Wood Elf/ Bosmer losing stealth passive, An open letter.
-
Grandesdar✭✭✭Does this thread really have over 2600 entries for such a trifle? Oh geez. Just give em the passive or whatever they are asking for.Main: The Charismatic StamDK DD
Side: A Handsome Warden Healer
Side: (upcoming) Stam Necro DD
CP: 680
EU PSN: Style35135 -
Ogou✭✭✭✭✭Cundu_Ertur wrote: »That much they did do, but they still took the number of stealthy races down from 2 to 1; we had suggested several times that they boost the number from 2 to 4.
Why would they do that though? That wouldn't help any of their goals? Plus, wouldn't that cause the other races to be overloaded in terms of racial passives?
Yeah, like they actually cared about any of those fake goals they set. Like the preservation of established lore, that rings a bell. Yeah epic job right there, or open up races for more roles. Yeah sure big epic fail that's why my race isn't even accepted as healers in core trial groups when we are a healing race.
And that means ZOS should have made 4 stealthy races because?
Because in Skyrim there were four races with starting bonuses to stealth (I believe, I am away from my computer.) Wood Elves, Dark Elves, Kahjits, and Argonians. All have a rich history of the use of stealth.
"Because Skyrim did it" is not much of a reason for ZOS to do something, especially considering how different Skyrim and ESO are.It would have opened up stealth game play to more races.
Guess that would have been nice, but considering it doesn't fit in with any of the goal ZOS had set up and it's really not necessary I can't see why you expected ZOS to do that. Especially since that would require them to rebalance a good portion of the passives again.0 -
Ogou✭✭✭✭✭Cundu_Ertur wrote: »That much they did do, but they still took the number of stealthy races down from 2 to 1; we had suggested several times that they boost the number from 2 to 4.
Why would they do that though? That wouldn't help any of their goals? Plus, wouldn't that cause the other races to be overloaded in terms of racial passives?
Yeah, like they actually cared about any of those fake goals they set. Like the preservation of established lore, that rings a bell. Yeah epic job right there, or open up races for more roles. Yeah sure big epic fail that's why my race isn't even accepted as healers in core trial groups when we are a healing race.
And that means ZOS should have made 4 stealthy races because?
No but the way you said sounded like they had goals to begin with.
Well they did.0 -
Koronach✭✭✭✭✭Cundu_Ertur wrote: »That much they did do, but they still took the number of stealthy races down from 2 to 1; we had suggested several times that they boost the number from 2 to 4.
Why would they do that though? That wouldn't help any of their goals? Plus, wouldn't that cause the other races to be overloaded in terms of racial passives?
Yeah, like they actually cared about any of those fake goals they set. Like the preservation of established lore, that rings a bell. Yeah epic job right there, or open up races for more roles. Yeah sure big epic fail that's why my race isn't even accepted as healers in core trial groups when we are a healing race.
And that means ZOS should have made 4 stealthy races because?
No but the way you said sounded like they had goals to begin with.
Well they did.
And utterly failed6 -
BlueRaven✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭"Because Skyrim did it" is not much of a reason for ZOS to do something, especially considering how different Skyrim and ESO are.
How about because Elder Scrolls did it. You know the series this MMO is based on? Why the game has "Elder Scrolls" in the title and not "generic fantasy name" instead? So why have Wood Elves at all if they are having such issues as "knowing what the hell Wood Elves are"? Why not trim all the races down to three or four playable ones? Is there ten races in this game only because, you know, Skyrim did it?
This IP is strong because it is a long term IP with stories that flow from one to the other in a consistent setting. ESO is not set in some alternate reality were Wood Elves are NOT stealthy and Argonians are NOT poison resistant. That's who those races are, it's at their core.Guess that would have been nice, but considering it doesn't fit in with any of the goal ZOS had set up and it's really not necessary I can't see why you expected ZOS to do that. Especially since that would require them to rebalance a good portion of the passives again.
Well tough. It's not like we started these threads AFTER the changes went live. These threads started weeks before. AND it was brought to their attention.
And what goals did they set up? You seem to think there were some goals Zos has, but what were they? To stay true to the lore? Fail. To break up the metas? They just changed what the metas are, they did not break the concept of metas, so fail again.
They made Wood Elves a PvP only race. Was that a goal? They cut down the the amount of races who were good at stealth. Was that another goal?
