POTENTIAL locked away. RELEASE autonomous ULTRA INSTINCT(buff sorc and templar)

Valykc

phoenixkungfu wrote: »

Valykc wrote: »

phoenixkungfu wrote: »

Valykc wrote: »

You can have my buggy blastbones and I will gladly take your haunting curse skill without thinking twice about it. I’d rather have a reliable ST skill then a buggy AoE skill.

My friend your WRONG. 85% of sorcerer class skills are aoe. 100% sorcerer burst skills have aoe in base or morph. curse is a aoe skill. But I think I understand your meaning, smh.

Haunting curse applies to one target and the explosion does AoE damage. The skill itself is single target, the explosion is AoE. SO WE ARE BOTH RIGHT AND WRONG!

I HAVE SPOKEN

He’s dead.. you can’t quote him.. unless he is still alive.. I haven’t seen episode 8 yet

VaranisArano

phoenixkungfu wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

phoenixkungfu wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

phoenixkungfu wrote: »

In terms of topic, I believe aoe burst should be a option for all classes. I also believe this will GREATLY IMPROVE GAMEPLAY BALANCE. templar and sorcerer are simply out dated in my opinion with a post date aoe rule vs the release of newer classes(warden and necromancer).
My opinion on what sorcerer or templar penalty should be for simply being updated to aoe rule of same damage to all targets. Is as follows, NOTHING. I believe this because as classes have a place for different gameplay and style. Sorcerer are amazing solo not the best at group play.
Templar are amazing at group play not the best at solo. Nightblades are amazing at solo play not the best at group gameplay.
Necromancer and warden are jack of all trade but have player lock tracking issues.
In terms of necromancer and warden when they go outside of class some may say tracking moves like added a gap closer my make these classes to strong. Which is why stam necromancer, warden is over preforming. I SAY ALL CLASSES SHOULD HAVE AOE BURST RATHER THAN SOME CLASS HAVING NERFS.
These themes are balance as is. Therefore the solution is clear, simply update sorcerer and templar damage value to do the same target and nearby damage. This will balance the aoe rule burst rule for all.

But why?

Why should all classes have powerful burst AOE instead of playing to their own strengths?

Its not like Sorc and Templar don't have their own unique gameplay strengths that other classes don't share. Do we apply your request to those and hand those strengths out to the other classes as well so that everyone can have the mobility of streak, the on-demand defense of sorc wards, or the delayed execute of Mages Fury in their class skill toolkit?

Taking your arguments to their logical end leads to homogenization. How is homogenization better (more interesting, more challenging, and better for PVP gameplay as a whole) than what we have now where each class has strengths and weaknesses?

(I mean, aside from the fact that you play Sorc and obviously want your Sorc to have every strength in their toolkit with no weaknesses...)

As I stated before about classes strength and weakness. Group play vs solo play. The fact is the term balance is in question when one class aoe burst effects a primary target for a different value. While oither classes new ones dont. I dont agree to say it "homogenization" to say there is a set of rules that apply to create a level playing field. Its simply not fair to say Fisher doesn't have a primary target damage rule. While jabs does.

I don't know if this is a second language barrier thing, but your choppy sentence structure makes you extremely hard to understand. I definitely recommend rereading your posts to make sure your autocorrect isn't changing words on you like "Fisher".

You talk about "balance" in terms of every effect being standardized, or every class having access to the same counter gameplay, or every class' AOE hitting targets for the same value. That's pretty much exactly what ZOS does in terms of standardization. The end result has been players complaining that "my class feels like all the rest, the only difference is the color of my abilities." That's homogenization.

Maybe that's something that appeals to you? It doesn't appeal to a lot of players in large part because ZOS does not balance PVP like a see saw with equal weight on each side. ZOS balances PVP like a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors - every class has both strengths and weaknesses while no one build can have everything. In terms of group vs individual play, ZOS intends for every class to bring its strengths to the group and have its weaknesses covered by others in the group. ZOS does not let individual classes that grow powerful enough to do it all on their own remain unnerfed for long.

ZOS is even trying to avoid creating that reality of "all classes play the same, just have different colors" for players by strengthening what they call "play patterns", that is the unique ways in which classes accomplish what they do. In their Developer deep dive, they say "To temper expectations, it’s highly unlikely we’ll ever reach a point where every class, in every role, feels equally unique in both PvE and PvP. But it’s an ideal we can continue to strive toward as we revisit class kits and skill lines."

So hopefully you can see where I'm doubtful that ZOS is going to diminish the unique play patterns that sorc/Templar already have by buffing their AOE burst or to diminish the unique play patterns of other classes by buffing others to match them. Uniqueness and differing strengths/weaknesses is something ZOS wants.

