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

Rohamad_Ali

No .

Knowledge

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

No .

Rohamad_Ali, could you please be more specific with the reasons why you'd be against this type of change? My psychiatrist told me I need to interact with people more so I am interested in a discussion with you regarding my proposal.

DuskMarine

ZOS_JesC wrote: »

Greetings, we've removed more baiting comments as well as some naming and shaming. Let's keep comments constructive and on topic. Personal insults are not permitted as outlined in the forum rules. If the thread cannot stay constructive, we will consider closing it. Thank you for your understanding.

well threatening the closure of a thread that brings up a valid point that vampire needs changed somehow or werewolf needs to be buffed or just ripped apart and redone. something that the community has been up in arms for awhile isnt really gonna help fan the flames down any ya know?

TheOneWhoSighs

Making it more tedious to upkeep something instead of just nerfing it/buffing the things competing with it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

The last thing I'd want to see in cryodil is a guild group having to take a pause so all their members can go munch on a bunch of NPCs before they go back to defending a keep. Not to mention that the requirements you bring up, like needing to eat 5-10 NPCs, would make such a thing incredibly tedious for a large group.

The implementation of it is fine. The relationship to its power is where the discussion should probably be had.

Perhaps non-vampire non--werewolves could have an extra racial passive available only to them. Or perhaps vampires/werewolves should lose access to different abilities depending on what stage they're at.

Like, does it really make sense for a vampire to use dawnbreaker?

Morgha_Kul

I agree, Vampirism (and Lycanthropy) are supposed to be CURSES. There should be a price to pay for the added power, or it's not a curse.

The reason is that in both cases, the character is forced to become a predator. In the case of Vampires, they're still in control of it, feeding when they choose to, and suffering ill effects if they don't. Werebeasts suffer from a lack of control, a bloodlust that causes them to act without their own choice.

In BOTH cases, because they're predators, they're avoided or hunted by their prey. Vampires have the disadvantage that their curse is obvious. Werewolves can pass easily when not in wolf form, but would be readily identified when they are.

My solution is simply to give each type of predator a requirement to feed.

Vampires who don't feed, suffer greater and greater disability until they really have no choice.
Werebeasts who don't feed will lose control and attack anything they might feed on, without the player's control.

Feeding would prevent these outcomes.


Now, I do get it. Players want the power without the cost. They want the easy mode. However, I think that it's more important to stay consistent with the lore of the setting. Players who maintain their feeding will not have any change to their gameplay. It's only those who don't who would suffer.

Knowledge

Morgha_Kul wrote: »

I agree, Vampirism (and Lycanthropy) are supposed to be CURSES. There should be a price to pay for the added power, or it's not a curse.

The reason is that in both cases, the character is forced to become a predator. In the case of Vampires, they're still in control of it, feeding when they choose to, and suffering ill effects if they don't. Werebeasts suffer from a lack of control, a bloodlust that causes them to act without their own choice.

In BOTH cases, because they're predators, they're avoided or hunted by their prey. Vampires have the disadvantage that their curse is obvious. Werewolves can pass easily when not in wolf form, but would be readily identified when they are.

My solution is simply to give each type of predator a requirement to feed.

Vampires who don't feed, suffer greater and greater disability until they really have no choice.
Werebeasts who don't feed will lose control and attack anything they might feed on, without the player's control.

Feeding would prevent these outcomes.


Now, I do get it. Players want the power without the cost. They want the easy mode. However, I think that it's more important to stay consistent with the lore of the setting. Players who maintain their feeding will not have any change to their gameplay. It's only those who don't who would suffer.

This is very similar to my original post and it is a very good suggestion. What I think is important is that we discuss this in a deeper manner to figure out a way to satisfy the player base while implementing some cost.

Rohamad_Ali

Knowledge wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

No .

Rohamad_Ali, could you please be more specific with the reasons why you'd be against this type of change? My psychiatrist told me I need to interact with people more so I am interested in a discussion with you regarding my proposal.

It goes against Lore .

Knowledge

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

No .

Rohamad_Ali, could you please be more specific with the reasons why you'd be against this type of change? My psychiatrist told me I need to interact with people more so I am interested in a discussion with you regarding my proposal.

It goes against Lore .

I've outlined how the lore is not being followed in the original post with sources and links to those sources. If anything, my proposed system follows the lore more closely.