What were these goals that you know so much about? Because all I see now is narrower, stricter metas and less choices for some dungeon rolls. So was that the goal? Less choice? Please tell us as it seems you were there. Tell us the reasoning behind these baffling changes.Edited by BlueRaven on June 29, 2019 4:26AM8 -
Koronach✭✭✭✭✭"Because Skyrim did it" is not much of a reason for ZOS to do something, especially considering how different Skyrim and ESO are.
How about because Elder Scrolls did it. You know the series this MMO is based on? Why the game has "Elder Scrolls" in the title and not "generic fantasy name" instead? So why have Wood Elves at all if they are having such issues as "knowing what the hell Wood Elves are"? Why not trim all the races down to three or four playable ones? Is there ten races in this game only because, you know, Skyrim did it?
This IP is strong because it is a long term IP with stories that flow from one to the other in a consistent setting. ESO is not set in some alternate reality were Wood Elves are NOT stealthy and Argonians are NOT poison resistant. That's who those races are, it's at their core.Guess that would have been nice, but considering it doesn't fit in with any of the goal ZOS had set up and it's really not necessary I can't see why you expected ZOS to do that. Especially since that would require them to rebalance a good portion of the passives again.
Well tough. It's not like we started these threads AFTER the changes went live. These threads started weeks before. AND it was brought to their attention.
And what goals did they set up? You seem to think there were some goals Zos has, but what were they? To stay true to the lore? Fail. To break up the metas? They just changed what the metas are, they did not break the concept of metas, so fail again.
They made Wood Elves a PvP only race. Was that a goal? They cut down the the amount of races who were good at stealth. Was that another goal?
What were these goals that you know so much about? Because all I see now is narrower, stricter metas and less choices for some dungeon rolls. So was that the goal? Less choice? Please tell us as it seems you were there. Tell us the reasoning behind these baffling changes.
Look at the forum avatar Orc, yeah if that's their main no wonder they are defending ZoS so hard.4 -
MartiniDaniels✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭MartiniDaniels wrote: »DreadDaedroth wrote: »Zos is a bit obsessed by unicity at the moment, I don't understand why though, unicity is not indicator of quality and plus the different playble races are distinct enough even if they share similar bonus.
Many of us have speculated that it was a planned effort to make Khajiit more attractive ahead of the Khajiit chapter release. Most of us have resisted race changing the Bosmer characters we have grown attached to, but many have also used the race change tokens and are embracing their new kitties as they frolic, murder, and steal in their recently available homeland. Some have even turned to necromancy, and are bashing their way to new Alliance ranks as we speak!
The ZOS marketing machine is rolling along at full speed! Bugs, lore, and lag be damned..... they will hit their sales goals at all costs!
If that was the reason they wouldn't have nerfed the Khajiit crit chance.
They replaced crit chance with crit damage because in PVP crit damage is more valuable fro high crit builds (because base crit is cut by impen and so impact of lower piece in equation is higher), while in PVE group content dps is comparable. But overall khajiit has a big load of passives, they are not especially good for min-maxing but from the newbie point they may look very impressive. Overall, racial passives were changed:
1. PVP balancing
2. Enforce sales of adventurer pack via buffing DC races and given free tokens
3. Make khajiit a good if not best race for overland content, so new players as khajiits in khajjit land will feel comfortable.
They changed the crit chance to crit damage because it was too strong in PvE. Added with the buff to the Shadow mundus stone Khajiit would have been either the best or the second best as both PvE stamina and magicka DPS. If their goal was making Khajiit the best for overland content they wouldn't have removed the crit chance.
From the newbie point of view an orc would look a lot more attractive.
There were calculations from several top level theorycrafters, they all proved that 8% crit = 10 % crit damage. Though you don't need too complex calculations for that, your usual average min-maxed crit damage with real major force uptime is ~ +100% and usual crit chance is ~80%. Dps increase from crit is very plain thing = effective spell power *(1+ crit chance * crit damage). Khajiit seemed BiS in 1st week of PTS simply because builds were not adjusted.
Overall, PVP was a 1st priority and PVE only second (from PVE side I only see how Nord was uplifted to perfectly fit DK tanking as replacement for nerfed argonians). For example they re-adjusted dunmer from health bonus to bonuses for both stam and magicka and buffed imperial, because those 2 were in bad position at first version of new passives. At first iteration there were 4 questionable passives, after second version - only 2 - argonians and bosmers. Those 2 were not buffed because they were parts of most toxic builds in PVP."Because Skyrim did it" is not much of a reason for ZOS to do something, especially considering how different Skyrim and ESO are.
