Can We Get an Explanation for Why RO Functions the Way It Does?

Calypso589
Calypso589
✭✭✭
You want to push it as a DPS set but only 1 DPS can wear it in a raid without it becoming redundant.

You want to "reward" people who spec into Heavy attack damage but those people can't even reliably get heavy attack damage strong enough to get more than 7 seconds out of it.

You want to narrow the skill gap, but you've introduced a DPS set that requires all the skill in the world to time your heavy attacks with all the right buffs and debuffs to ensure you get a decent uptime of Major Slayer.

Can someone from ZoS PLEASE explain what exactly is the thinking behind this set?

Was it designed with the assumption that the community would like your proposed LA/HA changes from last month?

Because frankly every set out of Kyne's Aegis reeks with the stench of that assumption.

I love this game. This is why I'm critical of it like this.

But these decisions.................they run completely counter to how the community plays this game. There is a STRIKING disconnect between what the players want to do and want the devs want us to do.

And I really don't get it.

Please. Explain.
  • Calypso589
    Calypso589
    ✭✭✭
    There's also the comedy of removing the Off balance requirement while at the same time necessitating off balance for the 96k heavy attack.

    I mean, just what is going on?
  • kojou
    kojou
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    There is an adage involving spaghetti and a wall that comes to mind here.
    Playing since beta...
  • NeillMcAttack
    NeillMcAttack
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    The first iteration made more sense from the perspective of a good support set. Then I believe they heard the complaints of MagDD’s who felt they were not getting anything as a reward from the trial. And the devs fix for that was to change the set to be a dps set. And now it’s just a very niche, poorly thought out, support set.
    PC EU - NoCP PvP, is real PvP
    Tiidehunter Nord StamDK EP PvP Main
    Legion Commander Tresdin Stamplar DC PvE Main
    Sephirith Altmer MagPlar EP Gondar the Bounty Hunter Khajiit StamBlade DC
    The Dirge Redguard StamNecro EP Disruptor Stormcrafter Nord StamSorc AD
    Lone Druid Bosmer Stam Warden EP Necro-Phos Argonian MagBlade AD
    @ McAttack in game
    Played since beta, and then on console at release, until the game became unplayable on console.
  • Danksta
    Danksta
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    It's clear they don't know how their game works. If they wanted it to be a DPS set it should just scale off your max stats like the engulfing debuff. No DPS is going to fully spec into making this work just to get screwed over by crit rng. Not saying this alone would make DPS use it but it's a pretty obvious start.
    BawKinTackWarDs PS4/NA

  • MudcrabAttack
    MudcrabAttack
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    It also seems to be made for DKs. Why not make it more appealing to more players?
  • John_Falstaff
    John_Falstaff
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    I don't think ZOS have abandoned their misguided idea of HA/LA changes they tested earlier. Community exploded, they pulled it back, but some new sets are still designed for it (RO), some sets are tweaked to prepare for it (Elegance), so I think they'll just dump it on our heads at some point after Greymoor. I don't trust "we're just experimenting with it, it won't necessarily go live", not at all.
  • The_Auror
    The_Auror
    ✭✭✭
    This set was ruined by stubbornness and spite.

    The original iteration was looking to be, imo, one of the better support sets in a long time. It was labeled a magicka dps set despite being the very definition of support by buffing yourself and 11 allies. All the feedback I saw was positive and raid groups were already planning how to optimize and add this set to their teams.

    Instead of embracing the excitement around this great new support set and calling it what it is, the devs decided they know best and changed it to have the most difficult to achieve proc condition ever seen in this game. So difficult in fact, that building for it is a dps loss and you're better off running 3 year old gear from HoF.

    So now we go from 3 to 4 new trial sets that are dead on arrival. GG
  • Anhedonie
    Anhedonie
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    If I had to guess, it's probably because 3 different people made this set and they have no means of communication. And at least one of them thinks this set is for healers.
    Profanity filter is a crime against the freedom of speech. Also gags.
  • Calypso589
    Calypso589
    ✭✭✭
    The_Auror wrote: »
    This set was ruined by stubbornness and spite.