In contrast, your approach leads to homogenization and power creep if we apply it beyond your narrow example. For example:
"Warden has AOE burst, therefore Sorc and Templar should be buffed to match."
"Sorcs have a ranged, delayed execute, therefore DKs should be buffed to match!"
"Sorc has an on-demand burst heal from the twilight, therefore the other classes should be buffed to match!"
"Sorc has incredible mobility and escape with Streak, therefore the only classes should be buffed to match!"
So on and so forth.
If ZOS actually applied your principles across the board, that would destroy the unique play patterns that each class has...something ZOS is explicitly trying to avoid.

You have yet to convince me that your vision for ESO is more interesting or more challenging than the status quo where each class has unique play patterns and their own strengths and weaknesses.

(Developer Deep Dive: https://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/news/post/57025 )

your veiw is different from my view. In my veiw I see all class with the abilitie to play as they want. With that being said some classes are optimize and have it easier to achieve goal vs others. So mobile can be achieved by any class. Defense can be achieved by any class. Aoe burst can be achieved by any class. The list goes on.

My issue is my opinion on what classes representation is in terms on base uniqueness and identity.
My opinion is a follow
Nightblade dps focus
Sorcerer dps focus
Templar support focus

Necromancer and warden jack of all trades

So the issue is what makes the new pay to play classes have aoe rule disregard with damage counting to all targets being the same. When the advantage in playing necromancer and warden, is the advantage to have better customization into a dps, healer or tank. Without restrictions of having a weapon type.

Aoe skills should be treated equally across all skills all classes. This has NOTHING TO DO with homogenization but rather with class identity and all classes being competitive in all area. To play as you want.

Do tell me how my DK is going to get mobility and an execute in my class toolkit to match your Sorc? I'll be waiting. You didn't actually address that criticism of what happens when we apply your idea in a logical way with any substance.

Go read that Developer Deep Dive I linked, and you will find that your conception of class identity is rather behind the times. ZOS doesn't use that limitation anymore. That's also not what ZOS means by play the way you want. Again, you keep trying to swim upstream against ZOS' design without providing any solid reasons why thing should change to be the way you want them. Such wasted effort.

But you can read for yourself.
And you can also choose to ignore every point that's brought up against your suggestion, though that does make further conversation rather pointless.

Valykc

phoenixkungfu wrote: »

El_Borracho wrote: »

Nah. I'd rather have them buff Engine Guardian. I need it to have an uptime of 90-100% in PVP so I can kill former emperors at will

Bud your in the wrong post. It happens my other post is on this topic. It's all good

Too many posts!

jadarock

Valykc wrote: »

phoenixkungfu wrote: »

El_Borracho wrote: »

Nah. I'd rather have them buff Engine Guardian. I need it to have an uptime of 90-100% in PVP so I can kill former emperors at will

Bud your in the wrong post. It happens my other post is on this topic. It's all good

Too many posts!

+1
How are we supposed to keep all the non sense straight at this point..

Valykc

jadarock wrote: »

Valykc wrote: »

phoenixkungfu wrote: »

El_Borracho wrote: »

Nah. I'd rather have them buff Engine Guardian. I need it to have an uptime of 90-100% in PVP so I can kill former emperors at will

Bud your in the wrong post. It happens my other post is on this topic. It's all good

Too many posts!

+1
How are we supposed to keep all the non sense straight at this point..

😂 @jadarock

phoenixkungfu

VaranisArano wrote: »

phoenixkungfu wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

phoenixkungfu wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

phoenixkungfu wrote: »

In terms of topic, I believe aoe burst should be a option for all classes. I also believe this will GREATLY IMPROVE GAMEPLAY BALANCE. templar and sorcerer are simply out dated in my opinion with a post date aoe rule vs the release of newer classes(warden and necromancer).
My opinion on what sorcerer or templar penalty should be for simply being updated to aoe rule of same damage to all targets. Is as follows, NOTHING. I believe this because as classes have a place for different gameplay and style. Sorcerer are amazing solo not the best at group play.
Templar are amazing at group play not the best at solo. Nightblades are amazing at solo play not the best at group gameplay.
Necromancer and warden are jack of all trade but have player lock tracking issues.
In terms of necromancer and warden when they go outside of class some may say tracking moves like added a gap closer my make these classes to strong. Which is why stam necromancer, warden is over preforming. I SAY ALL CLASSES SHOULD HAVE AOE BURST RATHER THAN SOME CLASS HAVING NERFS.
These themes are balance as is. Therefore the solution is clear, simply update sorcerer and templar damage value to do the same target and nearby damage. This will balance the aoe rule burst rule for all.

But why?

Why should all classes have powerful burst AOE instead of playing to their own strengths?

Its not like Sorc and Templar don't have their own unique gameplay strengths that other classes don't share. Do we apply your request to those and hand those strengths out to the other classes as well so that everyone can have the mobility of streak, the on-demand defense of sorc wards, or the delayed execute of Mages Fury in their class skill toolkit?

Taking your arguments to their logical end leads to homogenization. How is homogenization better (more interesting, more challenging, and better for PVP gameplay as a whole) than what we have now where each class has strengths and weaknesses?