How about because Elder Scrolls did it. You know the series this MMO is based on? Why the game has "Elder Scrolls" in the title and not "generic fantasy name" instead? So why have Wood Elves at all if they are having such issues as "knowing what the hell Wood Elves are"? Why not trim all the races down to three or four playable ones? Is there ten races in this game only because, you know, Skyrim did it?
This IP is strong because it is a long term IP with stories that flow from one to the other in a consistent setting. ESO is not set in some alternate reality were Wood Elves are NOT stealthy and Argonians are NOT poison resistant. That's who those races are, it's at their core.Guess that would have been nice, but considering it doesn't fit in with any of the goal ZOS had set up and it's really not necessary I can't see why you expected ZOS to do that. Especially since that would require them to rebalance a good portion of the passives again.
Well tough. It's not like we started these threads AFTER the changes went live. These threads started weeks before. AND it was brought to their attention.
And what goals did they set up? You seem to think there were some goals Zos has, but what were they? To stay true to the lore? Fail. To break up the metas? They just changed what the metas are, they did not break the concept of metas, so fail again.
They made Wood Elves a PvP only race. Was that a goal? They cut down the the amount of races who were good at stealth. Was that another goal?
What were these goals that you know so much about? Because all I see now is narrower, stricter metas and less choices for some dungeon rolls. So was that the goal? Less choice? Please tell us as it seems you were there. Tell us the reasoning behind these baffling changes.
Look at the forum avatar Orc, yeah if that's their main no wonder they are defending ZoS so hard.
I am just sitting and waiting for stamina Bloody Mara (fingers crossed)
this food will flat out all races 3 -
Ogou✭✭✭✭✭"Because Skyrim did it" is not much of a reason for ZOS to do something, especially considering how different Skyrim and ESO are.
How about because Elder Scrolls did it. You know the series this MMO is based on? Why the game has "Elder Scrolls" in the title and not "generic fantasy name" instead? So why have Wood Elves at all if they are having such issues as "knowing what the hell Wood Elves are"? Why not trim all the races down to three or four playable ones? Is there ten races in this game only because, you know, Skyrim did it?
This IP is strong because it is a long term IP with stories that flow from one to the other in a consistent setting. ESO is not set in some alternate reality were Wood Elves are NOT stealthy and Argonians are NOT poison resistant. That's who those races are, it's at their core.
Not much of a better reason. First off, ESO doesn't have starting bonuses so to be "consistent" Dark Elves and Argonians would have to receive some form of stealth bonus. Second, to keep the races from being overloaded some other passive would have to be removed; I doubt the Dunmer and Argonian players would take lightly to losing one of their passives for this. But wait. What about all those other starting bonuses from the other single player games? To keep it "consistent" we'd have to get all of those in too somehow, right? All of this in the middle of the PTS cycle.
So yeah. I don't see why you expected ZOS to go through all that willingly.
So you wanted all of the passives to be redone during the PTS cycle instead?Guess that would have been nice, but considering it doesn't fit in with any of the goal ZOS had set up and it's really not necessary I can't see why you expected ZOS to do that. Especially since that would require them to rebalance a good portion of the passives again.
Well tough. It's not like we started these threads AFTER the changes went live. These threads started weeks before. AND it was brought to their attention.
And what goals did they set up? You seem to think there were some goals Zos has, but what were they? To stay true to the lore? Fail. To break up the metas? They just changed what the metas are, they did not break the concept of metas, so fail again.
They made Wood Elves a PvP only race. Was that a goal? They cut down the the amount of races who were good at stealth. Was that another goal?
What were these goals that you know so much about? Because all I see now is narrower, stricter metas and less choices for some dungeon rolls. So was that the goal? Less choice? Please tell us as it seems you were there. Tell us the reasoning behind these baffling changes.
These goals right here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/453551/upcoming-racial-balance-changes-for-update-21 ?
Though I'm sure you knew already. The fact that you disagree with some of the results doesn't mean they didn't exist.1 -
Ogou✭✭✭✭✭Cundu_Ertur wrote: »That much they did do, but they still took the number of stealthy races down from 2 to 1; we had suggested several times that they boost the number from 2 to 4.
