hasn't been killed and eaten by some supernatural monster, of course.

Worth noting that all of the books you'll find in TES games belong in the setting, and as a result the information is not always, completely, accurate. This is especially true of topics like vampirism or lycanthropy, where the associated field of study is extremely dangerous, and will happily kill you. See: Immortal Blood.