How the LA/HA changes fail to fulfill ZOS's stated goals and what could be done instead?

Dracane

This is awesome feedback. I agree with every point made.
I wish they would not reduce light attack damage though, at least not by 78% and not even by 30%.

This will hurt magicka builds so hard, going as far as making some nearly unviable in pvp and widening the dps gap between magicka and stamina in pve even further than it already is. Some of the changes they want to make are good, especially regarding heavy attacks.

But please do not kill light attacks. Some classes rely on them so much and using heavy attacks is not an alternative (pvp)
If light attacks are being reduced by such an amount, then spammables, especially magicka spammables need to be increased to compensate.

Dagoth_Rac

Dracane wrote: »

If light attacks are being reduced by such an amount, then spammables, especially magicka spammables need to be increased to compensate.

I think reducing light attack damage (maybe not by 78%, but still reducing it) and buffing Force Pulse is not a bad idea. If you miss weaves while using your Force Pulse spammable, your DPS will be less than a top player, but not the large gap there is now. Perhaps buff the Psijic spammable, too, to mqake up for damage lost on light attack trigger of that skill? So that perfect weaving + Psijic skill will give similar DPS as current live, but Force Pulse + missed weaves will be better than live (but still behind perfectly weaved Psijic skill).

Sorbin

I'd address the skill gap by removing combat from the game entirely and turning it into Second Life: Tamriel.

Seriously, it's the game they want to be making anyways and they're clearly well beyond the point of having any ideas whatsoever. Just get it over with. Let every class have a 1-button instant rotation that blows through all of the overland questing *** and get on with the microtransactions and the cosmetics.

ShadowKyuubi

Now, I am not the best player in the world. But I am still pretty good, LA ratios of 0.88-0.92 on average (not perfect, I know). I agree with most of what the OP is saying. Only issue I have comes with reducing LA damage at all and it leads to this simple question: "Why am I being nerfed because I can perform better than others?" I'm sitting here starring at the screen in disbelief because I never thought that this reasoning would ever come into play. I am potentially being nerfed for the simple reason of being a good player.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that there is a skill gap between players. I understand that we want to reduce that gap. However, from a strictly APM standpoint, this will not reduce the skill gap. It just reduces the dps gap, because that is what blanket nerfs like this do. I will still be more "skillful" than the "enter name here" casual that I was before this potential change happens. The only difference is now we're both doing less damage on a whole. Which no one wants. A new meta will form where XX dps is the new best, but now the "average" dps are doing (XX-15k) instead of (XX-20k).

Why are we constantly asking ourselves how we can lower the ceiling to help accommodate the floor? I applauded the OP for taking the first step and attempting to get away from this train of thought, but in the end, it is still there.

Shantu

Unless this is more about reducing server load than reducing the skill gap due to APM ability, why not just leave LA's alone and give HA's a significant boost in damage? That way easier rotation builds (lower APM) utilizing skill AOE's, DOT's, and HA's could be made more viable, competitive, and the players who excel at APM skills could still maintain their DPS advantage.

With the welcome relief from high AOE costs with the last patch, sustain is MUCH less an issue...and I HATE game induced sustain issues. Unless you're going to start nerfing sustain mechanisms in gear, classes, and passives, there's no need to change what we have now.

The proposed solution feels far too convoluted and destabilizing. Sorry for the cynicism, but it just feels like a bizarre proposal that creates nothing but more issues with players.

Dracane

Dagoth_Rac wrote: »

Dracane wrote: »

If light attacks are being reduced by such an amount, then spammables, especially magicka spammables need to be increased to compensate.

I think reducing light attack damage (maybe not by 78%, but still reducing it) and buffing Force Pulse is not a bad idea. If you miss weaves while using your Force Pulse spammable, your DPS will be less than a top player, but not the large gap there is now. Perhaps buff the Psijic spammable, too, to mqake up for damage lost on light attack trigger of that skill? So that perfect weaving + Psijic skill will give similar DPS as current live, but Force Pulse + missed weaves will be better than live (but still behind perfectly weaved Psijic skill).

That is what I meant, yes. Force Shock and Elemental weapons need to be increased as a result.
Same goes for flame skull and cliffracer and just any, especially ranged, spammable.

mav1234

In conjunction with this idea OR the proposed change, shifting damage to actual abilities makes sense.

It should be noted, in many other MMOs, the "light attack" equivalent is not good damage, sometimes it is simply an auto attack that occurs in the background aka "auto attacks". So while I get the basic attack, that is "shooting" in most FPS games,is one's main source of damage, in most MMORPGs, that is NOT the case, and abilities are the main source of damage.

There is something intuitive about "Attacking does damage, and restores resources; the longer you 'channel' the attack, the more damage and resources are returned." But eh, I don't think that it is necessarily a problem that light attacks and heavy attacks do something fundamentally different. The key is that what they do different makes sense.... and channeling a big attack for damage does make sense.

code65536

Dagoth_Rac wrote: »

I think reducing light attack damage (maybe not by 78%, but still reducing it) and buffing Force Pulse is not a bad idea. If you miss weaves while using your Force Pulse spammable, your DPS will be less than a top player, but not the large gap there is now. Perhaps buff the Psijic spammable, too, to mqake up for damage lost on light attack trigger of that skill? So that perfect weaving + Psijic skill will give similar DPS as current live, but Force Pulse + missed weaves will be better than live (but still behind perfectly weaved Psijic skill).

I like that idea! Buffing a spammable to compensate for lost LA damage means that we maintain the current power levels for players who do LA-weaves. Essentially, it would be shifting damage from the LA to the spammable.

But for players who miss light attacks and thus only get their spammable off, they'll be better off than they were on Live. Still not as good as someone who gets the weave, of course, but it would close the power gap somewhat.

ShadowKyuubi wrote: »

However, from a strictly APM standpoint, this will not reduce the skill gap. It just reduces the dps gap

The skill gap will always be there. But I think from a game balance perspective, ESO could do with a little reduction of the power gap that results from the skill gap.