Why would they do that though? That wouldn't help any of their goals? Plus, wouldn't that cause the other races to be overloaded in terms of racial passives?
Yeah, like they actually cared about any of those fake goals they set. Like the preservation of established lore, that rings a bell. Yeah epic job right there, or open up races for more roles. Yeah sure big epic fail that's why my race isn't even accepted as healers in core trial groups when we are a healing race.
And that means ZOS should have made 4 stealthy races because?
No but the way you said sounded like they had goals to begin with.
Well they did.
And utterly failed
Your point?0 -
Ogou✭✭✭✭✭"Because Skyrim did it" is not much of a reason for ZOS to do something, especially considering how different Skyrim and ESO are.
How about because Elder Scrolls did it. You know the series this MMO is based on? Why the game has "Elder Scrolls" in the title and not "generic fantasy name" instead? So why have Wood Elves at all if they are having such issues as "knowing what the hell Wood Elves are"? Why not trim all the races down to three or four playable ones? Is there ten races in this game only because, you know, Skyrim did it?
This IP is strong because it is a long term IP with stories that flow from one to the other in a consistent setting. ESO is not set in some alternate reality were Wood Elves are NOT stealthy and Argonians are NOT poison resistant. That's who those races are, it's at their core.Guess that would have been nice, but considering it doesn't fit in with any of the goal ZOS had set up and it's really not necessary I can't see why you expected ZOS to do that. Especially since that would require them to rebalance a good portion of the passives again.
Well tough. It's not like we started these threads AFTER the changes went live. These threads started weeks before. AND it was brought to their attention.
And what goals did they set up? You seem to think there were some goals Zos has, but what were they? To stay true to the lore? Fail. To break up the metas? They just changed what the metas are, they did not break the concept of metas, so fail again.
They made Wood Elves a PvP only race. Was that a goal? They cut down the the amount of races who were good at stealth. Was that another goal?
What were these goals that you know so much about? Because all I see now is narrower, stricter metas and less choices for some dungeon rolls. So was that the goal? Less choice? Please tell us as it seems you were there. Tell us the reasoning behind these baffling changes.
Look at the forum avatar Orc, yeah if that's their main no wonder they are defending ZoS so hard.
Aaand now we're down to personal attacks. Good job.
For what it's worth, I never actually play on my orc. Besides she would be a healer if I levelled her so I'm wouldn't benefit much from the passives.0 -
Koronach✭✭✭✭✭Cundu_Ertur wrote: »That much they did do, but they still took the number of stealthy races down from 2 to 1; we had suggested several times that they boost the number from 2 to 4.
Why would they do that though? That wouldn't help any of their goals? Plus, wouldn't that cause the other races to be overloaded in terms of racial passives?
Yeah, like they actually cared about any of those fake goals they set. Like the preservation of established lore, that rings a bell. Yeah epic job right there, or open up races for more roles. Yeah sure big epic fail that's why my race isn't even accepted as healers in core trial groups when we are a healing race.
And that means ZOS should have made 4 stealthy races because?
No but the way you said sounded like they had goals to begin with.
Well they did.
And utterly failed
Your point?
Exaclty my point, they failed to do what they said. Is that rocket science for you?4 -
Koronach✭✭✭✭✭"Because Skyrim did it" is not much of a reason for ZOS to do something, especially considering how different Skyrim and ESO are.
How about because Elder Scrolls did it. You know the series this MMO is based on? Why the game has "Elder Scrolls" in the title and not "generic fantasy name" instead? So why have Wood Elves at all if they are having such issues as "knowing what the hell Wood Elves are"? Why not trim all the races down to three or four playable ones? Is there ten races in this game only because, you know, Skyrim did it?
This IP is strong because it is a long term IP with stories that flow from one to the other in a consistent setting. ESO is not set in some alternate reality were Wood Elves are NOT stealthy and Argonians are NOT poison resistant. That's who those races are, it's at their core.Guess that would have been nice, but considering it doesn't fit in with any of the goal ZOS had set up and it's really not necessary I can't see why you expected ZOS to do that. Especially since that would require them to rebalance a good portion of the passives again.
Well tough. It's not like we started these threads AFTER the changes went live. These threads started weeks before. AND it was brought to their attention.
And what goals did they set up? You seem to think there were some goals Zos has, but what were they? To stay true to the lore? Fail. To break up the metas? They just changed what the metas are, they did not break the concept of metas, so fail again.
