Maintenance for the week of January 6:
· [COMPLETE] NA megaservers for maintenance – January 8, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] EU megaservers for maintenance – January 8, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 13:00 UTC (8:00AM EST)
· [COMPLETE] NA megaservers for maintenance – January 8, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] EU megaservers for maintenance – January 8, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 13:00 UTC (8:00AM EST)
Mark Target (Nightblade skill) -- Remove the Need to Cast the Skill
GrumpyDuckling
✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭
Suggested Change: When Mark Target is slotted on your skill bar, it automatically applies the mark to an enemy when you attack them. This would remove the need to cast Mark Target on the enemy before attacking them.
Reasons to consider this change:
Reasons to consider this change:
- Reaper's Mark got a heavy nerf with the change to Major Berserk. The requirement to defeat an enemy + the short duration of a nerfed Major Berserk + the heal scaling on max health + the breach debuff being limited to a single target makes Reaper's Mark a hard buy over a skill like Razor Caltrops that offers an AOE debuff and DOT. The suggested change to Mark Target would allow it to passively apply when you attack an enemy without the need to cast the skill, but at the cost of keeping the skill slotted the skill on your bar.
- Applying Piercing Mark to an enemy in PVP telegraphs to the enemy that they are about to get attacked. The suggested change would remove the telegraphed signal and apply the mark as the enemy gets attacked, allowing Nightblades to keep the element of surprise.
1
-
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Thing is, we should always need to actually use our skills for them to work.
We have seen suggestions to have buffs and such automatically refresh so they are fire and forget. In the end, we could have a game where DoTs automatically refresh and all we need to do is focus on our spam ability and ultimate.
So yes, I would be against an active skill to automatically work just because it is on the bar.7 -
fred4✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭This is never going to happen, I hope, because even ZOS know how ludicrous this would be in PvP. They drastically cut the duration of Mark for a reason. I play a nightblade main as well as other characters. I'm both on the receiving end of detection and using it myself, mostly potions. A non-telegraphed Mark that automatically refreshes? No, just no. As if stamblades didn't have enough ganking power. It's also something that buffs procs. Not required.
I agree that Mark is a bad skill these days, unless you have a dedicated Mark-spamming noob in your group and that's all he does and knows how to do. However, buff the skill and it SO easily becomes OP and open to abuse again. That suggestion of yours makes it FAR too convenient.PC EU: Magblade (PvP main), DK (PvE Tank), Sorc (PvP and PvE), Magden (PvE Healer), Magplar (PvP and PvE DD), Arcanist (PvE DD)
PC NA: Magblade (PvP and PvE every role)3 -
FrancisCrawford✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭I was one of this skill's last fans (for PvE), but even I agree it's pretty useless now. Another reason besides those mentioned in the OP is that two other skills now also apply the same debuff in a ranged, costless manner.
If people agree with @idk's critique of @GrumpyDuckling's proposed fix, then I'd suggest just buffing the skill again until it's actually worth the use of a GCD.
0 -
GrumpyDuckling✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Thing is, we should always need to actually use our skills for them to work.
I disagree with your opinion that we should "always need to actually use" our skills. No one "actually uses" Camouflaged Hunter in PVE, but people slot it. Just because you think we should "always need to actually use" our skills doesn't mean the game has to be that way.1 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭GrumpyDuckling wrote: »Thing is, we should always need to actually use our skills for them to work.
I disagree with your opinion that we should "always need to actually use" our skills. No one "actually uses" Camouflaged Hunter in PVE, but people slot it. Just because you think we should "always need to actually use" our skills doesn't mean the game has to be that way.
An active skill, one that directly affects the target, is not the same as a mere passive that affects the stats of the character that has it equipped. It is not even an apples and oranges comparison being made here but apples to cattle association.4 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭GrumpyDuckling wrote: »
I would suggest he is saying Zos chose to have players activate the skill more often so having the debuff automatically apply to the target would defeat the purpose of the recent change and whatever reasoning Zos had for making that change.0 -
GrumpyDuckling✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭GrumpyDuckling wrote: »Thing is, we should always need to actually use our skills for them to work.
I disagree with your opinion that we should "always need to actually use" our skills. No one "actually uses" Camouflaged Hunter in PVE, but people slot it. Just because you think we should "always need to actually use" our skills doesn't mean the game has to be that way.
An active skill, one that directly affects the target, is not the same as a mere passive that affects the stats of the character that has it equipped. It is not even an apples and oranges comparison being made here but apples to cattle association.
Camouflaged Hunter is not a "mere passive," it is a skill that you slot on your bar that also has passive benefits attached to it, but you still don't "actually use the skill," which goes against the opinion of your first post. Yes, the two skills function differently so it's not a perfect comparison, but I think you're having a hard time seeing where you contradict yourself.1 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »Thing is, we should always need to actually use our skills for them to work.
I disagree with your opinion that we should "always need to actually use" our skills. No one "actually uses" Camouflaged Hunter in PVE, but people slot it. Just because you think we should "always need to actually use" our skills doesn't mean the game has to be that way.