With a high power gap, it makes it harder to balance content; e.g., if you make a new dungeon challenging for endgame players, it becomes too brutally hard for the mainstream, but if you make it so that mainstream players can clear it, then it becomes too easy and boring for the endgame (Icereach is a good example of a dungeon that many in the endgame consider to be too easy). But with a smaller power gap, content that's challenging for the top won't be quite as inaccessible for mid-tier, and content that's accessible to the mid-tier won't be quite as trivial for the top.

Skjaldbjorn

code65536 wrote: »

I like that idea! Buffing a spammable to compensate for lost LA damage means that we maintain the current power levels for players who do LA-weaves. Essentially, it would be shifting damage from the LA to the spammable.

But for players who miss light attacks and thus only get their spammable off, they'll be better off than they were on Live. Still not as good as someone who gets the weave, of course, but it would close the power gap somewhat.

As a general rule I think moving damage away from LA/HA into class skills/spammables is a net benefit for ESO. One complaint you constantly hear is the death of class identity and how weapon skills are too dominant in a lot of cases/scenarios. Transitioning power away from the "we all share this" to class skills could break things for a minute, but if it was balanced properly and carefully, could create a much more overall enjoyable game.

Tommy_The_Gun

code65536 wrote: »

Note: This a repost of post #222 of the official discussion thread.

---

I want to start off by saying that I am in complete 100% agreement with the "mission statement" of these PTS changes. Specifically, the following paragraph:

There are, however, several drawbacks to this model as well. First, it tends to reward players for pushing buttons as quickly and efficiently as possible. Players with high Actions Per Minute (APM) significantly outperform those with low APM, as they have better up-time of abilities, higher mitigation, much higher DPS, and can simply move around the battlefield better in both PVE and PVP. While we believe it’s good to have a skill gap that promotes mastery, we also believe the gap as it currently exists is too wide, and that many players aren’t finding satisfaction in the climb. Additionally, we believe the over-reliance on a specific mechanic (light attack weaving) leaves less room for playstyle diversity, including lower-APM options. This is particularly evident in veteran content and PvP. Finally, the concept of using light attacks for damage and heavy attacks for restore is, quite simply, unintuitive – especially for less experienced players.

I agree with all of this, and I agree that something needs to be done, and I applaud ZOS for taking action. But I strongly dislike the solution that is being tried out here.

I consider that the two overall goals here are:

1. Reducing the effect of the skill gap. To be clear, it is good to have a skill gap. The amount by which that skill gap translates into power is the thing that needs some adjustment.
2. Making light and heavy attacks more intuitive.

PART 1: ADDRESSING THE POWER GAP

First, as a broad generalization, I like to think about players being put into three categories.

1. Players who mostly use their basic weapon attacks. The so-called "light-attack spammers" or "heavy-attack spammers".
   • Keep in mind that in most games, your basic weapon attacks--e.g., pointing and shooting your gun--is the primary way you do damage and that abilities are things that you cast every now and then to augment that damage or for utility. In ESO, abilities make up most of your damage and basic weapon attacks augment that damage, which can be counter-intuitive for someone who's used to, say, shooters, but is new to ESO, so it's perfectly understandable to see a new player just doing "light-attack spam" because that's kinda natural, if you think about it.
2. Players who use abilities and try to weave them, but aren't very good at it. This might be due to a lack of practice. Or, in many cases, people simply aren't able to; e.g., for older players, it can even be a little physically painful. When we look at people's DPS parses, the first thing we look at is their LA/s rate. And if it's something like 0.5, we'd say, "You need to light-attack more"; i.e., get better at weaving. I myself am only around 0.7 LA/s. I can't hit the 0.8 or 0.9+ LA/s that elite players can get, and I probably will never get there; I have my limits.
3. Elite players who have very high APM, whose rotations are fast and fluid and who don't miss their LA-weaves.

So how do the proposed changes affect each of these skill tiers?

Based on my testing on the PTS, someone who just spams heavy attacks will get a modest boost to their damage. Heavy attack damage has been increased by a modest amount, and the cast times have been reduced a little. The end result, based on some quick casual testing on the PTS is a small increase in the ballpark of around 10-20%. For someone spamming light attacks, well, it's not pretty. The fight duration tripled, so the DPS was cut by around 2/3 (less than the 78% nominal nerf because of damage from things like weapon enchantments).

I don't think that these changes help the proverbial "floor". On Live, both heavy-attack spam and light-attack spam does similar amounts of overall DPS. On the PTS, heavy-attack spam was mildly buffed, while light-attack spam was thrown into the gutter. I don't see how this helps the "floor". At all. If anything, I would argue that these changes hurt them more than it helps them, as it strips away combat options and forces these kinds of players into using only heavy attacks.

But what about the "middle class"? What about the people who try to weave abilities, but aren't able to do so that well? The amount of resource return from light attacks is immense. Without the CP buff, it's equivalent to about 400 regen for someone who weaves perfectly. Obviously, it's more once you figure in Tenacity. So while missing light attacks won't result in as much of a direct loss of damage, it still represents a significant indirect loss of damage because that sustain can be translated into damage. Choosing bi-stat food over regen food. Picking a "damage" race like Orc instead of a "sustain" race like Redguard. Using a "damage" set like New Moon Acolyte instead of a "sustain" set like Vicious Ophidian. But these kinds of shifts away from other sources of sustain will be available only to people who can weave well.

For the "upper class", yes, it's an outright nerf to power. That can be somewhat compensated for by shifting their builds further away from sustain.

But what does this do for the power gap between the "middle class" and the "upper class". Both groups will be hit hard by this, and it's not clear that they will be affected in a way that reduces the relative power gap.

And so I would like to take a moment now to talk about the Morrowind combat changes. Back when those changes were made, @ZOS_RichLambert said on ESO Live that they had two goals with the Morrowind combat changes. First, they wanted people to think about sustain again. And second, they wanted to reduce the power gap. Well, these changes seem to fly in the face of the notion that sustain should be relevant. But more importantly, the Morrowind combat changes increased the power gap between players. Yes, the sustain nerfs hit the power of the "upper class" hard. But it also hit the "middle class" even more. If you think about it, when resources are tight, then players who are more efficient at resource usage will have an advantage. Instead of using a dynamic rotation, are you using an easy static rotation that results in a couple of DoTs being recast a little early? That's wasted resources. Did you accidentally step into red and thus need to cast a self-heal to compensate for your mistake? That's wasted resources. Did you miss a light attack and thus miss out on its resource-free damage? That's less damage per resource spent.

