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

JohnOfMarkarth

Preechr wrote: »

JohnOfMarkarth wrote: »

--- Not to mention that ESO combat probably isnt the "go to" attraction of the game that increases player base, not really...)

That's true. There have been other games with far better combat systems, and there will always be players that despise action combat. MMO shoppers aren't necessarily looking for the best new thing anymore, though. If you could say: "They fixed their server performance issues, class and race choice really matters and they all feel distinct and important, and the developers aren't constantly nerfing stuff, forcing people to change their builds and grind new gear, all in the never-ending chase of 'balance,'" that might go pretty far.

All MMOs are forcing their players into boxes and then moving the boxes around and have been for years. Players are tired of it. ESO already has a lot going for it, and would be better off if they capitalized on that rather than doing what all the other studios are doing with their games.

Start with spears. We need spears.

After that, take a closer look at the rest of the weapon skills. Fighting a guy that shoots 150 arrows up in the sky, magically produces a ballista auto-turret then starts whirlwinding at me with his daggers is honestly pretty silly. That's not what a rogue class is supposed to be doing... Its really hard to take developers seriously when they come up with suggestions on making the game more intuitive with micro nerfs to emergent gameplay while so many of their main fighting skills look like they were designed by a third grader who forgot to take his ritalin.

i couldnt agree more mainly on spears part. And third grade bully level rogue abilities... (sidenote yet again. i'd like to fonally be able to play a dirty fighter Kano-style lad. not a sPiN-tO-WiN wArFrAmE bonanza with my rogue... ahm... thats absolutely outside the point of this discussion)

Ascarl

First of all, this is the first criticism of the new system which is not a random whine.

Second, I think this could really work if executed by ZOS:.

idk

.

Ascarl wrote: »

First of all, this is the first criticism of the new system which is not a random whine.

Second, I think this could really work if executed by ZOS:.

I agree on both points. Most posts, most threads, are just complaining about the possibility of change as though reducing the damage of LAs is the end of the world.

Code's suggestion is also far better than what Zos has suggested for meeting the points Zos said their goal is. It is a solid idea, a great suggestion.

Suligost

I want to remind that any weaving LA/HA is strong for ranged - magicka players. For stamina LA/HA is rly damm hard so... there should be difference in resources regen for ranged attacks and melee if those changes comes live. Obviously melee should have higher due to how hard is to use it, not miss it, chase damn player etc etc.

JinMori

I think it's a good idea, but i also think that if they are gonna reduce light attack damage, they should give the damage back to abilities to balance it out.

Honestly, even alcast agrees that the game should not be balanced around the absolute best, and while i can also get about 85 to almost 90 k dps on bis gear, i would not like to see further damage nerfs.

Iv'e already addressed how they should deal with power progression so i will not be repeating myself, but nerfs are not the way.

50 resources though is a bit low, give it 100 or 75.

Also, at this point they should do something about races, if they buff sustain, breton redguard etc become useless, if they nerf it too much damage races become useless, i think they just need to let us choose our passives, as long as they make some sense for the race, so for example, stamina passives would be shared between stamina races, and same for magicka.

fbours

Suligost wrote: »

I want to remind that any weaving LA/HA is strong for ranged - magicka players. For stamina LA/HA is rly damm hard so... there should be difference in resources regen for ranged attacks and melee if those changes comes live. Obviously melee should have higher due to how hard is to use it, not miss it, chase damn player etc etc.

That does not make sense, sorry, but I think this is a l2p issue. Landing your melee attacks really hard?, come on, really?

WastedJoker

fbours wrote: »

Suligost wrote: »

I want to remind that any weaving LA/HA is strong for ranged - magicka players. For stamina LA/HA is rly damm hard so... there should be difference in resources regen for ranged attacks and melee if those changes comes live. Obviously melee should have higher due to how hard is to use it, not miss it, chase damn player etc etc.

That does not make sense, sorry, but I think this is a l2p issue. Landing your melee attacks really hard?, come on, really?