They made Wood Elves a PvP only race. Was that a goal? They cut down the the amount of races who were good at stealth. Was that another goal?
What were these goals that you know so much about? Because all I see now is narrower, stricter metas and less choices for some dungeon rolls. So was that the goal? Less choice? Please tell us as it seems you were there. Tell us the reasoning behind these baffling changes.
Look at the forum avatar Orc, yeah if that's their main no wonder they are defending ZoS so hard.
Aaand now we're down to personal attacks. Good job.
For what it's worth, I never actually play on my orc. Besides she would be a healer if I levelled her so I'm wouldn't benefit much from the passives.
Well most people pick the avatar that reflects their char in game. So no it's not a personal attack as much as it is an observation. So let me add what exactly is your purpose in this thread?Edited by Koronach on June 29, 2019 6:03AM3 -
thegreatme✭✭✭✭Well most people pick the avatar that reflects their char in game. So no it's not a personal attack as much as it is an observation. So let me add what exactly is your purpose in this thread?
Having an Orc icon doesn't really mean anything and isn't relevant to this thread, and I'm fairly certain that we don't want ZoS to shut down this thread because we can't play nice, right? So probably better to keep things to the point instead of sinking down to nitpicking irrelevant things to discredit one another.
And back on that point, passives across a lot of races could have been handled a lot better.
Its not just that they changed Bosmer passives. Its that they gave us one that flat out does not work even for "niche" playstyles. It doesn't work at all, even for the group of players its "supposed" to help. That's the biggest issue.
It is quite literally a dead passive. It needs to be snipped and replaced with something else.
As for "why would they give stealth to 4 races instead of two", if what we've heard is to be believed, they're "going to open up stealth gameplay for everyone", so now your stealthy races go from 2 to 10, with one race, khajiit, being Super Stealth.
That's great and all, if it even happens, but it still breaks bosmer lore.Join my Nocturnal-devoted Mercenary Reach guild! https://esokrakeclan.weebly.com/
My Artstation | Deviantart | Youtube | Furaffinity
Thank You ZoS!:
◙ Blackfeather Court banker/merchant
◙ Gloam Indrik
◙ Re-release Gloam Wolf Mount
Let's See It Happen ZoS:
◙ /honorloop emote
◙ cross-legged sitting emote
◙ Evergloam house
◙ Hagraven Polymorph
◙ Hagraven Houseguest8 -
BlueRaven✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Not much of a better reason. First off, ESO doesn't have starting bonuses so to be "consistent" Dark Elves and Argonians would have to receive some form of stealth bonus. Second, to keep the races from being overloaded some other passive would have to be removed; I doubt the Dunmer and Argonian players would take lightly to losing one of their passives for this. But wait. What about all those other starting bonuses from the other single player games? To keep it "consistent" we'd have to get all of those in too somehow, right? All of this in the middle of the PTS cycle.
So yeah. I don't see why you expected ZOS to go through all that willingly.
"How dare anyone expect changes during a PTS cycle! What do they think PTS cycles are for? Testing??!!"
Oh were they under a time crunch? Did they have only a day or two to knock these out? Is that why such little thought was put into them? Wood Elves have ALWAYS been stealthy and good with bows. Is that why they are not stealthy and not particularly good with bows any more? Because ZOS was in a rush?
So you wanted all of the passives to be redone during the PTS cycle instead?Guess that would have been nice, but considering it doesn't fit in with any of the goal ZOS had set up and it's really not necessary I can't see why you expected ZOS to do that. Especially since that would require them to rebalance a good portion of the passives again.
Well tough. It's not like we started these threads AFTER the changes went live. These threads started weeks before. AND it was brought to their attention.
And what goals did they set up? You seem to think there were some goals Zos has, but what were they? To stay true to the lore? Fail. To break up the metas? They just changed what the metas are, they did not break the concept of metas, so fail again.
They made Wood Elves a PvP only race. Was that a goal? They cut down the the amount of races who were good at stealth. Was that another goal?
What were these goals that you know so much about? Because all I see now is narrower, stricter metas and less choices for some dungeon rolls. So was that the goal? Less choice? Please tell us as it seems you were there. Tell us the reasoning behind these baffling changes.
These goals right here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/453551/upcoming-racial-balance-changes-for-update-21 ?
Though I'm sure you knew already. The fact that you disagree with some of the results doesn't mean they didn't exist.