Morgha_Kul

Knowledge wrote: »

Morgha_Kul wrote: »

I agree, Vampirism (and Lycanthropy) are supposed to be CURSES. There should be a price to pay for the added power, or it's not a curse.

The reason is that in both cases, the character is forced to become a predator. In the case of Vampires, they're still in control of it, feeding when they choose to, and suffering ill effects if they don't. Werebeasts suffer from a lack of control, a bloodlust that causes them to act without their own choice.

In BOTH cases, because they're predators, they're avoided or hunted by their prey. Vampires have the disadvantage that their curse is obvious. Werewolves can pass easily when not in wolf form, but would be readily identified when they are.

My solution is simply to give each type of predator a requirement to feed.

Vampires who don't feed, suffer greater and greater disability until they really have no choice.
Werebeasts who don't feed will lose control and attack anything they might feed on, without the player's control.

Feeding would prevent these outcomes.


Now, I do get it. Players want the power without the cost. They want the easy mode. However, I think that it's more important to stay consistent with the lore of the setting. Players who maintain their feeding will not have any change to their gameplay. It's only those who don't who would suffer.

This is very similar to my original post and it is a very good suggestion. What I think is important is that we discuss this in a deeper manner to figure out a way to satisfy the player base while implementing some cost.

My thinking is to make a feeding schedule that isn't overly onerous. Say, once in each day cycle you have to feed to fill a pool (similar to magicka). Emptying that pool would result in the negative effects. Different types of prey might fill the pool more or less.

For example, a humanoid (elf, human, goblin, etc) would fill it entirely. Large animals might do 2/3 or so. Smaller ones might do 1/4 or so. That wouldn't take long to fill. You could still incur murder charges killing an npc with this, and that would be sufficient to make the guards chase you.

A Lycanthrope with an empty pool would become a werewolf automatically at nightfall, and players would lose control of their character, attacking any potential prey near them (if there's no prey in range, they would retain control, but would still be in wolf form). Death would refill the pool.
A Vampire with an empty pool would suffer immediate penalties, growing weaker over time. Eventually, they might lose access to their vampire abilities (except the ability that feeds them), or even die. Death would refill the pool.

Rohamad_Ali

Knowledge wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

No .

Rohamad_Ali, could you please be more specific with the reasons why you'd be against this type of change? My psychiatrist told me I need to interact with people more so I am interested in a discussion with you regarding my proposal.

It goes against Lore .

I've outlined how the lore is not being followed in the original post with sources and links to those sources. If anything, my proposed system follows the lore more closely.

Goes against ESO Lore . ESO Lore is different from ES Lore . This strain of vampirism in ESO can not be hidden like in ES games . So we get all perks for always being ugly .

Also we are all The Vestiges . We are not regular vampires . So we get all the perks . An all the Ugly .

Souce: The Forums

Knowledge

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

No .

Rohamad_Ali, could you please be more specific with the reasons why you'd be against this type of change? My psychiatrist told me I need to interact with people more so I am interested in a discussion with you regarding my proposal.

It goes against Lore .

I've outlined how the lore is not being followed in the original post with sources and links to those sources. If anything, my proposed system follows the lore more closely.

Goes against ESO Lore . ESO Lore is different from ES Lore . This strain of vampirism in ESO can not be hidden like in ES games . So we get all perks for always being ugly .

Also we are all The Vestiges . We are not regular vampires . So we get all the perks . An all the Ugly .

Souce: The Forums

I quoted ESO lore in the OP and it is contrary to how the system works in the game.

Rohamad_Ali

Knowledge wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

No .

Rohamad_Ali, could you please be more specific with the reasons why you'd be against this type of change? My psychiatrist told me I need to interact with people more so I am interested in a discussion with you regarding my proposal.

It goes against Lore .

I've outlined how the lore is not being followed in the original post with sources and links to those sources. If anything, my proposed system follows the lore more closely.

Goes against ESO Lore . ESO Lore is different from ES Lore . This strain of vampirism in ESO can not be hidden like in ES games . So we get all perks for always being ugly .

Also we are all The Vestiges . We are not regular vampires . So we get all the perks . An all the Ugly .

Souce: The Forums

I quoted ESO lore in the OP and it is contrary to how the system works in the game.

No . We get all the perks until someone at ZoS gives us a way to hide vampirism in the appearance tab . Give Us that , then we'll negotiate .

Knowledge

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

No .