Can you say, without any doubt, that these light/heavy attack changes will hurt the "upper class" more than it hurts the "middle class"? If not, then you're not actually closing the power gap, and this will be a repeat of the Morrowind fiasco.

But hey there's more to this game than just DPS! What about something like PvE tanking? A lot of tanking is about resource management. Wouldn't it be great if, as a tank, you could light-weave everything? It would trivialize resource management! Hooray! But oh wait, that means you have to drop block for every light weave, and if you're a new tank or even an experienced tank who's tanking new unfamiliar content, that's pretty darn risky. So what this means is that experienced tanks can get trivially easy resource management, but beginner tanks who are told, "when it doubt, hold block" can't reap the benefits of this. I'm pretty sure that's how you increase the effects of a skill gap.


PART 2: LIGHT/HEAVY ATTACKS SHOULD BE INTUITIVE

You're right: Heavy attacks restoring resources, while light attacks do not, is not intuitive. But... How on earth is the opposite intuitive?! A new player is going to be just as confused about light-attacks restoring resources as they are with the current arrangement on Live.

So what would be intuitive?

Simple: Stop treating light and heavy attacks differently!

Both light and heavy attacks should restore resources. A light attack should restore a very small, token amount (50?). And heavy attacks should restore the same amount as they do now. And medium attacks should restore somewhere between the two, scaled with the duration of the channel.

That's how you make intuitive mechanics. A heavy attack should just be a heavier, stronger light attack. Period. Don't have some silly nonsense where a light attack restores resources, but if a players holds onto the button for just a fraction of a second too long and it turns into a medium attack, then they get nothing. Don't have some silly nonsense where if someone is charging a heavy attack because they are out of resources, but if they let go of that attack just a fraction of a second too soon and it turns into a medium attack, then they get nothing.

Light attacks should do a modest amount of damage and return a small amount of resources. And heavy attacks should do the same, except more: more damage, more resource return. And medium attacks should scale between the two and do a medium amount of damage and return a medium amount of resources. This is the logical, straightfoward thing to do, and it bewilders me that it doesn't work like this.

A heavy attack is slow and requires a channel, so it should be more rewarding in all aspects. How does "hey, you do more damage as a tradeoff for this annoying channel, but oh no, you don't get any resources back" make any sense?


PART 3: WHAT I WOULD DO IF I WAS A COMBAT DESIGNER

1. Reduce light attack damage. Not by 78%. But by something more modest. 30%?
2. Increase the damage on consecutive (non-weaved) light/medium/heavy attacks.
3. All light attacks restore resources. Something small like 50. (So for someone weaving perfectly, this would be a modest 100 regen.)
4. Keep the current Live levels of heavy attack resource return.
5. Medium attack damage and resource return will be somewhere between that of a light attack and heavy attack, scaling with the duration of the channel.
6. Make Empower affect all basic weapon attacks: light/medium/heavy.
7. Edited to add: Increase the damage of spammable abilities by an amount comparable to the reduction to light attack damage. This would maintain the current power level for people who weave successfully (thus effectively shifting damage from the basic attack to the ability), while increasing the power level for those who miss weaves (they would still do less damage, but the gap would be smaller).

If you look at the current lower-APM options--what people hawk as "easy" builds--they're often light-attack-spam (werewolf) or heavy-attack-spam builds. Let's reinforce these options and make them more effective. That's why I propose increasing the damage from consecutive, non-weaved attacks. Of course, these things should not be too effective that they outclass "high-APM" options (we still want a skill gap!), but they should be more effective than they are now (thus lowering the effect of the skill gap). The increase for non-weaved attacks should more than compensate for the 30% nerf to light attack damage that I am proposing.

As for the "middle class" vs. "upper class", an outright nerf to light attack damage (without adding some secondary effect like a ridiculous 400 regen to perfect weavers) will slightly narrow the gap between the two because it will affect those with higher LA/s more than those with lower LA/s.

And finally, on the consistency/intuitiveness front, it makes no sense to apply a resource return to light attacks but not heavy attacks, just as it makes no sense to do the opposite. What makes sense, though, is for a heavy attack to just be a stronger light attack in every way--in both damage and resource return--as compensation for it being a slow channel.

Ultimately, the end result should be...

1. A raising of the bottom floor, in which people who just spam basic attacks are better off than they are on Live. A buff to consecutive, non-weaved damage will help with this (and should more than compensate for the LA damage nerf) and reinforce the current popular low-APM options. ZOS's proposal doesn't help the floor at all, since a severe nerf to LA damage with no compensation simply serves to deprive the "lower class" of combat options and forces them into only using heavy attacks.
2. A narrowing of the gap between the "middle" and "upper" classes. Reducing the damage of weaved light attacks is the key here. In contrast, ZOS's proposal just replaces the lost direct damage with indirect damage in the form of massive sustain.
3. A system where heavy attacks are more desirable, but not so desirable that people who prefer high APM feel compelled into sluggish heavy-attack rotations. While ZOS's current proposal doesn't quite push people into a HA-meta, it does come dangerously close with that insane 78% damage nerf to LAs.
4. Heavy and medium attacks should be rewarded for their cast times, which not only means more damage, but also more resource return. Be consistent.

I 100% agree with this. Well spoken !

Olauron

Dracane wrote: »

Dagoth_Rac wrote: »

Dracane wrote: »

If light attacks are being reduced by such an amount, then spammables, especially magicka spammables need to be increased to compensate.

I think reducing light attack damage (maybe not by 78%, but still reducing it) and buffing Force Pulse is not a bad idea. If you miss weaves while using your Force Pulse spammable, your DPS will be less than a top player, but not the large gap there is now. Perhaps buff the Psijic spammable, too, to mqake up for damage lost on light attack trigger of that skill? So that perfect weaving + Psijic skill will give similar DPS as current live, but Force Pulse + missed weaves will be better than live (but still behind perfectly weaved Psijic skill).

That is what I meant, yes. Force Shock and Elemental weapons need to be increased as a result.
Same goes for flame skull and cliffracer and just any, especially ranged, spammable.