    The original iteration was looking to be, imo, one of the better support sets in a long time. It was labeled a magicka dps set despite being the very definition of support by buffing yourself and 11 allies. All the feedback I saw was positive and raid groups were already planning how to optimize and add this set to their teams.

    Instead of embracing the excitement around this great new support set and calling it what it is, the devs decided they know best and changed it to have the most difficult to achieve proc condition ever seen in this game. So difficult in fact, that building for it is a dps loss and you're better off running 3 year old gear from HoF.

    So now we go from 3 to 4 new trial sets that are dead on arrival. GG

    Actually the set still performs better on a healer than two dps wearing Master Architect. haha

    That's what's really sad.
  • WrathOfInnos
    WrathOfInnos
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Calypso589 wrote: »
    The_Auror wrote: »
    This set was ruined by stubbornness and spite.

    The original iteration was looking to be, imo, one of the better support sets in a long time. It was labeled a magicka dps set despite being the very definition of support by buffing yourself and 11 allies. All the feedback I saw was positive and raid groups were already planning how to optimize and add this set to their teams.

    Instead of embracing the excitement around this great new support set and calling it what it is, the devs decided they know best and changed it to have the most difficult to achieve proc condition ever seen in this game. So difficult in fact, that building for it is a dps loss and you're better off running 3 year old gear from HoF.

    So now we go from 3 to 4 new trial sets that are dead on arrival. GG

    Actually the set still performs better on a healer than two dps wearing Master Architect. haha

    That's what's really sad.

    In theory it could, if combined with Jorvulds and hitting 96k heavy attacks exactly every 22s then it could give 72% Slayer uptime.

    In practice most builds are unable to get much better than the base 5s of Slayer for 22% uptime (any heavy attack less than 48k damage), or 7s if you add Jorvulds for 31% uptime. If someone is wearing both these sets then you may as well have 2 Magblades in MA (still 2 group buff sets used). The magblades in architect can use Heroism potions to achieve 60% Slayer uptime on themselves and 40% average on the other 6 DPS. There’s no reason use RO on a healer or a DPS in its current state.
  • Calypso589
    Calypso589
    ✭✭✭
    Calypso589 wrote: »
    The_Auror wrote: »
    This set was ruined by stubbornness and spite.

    The original iteration was looking to be, imo, one of the better support sets in a long time. It was labeled a magicka dps set despite being the very definition of support by buffing yourself and 11 allies. All the feedback I saw was positive and raid groups were already planning how to optimize and add this set to their teams.

    Instead of embracing the excitement around this great new support set and calling it what it is, the devs decided they know best and changed it to have the most difficult to achieve proc condition ever seen in this game. So difficult in fact, that building for it is a dps loss and you're better off running 3 year old gear from HoF.

    So now we go from 3 to 4 new trial sets that are dead on arrival. GG

    Actually the set still performs better on a healer than two dps wearing Master Architect. haha

    That's what's really sad.

    In theory it could, if combined with Jorvulds and hitting 96k heavy attacks exactly every 22s then it could give 72% Slayer uptime.

    In practice most builds are unable to get much better than the base 5s of Slayer for 22% uptime (any heavy attack less than 48k damage), or 7s if you add Jorvulds for 31% uptime. If someone is wearing both these sets then you may as well have 2 Magblades in MA (still 2 group buff sets used). The magblades in architect can use Heroism potions to achieve 60% Slayer uptime on themselves and 40% average on the other 6 DPS. There’s no reason use RO on a healer or a DPS in its current state.

    This is the math I’m referencing. It’s GONNA be used.

    The problem is that the set’s design & ZoS’s philosophy behind it contradict one another.

    https://youtu.be/gIvxuFQbC2M
  • WrathOfInnos
    WrathOfInnos
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Calypso589 wrote: »
    Calypso589 wrote: »
    The_Auror wrote: »
    This set was ruined by stubbornness and spite.

    The original iteration was looking to be, imo, one of the better support sets in a long time. It was labeled a magicka dps set despite being the very definition of support by buffing yourself and 11 allies. All the feedback I saw was positive and raid groups were already planning how to optimize and add this set to their teams.

    Instead of embracing the excitement around this great new support set and calling it what it is, the devs decided they know best and changed it to have the most difficult to achieve proc condition ever seen in this game. So difficult in fact, that building for it is a dps loss and you're better off running 3 year old gear from HoF.