An active skill, one that directly affects the target, is not the same as a mere passive that affects the stats of the character that has it equipped. It is not even an apples and oranges comparison being made here but apples to cattle association.
Camouflaged Hunter is not a "mere passive," it is a skill that you slot on your bar that also has passive benefits attached to it, but you still don't "actually use the skill," which goes against the opinion of your first post. Yes, the two skills function differently so it's not a perfect comparison, but I think you're having a hard time seeing where you contradict yourself.
Technically it is both a passive and a proc that is granted via a passive. Major Savegry is granted as a passive just for having the skill slotted on the active bar. Minor Berserk is technically granted as a proc when the player deals critical damage under specific conditions. However, both are the result of the skill itself being passive.
In neither case is anything being applied to the target. Everything is being applied to the character having the skill equipped. As such this mechanic is not relevant to what is being suggested for the marked target.2 -
GrumpyDuckling✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »Thing is, we should always need to actually use our skills for them to work.
I disagree with your opinion that we should "always need to actually use" our skills. No one "actually uses" Camouflaged Hunter in PVE, but people slot it. Just because you think we should "always need to actually use" our skills doesn't mean the game has to be that way.
An active skill, one that directly affects the target, is not the same as a mere passive that affects the stats of the character that has it equipped. It is not even an apples and oranges comparison being made here but apples to cattle association.
Camouflaged Hunter is not a "mere passive," it is a skill that you slot on your bar that also has passive benefits attached to it, but you still don't "actually use the skill," which goes against the opinion of your first post. Yes, the two skills function differently so it's not a perfect comparison, but I think you're having a hard time seeing where you contradict yourself.
Technically it is both a passive and a proc that is granted via a passive. Major Savegry is granted as a passive just for having the skill slotted on the active bar. Minor Berserk is technically granted as a proc when the player deals critical damage under specific conditions. However, both are the result of the skill itself being passive.
In neither case is anything being applied to the target. Everything is being applied to the character having the skill equipped. As such this mechanic is not relevant to what is being suggested for the marked target.
So, you are now changing your opinion to say that it is okay if a slotted, but not activated skill changes the stats of the user (Camouflaged Hunter), but it is not okay if a slotted, but not activated skill changes the stats of an enemy (Mark Target)?
I think that's a weak argument.1 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »Thing is, we should always need to actually use our skills for them to work.
I disagree with your opinion that we should "always need to actually use" our skills. No one "actually uses" Camouflaged Hunter in PVE, but people slot it. Just because you think we should "always need to actually use" our skills doesn't mean the game has to be that way.
An active skill, one that directly affects the target, is not the same as a mere passive that affects the stats of the character that has it equipped. It is not even an apples and oranges comparison being made here but apples to cattle association.
Camouflaged Hunter is not a "mere passive," it is a skill that you slot on your bar that also has passive benefits attached to it, but you still don't "actually use the skill," which goes against the opinion of your first post. Yes, the two skills function differently so it's not a perfect comparison, but I think you're having a hard time seeing where you contradict yourself.
Technically it is both a passive and a proc that is granted via a passive. Major Savegry is granted as a passive just for having the skill slotted on the active bar. Minor Berserk is technically granted as a proc when the player deals critical damage under specific conditions. However, both are the result of the skill itself being passive.
In neither case is anything being applied to the target. Everything is being applied to the character having the skill equipped. As such this mechanic is not relevant to what is being suggested for the marked target.
So, you are now changing your opinion to say that it is okay if a slotted, but not activated skill changes the stats of the user (Camouflaged Hunter), but it is not okay if a slotted, but not activated skill changes the stats of an enemy (Mark Target)?
I think that's a weak argument.
I did not change my opinion at all. I merely clarified that the passive that is added with the Camo morph is a proc, but it is still a passive.
Regardless, it is still something that affects the character with it slotted, not the target.
Just FYI, the active part of any skill requires us to activate the skill for the effects to happen. Neither aspect of Camo Hunter I mentioned requires the player to activate the skill. That is why it is called a passive.
Edit: To clearly demonstrate I have not changed my story as accused I am linking my reply to your comparison of Mark Target to Camo Huner in which I do in fact state the difference between something affecting the target directly vs affecting ones own stats.
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/7035210/#Comment_7035210Edited by idk on November 26, 2020 10:33PM0 -
GrumpyDuckling✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »Thing is, we should always need to actually use our skills for them to work.
I disagree with your opinion that we should "always need to actually use" our skills. No one "actually uses" Camouflaged Hunter in PVE, but people slot it. Just because you think we should "always need to actually use" our skills doesn't mean the game has to be that way.
An active skill, one that directly affects the target, is not the same as a mere passive that affects the stats of the character that has it equipped. It is not even an apples and oranges comparison being made here but apples to cattle association.
Camouflaged Hunter is not a "mere passive," it is a skill that you slot on your bar that also has passive benefits attached to it, but you still don't "actually use the skill," which goes against the opinion of your first post. Yes, the two skills function differently so it's not a perfect comparison, but I think you're having a hard time seeing where you contradict yourself.