Rohamad_Ali, could you please be more specific with the reasons why you'd be against this type of change? My psychiatrist told me I need to interact with people more so I am interested in a discussion with you regarding my proposal.

It goes against Lore .

I've outlined how the lore is not being followed in the original post with sources and links to those sources. If anything, my proposed system follows the lore more closely.

Goes against ESO Lore . ESO Lore is different from ES Lore . This strain of vampirism in ESO can not be hidden like in ES games . So we get all perks for always being ugly .

Also we are all The Vestiges . We are not regular vampires . So we get all the perks . An all the Ugly .

Souce: The Forums

I quoted ESO lore in the OP and it is contrary to how the system works in the game.

No . We get all the perks until someone at ZoS gives us a way to hide vampirism in the appearance tab . Give Us that , then we'll negotiate .

On top of all of the benefits with no downsides you want to hide it also?

JJBoomer

Rohamad_Ali

Knowledge wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

No .

Rohamad_Ali, could you please be more specific with the reasons why you'd be against this type of change? My psychiatrist told me I need to interact with people more so I am interested in a discussion with you regarding my proposal.

It goes against Lore .

I've outlined how the lore is not being followed in the original post with sources and links to those sources. If anything, my proposed system follows the lore more closely.

Goes against ESO Lore . ESO Lore is different from ES Lore . This strain of vampirism in ESO can not be hidden like in ES games . So we get all perks for always being ugly .

Also we are all The Vestiges . We are not regular vampires . So we get all the perks . An all the Ugly .

Souce: The Forums

I quoted ESO lore in the OP and it is contrary to how the system works in the game.

No . We get all the perks until someone at ZoS gives us a way to hide vampirism in the appearance tab . Give Us that , then we'll negotiate .

On top of all of the benefits with no downsides you want to hide it also?

No . I am saying some of what you are suggesting would be acceptable only if we could hide appearance like in other ES Lore games . A lot of players take vampire for the RP and the cool abilities . If ZoS gave Us a real bite feed animation and the ability to blend in like in other ES games then playing a vampire with even more negative effects would not be so bad but as of right now players can't even enjoy the way their vampire looks . No fangs , no bite no feed on sleeping victims ect ect . The only thing vamp does have going for it right now is the combat perks . Don't make it useless like werewolf went . Make it better all around or leave it be .

starkerealm

Knowledge wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

No .

Rohamad_Ali, could you please be more specific with the reasons why you'd be against this type of change? My psychiatrist told me I need to interact with people more so I am interested in a discussion with you regarding my proposal.

It goes against Lore .

I've outlined how the lore is not being followed in the original post with sources and links to those sources. If anything, my proposed system follows the lore more closely.

You don't understand the lore, therefore, you are not qualified to assess if something does, or does not, violate existing lore.

starkerealm

Knowledge wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

No .

Rohamad_Ali, could you please be more specific with the reasons why you'd be against this type of change? My psychiatrist told me I need to interact with people more so I am interested in a discussion with you regarding my proposal.

It goes against Lore .

I've outlined how the lore is not being followed in the original post with sources and links to those sources. If anything, my proposed system follows the lore more closely.

Goes against ESO Lore . ESO Lore is different from ES Lore . This strain of vampirism in ESO can not be hidden like in ES games . So we get all perks for always being ugly .

Also we are all The Vestiges . We are not regular vampires . So we get all the perks . An all the Ugly .

Souce: The Forums

I quoted ESO lore in the OP and it is contrary to how the system works in the game.

You did not quote relevant lore in the original post.

Rohamad_Ali

starkerealm wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

No .

Rohamad_Ali, could you please be more specific with the reasons why you'd be against this type of change? My psychiatrist told me I need to interact with people more so I am interested in a discussion with you regarding my proposal.

It goes against Lore .

I've outlined how the lore is not being followed in the original post with sources and links to those sources. If anything, my proposed system follows the lore more closely.

You don't understand the lore, therefore, you are not qualified to assess if something does, or does not, violate existing lore.

I don't think he understands the penalties that come with Vampire . In PvP it's a big weakness . Sure the perks are nice but We all get hit hard by fire . Eat Dawnbreaker omlets all the time . And Evil Hunter ,Silver Bolts will make undeath miserable if not prepared . There are some top players that can make vampire look unbeatable but it's few and far between . A lot of players have dropped Vampire last patch because the negatives were just to big in Cyrodiil , IC and Battlegrounds . Adding more penalties with no Perks would be a nail in the coffin for sure .