(I mean, aside from the fact that you play Sorc and obviously want your Sorc to have every strength in their toolkit with no weaknesses...)

As I stated before about classes strength and weakness. Group play vs solo play. The fact is the term balance is in question when one class aoe burst effects a primary target for a different value. While oither classes new ones dont. I dont agree to say it "homogenization" to say there is a set of rules that apply to create a level playing field. Its simply not fair to say Fisher doesn't have a primary target damage rule. While jabs does.

I don't know if this is a second language barrier thing, but your choppy sentence structure makes you extremely hard to understand. I definitely recommend rereading your posts to make sure your autocorrect isn't changing words on you like "Fisher".

You talk about "balance" in terms of every effect being standardized, or every class having access to the same counter gameplay, or every class' AOE hitting targets for the same value. That's pretty much exactly what ZOS does in terms of standardization. The end result has been players complaining that "my class feels like all the rest, the only difference is the color of my abilities." That's homogenization.

Maybe that's something that appeals to you? It doesn't appeal to a lot of players in large part because ZOS does not balance PVP like a see saw with equal weight on each side. ZOS balances PVP like a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors - every class has both strengths and weaknesses while no one build can have everything. In terms of group vs individual play, ZOS intends for every class to bring its strengths to the group and have its weaknesses covered by others in the group. ZOS does not let individual classes that grow powerful enough to do it all on their own remain unnerfed for long.

ZOS is even trying to avoid creating that reality of "all classes play the same, just have different colors" for players by strengthening what they call "play patterns", that is the unique ways in which classes accomplish what they do. In their Developer deep dive, they say "To temper expectations, it’s highly unlikely we’ll ever reach a point where every class, in every role, feels equally unique in both PvE and PvP. But it’s an ideal we can continue to strive toward as we revisit class kits and skill lines."

So hopefully you can see where I'm doubtful that ZOS is going to diminish the unique play patterns that sorc/Templar already have by buffing their AOE burst or to diminish the unique play patterns of other classes by buffing others to match them. Uniqueness and differing strengths/weaknesses is something ZOS wants.

In contrast, your approach leads to homogenization and power creep if we apply it beyond your narrow example. For example:
"Warden has AOE burst, therefore Sorc and Templar should be buffed to match."
"Sorcs have a ranged, delayed execute, therefore DKs should be buffed to match!"
"Sorc has an on-demand burst heal from the twilight, therefore the other classes should be buffed to match!"
"Sorc has incredible mobility and escape with Streak, therefore the only classes should be buffed to match!"
So on and so forth.
If ZOS actually applied your principles across the board, that would destroy the unique play patterns that each class has...something ZOS is explicitly trying to avoid.

You have yet to convince me that your vision for ESO is more interesting or more challenging than the status quo where each class has unique play patterns and their own strengths and weaknesses.

(Developer Deep Dive: https://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/news/post/57025 )

your veiw is different from my view. In my veiw I see all class with the abilitie to play as they want. With that being said some classes are optimize and have it easier to achieve goal vs others. So mobile can be achieved by any class. Defense can be achieved by any class. Aoe burst can be achieved by any class. The list goes on.

My issue is my opinion on what classes representation is in terms on base uniqueness and identity.
My opinion is a follow
Nightblade dps focus
Sorcerer dps focus
Templar support focus

Necromancer and warden jack of all trades

So the issue is what makes the new pay to play classes have aoe rule disregard with damage counting to all targets being the same. When the advantage in playing necromancer and warden, is the advantage to have better customization into a dps, healer or tank. Without restrictions of having a weapon type.

Aoe skills should be treated equally across all skills all classes. This has NOTHING TO DO with homogenization but rather with class identity and all classes being competitive in all area. To play as you want.

Do tell me how my DK is going to get mobility and an execute in my class toolkit to match your Sorc? I'll be waiting. You didn't actually address that criticism of what happens when we apply your idea in a logical way with any substance.

Go read that Developer Deep Dive I linked, and you will find that your conception of class identity is rather behind the times. ZOS doesn't use that limitation anymore. That's also not what ZOS means by play the way you want. Again, you keep trying to swim upstream against ZOS' design without providing any solid reasons why thing should change to be the way you want them. Such wasted effort.

But you can read for yourself.
And you can also choose to ignore every point that's brought up against your suggestion, though that does make further conversation rather pointless.