Technically it is both a passive and a proc that is granted via a passive. Major Savegry is granted as a passive just for having the skill slotted on the active bar. Minor Berserk is technically granted as a proc when the player deals critical damage under specific conditions. However, both are the result of the skill itself being passive.
In neither case is anything being applied to the target. Everything is being applied to the character having the skill equipped. As such this mechanic is not relevant to what is being suggested for the marked target.
So, you are now changing your opinion to say that it is okay if a slotted, but not activated skill changes the stats of the user (Camouflaged Hunter), but it is not okay if a slotted, but not activated skill changes the stats of an enemy (Mark Target)?
I think that's a weak argument.
I did not change my opinion at all. I merely clarified that the passive that is added with the Camo morph is a proc, but it is still a passive.
Regardless, it is still something that affects the character with it slotted, not the target.
Just FYI, the active part of any skill requires us to activate the skill for the effects to happen. Neither aspect of Camo Hunter I mentioned requires the player to activate the skill. That is why it is called a passive.
How is the mechanic of Camo Hunter giving Minor Berserk when attacking an enemy from flank much different than the function of Mark Target applying Breach when attacking an enemy?
You keep citing something that affects the character vs. something that affects the enemy, but I don't see why that matters when the difference is that one provides a buff while the other provides the debuff. In neither scenario (using Camo Hunter or the suggested Mark Target change) is the player activating the skill, so that's why I think your argument that "we should always need to actually use our skills for them to work" is a weak one. Camo Hunter already disproves your statement, and the suggested change to Mark Target provides a debuff version of that.Edited by GrumpyDuckling on November 26, 2020 10:30PM0 -
GrumpyDuckling✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »Thing is, we should always need to actually use our skills for them to work.
I disagree with your opinion that we should "always need to actually use" our skills. No one "actually uses" Camouflaged Hunter in PVE, but people slot it. Just because you think we should "always need to actually use" our skills doesn't mean the game has to be that way.
An active skill, one that directly affects the target, is not the same as a mere passive that affects the stats of the character that has it equipped. It is not even an apples and oranges comparison being made here but apples to cattle association.
Camouflaged Hunter is not a "mere passive," it is a skill that you slot on your bar that also has passive benefits attached to it, but you still don't "actually use the skill," which goes against the opinion of your first post. Yes, the two skills function differently so it's not a perfect comparison, but I think you're having a hard time seeing where you contradict yourself.
Technically it is both a passive and a proc that is granted via a passive. Major Savegry is granted as a passive just for having the skill slotted on the active bar. Minor Berserk is technically granted as a proc when the player deals critical damage under specific conditions. However, both are the result of the skill itself being passive.
In neither case is anything being applied to the target. Everything is being applied to the character having the skill equipped. As such this mechanic is not relevant to what is being suggested for the marked target.
So, you are now changing your opinion to say that it is okay if a slotted, but not activated skill changes the stats of the user (Camouflaged Hunter), but it is not okay if a slotted, but not activated skill changes the stats of an enemy (Mark Target)?
I think that's a weak argument.
Edit: To clearly demonstrate I have not changed my story as accused I am linking my reply to your comparison of Mark Target to Camo Huner in which I do in fact state the difference between something affecting the target directly vs affecting ones own stats.
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/7035210/#Comment_7035210- I took issue with your statement that "we should always need to actually use our skills for them to work" and cited Camo Hunter as a reason why that statement doesn't work.
- You responded by saying "In neither case [while using Camo Hunter] is anything being applied to the target. Everything is being applied to the character having the skill equipped. As such this mechanic is not relevant to what is being suggested for the marked target."
Camo Hunter applies a buff mechanic to the user when attacking an enemy, and the suggested Mark Target applies a debuff to the enemy when attacking the enemy. The mechanic is the same -- it seems that you just take issue with the buff vs. debuff difference, which I think is a weak attempt at justification of your original argument (taking you for your word that you aren't trying to change it) that "we should always need to actually use our skills for them to work."0 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭GrumpyDuckling wrote: »
Camo Hunter applies a buff mechanic to the user when attacking an enemy, and the suggested Mark Target applies a debuff to the enemy when attacking the enemy. The mechanic is the sameGrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »Thing is, we should always need to actually use our skills for them to work.
I disagree with your opinion that we should "always need to actually use" our skills. No one "actually uses" Camouflaged Hunter in PVE, but people slot it. Just because you think we should "always need to actually use" our skills doesn't mean the game has to be that way.
An active skill, one that directly affects the target, is not the same as a mere passive that affects the stats of the character that has it equipped. It is not even an apples and oranges comparison being made here but apples to cattle association.
Camouflaged Hunter is not a "mere passive," it is a skill that you slot on your bar that also has passive benefits attached to it, but you still don't "actually use the skill," which goes against the opinion of your first post. Yes, the two skills function differently so it's not a perfect comparison, but I think you're having a hard time seeing where you contradict yourself.
Technically it is both a passive and a proc that is granted via a passive. Major Savegry is granted as a passive just for having the skill slotted on the active bar. Minor Berserk is technically granted as a proc when the player deals critical damage under specific conditions. However, both are the result of the skill itself being passive.