Oh! So this is the amazing set of goals is it? Lets go through them and see if the changes they made reflect them.
First here is the problems they saw;
Right now there are a lack of effective options in picking your race/class combination.
Result: Failure. In fact there are now less options for some rolls.
Many racial bonuses do not have universal applicability.
Result: Failure. It's been shown time and time again that hunter's eye has little use in PvE. For example; stealth can be used in PvE AND PvP while stealth detect can only be used in PvP. So how is that giving them universal applicability?
Not every race provides a completely unique gameplay element.
Result: Success! Well they made only one "unique" race to choose from for running Thieves guild and Assassins guild dailies. So that was intended right? And Wood Elves are "uniquely" awful for PvE. Alcast does not even list them as a race choice for any PvE Stamina dps roll recommendation.
Stamina Damage Dealer
Best choice: Orc, Redguard, Dark Elf, Kahjiit
As a stamina damage dealer Orcs have the best stats, followed up by races like Redguards, Dark Elves and Khajiits. All are viable choices, so you can pick whichever race you like the most.
In fact Wood Elves don't appear as a recommended choice in ANY PvE roll. So hurray I guess, right?
Some races provided far more mathematical combat power than others.
Result: Bahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!! And it goes on;
"The delta between some races is noticeably high, leaving some races feeling left behind while others feel too good to pass up from a combat perspective."
And the laughter turns into a sad sigh. I mean seriously, this was something they wanted to change? Could anyone tell this was a consideration?
And now the "Goals";
Allow more effective options when picking a race for each role in tanking, healing, or damage dealing.
Result: Failure. Argonians being pushed out of healing roles. Wood Elves being pushed out of DPS rolls... I don't think they know what the word "more" means.
Equalize the overall power that each race provides by using our set bonus efficiency system, which compares the total amount of power that a bonus provides under equal terms.
Result: Failure. I mean seriously, does this even need to have examples given?
Retain and enhance the unique feeling and gameplay patterns that each race allows.
Result: Failure. Basically the reason why this thread exists. Wood Elves are now a generic stamina race with no retained "feeling" or "gameplay pattern" that was known for the race. Wood Elves are supposed to be stealthy archers and now Imperials are better at stealth and orcs are better at bows. How do these changes retain anything? And even the other parts of their passives are messed up. Argonians should be resistant to poisons not Bosmers. Bosmers are disease resistant. It's in the game's NPC dialogs for crying out loud!
Improve the sense of progression that the racial passives provide when leveling up.
Result: Whatever.
And then the whopper;
Achieve the above goals while still obeying our rich and structured lore and storytelling.
Result: Failure. Example; Wood Elves and Argonians. (And High Elves, and Nords, and Orcs...) But you said;
"Because Skyrim did it" is not much of a reason for ZOS to do something, especially considering how different Skyrim and ESO are.
They claimed that a goal was to retain the lore, and here you are saying it's not much of a reason. So which is it?
So they did not really live up to their goals did they, "Though I'm sure you knew already". Right?12 -
Tigerseye✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Grandesdar wrote: »Does this thread really have over 2600 entries for such a trifle? Oh geez. Just give em the passive or whatever they are asking for.
It's not really a "trifle", though, is it and it's not asking to be given anything.
It's asking for something, which was taken (and replaced with something far worse) to be returned.
8 -
Tigerseye✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Cundu_Ertur wrote: »That much they did do, but they still took the number of stealthy races down from 2 to 1; we had suggested several times that they boost the number from 2 to 4.
Why would they do that though? That wouldn't help any of their goals? Plus, wouldn't that cause the other races to be overloaded in terms of racial passives?
Yeah, like they actually cared about any of those fake goals they set. Like the preservation of established lore, that rings a bell. Yeah epic job right there, or open up races for more roles. Yeah sure big epic fail that's why my race isn't even accepted as healers in core trial groups when we are a healing race.
And that means ZOS should have made 4 stealthy races because?
No but the way you said sounded like they had goals to begin with.
Well they did.
Having goals is good if you ever manage to attain them.