Omg, moves you can use to get major expedition:
Rapid maneuver
Quick cloak
ACCELERATE
FIERY GRIP
WITH FIERY GRIP there is no excuse not to have mobility as a dk. Unless you choose not to and be carry by dragon leap and SNARE.
I WILL NOT SPEAK OFF TOPIC AGAIN

I HAVE SPOKEN

VaranisArano

phoenixkungfu wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

phoenixkungfu wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

phoenixkungfu wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

phoenixkungfu wrote: »

In terms of topic, I believe aoe burst should be a option for all classes. I also believe this will GREATLY IMPROVE GAMEPLAY BALANCE. templar and sorcerer are simply out dated in my opinion with a post date aoe rule vs the release of newer classes(warden and necromancer).
My opinion on what sorcerer or templar penalty should be for simply being updated to aoe rule of same damage to all targets. Is as follows, NOTHING. I believe this because as classes have a place for different gameplay and style. Sorcerer are amazing solo not the best at group play.
Templar are amazing at group play not the best at solo. Nightblades are amazing at solo play not the best at group gameplay.
Necromancer and warden are jack of all trade but have player lock tracking issues.
In terms of necromancer and warden when they go outside of class some may say tracking moves like added a gap closer my make these classes to strong. Which is why stam necromancer, warden is over preforming. I SAY ALL CLASSES SHOULD HAVE AOE BURST RATHER THAN SOME CLASS HAVING NERFS.
These themes are balance as is. Therefore the solution is clear, simply update sorcerer and templar damage value to do the same target and nearby damage. This will balance the aoe rule burst rule for all.

But why?

Why should all classes have powerful burst AOE instead of playing to their own strengths?

Its not like Sorc and Templar don't have their own unique gameplay strengths that other classes don't share. Do we apply your request to those and hand those strengths out to the other classes as well so that everyone can have the mobility of streak, the on-demand defense of sorc wards, or the delayed execute of Mages Fury in their class skill toolkit?

Taking your arguments to their logical end leads to homogenization. How is homogenization better (more interesting, more challenging, and better for PVP gameplay as a whole) than what we have now where each class has strengths and weaknesses?

(I mean, aside from the fact that you play Sorc and obviously want your Sorc to have every strength in their toolkit with no weaknesses...)

As I stated before about classes strength and weakness. Group play vs solo play. The fact is the term balance is in question when one class aoe burst effects a primary target for a different value. While oither classes new ones dont. I dont agree to say it "homogenization" to say there is a set of rules that apply to create a level playing field. Its simply not fair to say Fisher doesn't have a primary target damage rule. While jabs does.

I don't know if this is a second language barrier thing, but your choppy sentence structure makes you extremely hard to understand. I definitely recommend rereading your posts to make sure your autocorrect isn't changing words on you like "Fisher".

You talk about "balance" in terms of every effect being standardized, or every class having access to the same counter gameplay, or every class' AOE hitting targets for the same value. That's pretty much exactly what ZOS does in terms of standardization. The end result has been players complaining that "my class feels like all the rest, the only difference is the color of my abilities." That's homogenization.

Maybe that's something that appeals to you? It doesn't appeal to a lot of players in large part because ZOS does not balance PVP like a see saw with equal weight on each side. ZOS balances PVP like a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors - every class has both strengths and weaknesses while no one build can have everything. In terms of group vs individual play, ZOS intends for every class to bring its strengths to the group and have its weaknesses covered by others in the group. ZOS does not let individual classes that grow powerful enough to do it all on their own remain unnerfed for long.

ZOS is even trying to avoid creating that reality of "all classes play the same, just have different colors" for players by strengthening what they call "play patterns", that is the unique ways in which classes accomplish what they do. In their Developer deep dive, they say "To temper expectations, it’s highly unlikely we’ll ever reach a point where every class, in every role, feels equally unique in both PvE and PvP. But it’s an ideal we can continue to strive toward as we revisit class kits and skill lines."

So hopefully you can see where I'm doubtful that ZOS is going to diminish the unique play patterns that sorc/Templar already have by buffing their AOE burst or to diminish the unique play patterns of other classes by buffing others to match them. Uniqueness and differing strengths/weaknesses is something ZOS wants.

In contrast, your approach leads to homogenization and power creep if we apply it beyond your narrow example. For example:
"Warden has AOE burst, therefore Sorc and Templar should be buffed to match."
"Sorcs have a ranged, delayed execute, therefore DKs should be buffed to match!"
"Sorc has an on-demand burst heal from the twilight, therefore the other classes should be buffed to match!"
"Sorc has incredible mobility and escape with Streak, therefore the only classes should be buffed to match!"
So on and so forth.
If ZOS actually applied your principles across the board, that would destroy the unique play patterns that each class has...something ZOS is explicitly trying to avoid.

You have yet to convince me that your vision for ESO is more interesting or more challenging than the status quo where each class has unique play patterns and their own strengths and weaknesses.

(Developer Deep Dive: https://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/news/post/57025 )

your veiw is different from my view. In my veiw I see all class with the abilitie to play as they want. With that being said some classes are optimize and have it easier to achieve goal vs others. So mobile can be achieved by any class. Defense can be achieved by any class. Aoe burst can be achieved by any class. The list goes on.