The proximity of the target means it's harder to track and therefore hit especially if you're also hammering buttons quickly, is what he meant, I think.

nublife01

They could make no changes and respect that APM is a core aspect of the game.

It is literally how the game has mechanically been designed. These new-ish devs who have already--like i'm just going to hold my tongue--are going to completely mess up one of if not the central pillar to how combat mechanics work in the game.

Everyone who honestly doesn't like a central combat mechanic of the game should go find a different game as this game is clearly not fundamentally/structurally designed to their liking. If you are not fond of high APM you should not play this game it is not made for you. I suggest wow classic. It's the version of world of warcraft before new-ish devs came in and made changes like these new-ish ZOS devs are making that destroyed that mmo.

In PVP, these new-ish devs have already made it extremely difficult for average players to die which has made combat in this game a whole lot more bland than it used to be, have forced almost every stamina class to use a 2 handed weapon and dizzy swing as a spammable, and completely destroyed the mechanics of one of their classes (stamina nightblade) to the extent that nobody plays it anymore which on its own is very scary.

Now theyre pecking at the core structure of combat mechanics because they are still listening to the minority of players that hate the game rather than the majority that love it. The changes they have been making recently caused the death of world of warcraft retail. If ZOS keeps headed down this path with these changes they will certainly kill the game before the next expansion after this one. These are very scary times for ESO indeed.

nublife01

I do like code's changes though I think they should be made even lighter or honestly no changes to the current system at all. Like at most a 15% or 20% nerf on LA damage (and everything else being adjusted correspondingly). In PVP for example, almost if not all better players will skim their resource regen by high margins to stack more damage/defense and rely on well planted heavy attacks to restore resource instead of having it passively done for them by their gear. I understand if the changes needed to be made for PVE, though these changes render the skill/awareness associated with managing resources in PVP to be utterly null which will plummet the skill ceiling and make PVP combat a whole lot blander.

aetherial_heavenn

Troodon80 wrote: »

aetherial_heavenn wrote: »

Tanks are going to be stuffed if ZoS changes go ahead I suspect. I am surprised there isn't more blow back from them.

The vast majority of testing has come from a DPS-centric perspective, and the changes are aimed primarily at DDs. I doubt many tanks have even bothered trying out the changes. The few that have so far, and are willing to take the time to post on the forum, myself included, have stated that sustain is much worse. There is very little discussion on this point and it would be nice if there was more.

As I said in a previous post, this will widen the skill gap between floor and ceiling for support roles, directly contradicting their stated goals of lowering the skill gap. With the current implementation on the PTS, even if you assume this will close the gap for DDs (disregarding bash weaving), all it does it push this gap elsewhere without actually fixing the core issue as to why there is a skill gap at all. If we don't disregard bash weaving, I don't believe much will change with regards to the skill gap -- regardless of how much or how little it changes, low DPS players are still going to be doing low DPS and high DPS players are still going to be leaps and bounds ahead, and, on top of this, we will see an increase in the skill gap to supports. No matter what happens in terms of the skill gap for DPS, supports are still getting hit negatively. I don't believe that trying to "fix" one thing necessarily needs to come at the expense of other roles or even other modes of play beyond DPS.

This is also why I believe Code's suggestion is much better for all involved. It leaves tanks and healers with a source of sustain that they are used to. If they light weave (and there's no reason not to try), they will have marginally better sustain (especially useful for the lower end who often perma-block and will spam skills, quickly depleting their resources; this can be a first-step lesson for them to drop block in order to use a skill->light attack, and understand better the mechanics of when they need to block and when they don't need to block), while also following through with the initial idea for what ZOS perceives as an unacceptable skill gap in DPS due to sustain and damage from light attack weaving. Further adjustments and tweaks can be made down the line without the need to bring a sledgehammer in.

^^^
Tanks and healers need to read this.

MartiniDaniels

Can somebody explain me how 24% more damage on S&B heavy attack will compensate for lose of 2-3k resource restore?