In neither case is anything being applied to the target. Everything is being applied to the character having the skill equipped. As such this mechanic is not relevant to what is being suggested for the marked target.
So, you are now changing your opinion to say that it is okay if a slotted, but not activated skill changes the stats of the user (Camouflaged Hunter), but it is not okay if a slotted, but not activated skill changes the stats of an enemy (Mark Target)?
I think that's a weak argument.
Edit: To clearly demonstrate I have not changed my story as accused I am linking my reply to your comparison of Mark Target to Camo Huner in which I do in fact state the difference between something affecting the target directly vs affecting ones own stats.
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/7035210/#Comment_7035210
The mechanic is not the same and how you describe the difference between how they work makes that perfectly clear.0 -
GrumpyDuckling✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭GrumpyDuckling wrote: »
Camo Hunter applies a buff mechanic to the user when attacking an enemy, and the suggested Mark Target applies a debuff to the enemy when attacking the enemy. The mechanic is the sameGrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »Thing is, we should always need to actually use our skills for them to work.
I disagree with your opinion that we should "always need to actually use" our skills. No one "actually uses" Camouflaged Hunter in PVE, but people slot it. Just because you think we should "always need to actually use" our skills doesn't mean the game has to be that way.
An active skill, one that directly affects the target, is not the same as a mere passive that affects the stats of the character that has it equipped. It is not even an apples and oranges comparison being made here but apples to cattle association.
Camouflaged Hunter is not a "mere passive," it is a skill that you slot on your bar that also has passive benefits attached to it, but you still don't "actually use the skill," which goes against the opinion of your first post. Yes, the two skills function differently so it's not a perfect comparison, but I think you're having a hard time seeing where you contradict yourself.
Technically it is both a passive and a proc that is granted via a passive. Major Savegry is granted as a passive just for having the skill slotted on the active bar. Minor Berserk is technically granted as a proc when the player deals critical damage under specific conditions. However, both are the result of the skill itself being passive.
In neither case is anything being applied to the target. Everything is being applied to the character having the skill equipped. As such this mechanic is not relevant to what is being suggested for the marked target.
So, you are now changing your opinion to say that it is okay if a slotted, but not activated skill changes the stats of the user (Camouflaged Hunter), but it is not okay if a slotted, but not activated skill changes the stats of an enemy (Mark Target)?
I think that's a weak argument.
Edit: To clearly demonstrate I have not changed my story as accused I am linking my reply to your comparison of Mark Target to Camo Huner in which I do in fact state the difference between something affecting the target directly vs affecting ones own stats.
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/7035210/#Comment_7035210
The mechanic is not the same and how you describe the difference between how they work makes that perfectly clear.
So then you take issue with the literal difference that one activates a buff (Camo Hunter) and the other one would activate a debuff (Mark Target). Seems like a bad faith argument to hang your defense on, and it still doesn't defend your original statement that "we should always need to actually use our skills for them to work" because the mere existence of Camo Hunter, specifically the minor berserk activation, debunks you.
I'm up for quality discussions, but it seems like you just aren't happy that the Mark Target suggestion provides the debuff version of the current Camo Hunter mechanic, and that you just want to argue for a weak position. Unless you provide future feedback worth discussing, I think I've exposed your argument enough to let go of this back and forth with you. Be well.0 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭GrumpyDuckling wrote: »
Seems like a bad faith argument to hang your defense on,GrumpyDuckling wrote: »
Camo Hunter applies a buff mechanic to the user when attacking an enemy, and the suggested Mark Target applies a debuff to the enemy when attacking the enemy. The mechanic is the sameGrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »Thing is, we should always need to actually use our skills for them to work.
I disagree with your opinion that we should "always need to actually use" our skills. No one "actually uses" Camouflaged Hunter in PVE, but people slot it. Just because you think we should "always need to actually use" our skills doesn't mean the game has to be that way.
An active skill, one that directly affects the target, is not the same as a mere passive that affects the stats of the character that has it equipped. It is not even an apples and oranges comparison being made here but apples to cattle association.
Camouflaged Hunter is not a "mere passive," it is a skill that you slot on your bar that also has passive benefits attached to it, but you still don't "actually use the skill," which goes against the opinion of your first post. Yes, the two skills function differently so it's not a perfect comparison, but I think you're having a hard time seeing where you contradict yourself.
Technically it is both a passive and a proc that is granted via a passive. Major Savegry is granted as a passive just for having the skill slotted on the active bar. Minor Berserk is technically granted as a proc when the player deals critical damage under specific conditions. However, both are the result of the skill itself being passive.
In neither case is anything being applied to the target. Everything is being applied to the character having the skill equipped. As such this mechanic is not relevant to what is being suggested for the marked target.
So, you are now changing your opinion to say that it is okay if a slotted, but not activated skill changes the stats of the user (Camouflaged Hunter), but it is not okay if a slotted, but not activated skill changes the stats of an enemy (Mark Target)?
I think that's a weak argument.
Edit: To clearly demonstrate I have not changed my story as accused I am linking my reply to your comparison of Mark Target to Camo Huner in which I do in fact state the difference between something affecting the target directly vs affecting ones own stats.