Maybe not only spammables, but direct damage skills as a whole. We can also think of channelling skills that just as HA mean that while channelling player does not do LA or other skill (ultimate channelling are especially important to look at since the increased time compared to other skills).

By the way, just came to my mind, there is a rather good substitute for LA-weaving dps-wise (potentially) that do not need fast clicking. That is psijic passive Spell Orb. This passive rewards player for doing skills.

Ishtharo

The biggest issues I see here are the direct nerf to Healer sustain, especially in PvP, if resource return from HA is removed. New healer meta is going to be 360ing your camera trying to get LAs in while herding the cats around you.

Tivnael

agree.

Dracane

Olauron wrote: »

Dracane wrote: »

Dagoth_Rac wrote: »

Dracane wrote: »

If light attacks are being reduced by such an amount, then spammables, especially magicka spammables need to be increased to compensate.

I think reducing light attack damage (maybe not by 78%, but still reducing it) and buffing Force Pulse is not a bad idea. If you miss weaves while using your Force Pulse spammable, your DPS will be less than a top player, but not the large gap there is now. Perhaps buff the Psijic spammable, too, to mqake up for damage lost on light attack trigger of that skill? So that perfect weaving + Psijic skill will give similar DPS as current live, but Force Pulse + missed weaves will be better than live (but still behind perfectly weaved Psijic skill).

That is what I meant, yes. Force Shock and Elemental weapons need to be increased as a result.
Same goes for flame skull and cliffracer and just any, especially ranged, spammable.

Maybe not only spammables, but direct damage skills as a whole. We can also think of channelling skills that just as HA mean that while channelling player does not do LA or other skill (ultimate channelling are especially important to look at since the increased time compared to other skills).

By the way, just came to my mind, there is a rather good substitute for LA-weaving dps-wise (potentially) that do not need fast clicking. That is psijic passive Spell Orb. This passive rewards player for doing skills.

If you want to prevent people from loosing too much damage, then this would be a necessary step. After all, whenever you use a light attack inbetween skills, you will loose a lot of damage with the proposed changes. So giving it to direct damage attacks would make sense.

That would require the light attack nerfed to be within a reasonable frame. Not more than 20% in my opinion. You can hardly buff abilities like dizzying swing or arrow by 78% or so.

StaticWave

Faulgor wrote: »

code65536 wrote: »

PART 2: LIGHT/HEAVY ATTACKS SHOULD BE INTUITIVE

You're right: Heavy attacks restoring resources, while light attacks do not, is not intuitive. But... How on earth is the opposite intuitive?! A new player is going to be just as confused about light-attacks restoring resources as they are with the current arrangement on Live.

So what would be intuitive?

Simple: Stop treating light and heavy attacks differently!

Both light and heavy attacks should restore resources.

I disagree on this part. While it might be intuitive for light, medium and heavy attacks to differ only in quantity and not quality (but is it fun? I guess that's a different topic), it makes no intuitive sense for basic attacks to return resources at all. In The Elder Scrolls universe, the only way to drain resources are magical effects or diseases, like an enchantment on your weapon.
Hell, in Skyrim heavy attacks cost resources, as they do in any Souls-like game. The intuitive rationale is that winding up a heavy attack is much more strenuous than a simple attack executed with the flick of your wrist. There is no apparent reason why hitting you with a simple sword in any capacity should replenish my stamina. And further, why should an attack with my sword (light, medium, heavy attack) gain resources, and an attack with my shield (bash) cost resources? Where is the consistency here?

Ideally, they would ensure consistency across attacks by having no resource return on any basic attack.

I do agree that a nerf to basic attacks is not going to help low APM players in any capacity. But I'd also hate to see heavy attacks' raison d'être become "oh, that's our gameplay option for struggling players". I wish they could make LA and HA rotations both worthwhile to use for their own reasons outside of player ability.

This is an MMO, not skyrim, that's your answer

Stevie6

I think sustain can be achieved by giving every race/class a basic resource regeneration factor as well as sustain from LA, MA, and HA. It might help with calculations between client and server. If a player needs more sustain, then potions, glyph, item, or set bonus should help.

Item sets, skills, and weapons need to be reworked for low apm players so that they can have the damage needed to at least go thru vet DLC dungeons. If you need to raise the floor for a base 30-40k dps then fine. Do it. It won't matter anyway. The gap between low apm and high apm will always be there.

I want to see fun. Fun left a long time ago after Morrowind and Nerfmire came along. You know what fun is..chasing the monthly meta. Wow that is fun lol

Sabretusks

Just a thought... why not have attack morphs for the basic weapon light/med/heavy attacks (e.g. a light attack morph that does more damage than resource return, and the other morph does the opposite)? Might give players an option between sustain vs damage races. Also keeps tanks and healers from feeling like they need to light attack spam for resources, because that just seems odd.

Another thing that others have pointed out is that we still have bashweaving on the table. With less DPS coming from lightweaving, bashweaving is going to become more necessary, and that is harder for beginner/intermediate players than lightweaving. I can’t imagine the current PTS is going to do anything but increase the gap between the extreme ends of the spectrum.

Darktrox

code65536 wrote: »

I like that idea! Buffing a spammable to compensate for lost LA damage means that we maintain the current power levels for players who do LA-weaves. Essentially, it would be shifting damage from the LA to the spammable.

But for players who miss light attacks and thus only get their spammable off, they'll be better off than they were on Live. Still not as good as someone who gets the weave, of course, but it would close the power gap somewhat.
.

Exactly.

This is what ZOS needs to do. they need to reduce the LA damage amount by something around 20% and add the damage to the spammeable (Say, jabs, force pulse, etc.), direct skills buffed by the same amount so we shift from a big weaving dps gap to the skills that low APM can do too. This is it ZOS. I see Wheeler already saw this and I hope is listened. (I hope he did read the edit where you talk about the skills damage.) @ZOS_BrianWheeler

It's as good as moving the damage (as a bit, slightly, not a overkill 78%) from light attacks to skills, while also making the light attacks regen a bit of resources will make things intuitive, and most importantly, Good players won't be punished for being good players. We need to rather focus on fixing technical issues rather than a whole game changing process product of the idea you guys implemented PTS, which I do not like at all, however... OP's ideas are great.

This is my 2 cents. Agreed on everything OP.

