Templars - New Jabs or Old Jabs?

TechMaybeHic

Mr_Stach wrote: »

Isn't the Answer No Jabs? Because it's worse than Flurry now?

I think Id still use jabs. I don't see a big damage difference between the 2, unless evasion is used. Why I'd say that evasion should just apply to the secondary effect of jabs only, not the nearest target. Then we also get into the debate on whether it be best if jabs become a target-based ability. Still not on board with that given the utility of the cone, but as it is, it's getting the drawbacks of evasion and simply moving out that last slow hit.

virtus753

TechMaybeHic wrote: »

Mr_Stach wrote: »

Isn't the Answer No Jabs? Because it's worse than Flurry now?

I think if still use jabs. I don't see a big damage difference between the 2, unless evasion is used. Why id day that evasion should just apply to the secondary effect of jabs only, not the nearest target. Then we also get in the debate on whether it be best if jabs becomes a target based ability. Still not on board with that given the utility of the cone, but as it is, it's getting the drawbacks if evasion and simply moving out that last slow hit.

Mobs don’t use Evasion, though, and balance changes have to take both PvP and PvE into account.

Making it single target alone is not viable in PvE. Flurry already outparses it for single-target fights, but Jabs as AoE might at least be better for spreading Plaguebreak on trash with the change to that set. If it’s single-target, it loses out to Flurry or another skill in every situation.

The AoE nature of Jabs also helps distinguish it from most other spammables. It helps makes templar unique. In PvP it can pull a nightblade out of stealth. For the same reason it can also hit invisible enemies in PvE (like nightblade adds and when the Infernium bosses were invisible). It also helps get around issues like the Cancroid boss in LoM (and other mobs of its type) being unable to be targeted with target-based skills when you’re standing next to it. A single-target Jabs would also mean it can’t be used to proc Major Brutality/Sorcery on demand, since you’d need a target around to do that. There are situations in both PvE and PvP in which I rely on that.

All of that would hurt its utility quite a bit, whereas softening the nerf (which was not justified by the reasoning they provided) on Jabs and Burning Light would help them both retain their identity, power, and utility.

TechMaybeHic

virtus753 wrote: »

TechMaybeHic wrote: »

Mr_Stach wrote: »

Isn't the Answer No Jabs? Because it's worse than Flurry now?

I think if still use jabs. I don't see a big damage difference between the 2, unless evasion is used. Why id day that evasion should just apply to the secondary effect of jabs only, not the nearest target. Then we also get in the debate on whether it be best if jabs becomes a target based ability. Still not on board with that given the utility of the cone, but as it is, it's getting the drawbacks if evasion and simply moving out that last slow hit.

Mobs don’t use Evasion, though, and balance changes have to take both PvP and PvE into account.

Making it single target alone is not viable in PvE. Flurry already outparses it for single-target fights, but Jabs as AoE might at least be better for spreading Plaguebreak on trash with the change to that set. If it’s single-target, it loses out to Flurry or another skill in every situation.

The AoE nature of Jabs also helps distinguish it from most other spammables. It helps makes templar unique. In PvP it can pull a nightblade out of stealth. For the same reason it can also hit invisible enemies in PvE (like nightblade adds and when the Infernium bosses were invisible). It also helps get around issues like the Cancroid boss in LoM (and other mobs of its type) being unable to be targeted with target-based skills when you’re standing next to it. A single-target Jabs would also mean it can’t be used to proc Major Brutality/Sorcery on demand, since you’d need a target around to do that. There are situations in both PvE and PvP in which I rely on that.

All of that would hurt its utility quite a bit, whereas softening the nerf (which was not justified by the reasoning they provided) on Jabs and Burning Light would help them both retain their identity, power, and utility.

Sorry. I wasn't talking single target. I was saying targeted with splash damage rather than counting the entire thing as AOE because it is a cone attack.

The AOE utility I agree with and mentioned in my post.

I had typed that post on my phone. Spell check is great at correcting to the wrong words

rexagamemnon

New texture and design of the spear is nice, the new jab animation is also cool but it just seems weird without the 4th hit.

NeuroticPixels

Faulgor wrote: »

I think it's an issue that you can't really tell this is an AoE attack. Ramming a spear into someone is as single target as it gets.

I didn’t even think about that until I read your comment. There should definitely be something visual added to show it’s a frontal cone AoE.

tomofhyrule

Honestly, I'm not a fan of the new animations for jabs and flurry, especially since the sounds are off. I don't hate jabs quite as much as the new flurry anim (which I actually kind of liked, even if it was a bit silly), but still...