Also Batswarm has been nerfed to the point you almost never see anyone slot it anymore . Mistform has been bugged forever and still gets snared . Drain has been nerfed into uselessness . The Passives are what keeps Vampire alive in game . Making those Passives a chore is a huge mistake without fixing the abilities and making them useful again . More over at least a little RP buff like a suggested would make people possibly listen to him

Betsararie

We mainly talk about balance for PVP purposes here and none of us gonna be bothered to do this.

Knowledge

starkerealm wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

No .

Rohamad_Ali, could you please be more specific with the reasons why you'd be against this type of change? My psychiatrist told me I need to interact with people more so I am interested in a discussion with you regarding my proposal.

It goes against Lore .

I've outlined how the lore is not being followed in the original post with sources and links to those sources. If anything, my proposed system follows the lore more closely.

Goes against ESO Lore . ESO Lore is different from ES Lore . This strain of vampirism in ESO can not be hidden like in ES games . So we get all perks for always being ugly .

Also we are all The Vestiges . We are not regular vampires . So we get all the perks . An all the Ugly .

Souce: The Forums

I quoted ESO lore in the OP and it is contrary to how the system works in the game.

You did not quote relevant lore in the original post.

I did quote relevant lore and I encourage you to quote more relevant lore if you can. Otherwise, this is a baseless argument counter.

Knowledge

starkerealm wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

No .

Rohamad_Ali, could you please be more specific with the reasons why you'd be against this type of change? My psychiatrist told me I need to interact with people more so I am interested in a discussion with you regarding my proposal.

It goes against Lore .

I've outlined how the lore is not being followed in the original post with sources and links to those sources. If anything, my proposed system follows the lore more closely.

You don't understand the lore, therefore, you are not qualified to assess if something does, or does not, violate existing lore.

I think you're trying to create an argument of authority. Qualifications don't matter in this case. Everyone's opinion matters. My psychiatrist suggests I try to avoid arguing directly with people that want me to bow down to arguments of authority so I am just going to stop here and avoid further arguments with you.

For those of you reading these comments I encourage you to reread my OP and you will see that the post contains relevant lore with cited sources. There's no one more or less qualified in this debate it's all about sources and information backing claims. I have provided information and sources while those arguing otherwise have not cited any sources but merely attacked my own by saying I don't have enough authority to have an opinion.

Beardimus

A baseless counter to a baseless argument I guess. Probably not the kind of social interaction you should be looking for..

I think if you re-read the thread the answers are there. If you are gartnering opinion perhaps its time to create a poll, and link it here @Knowledge so then you can get some stats to see who wants to change and then perhaps a follow up on how.

As I said before, which I think you missed, I support not being able to hide vamp, I think people should not be vamp. By default for a passive or too.

Vamps should look like vamps. Want to BE vamps. And do Vamp stuff (use a skill) having to slot a skill for the passive would fix the problem as I see it.

Your suggestion in the OP and through this thread wouldn't work IMO.

Beardimus

Sorry knowledge, if you going to quote rules of arguementation as a straw man argument. You need to look up straw man argument too.

Sometimes context setting is not about authority. Someone's experience can bare reflection on their validity I'm afraid.

For example, someone who has only ever played PvE suggesting changes to PvP is an issue. As there are things they dont know.

Someone coming from WOW and day one asking for all the things they have in WOW, auction house etc, again that case would.be better made 6 months in or a year in as they under stand the game more and how things work here.

You can't think that someone who knows more or understand a topic better, or is just right is preaching at you or talking you down via authority. Sorry that's just joining dots that aren't there. And honnestly folks like me aren't trying to do that too you.

We just want to se healthy debate / discussion and respond to an OPs suggestion, get context etc if the thread is not clear.

Hope that helps clear the air a bit.

All my thoughts on Vamp are above. Agreed with part of your principle, but not your solution. Time for a poll.

Knowledge

Beardimus wrote: »

Sorry knowledge, if you going to quote rules of arguementation as a straw man argument. You need to look up straw man argument too.

Sometimes context setting is not about authority. Someone's experience can bare reflection on their validity I'm afraid.

For example, someone who has only ever played PvE suggesting changes to PvP is an issue. As there are things they dont know.

Someone coming from WOW and day one asking for all the things they have in WOW, auction house etc, again that case would.be better made 6 months in or a year in as they under stand the game more and how things work here.