Olauron

Dracane wrote: »

That would require the light attack nerfed to be within a reasonable frame. Not more than 20% in my opinion. You can hardly buff abilities like dizzying swing or arrow by 78% or so.

I will try to look at this mathematically with some illustrative numbers. First example: both skill (5000 damage) and LA (5000 damage) are done in one second, the resultng damage is 10000. Second example: LA is nerfed by 78% to 1100 damage, skill is buffed to the difference (to 8900), the resulting damage is 10000 again.
What are the differences between those examples from gameplay point of view?
First, it is not so punishing to skip LA.
Second, for medium crit builds will move to "all (50%) or nothing (50%)" as opposed to "no crit (25%), only one crit (50%), both crit (25%)" (number of chances are for 50% crit). High crit builds will remain approximately the same with "all crit", low crit builds will remain approximately the same with "no crit".
Third, all effects that modify "next attack" may have undesirable buff (or nerf).
Forth, I want to separate it from third, is attack from stealth. I do not pvp so I don't know whether someone is now trying to LA-weave from stealth or not, but at least there is the effect from "third". Maybe there is something else.
Any other situations?

Stevie6

There is also another problem that exists and is being overlooked. When I started out I never knew or paid much attention to resistances. Players needed more dps to basically smash thru 18k monster resistances. This is where a lot of dps is being written off. So, when a new / casual players goes into a dungeon eventually they will get thru it. But not so on a vet dungeon. The player's dps goes way down because of no penetration and usually ends up face down in the dirt.

Maybe resistance/penetration needs to be reworked in a way to allow for players to have "fun" once again. I know some will say this is where casual and elite players need the gap until the casual player improves his or her skill level / rotation. It isn't going to happen. A lot of players cannot even do the easiest of vet dungeons. So, what then?

Well, monster resistance could be lowered to an acceptable level in vet dungeons non hard mode. Lets say around 10 to 15k resistances. That alone might help raise dps for low apm players and give them better penetration of 8 to 10k thru the skill lines. If you want harder performance then have 3 more levels of play for the hardcore elitists. Hard mode base 18k resistances, 25k resistances, and 33k resistances. Then the elite will have the best achievements and the low APM players can at least obtain or get into vet content. Same applies to Trials.

Ratzkifal

Code nailed it.
The only point I disagree with is that the resource return on both light and heavy attacking is not intuitive at all.
There is no problem with keeping it as it is balance wise or following Code's proposal, the system undoubtedly works.
It's just a nitpick that it makes no sense that these actions would restore resources at all.
Recovery, potions and being out of combat are intuitive forms of resource return and so are skills like Meditate and Repentence, but attacking an opponent isn't a very intuitive form of recovering during battle, even if you could argue that it takes less out of you than skills do. But that's already taken care of by LA and HA not having a cost at all!

I would do it differently by removing resource return from LAs and HAs and simply buff sustain from other sources to compensate. Although this would not do anything about the effect of the skill gap, the rest of Code's suggested changes still will.

Dusk_Coven

code65536 wrote: »

First, as a broad generalization, I like to think about players being put into three categories.

1. Players who mostly use their basic weapon attacks. The so-called "light-attack spammers" or "heavy-attack spammers".
   • Keep in mind that in most games, your basic weapon attacks--e.g., pointing and shooting your gun--is the primary way you do damage and that abilities are things that you cast every now and then to augment that damage or for utility. In ESO, abilities make up most of your damage and basic weapon attacks augment that damage, which can be counter-intuitive for someone who's used to, say, shooters, but is new to ESO, so it's perfectly understandable to see a new player just doing "light-attack spam" because that's kinda natural, if you think about it.
2. Players who use abilities and try to weave them, but aren't very good at it. This might be due to a lack of practice. Or, in many cases, people simply aren't able to; e.g., for older players, it can even be a little physically painful. When we look at people's DPS parses, the first thing we look at is their LA/s rate. And if it's something like 0.5, we'd say, "You need to light-attack more"; i.e., get better at weaving. I myself am only around 0.7 LA/s. I can't hit the 0.8 or 0.9+ LA/s that elite players can get, and I probably will never get there; I have my limits.
3. Elite players who have very high APM, whose rotations are fast and fluid and who don't miss their LA-weaves.

Don't really agree with these generalizations at all as being useful.
Group 1 "shouldn't exist". You get skills for a reason. When you level up it's all about getting skills and using skills.
You even get skills during the tutorial.
If someone is spamming light or heavy attacks they either have a reason (crafter who spent all their points elsewhere?) or they are deliberately not engaging in the game -- because everyone had to go through the tutorial.
There are people who have a bad set of skills, but that's different from mostly using no skills at all.
This so called category of people sounds like a thinly veiled insult.

Group 2 and 3 involve Light Atack Weaving, which really shouldn't exist in the game and the triple-LA-for-resources looks like a clear attempt to move away from the model of cancelling a Light Attack so fast you barely see it fire.
Light Attack weaving basically amounts to free damage from Light Attack because your time cost is aborted. A near-nothing time cost for an attack shouldn't be in the game at all because it's not intuitively correct at all.

As for ZOS's resource recovery through attacks, it's certainly not intuitive if attacking would restore resources faster than simply not attacking and resting.

Whatever ends up being done, I think the FIRST STEP is to keep things intuitive so people don't have to learn to do what is not intuitive.
Simply tweaking numbers with little rationale is at the core of the complaints about combat changes.

Masel

After digesting feedback across the board, we've had a lot of mixed opinions and solid arguments to both sides. I personally agree with many points in the OP and think it'd be a much tamer, simpler solution that may actually tackle the issue of power gap.

Aside from the damage component of that power gap, I have come to ask myself though: do we really need basic attacks to restore resources at all? There are so many sources of sustain that are not used in this game... and the concept of them restoring them through weapon attacks is quite unintuitive regardless of how you put it. Light attacks also rather "cost energy" than they restore it, just in a less obvious way because the charge up or channel is missing.

I dont think the sustain from those basic weapon attacks is needed if players are directed to the regular, more intuitive sources of sustain early on... after going through the tutorial and information you get there on the pts, I realized again how bad the game is at explaining core elements...