My issue is my opinion on what classes representation is in terms on base uniqueness and identity.
My opinion is a follow
Nightblade dps focus
Sorcerer dps focus
Templar support focus

Necromancer and warden jack of all trades

So the issue is what makes the new pay to play classes have aoe rule disregard with damage counting to all targets being the same. When the advantage in playing necromancer and warden, is the advantage to have better customization into a dps, healer or tank. Without restrictions of having a weapon type.

Aoe skills should be treated equally across all skills all classes. This has NOTHING TO DO with homogenization but rather with class identity and all classes being competitive in all area. To play as you want.

Do tell me how my DK is going to get mobility and an execute in my class toolkit to match your Sorc? I'll be waiting. You didn't actually address that criticism of what happens when we apply your idea in a logical way with any substance.

Go read that Developer Deep Dive I linked, and you will find that your conception of class identity is rather behind the times. ZOS doesn't use that limitation anymore. That's also not what ZOS means by play the way you want. Again, you keep trying to swim upstream against ZOS' design without providing any solid reasons why thing should change to be the way you want them. Such wasted effort.

But you can read for yourself.
And you can also choose to ignore every point that's brought up against your suggestion, though that does make further conversation rather pointless.

Omg, moves you can use to get major expedition:
Rapid maneuver
Quick cloak
ACCELERATE
FIERY GRIP
WITH FIERY GRIP there is no excuse not to have mobility as a dk. Unless you choose not to and be carry by dragon leap.
I WILL NOT SPEAK OFF TOPIC AGAIN

I HAVE SPOKEN

We're perfectly on topic, since we're applying your logic to other circumstances beyond "Buff my precious sorc to match the AOE burst toolkit of a Warden!" I'm just taking your logic and saying, "Well, then you should also be asking for "Buff X Class to match the toolkit of Y class" under all circumstances, including when that's matching your favorite Sorcs toolkit."

Which you then proceeded to refuse to do, explaining why "No, no, those DKs don't need a skill to match my Streak!"

Fiery Grip is the sole class skill on your list, and its a bad match for Streak. Streak is an on-demand mobility skill that lets you reposition as you please. Empowering Chains, the only morph that lets you reposition yourself, is comparatively limiting in that its a gap-closer. You move directly to the enemy, and it cannot be freely used to reposition, unlike Streak. Sorcs have a much better mobility toolkit than DKs, which under your logic, that means DKs should be buffed to match, right?

Except no, you say DKs should be happy with a class skill that doesn't match up. Oh and you carefully ignored the execute issue, where Sorcs have a very nice execute that you want buffed and DKs have...nothing.

Its clear that you aren't interested in examining the logical consequences of your own ideas when applied to more areas than begging for buffs to your favorite Sorc. Which is a shame. It'd be more interesting if you actually were logically consistent.


I can't say I'm surprised you've dropped the mic. Its what you do every time someone doesn't buy into what you have spoken just because you put it in all caps. (Hint: all caps shouting is as ridiculous as that guy who thinks speaking louder makes him right.)

zvavi

Vamp Balgroth+vicious death+new moons acolyte,

U run in sneak while recasting dark deal for the stamina (it doesn't break sneak.)

U precast approximate detonation, pop invisible potion, position to the side of the zerg, curse + meteor+streak+pulsar.

Here u go, sorc can be anti zerg too. I mean, if that was your problem with it...

Nord_Raseri

VaranisArano wrote: »

phoenixkungfu wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

phoenixkungfu wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

phoenixkungfu wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

phoenixkungfu wrote: »

In terms of topic, I believe aoe burst should be a option for all classes. I also believe this will GREATLY IMPROVE GAMEPLAY BALANCE. templar and sorcerer are simply out dated in my opinion with a post date aoe rule vs the release of newer classes(warden and necromancer).
My opinion on what sorcerer or templar penalty should be for simply being updated to aoe rule of same damage to all targets. Is as follows, NOTHING. I believe this because as classes have a place for different gameplay and style. Sorcerer are amazing solo not the best at group play.
Templar are amazing at group play not the best at solo. Nightblades are amazing at solo play not the best at group gameplay.
Necromancer and warden are jack of all trade but have player lock tracking issues.
In terms of necromancer and warden when they go outside of class some may say tracking moves like added a gap closer my make these classes to strong. Which is why stam necromancer, warden is over preforming. I SAY ALL CLASSES SHOULD HAVE AOE BURST RATHER THAN SOME CLASS HAVING NERFS.
These themes are balance as is. Therefore the solution is clear, simply update sorcerer and templar damage value to do the same target and nearby damage. This will balance the aoe rule burst rule for all.

But why?

Why should all classes have powerful burst AOE instead of playing to their own strengths?

Its not like Sorc and Templar don't have their own unique gameplay strengths that other classes don't share. Do we apply your request to those and hand those strengths out to the other classes as well so that everyone can have the mobility of streak, the on-demand defense of sorc wards, or the delayed execute of Mages Fury in their class skill toolkit?