You can't think that someone who knows more or understand a topic better, or is just right is preaching at you or talking you down via authority. Sorry that's just joining dots that aren't there. And honnestly folks like me aren't trying to do that too you.

We just want to se healthy debate / discussion and respond to an OPs suggestion, get context etc if the thread is not clear.

Hope that helps clear the air a bit.

All my thoughts on Vamp are above. Agreed with part of your principle, but not your solution. Time for a poll.

Beardimus, let's be reasonable here. I show multiple sources, quoted sources, with links to those sources. I provide my position with backed up information. Then someone comes and just says "you're wrong" and you're stating we should just accept that position based on what?

If someone came into the thread, provided lore sources, proved my sources were wrong, then I would absolutely accept that as a valid counter debate.

But expecting me to just accept "you don't have the qualifications" and present nothing to counter the argument is not right, Beardimus. I think you know that too.

Further, it's not even as if we have some sort of validation that someone here is a lore expert based on an actual real existing qualification.

For example, if an actual lore writer or developer commented here that made the lore we would have a valid authority figure that would be able to provide insight that wouldn't really be disputable.

From the definition of "argument from authority": It is well known as a fallacy, though it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given .

I cannot agree that anyone here has reliable authority on this topic so, like most real world debates, we rely on sources and facts to back up our arguments.

Thanks for understanding and my psychiatrist told me to avoid these types of arguments as it's an attempt to derail my discussion or attack me.

Beardimus

But I think the point is you are by proxy stating that what you are saying is right. I.e. An argument of authority. And that people can't counter it in the discussion because of your 'lore' you quoted.

That's the irony,it's exactly what you are accusing folks of....its often not any attempt to derail but to debate in your style, which includes counter etc. Honestly I think you take peoples responses wrong.

Anyway, enough of all that, too exhausting - back to vamp chat. think about four times in this thread I've agree with you, in part. What do you think of my input on Vamp topic?

Knowledge

Beardimus wrote: »

But I think the point is you are by proxy stating that what you are saying is right. I.e. An argument of authority. And that people can't counter it in the discussion because of your 'lore' you quoted.

That's the irony,it's exactly what you are accusing folks of....its often not any attempt to derail but to debate in your style, which includes counter etc. Honestly I think you take peoples responses wrong.

Anyway, enough of all that, too exhausting - back to vamp chat. think about four times in this thread I've agree with you, in part. What do you think of my input on Vamp topic?

I am not saying what I am saying is right based on authority but based on information I've presented to support my argument with links and quotes. In a debate, it is acceptable to provide counter sources or counter information to prove another position or point and/or disprove the previously submitted information.

I am going to once again encourage people to read my original post and continue to use the agree function if you agree, provide quality feed back in the thread - as they have, and if they wish to provide a counter argument to do so with sources (unless they are a lore writer or developer).

[snip]

[Edited for inappropriate commentary]

Beardimus

Not a problem, unsure if your threads are giving you what you need at all if that's the case. Good luck

Slick_007

Knowledge wrote: »

by saying I don't have enough authority to have an opinion.

[Edited to remove comment]

you have authority to have an opinion, but you are not qualified to make an informed decision because you dont understand the subject matter.

Knowledge

[Edited to remove quotes]

The original post even points to a previously made thread with an individual citing an actual lore book you can buy on amazon which contradicts the lore of vampirism in ESO. The book in question is actually called " The Elder Scrolls Online: Tales of Tamriel, Book 1: The Land." https://www.amazon.com/Elder-Scrolls-Online-Tales-Tamriel/dp/1783293179

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

Are you saying they don't understand the subject matter too and the official "ESO" book for purchase is wrong?

JJBoomer

Knowledge you do realize that trying to use a "professional" as some kind of reinforcement/back up of your argument, actually weakens it right? All that does is tell people that you don't have the substance to back up your own argument.

[edited to remove comment]

Secondly, if you're looking to interact with people more, making incendiary threads that only create drama, over and over again, is not the best way to do it.

And lastly, when you give unquestioning respect to those that agree with you, but demand justification and explanations for those that don't, is a really big double standard, and shows that you most definitely have a bias, even though you think you're being reasonable.

My advice would be to practice some radical acceptance, do some CBT, and decide what kind of interaction you're really looking for. And if all this negative, dramatic stuff is what you're looking for, then good luck. After all, negative attention is still attention.

Someone suggested doing polls first and then going into how, and I think for you, that would be a better approach.