Cellentel

Ratzkifal wrote: »

Code nailed it.
The only point I disagree with is that the resource return on both light and heavy attacking is not intuitive at all.
There is no problem with keeping it as it is balance wise or following Code's proposal, the system undoubtedly works.
It's just a nitpick that it makes no sense that these actions would restore resources at all.
Recovery, potions and being out of combat are intuitive forms of resource return and so are skills like Meditate and Repentence, but attacking an opponent isn't a very intuitive form of recovering during battle, even if you could argue that it takes less out of you than skills do. But that's already taken care of by LA and HA not having a cost at all!

I would do it differently by removing resource return from LAs and HAs and simply buff sustain from other sources to compensate. Although this would not do anything about the effect of the skill gap, the rest of Code's suggested changes still will.

It’s not intuitive, no, but it’s also not super complicated. It could be explained on a loading screen or level up advisor tip (without the need to explain the difference between light, medium, and heavy attacks if Code’s suggestions were followed). Besides, even if they don’t understand the mechanic, new players who run out of resources are likely to respond by pressing the “free” attack button, and...boom. Resources! Their understanding is not required.

Resources returned from the basic attacks are a helpful part of raising the floor. On live, you can always reset your resources to full with a few heavy attacks. You’re never “stuck” waiting for your regen to completely refill your resource. If there was no way to recover resources from either light or heavy attacks, experienced players would be fine but new players would be out of luck for 20+ seconds. That’s not good for the gap.

xaraan

code65536 wrote: »

Note: This a repost of post #222 of the official discussion thread.

---

I want to start off by saying that I am in complete 100% agreement with the "mission statement" of these PTS changes. Specifically, the following paragraph:

There are, however, several drawbacks to this model as well. First, it tends to reward players for pushing buttons as quickly and efficiently as possible. Players with high Actions Per Minute (APM) significantly outperform those with low APM, as they have better up-time of abilities, higher mitigation, much higher DPS, and can simply move around the battlefield better in both PVE and PVP. While we believe it’s good to have a skill gap that promotes mastery, we also believe the gap as it currently exists is too wide, and that many players aren’t finding satisfaction in the climb. Additionally, we believe the over-reliance on a specific mechanic (light attack weaving) leaves less room for playstyle diversity, including lower-APM options. This is particularly evident in veteran content and PvP. Finally, the concept of using light attacks for damage and heavy attacks for restore is, quite simply, unintuitive – especially for less experienced players.

I agree with all of this, and I agree that something needs to be done, and I applaud ZOS for taking action. But I strongly dislike the solution that is being tried out here.

I consider that the two overall goals here are:

1. Reducing the effect of the skill gap. To be clear, it is good to have a skill gap. The amount by which that skill gap translates into power is the thing that needs some adjustment.
2. Making light and heavy attacks more intuitive.

PART 1: ADDRESSING THE POWER GAP

First, as a broad generalization, I like to think about players being put into three categories.

1. Players who mostly use their basic weapon attacks. The so-called "light-attack spammers" or "heavy-attack spammers".
   • Keep in mind that in most games, your basic weapon attacks--e.g., pointing and shooting your gun--is the primary way you do damage and that abilities are things that you cast every now and then to augment that damage or for utility. In ESO, abilities make up most of your damage and basic weapon attacks augment that damage, which can be counter-intuitive for someone who's used to, say, shooters, but is new to ESO, so it's perfectly understandable to see a new player just doing "light-attack spam" because that's kinda natural, if you think about it.
2. Players who use abilities and try to weave them, but aren't very good at it. This might be due to a lack of practice. Or, in many cases, people simply aren't able to; e.g., for older players, it can even be a little physically painful. When we look at people's DPS parses, the first thing we look at is their LA/s rate. And if it's something like 0.5, we'd say, "You need to light-attack more"; i.e., get better at weaving. I myself am only around 0.7 LA/s. I can't hit the 0.8 or 0.9+ LA/s that elite players can get, and I probably will never get there; I have my limits.
3. Elite players who have very high APM, whose rotations are fast and fluid and who don't miss their LA-weaves.

So how do the proposed changes affect each of these skill tiers?

Based on my testing on the PTS, someone who just spams heavy attacks will get a modest boost to their damage. Heavy attack damage has been increased by a modest amount, and the cast times have been reduced a little. The end result, based on some quick casual testing on the PTS is a small increase in the ballpark of around 10-20%. For someone spamming light attacks, well, it's not pretty. The fight duration tripled, so the DPS was cut by around 2/3 (less than the 78% nominal nerf because of damage from things like weapon enchantments).

I don't think that these changes help the proverbial "floor". On Live, both heavy-attack spam and light-attack spam does similar amounts of overall DPS. On the PTS, heavy-attack spam was mildly buffed, while light-attack spam was thrown into the gutter. I don't see how this helps the "floor". At all. If anything, I would argue that these changes hurt them more than it helps them, as it strips away combat options and forces these kinds of players into using only heavy attacks.

But what about the "middle class"? What about the people who try to weave abilities, but aren't able to do so that well? The amount of resource return from light attacks is immense. Without the CP buff, it's equivalent to about 400 regen for someone who weaves perfectly. Obviously, it's more once you figure in Tenacity. So while missing light attacks won't result in as much of a direct loss of damage, it still represents a significant indirect loss of damage because that sustain can be translated into damage. Choosing bi-stat food over regen food. Picking a "damage" race like Orc instead of a "sustain" race like Redguard. Using a "damage" set like New Moon Acolyte instead of a "sustain" set like Vicious Ophidian. But these kinds of shifts away from other sources of sustain will be available only to people who can weave well.

For the "upper class", yes, it's an outright nerf to power. That can be somewhat compensated for by shifting their builds further away from sustain.

But what does this do for the power gap between the "middle class" and the "upper class". Both groups will be hit hard by this, and it's not clear that they will be affected in a way that reduces the relative power gap.