Sanguinor2

MartiniDaniels wrote: »

Can somebody explain me how 24% more damage on S&B heavy attack will compensate for lose of 2-3k resource restore?

Just do 5 consecutive light attacks in 0.8 seconds and you will see the same Level of resource restore, Problem solved

mairwen85

Give this guy a job!

Logical, levelheaded response. Eloquently worded and exactly the solution to what ZOS states they want to achieve.

MartiniDaniels

Sanguinor2 wrote: »

MartiniDaniels wrote: »

Can somebody explain me how 24% more damage on S&B heavy attack will compensate for lose of 2-3k resource restore?

Just do 5 consecutive light attacks in 0.8 seconds and you will see the same Level of resource restore, Problem solved

The more I think about it the more I puzzled. PVE: so light attacks now won't do any notable damage with exception of VMA staff ones. OK. But what's the point of heavy attacking? They were barely worth doing before, now they will be absolutely useless.
PVP: we "don't" have tank meta, let's nerf damage further, lol. And heavy attacks... outside of some specific builds they will be absolutely useless. And med-heavy stun ditched completely.

So to summarize ZOS massively nerfs dps across the board, which is absolutely not needed given how content is designed in PVE and what situation we have in PVP.. and compensation for this is suggestion to mash light attack button non-stop. In any unknown situation - mash left mouse button/stick/whatever? This is their solution to skill gap?

MartiniDaniels

Well, original post is perfect - it is exactly what ZOS should do or at least consider doing.

John_Falstaff

From how things stand now, heavy attacks' only purpose now is going to be "poor man's damage dealing", they're exclusively the tool of low-end players (which ZOS caters to with this update) to pull -some- palatable DPS. It's a shame to see how something so fundamental is turned from a tool we all sometimes happen to do (tanks/healers regularly, DDs when in resource trouble) to a crutch that people will ditch as they grow better players.

Don't know why they needed to nerf LAs for that, but I feel that asking ZOS to be consistent is too much, don't think that much thought went into this patch, let alone internal testing.

Tanis-Stormbinder

MartiniDaniels wrote: »

Well, original post is perfect - it is exactly what ZOS should do or at least consider doing.

This^

code65536

John_Falstaff wrote: »

From how things stand now, heavy attacks' only purpose now is going to be "poor man's damage dealing", they're exclusively the tool of low-end players (which ZOS caters to with this update) to pull -some- palatable DPS.

I'm unconvinced that they will serve even that purpose.

Yes, spamming heavy attacks on the PTS does yield more single-target damage than spamming light or heavy attacks on Live, but it's not that much more; it was a very modest increase based on my brief testing with a dummy.

Now, if you think about the most popular and common "low APM" heavy attack builds, they're all based around lightning staff heavy attacks. And the two main draws of this is that

1. The resource gain from the heavy attacks lets you cast other abilities at will as needed.
2. Lightning staff heavies do a decent amount of AoE damage.

Both of these features of the lightning staff heavy build are nerfed on the PTS. If the player needs to shield-spam in a tough spot, they're more likely to run out of resources. If the player needs to deal with a lot of adds, they will be much less able to do so.

I feel like the "casual" players who have expressed support for this PTS just read the preface and saw "we believe [this] leaves less room for playstyle diversity, including lower-APM options" and then missed the bullet point that said "we actually plan to nerf some popular lower-APM options into the ground Tri Focus: This passive now causes your Lightning Heavy Attacks to splash for 12/25% of the damage caused, down from 50/100%."

Czekoludek

It's funny how zos called ppl with 120 APM (perfect light attack weaving with no movement) high APM players. For casual doing 100 APM is not a problem at all. In games that requires high APM for being top 1% the numbers go much highier like 300 APM (Starcraft esport players have around 600 APM). If you know your rotation, have a good gear, good ac and have around 200 APM in real fight, you are top 1% in ESO. Achievable for most of the population if ppl want to work for it.
The problem with skill gap is that if you as a newbie player wanna be better, you must search help at other sites, youtube, etc. In game tutorials, tips, etc are bad and don't help at all. Zos should work on that, maybe introduce undaunted academy to the game where players can learn what is rotation, how to manage their resources, the meaning of light and heavy attacks, how specific stats affect your damage (for example one of the most important damage stats, penetration is not even visible on character sheet without addons, who thought it is a good design?!). The amount of ppl that didn't even know that max mag/stam affects your damage is huge. And there are much more examples.
Ppl don't know the basics and after changes they still won't be able to perform better as there is almost no effective in game tutorial provided.

