With weapon skills being pretty much the same for all Classes, i.e DW and such, how is it that one class, say StamDk, can be deemed "dead" yet others like maybe StamNB or templar be top dogs? Are passives really that different in that it can make a class suck really bad? One would think that damage wise classes "should" be close the same and the only difference amonst them is their flavor, be it fire, lightning, dead things...whatever.
I dont know...just baffles me in that there can be such a gap between damage output for what is basically the same.
But then I baffle easily.....
Joy_Division wrote: »With weapon skills being pretty much the same for all Classes, i.e DW and such, how is it that one class, say StamDk, can be deemed "dead" yet others like maybe StamNB or templar be top dogs? Are passives really that different in that it can make a class suck really bad? One would think that damage wise classes "should" be close the same and the only difference amonst them is their flavor, be it fire, lightning, dead things...whatever.
I dont know...just baffles me in that there can be such a gap between damage output for what is basically the same.
But then I baffle easily.....
You partly answered your own question: why would I use a weapon skill on a nerfed class when I can use that very same skill more powerfully on something else? Also, if my entire bar is filled with weapon skills, I am really playing a class?
And, no, I don't think the only difference should be flavor because that just amounts to my class having different animation colors.
Joy_Division wrote: »With weapon skills being pretty much the same for all Classes, i.e DW and such, how is it that one class, say StamDk, can be deemed "dead" yet others like maybe StamNB or templar be top dogs? Are passives really that different in that it can make a class suck really bad? One would think that damage wise classes "should" be close the same and the only difference amonst them is their flavor, be it fire, lightning, dead things...whatever.
I dont know...just baffles me in that there can be such a gap between damage output for what is basically the same.
But then I baffle easily.....
You partly answered your own question: why would I use a weapon skill on a nerfed class when I can use that very same skill more powerfully on something else? Also, if my entire bar is filled with weapon skills, I am really playing a class?
And, no, I don't think the only difference should be flavor because that just amounts to my class having different animation colors.
But that is my question.....how is the very same skill "better" on something more powerful? What dictates the more powerful, if its the same?
Joy_Division wrote: »With weapon skills being pretty much the same for all Classes, i.e DW and such, how is it that one class, say StamDk, can be deemed "dead" yet others like maybe StamNB or templar be top dogs? Are passives really that different in that it can make a class suck really bad? One would think that damage wise classes "should" be close the same and the only difference amonst them is their flavor, be it fire, lightning, dead things...whatever.
I dont know...just baffles me in that there can be such a gap between damage output for what is basically the same.
But then I baffle easily.....
You partly answered your own question: why would I use a weapon skill on a nerfed class when I can use that very same skill more powerfully on something else? Also, if my entire bar is filled with weapon skills, I am really playing a class?
And, no, I don't think the only difference should be flavor because that just amounts to my class having different animation colors.
But that is my question.....how is the very same skill "better" on something more powerful? What dictates the more powerful, if its the same?
Different skills and passives synergise better with different classes.
Dizzy swing is great for stamina necro/warden since they have a delayed non ultimate burst skill, which mean they can line it up with dizzy swing to hit at the same time for big burst damage.
Melee magicka templars work well with lightning staff, since most their damage is considered aoe.
Theres a lot of things like that.
Joy_Division wrote: »With weapon skills being pretty much the same for all Classes, i.e DW and such, how is it that one class, say StamDk, can be deemed "dead" yet others like maybe StamNB or templar be top dogs? Are passives really that different in that it can make a class suck really bad? One would think that damage wise classes "should" be close the same and the only difference amonst them is their flavor, be it fire, lightning, dead things...whatever.
I dont know...just baffles me in that there can be such a gap between damage output for what is basically the same.
But then I baffle easily.....
You partly answered your own question: why would I use a weapon skill on a nerfed class when I can use that very same skill more powerfully on something else? Also, if my entire bar is filled with weapon skills, I am really playing a class?
And, no, I don't think the only difference should be flavor because that just amounts to my class having different animation colors.
But that is my question.....how is the very same skill "better" on something more powerful? What dictates the more powerful, if its the same?
Different skills and passives synergise better with different classes.