Taking your arguments to their logical end leads to homogenization. How is homogenization better (more interesting, more challenging, and better for PVP gameplay as a whole) than what we have now where each class has strengths and weaknesses?

(I mean, aside from the fact that you play Sorc and obviously want your Sorc to have every strength in their toolkit with no weaknesses...)

As I stated before about classes strength and weakness. Group play vs solo play. The fact is the term balance is in question when one class aoe burst effects a primary target for a different value. While oither classes new ones dont. I dont agree to say it "homogenization" to say there is a set of rules that apply to create a level playing field. Its simply not fair to say Fisher doesn't have a primary target damage rule. While jabs does.

I don't know if this is a second language barrier thing, but your choppy sentence structure makes you extremely hard to understand. I definitely recommend rereading your posts to make sure your autocorrect isn't changing words on you like "Fisher".

You talk about "balance" in terms of every effect being standardized, or every class having access to the same counter gameplay, or every class' AOE hitting targets for the same value. That's pretty much exactly what ZOS does in terms of standardization. The end result has been players complaining that "my class feels like all the rest, the only difference is the color of my abilities." That's homogenization.

Maybe that's something that appeals to you? It doesn't appeal to a lot of players in large part because ZOS does not balance PVP like a see saw with equal weight on each side. ZOS balances PVP like a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors - every class has both strengths and weaknesses while no one build can have everything. In terms of group vs individual play, ZOS intends for every class to bring its strengths to the group and have its weaknesses covered by others in the group. ZOS does not let individual classes that grow powerful enough to do it all on their own remain unnerfed for long.

ZOS is even trying to avoid creating that reality of "all classes play the same, just have different colors" for players by strengthening what they call "play patterns", that is the unique ways in which classes accomplish what they do. In their Developer deep dive, they say "To temper expectations, it’s highly unlikely we’ll ever reach a point where every class, in every role, feels equally unique in both PvE and PvP. But it’s an ideal we can continue to strive toward as we revisit class kits and skill lines."

So hopefully you can see where I'm doubtful that ZOS is going to diminish the unique play patterns that sorc/Templar already have by buffing their AOE burst or to diminish the unique play patterns of other classes by buffing others to match them. Uniqueness and differing strengths/weaknesses is something ZOS wants.

In contrast, your approach leads to homogenization and power creep if we apply it beyond your narrow example. For example:
"Warden has AOE burst, therefore Sorc and Templar should be buffed to match."
"Sorcs have a ranged, delayed execute, therefore DKs should be buffed to match!"
"Sorc has an on-demand burst heal from the twilight, therefore the other classes should be buffed to match!"
"Sorc has incredible mobility and escape with Streak, therefore the only classes should be buffed to match!"
So on and so forth.
If ZOS actually applied your principles across the board, that would destroy the unique play patterns that each class has...something ZOS is explicitly trying to avoid.

You have yet to convince me that your vision for ESO is more interesting or more challenging than the status quo where each class has unique play patterns and their own strengths and weaknesses.

(Developer Deep Dive: https://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/news/post/57025 )

your veiw is different from my view. In my veiw I see all class with the abilitie to play as they want. With that being said some classes are optimize and have it easier to achieve goal vs others. So mobile can be achieved by any class. Defense can be achieved by any class. Aoe burst can be achieved by any class. The list goes on.

My issue is my opinion on what classes representation is in terms on base uniqueness and identity.
My opinion is a follow
Nightblade dps focus
Sorcerer dps focus
Templar support focus

Necromancer and warden jack of all trades

So the issue is what makes the new pay to play classes have aoe rule disregard with damage counting to all targets being the same. When the advantage in playing necromancer and warden, is the advantage to have better customization into a dps, healer or tank. Without restrictions of having a weapon type.

Aoe skills should be treated equally across all skills all classes. This has NOTHING TO DO with homogenization but rather with class identity and all classes being competitive in all area. To play as you want.

Do tell me how my DK is going to get mobility and an execute in my class toolkit to match your Sorc? I'll be waiting. You didn't actually address that criticism of what happens when we apply your idea in a logical way with any substance.

Go read that Developer Deep Dive I linked, and you will find that your conception of class identity is rather behind the times. ZOS doesn't use that limitation anymore. That's also not what ZOS means by play the way you want. Again, you keep trying to swim upstream against ZOS' design without providing any solid reasons why thing should change to be the way you want them. Such wasted effort.

But you can read for yourself.
And you can also choose to ignore every point that's brought up against your suggestion, though that does make further conversation rather pointless.

Omg, moves you can use to get major expedition:
Rapid maneuver
Quick cloak
ACCELERATE
FIERY GRIP
WITH FIERY GRIP there is no excuse not to have mobility as a dk. Unless you choose not to and be carry by dragon leap.
I WILL NOT SPEAK OFF TOPIC AGAIN

I HAVE SPOKEN

We're perfectly on topic, since we're applying your logic to other circumstances beyond "Buff my precious sorc to match the AOE burst toolkit of a Warden!" I'm just taking your logic and saying, "Well, then you should also be asking for "Buff X Class to match the toolkit of Y class" under all circumstances, including when that's matching your favorite Sorcs toolkit."