    So now we go from 3 to 4 new trial sets that are dead on arrival. GG

    Actually the set still performs better on a healer than two dps wearing Master Architect. haha

    That's what's really sad.

    In theory it could, if combined with Jorvulds and hitting 96k heavy attacks exactly every 22s then it could give 72% Slayer uptime.

    In practice most builds are unable to get much better than the base 5s of Slayer for 22% uptime (any heavy attack less than 48k damage), or 7s if you add Jorvulds for 31% uptime. If someone is wearing both these sets then you may as well have 2 Magblades in MA (still 2 group buff sets used). The magblades in architect can use Heroism potions to achieve 60% Slayer uptime on themselves and 40% average on the other 6 DPS. There’s no reason use RO on a healer or a DPS in its current state.

    This is the math I’m referencing. It’s GONNA be used.

    The problem is that the set’s design & ZoS’s philosophy behind it contradict one another.

    https://youtu.be/gIvxuFQbC2M

    I don’t want to watch 18 minutes of that, but I skimmed it and it seems flawed. When the healer wears RO + Jorv that means either the group loses MK + Zens (large DPS loss) or those sets go onto a DPS (doesn’t seem to be reflected in that spreadsheet that shows all 8 DPS in Siroria setups). Correct me if I’m missing something but the RO values don’t seem to be accounting for the 2 support sets lost. I also disagree with the expected RO and MA slayer uptimes.
  • Calypso589
    Calypso589
    ✭✭✭
    I don’t want to watch 18 minutes of that, but I skimmed it and it seems flawed.

    We're getting off the topic of my thread but yes, MK/Zen would go to a DPS. Endgame trial groups have been running this setup in the PTS and it's been fine.

    t3siangod, Nefas, Skinnycheeks, Cursed, Code and Stileanima have all been working with it.

    Frankly they're all better at the math behind it than I am so I invite you to watch the whole thing before saying the idea is flawed.

    Can't make an argument unless you know the entirety of what the other person is saying, ya know?

    But again, that's all besides the point.

    The point being, RO sucks.

    It'll be used and used begrudgingly but it sucks and desperately needs a rework.

  • WrathOfInnos
    WrathOfInnos
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Calypso589 wrote: »
    I don’t want to watch 18 minutes of that, but I skimmed it and it seems flawed.

    We're getting off the topic of my thread but yes, MK/Zen would go to a DPS. Endgame trial groups have been running this setup in the PTS and it's been fine.

    t3siangod, Nefas, Skinnycheeks, Cursed, Code and Stileanima have all been working with it.

    Frankly they're all better at the math behind it than I am so I invite you to watch the whole thing before saying the idea is flawed.

    Can't make an argument unless you know the entirety of what the other person is saying, ya know?

    But again, that's all besides the point.

    The point being, RO sucks.

    It'll be used and used begrudgingly but it sucks and desperately needs a rework.

    I think this discussion is very important to the thread topic. If one RO + Jorv player can provide better uptimes than 2 MA players then ZOS will likely declare success and not touch the set again, because players will buy the expansion and farm the trial. I don’t believe this is the case though, from the testing I’ve seen RO is a trash set that strongly needs a rework.

    The math actually works out very simple comparing the 2 scenarios, since both require 2 support sets to be used by a DPS (either MK + Z’en’s or double master architect). So just comparing 2 Magblades in MA + MS with a magDK in Z’en’s + MK + a full DPS any class. I’d argue the Magblades lose less DPS than a DK giving up Elf Bane and Siroria.

    Obviously uptimes have to be considered, but IMO it’s much easier to build for 60% slayer with MA (Heroism pots, double bar Inner Light, receive Major Sorcery from tank) than it is to get anywhere close to 60% Slayer with RO + Jorv, which requires perfectly-timed heavy attacks hitting over 72k (DK support build, Inferno staff, casting molten armaments, infused Spell Damage jewelry, stacked in Staff Expert, waiting for off-balance window, hoping for a crit).

    If a new set is harder to use than an old set, and provides inferior results, then the set is a failure. That’s the point that I think needs to be emphasized.
Sign In or Register to comment.