Dizzy swing is great for stamina necro/warden since they have a delayed non ultimate burst skill, which mean they can line it up with dizzy swing to hit at the same time for big burst damage.
Melee magicka templars work well with lightning staff, since most their damage is considered aoe.
Theres a lot of things like that.
cheers for that! thats sort of the answers i was wondering about....seems passives are key.
This is the best answer....They can’t be. People that follow the meta think that just because them and their 5 ESO friends don’t play a class since it’s not featured by youtubers that its dead. Realistically it’s always good player>class if you’re not good at the game it doesn’t matter what cookie cutter meta build you use. You will still get wrecked. If you’re good at the game you can take a combo of any race and class and make them effective.
Joy_Division wrote: »With weapon skills being pretty much the same for all Classes, i.e DW and such, how is it that one class, say StamDk, can be deemed "dead" yet others like maybe StamNB or templar be top dogs? Are passives really that different in that it can make a class suck really bad? One would think that damage wise classes "should" be close the same and the only difference amonst them is their flavor, be it fire, lightning, dead things...whatever.
I dont know...just baffles me in that there can be such a gap between damage output for what is basically the same.
But then I baffle easily.....
You partly answered your own question: why would I use a weapon skill on a nerfed class when I can use that very same skill more powerfully on something else? Also, if my entire bar is filled with weapon skills, I am really playing a class?
And, no, I don't think the only difference should be flavor because that just amounts to my class having different animation colors.
But that is my question.....how is the very same skill "better" on something more powerful? What dictates the more powerful, if its the same?
Joy_Division wrote: »Joy_Division wrote: »With weapon skills being pretty much the same for all Classes, i.e DW and such, how is it that one class, say StamDk, can be deemed "dead" yet others like maybe StamNB or templar be top dogs? Are passives really that different in that it can make a class suck really bad? One would think that damage wise classes "should" be close the same and the only difference amonst them is their flavor, be it fire, lightning, dead things...whatever.
I dont know...just baffles me in that there can be such a gap between damage output for what is basically the same.
But then I baffle easily.....
You partly answered your own question: why would I use a weapon skill on a nerfed class when I can use that very same skill more powerfully on something else? Also, if my entire bar is filled with weapon skills, I am really playing a class?
And, no, I don't think the only difference should be flavor because that just amounts to my class having different animation colors.
But that is my question.....how is the very same skill "better" on something more powerful? What dictates the more powerful, if its the same?
Because while the mechanics of the skill are the same, a "dead" class has limited potential of how they can use the skill.
How can a Class be "dead"?
RavenSworn wrote: »Joy_Division wrote: »Joy_Division wrote: »With weapon skills being pretty much the same for all Classes, i.e DW and such, how is it that one class, say StamDk, can be deemed "dead" yet others like maybe StamNB or templar be top dogs? Are passives really that different in that it can make a class suck really bad? One would think that damage wise classes "should" be close the same and the only difference amonst them is their flavor, be it fire, lightning, dead things...whatever.
I dont know...just baffles me in that there can be such a gap between damage output for what is basically the same.
But then I baffle easily.....
You partly answered your own question: why would I use a weapon skill on a nerfed class when I can use that very same skill more powerfully on something else? Also, if my entire bar is filled with weapon skills, I am really playing a class?
And, no, I don't think the only difference should be flavor because that just amounts to my class having different animation colors.
But that is my question.....how is the very same skill "better" on something more powerful? What dictates the more powerful, if its the same?
Because while the mechanics of the skill are the same, a "dead" class has limited potential of how they can use the skill.
Yeah but wouldn't that mean a different skill would be better for that particular class then? I have no problems with having a meta skill set with a meta class but like you said, if it works with one, It might not work with another. Which also means vice versa yeah?
VaranisArano wrote: »They aren't really dead. A skilled player can do wonders with a "dead" class.
But if you follow the meta or you only want to use the most effective builds, you are quickly going to pigeonhole yourself into only a few "best" classes and the rest will be "dead" to you, even if the difference is a few percentage points of damage. StamDK is currently not one of the few "best" options.
Another way to say it is that StamDK is not the flavor of the month now and has not been the flavor of the month for some time. Therefore people who only use the classes that are the flavor of the month like to proclaim that it's a dead class.