JohnOfMarkarth

The ideas given by OP are sound

I also think this tho (if i go all realism instead of dreamy dreamy):

A lot of data is omitted from the unmodded game, and a fresh-entry player may well be left to his devices, having no clue what does "penetration" ever stand for other then inter-human intercourse (s*x). Let alone how some random number, they dont see, influence their combat. This issue of no information continues on and on.

So, personal dislike of weavy weavy aside... theres a simpler solution then nerfs as well:

- It would be useful to see crit chance stat as a % on one's char sheet by default (not hover over etc) (even if its internally calculated by numbers nonetheless), increasing probability of people understanding, thus building around it if desired (thus getting better dmg done). What does 4055 crit stat even tell a person? 40,55%? 4,055%? 4055 sheep? 4055 mosquito bites?

- show the penetration data on char sheet and give some explanation about it when hovered over

- show in character sheet, the rough equivalent of damage that max stats contribute (you have intelligent heads, or i hope so, you can do it)

- from the get go, give people sets tutorial in the tutorial section of the game, giving them a very basic but beginner useful set during the tutorial (based on which path they would prefer to start with or a generalist one). (the number of clueless players about sets in dungeons can be astounding... trust me) and give people at least craftable base game sets ideas in skill advisor

- if people mostly use basic attacks and nothing else, that causes lowAPM, during the very tutorial, give them reason and encouragement to use skills. (if tutorial mostly teaches you basic attacks... then thers gonna be people whom just do those out of being used to it and being taught that way)

- explain potion usefulness of more combat oriented potions other then basic healing ones, in the tutorial as well...(its really simple. make them face an enemy. drink a potion that increases dmg before using a skill... they see pretty numbers bigger then before... they go "damn that was nice" and boom... you enforced and rewarded good behavior from the get go, instead of expecting them to find that out on their own and then having trouble getting used to it, cus their habits might well be deeply set by that time)

- if you reeeeally wanna keep weaving a thing (yucky)... tutorial it too. yet again. simple example of a tutorial encounter: Yer char walks into a bar--- ahm. walks into an encounter. you make him light attack then use a skill (i dont think teaching AC is actually good tho. While i hate weaving, i can see soooome semblance of reason. AC? boguslandia. Dont enforce self-butchery. Its like if you went to play skyrim and the tutorial taught you to holster while casting to deal damage and show no animation (if that was a thing). more yucky then medieval latrines)

Lord_Eomer

I like the new changes and may come back play ESO.

Clicking 10 times mouse in a second is bad example of Combat system. Getting rid of light attack meta is a best choice.

Sanguinor2

Lord_Eomer wrote: »

I like the new changes and may come back play ESO.

Clicking 10 times mouse in a second is bad example of Combat system. Getting rid of light attack meta is a best choice.

Thats not what Zos changes will do. Instead you will have to light attack weave for Sustain since heavies dont restore resources anymore, you´ll just have less Damage doing so.

Ozby

I agree with @code65536 post completely especially as a Healer & Tank main.

darthgummibear_ESO

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

@code65536 Thank you kindly for this constructive and well thought out feedback!

Now let's see if you actually act on said feedback.

Milli_Rabbit

Light attacks should be nerfed. Period. It just makes sense for heavy attacks to do significantly more damage than light attacks. I don't know that nerfing light attack damage is what people are upset about. I think its more the effect it has on their dps. A better fix suggested by Alcast that solves both problems is to buff class skills and skill lines. Make it so light attack weaving gives a smaller boost to dps but still separates the best from just alright. Make light attack weaving closer to 8-10% of damage.