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/7035210/#Comment_7035210
The mechanic is not the same and how you describe the difference between how they work makes that perfectly clear.
I am not arguing anything. I am not the one defending anything here. I am merely pointing out the mechanics of the game. Disagree all you wish with them but they are still the mechanics of the game.
Edit: Corrected the quote.Edited by idk on November 27, 2020 12:07AM1 -
fred4✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭
What a strange thing to say. You do understand that that is how fights work, right? People hit each other. We fight. It's a fighting game.GrumpyDuckling wrote: »
NBs have a varying dependence on cloak. In my case it's high. I still vividly remember a whole evening ruined, because wherever I went in Cyro, the same group of nightblade hunters went there too with their Mark spamming. The game became unplayable for that character. NB fighting styles are start / stop. You engage for 5 seconds, then you disengage and you have to have a reasonable chance of getting out of there, because you are squishy and that is your defense. I think there are strong enough counters to cloak as it is.PC EU: Magblade (PvP main), DK (PvE Tank), Sorc (PvP and PvE), Magden (PvE Healer), Magplar (PvP and PvE DD), Arcanist (PvE DD)
PC NA: Magblade (PvP and PvE every role)2 -
GrumpyDuckling✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭
What a strange thing to say. You do understand that that is how fights work, right? People hit each other. We fight. It's a fighting game.GrumpyDuckling wrote: »
NBs have a varying dependence on cloak. In my case it's high. I still vividly remember a whole evening ruined, because wherever I went in Cyro, the same group of nightblade hunters went there too with their Mark spamming. The game became unplayable for that character. NB fighting styles are start / stop. You engage for 5 seconds, then you disengage and you have to have a reasonable chance of getting out of there, because you are squishy and that is your defense. I think there are strong enough counters to cloak as it is.
Yes, I understand how the fighting works. What I didn't understand was the section of your post where you were talking about the detect duration of Piercing Mark being drastically cut, and how it applies to this.
Piercing Mark used to be north of 20 seconds and stay the whole duration unless cleansed. The suggested change to Mark Target wouldn't change the 3 second duration of detect, it would remain the same.0 -
AcadianPaladin✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭PvE only here. My magblade looked at Elemental Drain, then she looked at Mark. She chuckled at Mark, slotted EleDrain and never looked back. Free breach + Magsteal. Done. Interesting to learn that at least some in PvP find some use for Mark.PC NA(no Steam), PvE, mostly solo0 -
fred4✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭
But it could be refreshed simply by dealing damage? That's not 3 seconds. That, for all intents and purposes, is indefinite. You can argue about Shadow Image and line-of-sight breaking this, but it will still be a heck of a lot easier than having to recast the skill and spending a GCD on that. It very significantly increases the power of the skill for detection.GrumpyDuckling wrote: »
What a strange thing to say. You do understand that that is how fights work, right? People hit each other. We fight. It's a fighting game.GrumpyDuckling wrote: »
NBs have a varying dependence on cloak. In my case it's high. I still vividly remember a whole evening ruined, because wherever I went in Cyro, the same group of nightblade hunters went there too with their Mark spamming. The game became unplayable for that character. NB fighting styles are start / stop. You engage for 5 seconds, then you disengage and you have to have a reasonable chance of getting out of there, because you are squishy and that is your defense. I think there are strong enough counters to cloak as it is.
Yes, I understand how the fighting works. What I didn't understand was the section of your post where you were talking about the detect duration of Piercing Mark being drastically cut, and how it applies to this.
Piercing Mark used to be north of 20 seconds and stay the whole duration unless cleansed. The suggested change to Mark Target wouldn't change the 3 second duration of detect, it would remain the same.PC EU: Magblade (PvP main), DK (PvE Tank), Sorc (PvP and PvE), Magden (PvE Healer), Magplar (PvP and PvE DD), Arcanist (PvE DD)
PC NA: Magblade (PvP and PvE every role)0 -
GrumpyDuckling✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭
But it could be refreshed simply by dealing damage? That's not 3 seconds. That, for all intents and purposes, is indefinite. You can argue about Shadow Image and line-of-sight breaking this, but it will still be a heck of a lot easier than having to recast the skill and spending a GCD on that. It very significantly increases the power of the skill for detection.GrumpyDuckling wrote: »
What a strange thing to say. You do understand that that is how fights work, right? People hit each other. We fight. It's a fighting game.GrumpyDuckling wrote: »
NBs have a varying dependence on cloak. In my case it's high. I still vividly remember a whole evening ruined, because wherever I went in Cyro, the same group of nightblade hunters went there too with their Mark spamming. The game became unplayable for that character. NB fighting styles are start / stop. You engage for 5 seconds, then you disengage and you have to have a reasonable chance of getting out of there, because you are squishy and that is your defense. I think there are strong enough counters to cloak as it is.
Yes, I understand how the fighting works. What I didn't understand was the section of your post where you were talking about the detect duration of Piercing Mark being drastically cut, and how it applies to this.
Piercing Mark used to be north of 20 seconds and stay the whole duration unless cleansed. The suggested change to Mark Target wouldn't change the 3 second duration of detect, it would remain the same.