With weapon skills being pretty much the same for all Classes, i.e DW and such, how is it that one class, say StamDk, can be deemed "dead" yet others like maybe StamNB or templar be top dogs? Are passives really that different in that it can make a class suck really bad? One would think that damage wise classes "should" be close the same and the only difference amonst them is their flavor, be it fire, lightning, dead things...whatever.
I dont know...just baffles me in that there can be such a gap between damage output for what is basically the same.
But then I baffle easily.....
IronWooshu wrote: »With weapon skills being pretty much the same for all Classes, i.e DW and such, how is it that one class, say StamDk, can be deemed "dead" yet others like maybe StamNB or templar be top dogs? Are passives really that different in that it can make a class suck really bad? One would think that damage wise classes "should" be close the same and the only difference amonst them is their flavor, be it fire, lightning, dead things...whatever.
I dont know...just baffles me in that there can be such a gap between damage output for what is basically the same.
But then I baffle easily.....
Templar top dog.. lol
VaranisArano wrote: »They aren't really dead. A skilled player can do wonders with a "dead" class.
But if you follow the meta or you only want to use the most effective builds, you are quickly going to pigeonhole yourself into only the few "best" classes and the rest will be "dead" to you, even if the difference is a few percentage points of damage. StamDK is currently not one of the few "best" options.
Another way to say it is that StamDK is not the flavor of the month now and has not been the flavor of the month for some time. Therefore people who only use the classes that are the flavor of the month like to proclaim that it's a dead class.
Priyasekarssk wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »They aren't really dead. A skilled player can do wonders with a "dead" class.
But if you follow the meta or you only want to use the most effective builds, you are quickly going to pigeonhole yourself into only a few "best" classes and the rest will be "dead" to you, even if the difference is a few percentage points of damage. StamDK is currently not one of the few "best" options.
Another way to say it is that StamDK is not the flavor of the month now and has not been the flavor of the month for some time. Therefore people who only use the classes that are the flavor of the month like to proclaim that it's a dead class.
STAM DK is nowhere near the bottom. In what sense StamDK is the bottom tier now? In fact, it is a top tier with all slapping proc sets with unkillable tanking builds dishing out but a load of damage in PVP. Noobs always want more cheese. L2P. Only people who have the right to complain are mage builds excluding mage warden. AOE cooldown is making playable more for the mage builds. Mage builds except mageden are extinct in PVP and you guys are starving for the kill and no one running easy builds for the kill. That is the fact.
Now trend if you get 2 mage dps builds or more ( except mageden) in your team in BG, you are guaranteed 100 percent to lose. Other teams will door camp your spawn location. One healer is acceptable.
Because of people crying for more cheese, this game is always more unbalanced. STAM DK and STAMPLAR are in good shape in top tier BGSs. AOE cool down had down spiral. Stamplar is nowhere near the bottom tier when the AOE cooldown is off.
I will take 4 DKs with malacath tank proc builds to BGs and win all day.
Ragnarock41 wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »They aren't really dead. A skilled player can do wonders with a "dead" class.
But if you follow the meta or you only want to use the most effective builds, you are quickly going to pigeonhole yourself into only the few "best" classes and the rest will be "dead" to you, even if the difference is a few percentage points of damage. StamDK is currently not one of the few "best" options.
Another way to say it is that StamDK is not the flavor of the month now and has not been the flavor of the month for some time. Therefore people who only use the classes that are the flavor of the month like to proclaim that it's a dead class.
As usual, you are simplifying things to draw a positivist yet ignorant conclusion. People abandoning the class has a lot to do with changes made to it that upset people, rather than whatever class became the next FOTM. StamDK was already no longer FOTM the moment stamina necromancer was introduced.
Though I'm betting your next reply will be the ''muh data'' suggesting there are tons of new players playing the DK class as if long time veterans and the average joe who read the word ''dragonknight'' and thought to themselves ''ooh that sounds cool, Imma pick this one'' can be put in the same category.
I mean the whole class identity thing was a disaster for everyone and it is what it is. But to put the blame on FOTM mentality is just plain wrong.