Septimus_Magna

Very well constructed feedback, I really hope ZOS listens to your feedback because like many people I completely agree with all your points.

Kadoozy

This is a reasonable post. iff abilities are scaled up to compensate the light attack damage loss, then this will still allow a skill gap while raising low apm players up.

Hopefully ZOS will heavily consider this.

peacenote

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 in 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.

Addendum: A number of people have pointed out that having any basic attack return resources is unintuitive in and of itself. And while I'm inclined to agree, I also feel that there needs to be a way for players to actively restore resources if needed, and resource return from basic attacks fit that bill quite well. I elaborate on this in post #89.

I want to click Insightful, Agree, AND Awesome on this post.

I am not a theory-crafter. Nor do I play one on TV. Nor, unfortunately, can I pretend to be one on PTS because I lack the hard drive space.

However I'd like to raise a few points as a longtime ESO healer, in addition to this well-thought out post that talks about DPS and tanks. Since these changes have been announced, I have been playing in my head as if they were already in place, thinking about how it might feel as a healer if I buffed my sustain with LAs. Here is what I'm thinking:

• This will make healing MORE BORING. Why? Because right now I use both LAs to build up my ultimate and HAs to restore resources. In this new environment, I will probably use HAs for nothing, because the DPS I can add as a healer won't be worth standing around channeling an attack.
• This will make healers (and probably tanks) even bigger TARGETS FOR GRIEFING. Why? I can unobtrusively weave in LAs right now to help support the group without someone saying "why are you doing that" because they are quick and I can stop them immediately if I need to change course. But HAs? I can see healers (and tanks) constantly being called out for trying to HA in almost any scenario.
• This will make healing LESS ADAPTIVE. Why? Because, similar to what was pointed out with tanks, we're losing a way to restore a larger amount of resources in a planned way. Healing is a priority system more than a rotation, so if I must actively heal by triggering abilities multiple times in a row, my ability to plan or adapt for that is gone. I've got potions, but that's it, and I had those before, so it's a straight up loss with regards to tools in my arsenal.
• Suggestions that raise the option of having other ways to make sustain more meaningful all fall flat and still make healing more simplistic. Make up for it in racials? I can't trigger those. I still have no way to restore resources in bulk. I can only pray to regen faster. So still I am less adaptive. Make up for it with enchants, mundus stones, etc.? Nope, still I'm completely reliant on a non-dynamic regen rate. Make up for it with armor procs? Everyone will "have to" run the same thing and it STILL takes it out of our direct control. Make up for it in abilities? Well, unless you're going to allow us to use MORE abilities per bar, you're back to making healing more boring, if I must add abilities to help with restoring resources because you've taken away my ability to do this via HA.
• This will be HORRIBLE for all of the folks who chose to be healers or tanks due to any kind of injury. I am in this category and it's why I never, ever play my werewolf character. Yes, as a healer or tank ideally you should LA to help with ultimate generation, but you can be an extremely effective player without frequent LAs. It is much easier to play these roles and join harder content than having to be a DPS who must parse a certain amount by spamming LAs. The ability to be competitive with a HA-only pet sorc build was taken away, and us injury-laden players raised the issue then. HOW is this the next logical step, from that perspective?? (As an aside, I suppose this is the one thing that might come back if these changes go live as-is... but sure, that's what we need, more DPS and less tanks and healers.)

Therefore, while I understand the stance some of you are taking when you say resource return shouldn't come from attacks, at this point in ESO's evolution, changing that would be detrimental to the healing (and tanking) experience. Without introducing another mechanic, the end result is just gutting those play styles to be even more simplistic, while increasing the requirement to be able to click fast vs. holding, which will make those roles even less desirable than they were before. This is a big problem with ESO (how many threads are there about fake tanks, fake healers, and long queues as a DPS player??) and while this change is largely about DPS its impact on the healing and tanking roles should not be downplayed. And frankly, these changes seem to be pretty unfortunate for those roles from where I'm sitting (though I'd welcome it if healers who are able tested these changes and stated otherwise).