I see what you're saying.
I'd still like to test the suggested change to Mark Target because I think it offers more risk reward gameplay for Nightblades. When attacking other Nightblades they would have to better set up Shadow Image, and more efficiently use roll dodge and LOS for defense, but also when attacking you actually get to benefit from/use Mark Target without telegraphing your incoming attack.0 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
But it could be refreshed simply by dealing damage? That's not 3 seconds. That, for all intents and purposes, is indefinite. You can argue about Shadow Image and line-of-sight breaking this, but it will still be a heck of a lot easier than having to recast the skill and spending a GCD on that. It very significantly increases the power of the skill for detection.GrumpyDuckling wrote: »
What a strange thing to say. You do understand that that is how fights work, right? People hit each other. We fight. It's a fighting game.GrumpyDuckling wrote: »
NBs have a varying dependence on cloak. In my case it's high. I still vividly remember a whole evening ruined, because wherever I went in Cyro, the same group of nightblade hunters went there too with their Mark spamming. The game became unplayable for that character. NB fighting styles are start / stop. You engage for 5 seconds, then you disengage and you have to have a reasonable chance of getting out of there, because you are squishy and that is your defense. I think there are strong enough counters to cloak as it is.
Yes, I understand how the fighting works. What I didn't understand was the section of your post where you were talking about the detect duration of Piercing Mark being drastically cut, and how it applies to this.
Piercing Mark used to be north of 20 seconds and stay the whole duration unless cleansed. The suggested change to Mark Target wouldn't change the 3 second duration of detect, it would remain the same.
As you said, Zos had reasons for reducing the duration, whatever those reasons actually are. So it would not make sense that they would make a change to where the skill would automatically apply and continuously refresh and basically act as a passive.0 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭GrumpyDuckling wrote: »
But it could be refreshed simply by dealing damage? That's not 3 seconds. That, for all intents and purposes, is indefinite. You can argue about Shadow Image and line-of-sight breaking this, but it will still be a heck of a lot easier than having to recast the skill and spending a GCD on that. It very significantly increases the power of the skill for detection.GrumpyDuckling wrote: »
What a strange thing to say. You do understand that that is how fights work, right? People hit each other. We fight. It's a fighting game.GrumpyDuckling wrote: »
NBs have a varying dependence on cloak. In my case it's high. I still vividly remember a whole evening ruined, because wherever I went in Cyro, the same group of nightblade hunters went there too with their Mark spamming. The game became unplayable for that character. NB fighting styles are start / stop. You engage for 5 seconds, then you disengage and you have to have a reasonable chance of getting out of there, because you are squishy and that is your defense. I think there are strong enough counters to cloak as it is.
Yes, I understand how the fighting works. What I didn't understand was the section of your post where you were talking about the detect duration of Piercing Mark being drastically cut, and how it applies to this.
Piercing Mark used to be north of 20 seconds and stay the whole duration unless cleansed. The suggested change to Mark Target wouldn't change the 3 second duration of detect, it would remain the same.
I see what you're saying.
I'd still like to test the suggested change to Mark Target because I think it offers more risk reward gameplay for Nightblades. When attacking other Nightblades they would have to better set up Shadow Image, and more efficiently use roll dodge and LOS for defense, but also when attacking you actually get to benefit from/use Mark Target without telegraphing your incoming attack.
It does not offer any additional risk rewards for NBs as it literally reduces the risk and provides greater benefit. It is even acknowledged in the OP that a NB essentially reveals they are about to attack by applying this debufff and the suggestion would eliminate that and allow the double benefit of applying the debuff at the same time as initiation damage.
Regardless, unless the idea addresses Zos' clear intentions (based on their recent actions) the chance to test is is unlikely . Zos is not going to just test any idea presented.0 -
GrumpyDuckling✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭GrumpyDuckling wrote: »
But it could be refreshed simply by dealing damage? That's not 3 seconds. That, for all intents and purposes, is indefinite. You can argue about Shadow Image and line-of-sight breaking this, but it will still be a heck of a lot easier than having to recast the skill and spending a GCD on that. It very significantly increases the power of the skill for detection.GrumpyDuckling wrote: »
What a strange thing to say. You do understand that that is how fights work, right? People hit each other. We fight. It's a fighting game.GrumpyDuckling wrote: »
NBs have a varying dependence on cloak. In my case it's high. I still vividly remember a whole evening ruined, because wherever I went in Cyro, the same group of nightblade hunters went there too with their Mark spamming. The game became unplayable for that character. NB fighting styles are start / stop. You engage for 5 seconds, then you disengage and you have to have a reasonable chance of getting out of there, because you are squishy and that is your defense. I think there are strong enough counters to cloak as it is.
Yes, I understand how the fighting works. What I didn't understand was the section of your post where you were talking about the detect duration of Piercing Mark being drastically cut, and how it applies to this.
Piercing Mark used to be north of 20 seconds and stay the whole duration unless cleansed. The suggested change to Mark Target wouldn't change the 3 second duration of detect, it would remain the same.
I see what you're saying.
