Something I realised

ThePhantomThorn

So I just had a disturbing realisation.

If the tank meta is fixed everyone will hate it

Why?

Well everyone hated scale, but there was less tanks.
In fact, people hate dying. Kinda obvious, but that means if there was no tank meta people would complain.

I died to this I died to that.

Same reason for following nerfs.
Proc sets
Defiles
Cast times
Oblivion damage
Sloads
Bleeds
Dots
And pretty much every nerf.

So, we need a meta without tanks. But people will hate it because they will die all the time.
So it’s either no tanks and unhappy players, or tanks and unhappy players.

I’m all for a glass meta. But it won’t last because players will complain and we will be back to a ticklefight.

Even the so called ‘good’ players will hate pvping because they will be nuked in seconds.

MusCanus

For me the problem is that most fights now are not a measurement of skill but rather patience. If you're bad, you will die fast, tank meta or not. But if you or your group are even half decent you can prolong the fight for an enormous amount of time be it 1v1 or XvX. The first one who thinks "I don't have time for this" almost always loses, by forfeiting or going all in, hoping for a huge mistake from an opponent.

TheBonesXXX

If there wasn't cries for nerfs for an advantage rather than with proper data and a response, we wouldn't be in the tank meta.

Iskiab

ThePhantomThorn wrote: »

So I just had a disturbing realisation.

If the tank meta is fixed everyone will hate it

Why?

Well everyone hated scale, but there was less tanks.
In fact, people hate dying. Kinda obvious, but that means if there was no tank meta people would complain.

I died to this I died to that.

Same reason for following nerfs.
Proc sets
Defiles
Cast times
Oblivion damage
Sloads
Bleeds
Dots
And pretty much every nerf.

So, we need a meta without tanks. But people will hate it because they will die all the time.
So it’s either no tanks and unhappy players, or tanks and unhappy players.

I’m all for a glass meta. But it won’t last because players will complain and we will be back to a ticklefight.

Even the so called ‘good’ players will hate pvping because they will be nuked in seconds.

I agree, I think the goal should be to make multiple play styles possible. For that to work it would mean:
- if people want to be tanky, let them be tanky
- if people want to be glassy, let them be glassy but hit hard

Right now being glassy only really works in duels, because one person’s damage can be outhealed with high stats.

Where glassy doesn’t work is against multiple opponents like BGs or Cyrodiil. One good stun and you’re toast with two beating on you.

The solution is to nerf burst so if people are forced to spec for damage if they want to do damage, but people don’t want to hear it. I think because:
1. Tanky players know they wouldn’t be able to kill anyone.
2. The glassy players know they’d have a hard time taking out a super tank, and want to take them out even though the super tank can’t hurt them.
3. It would change pvp a lot and people would have to adapt, because right now spamming stuns and being tanky works
4. Reducing burst would feel like a nerf

Cathexis

I think the more complex issue at the heart is discussed in more particular and grey language. I don't think that there needs to be *zero* tank oriented play in pvp especially, but I think that that should function as an active and strategically implemented role, for example pulling targets off other targets, damage soaking (with more advanced, active tools like guard, or allowing players to be taunted perhaps, or unique/creative implementations). Sets like vanguard exemplify the idea, (the only reason I haven't opted for a vanguard build is because the loss of a set bonus combined with inventory space allocations simply doesn't allow it to be on a priority.) Just being passively infallible has not been a favourable implementation I think.

ChunkyCat

No one like losing. That’s why ZoS made the conscious decision to help a player survive as long as possible. Ergo, tank meta.

idk

Sloads is a proc set. Seems someone is fluffing their list.

Also, the cause and effect are incorrect. DoTs were nerfed because Zos is totally rewording combat, same with much of that list so it is irrelevant to what OP is suggesting.

As for proc sets, they needed to be brought down a notch. Skill players should be able to outperform proc sets easily. It is a poor design to make lazy combat to perform as well as they were. They are lazy design as well.

ThePhantomThorn

idk wrote: »

Sloads is a proc set. Seems someone is fluffing their list.

Also, the cause and effect are incorrect. DoTs were nerfed because Zos is totally rewording combat, same with much of that list so it is irrelevant to what OP is suggesting.

As for proc sets, they needed to be brought down a notch. Skill players should be able to outperform proc sets easily. It is a poor design to make lazy combat to perform as well as they were. They are lazy design as well.

Sloads is a proc set but it was nerfed separately from them.

As for the rest. People died in scale. They died in the procolipse. They died in the sloadalipse?
They don’t die now. Because people complained.

Valykc

Reduce healing a bit and tanks won’t be nearly as bad. But knowing ZOS, and basing this comment on past changes, healing will be reduced by an outstanding amount and basically be worthless unless properly built for it.

...only time will tell...

Langeston

Valykc wrote: »

Reduce healing a bit and tanks won’t be nearly as bad. But knowing ZOS, and basing this comment on past changes, healing will be reduced by an outstanding amount and basically be worthless unless properly built for it.

...only time will tell...

Isn't that exactly how it should be though? I feel like every game I've played has required you to make difficult decisions re: balancing your strengths & weaknesses.

Hell, even Mario Kart got this simple concept right decades ago: Donkey Kong was the fastest but was difficult to maneuver, Yoshi had the best acceleration but a lower top speed, and Toadstool wasn't fast or quick, but could handle like a mother******. That's how I wish balance worked in this game, but it doesn't.

I feel like a tank should be extremely difficult to kill but hit like a wet noodle, a straight up damage dealer should hit super hard but be much easier to kill, and a healer shouldn't be able to be tanky AF and still have the most kills in the BG. And if you don't want to be at any one of those extremes, you have to compromise and build for a happy medium — a Jack-of-all-trades, but a master of none.

But in this game everyone is playing Donkey Kong & he's the fastest and the quickest and the most maneuverable. (Except my favorite class, sadly.)

Ironically, as much as I complain about how weak Nightblades are, they're really the only properly balanced class. If you want to do [decent] damage you have to give up survivability, if you want to be tanky you have to give up damage, and if you want to be a healer you have to spec into it & you'll never have the most kills in a BG. Or, you can pick a less potent but more well-rounded build. I'd be perfectly happy if every class worked like that.