Which you then proceeded to refuse to do, explaining why "No, no, those DKs don't need a skill to match my Streak!"

Fiery Grip is the sole class skill on your list, and its a bad match for Streak. Streak is an on-demand mobility skill that lets you reposition as you please. Empowering Chains, the only morph that lets you reposition yourself, is comparatively limiting in that its a gap-closer. You move directly to the enemy, and it cannot be freely used to reposition, unlike Streak. Sorcs have a much better mobility toolkit than DKs, which under your logic, that means DKs should be buffed to match, right?

Except no, you say DKs should be happy with a class skill that doesn't match up. Oh and you carefully ignored the execute issue, where Sorcs have a very nice execute that you want buffed and DKs have...nothing.

Its clear that you aren't interested in examining the logical consequences of your own ideas when applied to more areas than begging for buffs to your favorite Sorc. Which is a shame. It'd be more interesting if you actually were logically consistent.


I can't say I'm surprised you've dropped the mic. Its what you do every time someone doesn't buy into what you have spoken just because you put it in all caps. (Hint: all caps shouting is as ridiculous as that guy who thinks speaking louder makes him right.)

IT IS MY BELIEF VARANIS IS RIGHT NORD HATH SPOKEN

Xvorg

VaranisArano wrote: »

phoenixkungfu wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

phoenixkungfu wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

phoenixkungfu wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

phoenixkungfu wrote: »

In terms of topic, I believe aoe burst should be a option for all classes. I also believe this will GREATLY IMPROVE GAMEPLAY BALANCE. templar and sorcerer are simply out dated in my opinion with a post date aoe rule vs the release of newer classes(warden and necromancer).
My opinion on what sorcerer or templar penalty should be for simply being updated to aoe rule of same damage to all targets. Is as follows, NOTHING. I believe this because as classes have a place for different gameplay and style. Sorcerer are amazing solo not the best at group play.
Templar are amazing at group play not the best at solo. Nightblades are amazing at solo play not the best at group gameplay.
Necromancer and warden are jack of all trade but have player lock tracking issues.
In terms of necromancer and warden when they go outside of class some may say tracking moves like added a gap closer my make these classes to strong. Which is why stam necromancer, warden is over preforming. I SAY ALL CLASSES SHOULD HAVE AOE BURST RATHER THAN SOME CLASS HAVING NERFS.
These themes are balance as is. Therefore the solution is clear, simply update sorcerer and templar damage value to do the same target and nearby damage. This will balance the aoe rule burst rule for all.

But why?

Why should all classes have powerful burst AOE instead of playing to their own strengths?

Its not like Sorc and Templar don't have their own unique gameplay strengths that other classes don't share. Do we apply your request to those and hand those strengths out to the other classes as well so that everyone can have the mobility of streak, the on-demand defense of sorc wards, or the delayed execute of Mages Fury in their class skill toolkit?

Taking your arguments to their logical end leads to homogenization. How is homogenization better (more interesting, more challenging, and better for PVP gameplay as a whole) than what we have now where each class has strengths and weaknesses?

(I mean, aside from the fact that you play Sorc and obviously want your Sorc to have every strength in their toolkit with no weaknesses...)

As I stated before about classes strength and weakness. Group play vs solo play. The fact is the term balance is in question when one class aoe burst effects a primary target for a different value. While oither classes new ones dont. I dont agree to say it "homogenization" to say there is a set of rules that apply to create a level playing field. Its simply not fair to say Fisher doesn't have a primary target damage rule. While jabs does.

I don't know if this is a second language barrier thing, but your choppy sentence structure makes you extremely hard to understand. I definitely recommend rereading your posts to make sure your autocorrect isn't changing words on you like "Fisher".

You talk about "balance" in terms of every effect being standardized, or every class having access to the same counter gameplay, or every class' AOE hitting targets for the same value. That's pretty much exactly what ZOS does in terms of standardization. The end result has been players complaining that "my class feels like all the rest, the only difference is the color of my abilities." That's homogenization.

Maybe that's something that appeals to you? It doesn't appeal to a lot of players in large part because ZOS does not balance PVP like a see saw with equal weight on each side. ZOS balances PVP like a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors - every class has both strengths and weaknesses while no one build can have everything. In terms of group vs individual play, ZOS intends for every class to bring its strengths to the group and have its weaknesses covered by others in the group. ZOS does not let individual classes that grow powerful enough to do it all on their own remain unnerfed for long.