I'd still like to test the suggested change to Mark Target because I think it offers more risk reward gameplay for Nightblades. When attacking other Nightblades they would have to better set up Shadow Image, and more efficiently use roll dodge and LOS for defense, but also when attacking you actually get to benefit from/use Mark Target without telegraphing your incoming attack.
It does not offer any additional risk rewards for NBs as it literally reduces the risk
I think @fred4 did a pretty good job explaining to me their concern about opposing Nightblades having a constant refresh of the detect when doing damage. I don't see how that "literally reduces the risk." Please read more carefully.0 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »
But it could be refreshed simply by dealing damage? That's not 3 seconds. That, for all intents and purposes, is indefinite. You can argue about Shadow Image and line-of-sight breaking this, but it will still be a heck of a lot easier than having to recast the skill and spending a GCD on that. It very significantly increases the power of the skill for detection.GrumpyDuckling wrote: »
What a strange thing to say. You do understand that that is how fights work, right? People hit each other. We fight. It's a fighting game.GrumpyDuckling wrote: »
NBs have a varying dependence on cloak. In my case it's high. I still vividly remember a whole evening ruined, because wherever I went in Cyro, the same group of nightblade hunters went there too with their Mark spamming. The game became unplayable for that character. NB fighting styles are start / stop. You engage for 5 seconds, then you disengage and you have to have a reasonable chance of getting out of there, because you are squishy and that is your defense. I think there are strong enough counters to cloak as it is.
Yes, I understand how the fighting works. What I didn't understand was the section of your post where you were talking about the detect duration of Piercing Mark being drastically cut, and how it applies to this.
Piercing Mark used to be north of 20 seconds and stay the whole duration unless cleansed. The suggested change to Mark Target wouldn't change the 3 second duration of detect, it would remain the same.
I see what you're saying.
I'd still like to test the suggested change to Mark Target because I think it offers more risk reward gameplay for Nightblades. When attacking other Nightblades they would have to better set up Shadow Image, and more efficiently use roll dodge and LOS for defense, but also when attacking you actually get to benefit from/use Mark Target without telegraphing your incoming attack.
It does not offer any additional risk rewards for NBs as it literally reduces the risk
I think @fred4 did a pretty good job explaining to me their concern about opposing Nightblades having a constant refresh of the detect when doing damage. I don't see how that "literally reduces the risk." Please read more carefully.
Ok. You clearly stated "Applying Piercing Mark to an enemy in PVP telegraphs to the enemy that they are about to get attacked." So the elimination of that telegraph would in fact reduce the risk to the NB. The difference is stark going from telegraphing the attack to getting the same benefit from Mark Target while also being able to attack without notice.
In other words, if you wish to dispute that very clear fact please provide how it would somehow not reduce the risk. I have provided a clear explanation of how the risk is reduced with the suggested change.0 -
GrumpyDuckling✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »
But it could be refreshed simply by dealing damage? That's not 3 seconds. That, for all intents and purposes, is indefinite. You can argue about Shadow Image and line-of-sight breaking this, but it will still be a heck of a lot easier than having to recast the skill and spending a GCD on that. It very significantly increases the power of the skill for detection.GrumpyDuckling wrote: »
What a strange thing to say. You do understand that that is how fights work, right? People hit each other. We fight. It's a fighting game.GrumpyDuckling wrote: »
NBs have a varying dependence on cloak. In my case it's high. I still vividly remember a whole evening ruined, because wherever I went in Cyro, the same group of nightblade hunters went there too with their Mark spamming. The game became unplayable for that character. NB fighting styles are start / stop. You engage for 5 seconds, then you disengage and you have to have a reasonable chance of getting out of there, because you are squishy and that is your defense. I think there are strong enough counters to cloak as it is.
Yes, I understand how the fighting works. What I didn't understand was the section of your post where you were talking about the detect duration of Piercing Mark being drastically cut, and how it applies to this.
Piercing Mark used to be north of 20 seconds and stay the whole duration unless cleansed. The suggested change to Mark Target wouldn't change the 3 second duration of detect, it would remain the same.
I see what you're saying.
I'd still like to test the suggested change to Mark Target because I think it offers more risk reward gameplay for Nightblades. When attacking other Nightblades they would have to better set up Shadow Image, and more efficiently use roll dodge and LOS for defense, but also when attacking you actually get to benefit from/use Mark Target without telegraphing your incoming attack.
It does not offer any additional risk rewards for NBs as it literally reduces the risk
I think @fred4 did a pretty good job explaining to me their concern about opposing Nightblades having a constant refresh of the detect when doing damage. I don't see how that "literally reduces the risk." Please read more carefully.
Ok. You clearly stated "Applying Piercing Mark to an enemy in PVP telegraphs to the enemy that they are about to get attacked." So the elimination of that telegraph would in fact reduce the risk to the NB. The difference is stark going from telegraphing the attack to getting the same benefit from Mark Target while also being able to attack without notice.
In other words, if you wish to dispute that very clear fact please provide how it would somehow not reduce the risk. I have provided a clear explanation of how the risk is reduced with the suggested change.