Otherwise, you're just wasting your time, deluding yourself and annoying people.Edited by Tigerseye on June 29, 2019 7:48AM4 -
Starlight_Knight✭✭✭✭✭
✭
10 pages on Goliath bash - ZoS - "it will be nerfed on Monday"
87 pages on Woodelf loosing stealth - ZoS - nothing5 -
BlueRaven✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Starlight_Knight wrote: »10 pages on Goliath bash - ZoS - "it will be nerfed on Monday"
87 pages on Woodelf loosing stealth - ZoS - nothing
Oh! Maybe we have been approaching this all wrong. Maybe we should make some nerf "Hunter's Eye" threads, saying it's too strong in PvP and suggest putting them back to the old passive as a solution.2 -
Taloros✭✭✭✭Oh! Maybe we have been approaching this all wrong. Maybe we should make some nerf "Hunter's Eye" threads, saying it's too strong in PvP and suggest putting them back to the old passive as a solution.
Well, can't hurt. See you over here:
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/482394/bomser-op-in-ic-nerf-hunters-eye/p1?new=14 -
Starlight_Knight✭✭✭✭✭
✭Oh! Maybe we have been approaching this all wrong. Maybe we should make some nerf "Hunter's Eye" threads, saying it's too strong in PvP and suggest putting them back to the old passive as a solution.
Well, can't hurt. See you over here:
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/482394/bomser-op-in-ic-nerf-hunters-eye/p1?new=1
Anythings worth a shot at this stage1 -
HowTaoBrownCow✭✭✭Amusingly, the ESO Twitter account is asking what your favorite piece of lore is. I'll just leave this link here then, shall I? ;-)
Censored7 -
Ratzkifal✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Oh! Maybe we have been approaching this all wrong. Maybe we should make some nerf "Hunter's Eye" threads, saying it's too strong in PvP and suggest putting them back to the old passive as a solution.
Well, can't hurt. See you over here:
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/482394/bomser-op-in-ic-nerf-hunters-eye/p1?new=1
Just look at that, now someone thinks that Bosmer are actually good at detection. Spreading misinformation and hyping up the usefulness of detection is a detriment to our cause as ZOS will take this as a counter-example to our "detection is useless".Edited by Ratzkifal on June 29, 2019 3:49PMThis Bosmer was tortured to death. There is nothing left to be done.3 -
MartiniDaniels✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Oh! Maybe we have been approaching this all wrong. Maybe we should make some nerf "Hunter's Eye" threads, saying it's too strong in PvP and suggest putting them back to the old passive as a solution.
Well, can't hurt. See you over here:
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/482394/bomser-op-in-ic-nerf-hunters-eye/p1?new=1
Just look at that, now someone thinks that Bosmer are actually good at detection. Spreading misinformation and hyping up the usefulness of detection is a detriment to our cause as ZOS will take this as a counter-example to our "detection is useless".
I'm sure everybody considers that thread a trolling
though it is thin ice of course 1 -
KerinKor✭✭✭✭✭
✭ZOS_RogerJ wrote: »Just a friendly reminder, as we've removed some posts, to keep the thread on-topic, constructive and civil.
Hoe about you actually POST SOME DISCUSSION for a change???1 -
Ratzkifal✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭@BlueRaven @Koronach Can you please not go and attack anyone that is voicing a different opinion? Personal attacks are even lower and should not be tolerated on this thread.
You should always try to listen to what the other has to say instead of going into "attack mode" immediately.
This is basically what happened:Guys seriously. Can you at least recognize who is on your team? Ogou is not against Bosmer stealth.- Ogou simply asked about the Khajiit stealth from Wrathstone while Cundu_Ertur was talking about the stealth set in Elsweyr.
- Then Ogou pointed out that giving Argonians and Dunmer stealth, would make them overloaded - which is a valid concern to have, but can be refuted easily.
- Then Cundu_Ertur and BlueRaven don't address his concern at all but then say "stealth can't be RP fluff and OP at the same time", which is only tangetially related, and "why can't there be multiple stealth races" which also isn't directly related to his concerns! Actually, if Ogou was right, then BlueRaven's question would be answered immediately! That's exactly why you need to address what was said and listen to each other!
- Koronach gets lost on the "goals" mentioned, still not addressing his issue and not explaining to him the flaw in his reasoning, thus spiraling everything further out of control.
- Then BlueRaven jumps onto the bandwagon and bashes the goals, even though there is no need to discuss those as you could have explained how 4 stealth races can make sense within the "set bonus rule" which was part of said goals and the part Ogou was most likely referring to.
- Ogou asks why ZOS should have made 4 stealth races - valid question with an easy answer.
- BlueRaven gives the right answer delivered in the wrong way, so he doesn't convince Ogou at all, which Ogou points out right away.