ZOS is even trying to avoid creating that reality of "all classes play the same, just have different colors" for players by strengthening what they call "play patterns", that is the unique ways in which classes accomplish what they do. In their Developer deep dive, they say "To temper expectations, it’s highly unlikely we’ll ever reach a point where every class, in every role, feels equally unique in both PvE and PvP. But it’s an ideal we can continue to strive toward as we revisit class kits and skill lines."

So hopefully you can see where I'm doubtful that ZOS is going to diminish the unique play patterns that sorc/Templar already have by buffing their AOE burst or to diminish the unique play patterns of other classes by buffing others to match them. Uniqueness and differing strengths/weaknesses is something ZOS wants.

In contrast, your approach leads to homogenization and power creep if we apply it beyond your narrow example. For example:
"Warden has AOE burst, therefore Sorc and Templar should be buffed to match."
"Sorcs have a ranged, delayed execute, therefore DKs should be buffed to match!"
"Sorc has an on-demand burst heal from the twilight, therefore the other classes should be buffed to match!"
"Sorc has incredible mobility and escape with Streak, therefore the only classes should be buffed to match!"
So on and so forth.
If ZOS actually applied your principles across the board, that would destroy the unique play patterns that each class has...something ZOS is explicitly trying to avoid.

You have yet to convince me that your vision for ESO is more interesting or more challenging than the status quo where each class has unique play patterns and their own strengths and weaknesses.

(Developer Deep Dive: https://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/news/post/57025 )

your veiw is different from my view. In my veiw I see all class with the abilitie to play as they want. With that being said some classes are optimize and have it easier to achieve goal vs others. So mobile can be achieved by any class. Defense can be achieved by any class. Aoe burst can be achieved by any class. The list goes on.

My issue is my opinion on what classes representation is in terms on base uniqueness and identity.
My opinion is a follow
Nightblade dps focus
Sorcerer dps focus
Templar support focus

Necromancer and warden jack of all trades

So the issue is what makes the new pay to play classes have aoe rule disregard with damage counting to all targets being the same. When the advantage in playing necromancer and warden, is the advantage to have better customization into a dps, healer or tank. Without restrictions of having a weapon type.

Aoe skills should be treated equally across all skills all classes. This has NOTHING TO DO with homogenization but rather with class identity and all classes being competitive in all area. To play as you want.

Do tell me how my DK is going to get mobility and an execute in my class toolkit to match your Sorc? I'll be waiting. You didn't actually address that criticism of what happens when we apply your idea in a logical way with any substance.

Go read that Developer Deep Dive I linked, and you will find that your conception of class identity is rather behind the times. ZOS doesn't use that limitation anymore. That's also not what ZOS means by play the way you want. Again, you keep trying to swim upstream against ZOS' design without providing any solid reasons why thing should change to be the way you want them. Such wasted effort.

But you can read for yourself.
And you can also choose to ignore every point that's brought up against your suggestion, though that does make further conversation rather pointless.

Omg, moves you can use to get major expedition:
Rapid maneuver
Quick cloak
ACCELERATE
FIERY GRIP
WITH FIERY GRIP there is no excuse not to have mobility as a dk. Unless you choose not to and be carry by dragon leap.
I WILL NOT SPEAK OFF TOPIC AGAIN

I HAVE SPOKEN

We're perfectly on topic, since we're applying your logic to other circumstances beyond "Buff my precious sorc to match the AOE burst toolkit of a Warden!" I'm just taking your logic and saying, "Well, then you should also be asking for "Buff X Class to match the toolkit of Y class" under all circumstances, including when that's matching your favorite Sorcs toolkit."

Which you then proceeded to refuse to do, explaining why "No, no, those DKs don't need a skill to match my Streak!"

Fiery Grip is the sole class skill on your list, and its a bad match for Streak. Streak is an on-demand mobility skill that lets you reposition as you please. Empowering Chains, the only morph that lets you reposition yourself, is comparatively limiting in that its a gap-closer. You move directly to the enemy, and it cannot be freely used to reposition, unlike Streak. Sorcs have a much better mobility toolkit than DKs, which under your logic, that means DKs should be buffed to match, right?

Except no, you say DKs should be happy with a class skill that doesn't match up. Oh and you carefully ignored the execute issue, where Sorcs have a very nice execute that you want buffed and DKs have...nothing.

Its clear that you aren't interested in examining the logical consequences of your own ideas when applied to more areas than begging for buffs to your favorite Sorc. Which is a shame. It'd be more interesting if you actually were logically consistent.


I can't say I'm surprised you've dropped the mic. Its what you do every time someone doesn't buy into what you have spoken just because you put it in all caps. (Hint: all caps shouting is as ridiculous as that guy who thinks speaking louder makes him right.)

Great post Varanis

And yes, one of the things that we use to balance opinions is experience when playing other classes and how you that experiece affects your opinion. I wish, as a DK, that chains could be once again casted in mid air or used against enemies over a wall... but that will cause more problems than solutions...

phoenixkungfu

There is now a place for the mobile topic please take mobile topic there.

I HAVE SPOKEN