And so I would like to take a moment now to talk about the Morrowind combat changes. Back when those changes were made, @ZOS_RichLambert said on ESO Live that they had two goals with the Morrowind combat changes. First, they wanted people to think about sustain again. And second, they wanted to reduce the power gap. Well, these changes seem to fly in the face of the notion that sustain should be relevant. But more importantly, the Morrowind combat changes increased the power gap between players. Yes, the sustain nerfs hit the power of the "upper class" hard. But it also hit the "middle class" even more. If you think about it, when resources are tight, then players who are more efficient at resource usage will have an advantage. Instead of using a dynamic rotation, are you using an easy static rotation that results in a couple of DoTs being recast a little early? That's wasted resources. Did you accidentally step into red and thus need to cast a self-heal to compensate for your mistake? That's wasted resources. Did you miss a light attack and thus miss out on its resource-free damage? That's less damage per resource spent.

Can you say, without any doubt, that these light/heavy attack changes will hurt the "upper class" more than it hurts the "middle class"? If not, then you're not actually closing the power gap, and this will be a repeat of the Morrowind fiasco.

But hey there's more to this game than just DPS! What about something like PvE tanking? A lot of tanking is about resource management. Wouldn't it be great if, as a tank, you could get stamina as you light-weave everything? It would trivialize resource management! Hooray! But oh wait, that means you have to drop block to weave every ability instead of block-casting, and if you're a new tank or even an experienced tank who's tanking new unfamiliar content, that's pretty darn risky. So what this means is that experienced tanks can get easy resource management, but beginner tanks who are told, "when it doubt, hold block" can't reap the benefits of this. And of course, if a tank needs an emergency injection of stamina, the old option of getting a burst of about 2.8K stamina from a single 0.8s heavy attack channel is gone. All of this simply punishes less experienced players and dramatically increase the effects of the skill gap.


PART 2: LIGHT/HEAVY ATTACKS SHOULD BE INTUITIVE

You're right: Heavy attacks restoring resources, while light attacks do not, is not intuitive. But... How on earth is the opposite intuitive?! A new player is going to be just as confused about light-attacks restoring resources as they are with the current arrangement on Live.

So what would be intuitive?

Simple: Stop treating light and heavy attacks differently!

Both light and heavy attacks should restore resources. A light attack should restore a very small, token amount (50?). And heavy attacks should restore the same amount as they do now. And medium attacks should restore somewhere between the two, scaled with the duration of the channel.

That's how you make intuitive mechanics. A heavy attack should just be a heavier, stronger light attack. Period. Don't have some silly nonsense where a light attack restores resources, but if a players holds onto the button for just a fraction of a second too long and it turns into a medium attack, then they get nothing. Don't have some silly nonsense where if someone is charging a heavy attack because they are out of resources, but if they let go of that attack just a fraction of a second too soon and it turns into a medium attack, then they get nothing.

Light attacks should do a modest amount of damage and return a small amount of resources. And heavy attacks should do the same, except more: more damage, more resource return. And medium attacks should scale between the two and do a medium amount of damage and return a medium amount of resources. This is the logical, straightfoward thing to do, and it bewilders me that it doesn't work like this.

A heavy attack is slow and requires a channel, so it should be more rewarding in all aspects. How does "hey, you do more damage as a tradeoff for this annoying channel, but oh no, you don't get any resources back" make any sense?


PART 3: WHAT I WOULD DO IF I WAS A COMBAT DESIGNER

1. Reduce light attack damage. Not by 78%. But by something more modest. 30%?
2. Increase the damage on consecutive (non-weaved) light/medium/heavy attacks.
3. All light attacks restore resources. Something small like 50. (So for someone weaving perfectly, this would be a modest 100 regen.)
4. Keep the current Live levels of heavy attack resource return.
5. Medium attack damage and resource return will be somewhere between that of a light attack and heavy attack, scaling with the duration of the channel.
6. Make Empower affect all basic weapon attacks: light/medium/heavy.
7. Edited to add: Increase the damage of spammable abilities by an amount comparable to the reduction to light attack damage. This would maintain the current power level for people who weave successfully (thus effectively shifting damage from the basic attack to the ability), while increasing the power level for those who miss weaves (they would still do less damage, but the gap would be smaller).

If you look at the current lower-APM options--what people hawk as "easy" builds--they're often light-attack-spam (werewolf) or heavy-attack-spam builds. Let's reinforce these options and make them more effective. That's why I propose increasing the damage from consecutive, non-weaved attacks. Of course, these things should not be too effective that they outclass "high-APM" options (we still want a skill gap!), but they should be more effective than they are now (thus lowering the effect of the skill gap). The increase for non-weaved attacks should more than compensate for the 30% nerf to light attack damage that I am proposing.

As for the "middle class" vs. "upper class", an outright nerf to light attack damage (without adding some secondary effect like a ridiculous 400 regen to perfect weavers) will slightly narrow the gap between the two because it will affect those with higher LA/s more than those with lower LA/s.

And finally, on the consistency/intuitiveness front, it makes no sense to apply a resource return to light attacks but not heavy attacks, just as it makes no sense to do the opposite. What makes sense, though, is for a heavy attack to just be a stronger light attack in every way--in both damage and resource return--as compensation for it being a slow channel.

Ultimately, the end result should be...

1. A raising of the bottom floor, in which people who just spam basic attacks are better off than they are on Live. A buff to consecutive, non-weaved damage will help with this (and should more than compensate for the LA damage nerf) and reinforce the current popular low-APM options. ZOS's proposal doesn't help the floor at all, since a severe nerf to LA damage with no compensation simply serves to deprive the "lower class" of combat options and forces them into only using heavy attacks.
2. A narrowing of the gap between the "middle" and "upper" classes. Reducing the damage of weaved light attacks is the key here. In contrast, ZOS's proposal just replaces the lost direct damage with indirect damage in the form of massive sustain.
3. A system where heavy attacks are more desirable, but not so desirable that people who prefer high APM feel compelled into sluggish heavy-attack rotations. While ZOS's current proposal doesn't quite push people into a HA-meta, it does come dangerously close with that insane 78% damage nerf to LAs.
4. Heavy and medium attacks should be rewarded for their cast times, which not only means more damage, but also more resource return. Be consistent.

Quoting this all just because it's the best post I've seen about the changes and zos should definitely pay attention to this one.

YandereGirlfriend

Stevie6 wrote: »

Item sets, skills, and weapons need to be reworked for low apm players so that they can have the damage needed to at least go thru vet DLC dungeons.

With respect, what are you talking about?