@idk I don't think you are reading what @fred4 wrote. If you want to look at the suggested change to Mark Target EXCLUSIVELY from an offensive perspective then sure, there is no risk. But again, @fred4 explained the defensive perspective of it -- how opposing Nightblades can constantly reapply the detect if they can keep up damage every 3 seconds while having Piercing Mark equipped.
Again, please read more carefully so you can understand what is actually being discussed before commenting. Thank you.0 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I am speaking to what is posted in the OP.
I also see where Fred said in his last post that the idea would "very significantly increases the power of the skill for detection." That has been clear to me from the start as the skill would no longer provide that warning but provide the benefit of detection from the start.
0 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭GrumpyDuckling wrote: »
Not at all. I merely pointed out that the two statements are not consistent with each other.
[snip]
[Edited to remove Baiting]
Edited by ZOS_ConnorG on November 27, 2020 2:33PM0 -
Firstmep✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Suprise attack used to apply major fracture, it was removed for a reason.
Attacking anyone from their flank already grants 3k free pen to nightblades.
They really don't need more dmg, especially stamblades lol.1 -
fred4✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭
This favors stamblades and would leave magblades screwed over yet again by a change that only considers the former class. For one: Have you been ganked lately? Stamblades have crept up in power to where they absolutely do not need another buff, IMO. Fracture was removed from Surprise Attack for a reason. This equates to putting it back. The second point is that dodge rolling is the purview of stamblades, not magblades, also favoring them.GrumpyDuckling wrote: »
But it could be refreshed simply by dealing damage? That's not 3 seconds. That, for all intents and purposes, is indefinite. You can argue about Shadow Image and line-of-sight breaking this, but it will still be a heck of a lot easier than having to recast the skill and spending a GCD on that. It very significantly increases the power of the skill for detection.GrumpyDuckling wrote: »
What a strange thing to say. You do understand that that is how fights work, right? People hit each other. We fight. It's a fighting game.GrumpyDuckling wrote: »
NBs have a varying dependence on cloak. In my case it's high. I still vividly remember a whole evening ruined, because wherever I went in Cyro, the same group of nightblade hunters went there too with their Mark spamming. The game became unplayable for that character. NB fighting styles are start / stop. You engage for 5 seconds, then you disengage and you have to have a reasonable chance of getting out of there, because you are squishy and that is your defense. I think there are strong enough counters to cloak as it is.
Yes, I understand how the fighting works. What I didn't understand was the section of your post where you were talking about the detect duration of Piercing Mark being drastically cut, and how it applies to this.
Piercing Mark used to be north of 20 seconds and stay the whole duration unless cleansed. The suggested change to Mark Target wouldn't change the 3 second duration of detect, it would remain the same.
I see what you're saying.
I'd still like to test the suggested change to Mark Target because I think it offers more risk reward gameplay for Nightblades. When attacking other Nightblades they would have to better set up Shadow Image, and more efficiently use roll dodge and LOS for defense, but also when attacking you actually get to benefit from/use Mark Target without telegraphing your incoming attack.
I had some duels yesterday on my magplar, which were instructive. One was in heavy armor with Malacath. Survivability and damage were both meh. Then I switched to a high stam-sustain light armor setup. Survivability and damage both shot up significantly. Pushing your stam sustain on a magicka class, in my case to 1.3K (Eternal Vigor + Amber Plasm) plus Resolving Focus (another 480 or so) works extremely well. It's not something that's much talked about other than people occasionally saying stamina is better than magicka as a whole for PvP. Well, this is why that is: Dodge rolling and break free. I've long had the same experience on my magblade, but this just drove it home.
Your change would basically screw over magblades. The intended alternative to dodge rolling are shields, e.g. Dampen Magic. Even in CP those aren't great anymore. Magblade was already screwed over by changes directed at another class in this area too, namely magsorc. These go back a bit further, e.g. nerfs to Healing Ward and shields now being able to be crit and penetrated. Build for shields and you better run what sorcs run, Necropotence / Alfiq or some other high-magicka setup. Build for dodge rolls on a magicka class and you're also shoehorned into the sets I mentioned. Build variety goes out the window. It works on templar, because of the insane spammable tooltip you get on that class, regardless of build. I am not arguing the Sweeps tooltip by the way. I think it's a clunky skill that both leaves you open and that is not that easy to land all 4 hits of in PvP. This leaves Sweeps' high tooltip justified IMO, but I will point out that magblade is different. You build for high stam sustain on a magblade, you feel the compromise more than on templar is what I'm saying.
I don't want to complain about "poor" magblade too much. I think something has happened this patch, resulting in that class being tops in PvE, that has also had an effect in PvP. I think it's to do with the availability of crit modifiers, the last change to Merciless Resolve and the introduction of Brittle. Bombers seems strong again and I know they're running Acuity. That set reliably triggering favors magblades in PvP. However we were talking about defense here. Bombers killing lots of people - when it works - isn't exactly new. Count the times they get away without themselves dying, though.PC EU: Magblade (PvP main), DK (PvE Tank), Sorc (PvP and PvE), Magden (PvE Healer), Magplar (PvP and PvE DD), Arcanist (PvE DD)
PC NA: Magblade (PvP and PvE every role)0