Kesstryl

peacenote wrote: »

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 in 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.

Addendum: A number of people have pointed out that having any basic attack return resources is unintuitive in and of itself. And while I'm inclined to agree, I also feel that there needs to be a way for players to actively restore resources if needed, and resource return from basic attacks fit that bill quite well. I elaborate on this in post #89.

I want to click Insightful, Agree, AND Awesome on this post.

I am not a theory-crafter. Nor do I play one on TV. Nor, unfortunately, can I pretend to be one on PTS because I lack the hard drive space.

However I'd like to raise a few points as a longtime ESO healer, in addition to this well-thought out post that talks about DPS and tanks. Since these changes have been announced, I have been playing in my head as if they were already in place, thinking about how it might feel as a healer if I buffed my sustain with LAs. Here is what I'm thinking:

• This will make healing MORE BORING. Why? Because right now I use both LAs to build up my ultimate and HAs to restore resources. In this new environment, I will probably use HAs for nothing, because the DPS I can add as a healer won't be worth standing around channeling an attack.
• This will make healers (and probably tanks) even bigger TARGETS FOR GRIEFING. Why? I can unobtrusively weave in LAs right now to help support the group without someone saying "why are you doing that" because they are quick and I can stop them immediately if I need to change course. But HAs? I can see healers (and tanks) constantly being called out for trying to HA in almost any scenario.
• This will make healing LESS ADAPTIVE. Why? Because, similar to what was pointed out with tanks, we're losing a way to restore a larger amount of resources in a planned way. Healing is a priority system more than a rotation, so if I must actively heal by triggering abilities multiple times in a row, my ability to plan or adapt for that is gone. I've got potions, but that's it, and I had those before, so it's a straight up loss with regards to tools in my arsenal.
• Suggestions that raise the option of having other ways to make sustain more meaningful all fall flat and still make healing more simplistic. Make up for it in racials? I can't trigger those. I still have no way to restore resources in bulk. I can only pray to regen faster. So still I am less adaptive. Make up for it with enchants, mundus stones, etc.? Nope, still I'm completely reliant on a non-dynamic regen rate. Make up for it with armor procs? Everyone will "have to" run the same thing and it STILL takes it out of our direct control. Make up for it in abilities? Well, unless you're going to allow us to use MORE abilities per bar, you're back to making healing more boring, if I must add abilities to help with restoring resources because you've taken away my ability to do this via HA.
• This will be HORRIBLE for all of the folks who chose to be healers or tanks due to any kind of injury. I am in this category and it's why I never, ever play my werewolf character. Yes, as a healer or tank ideally you should LA to help with ultimate generation, but you can be an extremely effective player without frequent LAs. It is much easier to play these roles and join harder content than having to be a DPS who must parse a certain amount by spamming LAs. The ability to be competitive with a HA-only pet sorc build was taken away, and us injury-laden players raised the issue then. HOW is this the next logical step, from that perspective?? (As an aside, I suppose this is the one thing that might come back if these changes go live as-is... but sure, that's what we need, more DPS and less tanks and healers.)

Therefore, while I understand the stance some of you are taking when you say resource return shouldn't come from attacks, at this point in ESO's evolution, changing that would be detrimental to the healing (and tanking) experience. Without introducing another mechanic, the end result is just gutting those play styles to be even more simplistic, while increasing the requirement to be able to click fast vs. holding, which will make those roles even less desirable than they were before. This is a big problem with ESO (how many threads are there about fake tanks, fake healers, and long queues as a DPS player??) and while this change is largely about DPS its impact on the healing and tanking roles should not be downplayed. And frankly, these changes seem to be pretty unfortunate for those roles from where I'm sitting (though I'd welcome it if healers who are able tested these changes and stated otherwise).

Make sure you post this in the official discussion thread that's pinned up top, this is something they need to see.

SilverKatz

Good thoughs about the changes.
But i dont think ZOS care about player feedbacks....
We are just waisting time .