Danse_Mayhem wrote: »they can keep spamming until it hits with no drawback or careful timing as to when to use it.
Danse_Mayhem wrote: »Can you imagine if crystal crag worked this way? Or assassins will for nightblades? Like they could just keep shooting them at dodge rollers without losing the proc until it hit? Bearing in mind molten whip can match the tooltips on these nowadays…
Danse_Mayhem wrote: »Ok then what about incap and ults? They require a build up and are lost if the opponent dodges? I get that people wanna defend their precious DKs now they are finally OP but molten whip keeping its stacks after being missed is a terrible idea.
Urzigurumash wrote: »Believe it or not, I don't think long time mains of a class want our class to be outrageously OP. For years some of us were the best DKs on our servers - because there were only a few of us still playing the class. It's in our collective interest to accurately isolate what makes a certain spec OP.
Being OP means getting nerfed, and I don't wanna get nerfed lol.
Urzigurumash wrote: »I've made this case before - I think the most stable way to balance mDK in particular is to remove the extra Flame Damage Taken from Vampirism. Vampirism might need adjustments more than or see adjustments sooner than mDK.
O-k..... then you'll have to put the delay back on Flame Lash, because we're going to use that one next.
How about instead asking for the stacks and procs on those other abilities to not get consumed if you miss instead of begging for someone else's playstyle to be made less fun? Bring everyone up to our standards, not the other way around.
Edit: And Crystal Frags doesn't require 3 whole expensive ability casts to get it's proc, and Grim Focus's stacks are based off light and heavy attacks. Crystal Frags can get it's free cast instantly without any kind of build up if you roll the dice well enough.
Danse_Mayhem wrote: ». Atm there is no drawback or counter to whip. DKs already have a huge amount of undodgable skills, and this just adds to that with the way they can keep spamming until it hits with no drawback or careful timing as to when to use it.
the1andonlyskwex wrote: »By that logic, wouldn't an alternative way to balance DK be to nerf Vampirism's Undeath passive so there aren't any more vampires for DKs to beat on?
Danse_Mayhem wrote: »Nothing else works like this. Every other stack based mechanic is spent once used.
Urzigurumash wrote: »the1andonlyskwex wrote: »By that logic, wouldn't an alternative way to balance DK be to nerf Vampirism's Undeath passive so there aren't any more vampires for DKs to beat on?
Yes, I agree Undeath should be adjusted, along with other adjustments to Vampire passives to make Vampirism more of a "solo ganker module" rather than a prerequisite for competitive PvP.
But, a nerf to Undeath without other changes to Vampirism is a nerf to everyone right now, and a nerf to the subclass, so I understand if there's arguments against it. Simply removing the Flame and Fighter's Guild Damage Taken is a nerf to nobody and would go a long way to better balance both mDK and Dawnbreaker.
the1andonlyskwex wrote: »Urzigurumash wrote: »the1andonlyskwex wrote: »By that logic, wouldn't an alternative way to balance DK be to nerf Vampirism's Undeath passive so there aren't any more vampires for DKs to beat on?
Yes, I agree Undeath should be adjusted, along with other adjustments to Vampire passives to make Vampirism more of a "solo ganker module" rather than a prerequisite for competitive PvP.
But, a nerf to Undeath without other changes to Vampirism is a nerf to everyone right now, and a nerf to the subclass, so I understand if there's arguments against it. Simply removing the Flame and Fighter's Guild Damage Taken is a nerf to nobody and would go a long way to better balance both mDK and Dawnbreaker.
Vampirism is already overpowered, or "a prerequisite for competitive PvP" as you put it. Why would ZOS buff it by removing the extra flame and fighters guild damage taken? It seems like a nerf (such as expanding the extra flame damage taken to other damage types) would be a lot more appropriate.