Veteran mode is intended as a challenge for more skilled players. Normal mode is intended for beginners and casual players.

There is nothing wrong with this and nothing needs to be done about it.

code65536

Dusk_Coven wrote: »

Group 1 "shouldn't exist". You get skills for a reason. When you level up it's all about getting skills and using skills.
You even get skills during the tutorial.
If someone is spamming light or heavy attacks they either have a reason (crafter who spent all their points elsewhere?) or they are deliberately not engaging in the game because everyone had to go through the tutorial.
There are people who have a bad set of skills, but that's different from mostly using no skills at all.
This so called category of people sounds like a thinly veiled insult.

Players like this do exist. I've seen them in dungeon queues.

And I was one them when I first started playing the game. Why was I a light-attack spammer when I started playing? Well, first, that's how I was used to things from, say, a shooter. You fire your weapon. And use skills to augment damage and for utility. Also, the first skill I took from the tutorial was cloak. Not exactly a damage skill, you see..

Second, I had no idea how much damage an ability did. Sure, I got a tooltip on the ability that said it did, say, 3000 damage. But... what does that mean? Is 3000 a lot? The game's UI doesn't tell you how much health an enemy has (and back then, there wasn't an option to to turn those numbers on--your only option was to use addons, and that was a rabbit hole that I wasn't ready to jump into as a brand new player).

Third, I had no idea how much damage my weapon attacks did. There's no tooltip that says "your bow will do 3000 damage with a light attack", and there was no way to see how much damage anything hit for since in-game combat text did not exist back then (your only option was to use addons...) Was a skill worth using over a light attack? It's kinda hard to tell when there's no way to know how much your light attack does.

And finally, my abilities "felt" weak. Of course they did, since I was using class abilities (scaling off of magicka) while I had a bow and points put into stamina. The game doesn't tell me that having more magicka does more than increase the number of times that I could cast an ability and that it increases the damage of the ability, too.

So, there I was, spamming light attacks for the first couple of months that I played the game. I even beat a few 4-person dungeons this way.

Actually, come to think of it, I think the one with the thinly-veiled insult is you...

Elwendryll

With these changes, my max dps went from 87k to ~74k.

I tried some different rotations and builds to accomodate for the changes. Turns out, I get the best results by keeping everything as it is on live, but adding more bashes in my rotation, thanks to the extra sustain the stamina return from light attacks offers.

It means, to mitigate the damage nerf this proposed change is causing, I have to increase even further my APM.

Even with the buff to heavy attacks damage, using any heavy attack is still detrimental to my dps.

Positive points :

• Attacks scaling on max resources. I wonder if we'll see unified penetration in the future.
• Full movement speed while using an heavy attack.
• Resource return on light attacks.
• Streamlined light attack speed.
• The changes made to some sets, like galenwe. Although I'm not sure how to feel about Molag Kena becoming a tanking set...
• Making Empower a flat bonus value.

Negative points :

• It is still not conveyed properly when off-balance is active on a target. It really needs an obvious visual effect that communicates the opportunity window.
• Depends on the class/build, but not using any heavy attack is most likely still giving the best dps output.
• Empower should benefit both light attacks and heavy attacks
• The APM required for optimal dps is even higher than before.
• This changes are punishing people that invest a lot of time into practicing and perfecting their gameplay.
• This changes are going to require healers and tanks to increase their APM to sustain their resources.

Points relative to (stamina) sorcerers:

• Bound armaments being nerfed on top of everything is absolutely unnecessary. Why not just make it a flat increase? Why not include both light attacks and heavy attacks? Just by checking esologs public logs, I can tell stamina sorcerers are being underused. Why is it the only class having a passive totally removed in the process?
• Overload is already a very weak option as an ultimate for both magicka and stamina. It is not benefiting from the penetration for stamina builds, and it provides less damage and utility than the Storm Atronach. Bound armaments removed passive used to make it almost worth it to use in non-CP PvP scenario for a stamina build.

Ratzkifal

Cellentel wrote: »

Ratzkifal wrote: »

Code nailed it.
The only point I disagree with is that the resource return on both light and heavy attacking is not intuitive at all.
There is no problem with keeping it as it is balance wise or following Code's proposal, the system undoubtedly works.
It's just a nitpick that it makes no sense that these actions would restore resources at all.
Recovery, potions and being out of combat are intuitive forms of resource return and so are skills like Meditate and Repentence, but attacking an opponent isn't a very intuitive form of recovering during battle, even if you could argue that it takes less out of you than skills do. But that's already taken care of by LA and HA not having a cost at all!

I would do it differently by removing resource return from LAs and HAs and simply buff sustain from other sources to compensate. Although this would not do anything about the effect of the skill gap, the rest of Code's suggested changes still will.

It’s not intuitive, no, but it’s also not super complicated. It could be explained on a loading screen or level up advisor tip (without the need to explain the difference between light, medium, and heavy attacks if Code’s suggestions were followed). Besides, even if they don’t understand the mechanic, new players who run out of resources are likely to respond by pressing the “free” attack button, and...boom. Resources! Their understanding is not required.

Resources returned from the basic attacks are a helpful part of raising the floor. On live, you can always reset your resources to full with a few heavy attacks. You’re never “stuck” waiting for your regen to completely refill your resource. If there was no way to recover resources from either light or heavy attacks, experienced players would be fine but new players would be out of luck for 20+ seconds. That’s not good for the gap.

Like I said, there is no need to remove the resource sustain on LAs and HAs. They work. Even or especially in Code's suggestion. But the result of doing so would be more intuitive.
The whole floor raising would still happen if you buffed sustain from food, armor passives, perhaps even base recovery values. But yes, there is no need for that. It would just be the cherry on top.

Toc de Malsvi

Very good suggestions. I firmly think basic attacks should not restore resources. We have potions, passives, and spells to do that. Basic attacks should be attacks not sustain.

It’s fine to have spells that work with basic attacks to give sustain. But it’s ridiculous to get resources from stabbing someone. We aren’t leeching them from the target being stabbed, it just doesn’t make sense outside of spells, potions, passives.

Buffing consecutive basic attacks is a great way to bring up the floor. Increasing skill damage over basic attacks works just as well. Having spells like Molten Weapons to modify basic attacks is great for those that want to use basic attacks.