- It goes back and forth for a while and then Koronach gives a really unqualified statement on Ogou's account picture, which is low of him and reflects badly on this thread as a whole. Shame on him.
This Bosmer was tortured to death. There is nothing left to be done.2 -
Ratzkifal✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭@Ogou To answer your question. Dunmer and Argonians have roots in stealth gameplay just like Bosmer do, even though stealth is not as important to their identity as it is for Bosmer.
If ZOS' goals was to increase diversity and make more races viable for more roles, then they failed in regards to stealth as now only Khajiit can really be considered. The lore would have had room for two more stealth races.
To address your balance concern, Argonians are in need of a rebalance either way and mathematically underperforming. You could add 3m of stealth radius to them and still be within the 6.5 set piece boni no problem. Also, it should be considered that the 3m stealth radius should not be counted as a whole set bonus as it does not affect combat balance in any way, it just adds flavour. DPS parses are unaffected and they would not become more oppressive in PvP because of it either. Giving them a stealth bonus would set them apart from other tank races and give them a unique flavor as well. At worst Argonians in PvP would start using invisibility potions, but that won't make them broken because their potion passive already allows them to reset fights in their favor and invisibility potions are a cancelation of the fight that Khajiit can already obtain without encountering balance issues.
About Dunmer, Dunmer have nothing that sets them apart from Orcs and Altmer apart from their fire resistance and their dual nature. They are slightly less optimal than both as each of the other races has one more combat related passive than them, Orcs even have two. Adding stealth to them would not be as much of a concern, especially if Orcs gain detection for free with no sacrifice as was proposed earlier. What this request boils down to is increasing the item set standard to 7 set boni for some races without affecting the combat balance or power balance among the alliances. At the end of the day, EP and AD would have 2 stealth races each and DC would have an anti-stealth race to counter them.Edited by Ratzkifal on June 29, 2019 4:25PMThis Bosmer was tortured to death. There is nothing left to be done.2 -
Cundu_Ertur✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭It also ties in with all of the previous games: Bosmer and Khajiit are nearly tied as best at stealth (as an archetype, not just being sneaky, though that is part), but with Bosmer actually having a slight edge; Dunmer and Argonians are both also traditionally stealthy, but to a lesser degree. Reguards, Altmer, and Imperials are just average, few bonuses or detriments to being stealthy as far as racial passives/attribute bonuses go. Nords, Bretons, and Orcs have few if any stealth bonuses and significant attribute detriments (where attributes exist, obviously).Taking stealth away from the Bosmer is like taking magic away from the Altmer, making Nords allergic to mead, or making Orcs pretty.2 -
Ratzkifal✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭MartiniDaniels wrote: »Oh! Maybe we have been approaching this all wrong. Maybe we should make some nerf "Hunter's Eye" threads, saying it's too strong in PvP and suggest putting them back to the old passive as a solution.
Well, can't hurt. See you over here:
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/482394/bomser-op-in-ic-nerf-hunters-eye/p1?new=1
Just look at that, now someone thinks that Bosmer are actually good at detection. Spreading misinformation and hyping up the usefulness of detection is a detriment to our cause as ZOS will take this as a counter-example to our "detection is useless".
I'm sure everybody considers that thread a trolling though it is thin ice of course
There are already two comments in that thread that have me really concerned. I'd be in favor of shutting that fake thread down.
This kind of thread only works on people who know what's up, but those that don't get the completely wrong picture from it. Detection sounds good on paper. That's the reason ZOS implemented it. This is dangerous because if people start claiming it is actually useful, getting rid of it will be harder in the end because suddenly people start defending it. Don't spread fake news!This Bosmer was tortured to death. There is nothing left to be done.2 -
Jaraal✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Grandesdar wrote: »Does this thread really have over 2600 entries for such a trifle? Oh geez. Just give em the passive or whatever they are asking for.
Certainly not trifling to the hundreds of thousands of players who started the game with the intent of playing stealthy wood elf characters, as they had in the other TES games. Or to those who leveled all the guilds and skill trees to become proficient thieves and have played that way for almost five years. And then to have your playstyle taken away and told, "Here, have this useless passive that never works in PvE and is suspect in PvP.... have fun!"
And yes, they could code it back in in no time at all, but they would rather ignore us and wait for us to go away. But 2600 posts seems to indicate that's not going to happen any time soon.5
This discussion has been closed.