My biggest gripe with the new jabs animation is honestly the disconnect between the spears' looks now. All of the other Templar spear abilities looked like a simplistic ray of light, which matched well with the idea of them using light to attack. Sure, it's probably a bit on the simplistic "light stick" look, but at least they all looked like that. Now, unless they're going to use that new spear look for shards/javelin/sweep/etc., there's a disconnect.

And as people have said, the 'spear' they're using is a current in-game recolored staff now. Which almost feels like another slap-in-the-face for anyone who wants a spear weapon style as well.

Joosef_Kivikilpi

TechMaybeHic wrote: »

Mr_Stach wrote: »

Isn't the Answer No Jabs? Because it's worse than Flurry now?

I think Id still use jabs. I don't see a big damage difference between the 2, unless evasion is used. Why I'd say that evasion should just apply to the secondary effect of jabs only, not the nearest target. Then we also get into the debate on whether it be best if jabs become a target-based ability. Still not on board with that given the utility of the cone, but as it is, it's getting the drawbacks of evasion and simply moving out that last slow hit.

You don't recognize the damage difference??? +50% dmg nerf with a jab+light attack+burning Light combo

TechMaybeHic

Joosef_Kivikilpi wrote: »

TechMaybeHic wrote: »

Mr_Stach wrote: »

Isn't the Answer No Jabs? Because it's worse than Flurry now?

I think Id still use jabs. I don't see a big damage difference between the 2, unless evasion is used. Why I'd say that evasion should just apply to the secondary effect of jabs only, not the nearest target. Then we also get into the debate on whether it be best if jabs become a target-based ability. Still not on board with that given the utility of the cone, but as it is, it's getting the drawbacks of evasion and simply moving out that last slow hit.

You don't recognize the damage difference??? +50% dmg nerf with a jab+light attack+burning Light combo

You are conflating. Just talking jabs vs flurry here.

Joosef_Kivikilpi

TechMaybeHic wrote: »

Joosef_Kivikilpi wrote: »

TechMaybeHic wrote: »

Mr_Stach wrote: »

Isn't the Answer No Jabs? Because it's worse than Flurry now?

I think Id still use jabs. I don't see a big damage difference between the 2, unless evasion is used. Why I'd say that evasion should just apply to the secondary effect of jabs only, not the nearest target. Then we also get into the debate on whether it be best if jabs become a target-based ability. Still not on board with that given the utility of the cone, but as it is, it's getting the drawbacks of evasion and simply moving out that last slow hit.

You don't recognize the damage difference??? +50% dmg nerf with a jab+light attack+burning Light combo

You are conflating. Just talking jabs vs flurry here.

Oh, yeah, between the two skills, flurry was always garbage in comparison. Now they're both garbage.

RaptorRodeoGod

If they wanted to make new animations, they should have added new skills for them, instead of changing skills people liked the animations for.

Like, who was asking for Jabs to get a new animation?

MashmalloMan

Jofootballo wrote: »

TechMaybeHic wrote: »

A really bad part about the new jabs that is not being mentioned much is, they did not change the audio. It still makes the sounds of 4 jabs and its a bit off putting

Just shows you how little this patch was actually thought out. I understand it's the pts, but they already created the new animation, what happened to the corresponding SFX? Devs are getting lazy but we all already knew that.

Did you see how much bug fixing and tweaking went into ToT last PTS? My god, completely different from week 1 to launch. Missing visuals, sound effects, missing UI, card balance, still bad balance they didn't adjust till now like Rally and Armory that we told them about, the card draw and play speed being crazy slow, bugs like completely breaking the match and forcing a forfeit..

PTS is basically an alpha that they're forced to push out the door by around week 3 before they have any more time for meaningful adjustments.

Jensmom

Why does one SHOVEL in the middle of jabbing? It looks STUPID and I was very happy with my jabby jabs. I wasn't winning any awards as dps and I didn't care; now I'm useless. Thanks a lot zos

xthrshx

It seems unintentional that shards outperforms jabs as a single target spammable. Can ZOS provide some insight here? Was this planned or an oversight? Is this what you meant by increasing spammable options?

Stx

xthrshx wrote: »

It seems unintentional that shards outperforms jabs as a single target spammable. Can ZOS provide some insight here? Was this planned or an oversight? Is this what you meant by increasing spammable options?

The buff to the initial damage of shards is the exact type of change that makes players feel like ZoS has no idea what they're doing. The change makes no sense from a standardization perspective, or a balance perspective.

TechMaybeHic

For PvP, someone at ZOS must not like the new animation either because even if they nerf maras balm by half for refreshing status effects; a 4k jab becomes 2k just from battle spirit alone, so a 500 tick .makes it 1.5 a jab. Current meta with major and minor resolve, and most having minor protection would have that closer to 750. So they clearly don't want people to use it.

kieso

I like the new jabs but I don't like how different it looks to other abilities that have a similar theme now.