Tri Focus Lightning Staff over nerf

Bushido2513

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

The PvP exploit was a symptom of the fact that Tri-Focus was too powerful.

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Beefstickbandit wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

CGPsaint wrote: »

TLDR: Tri-Focus was an issue in PvP, and ZOS's solution wasn't to fix the broken component in PvP, but to completely gut the passive instead. Seems legit.

Stop saying this. It's untrue. The PvP exploit was a symptom of the fact that Tri-Focus was too powerful.

Actually this was more of a bug than an exploit.

You are giving misleading information. Tri focus isn't strong. In this case it only served to mirror and redirect the original damage which was actually amplified by other effects not related to tri focus.

Also it only hit so hard in PVP because battle spirit didn't mitigate it when the source before the mirror/redirect was an ad, boss, etc. Tri focus on a group of only players didn't have nearly the same effect.

Tri focus is generally no stronger than if I took most tooltips from PvE and said let them hit a player in PVP without being halved or removing bonuses just for monsters and such.

I'm not giving any misleading information.

People in IC are exploiting the bug that Tri-Focus bypasses Battle Spirit. That is a fact.

Tri-Focus provides an insanely high power ceiling to Lightning Staves and only Lightning Staves. That is a fact.

Heavy attack sets were more powerful on Lightning Staves by up to an order of magnitude more than other staves because Tri-Focus applies any HA modifier to all targets without any sort of cap or falloff. That is a fact.

Please explain where my misinformation is.

This guy claiming "facts" without providing facts does not in fact make them facts.

Please tell me which one of those isn't a fact.

Oh those are facts. But the premise of your statement was this.

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

The PvP exploit was a symptom of the fact that Tri-Focus was too powerful.

This is incorrect as I've already explained why. You only explicitly started explaining yourself after I pointed out that your statements were misleading in their very general form. So yes your are now using facts but you weren't always.

CGPsaint

Bushido2513 wrote: »

pklemming wrote: »

The real problem I have with this change is that, once again, it was not something asked for or needed.

The devs then try and put a positive spin on it, implying that the final changes were what people actually wanted.

I appreciate the spirit of your post but did want to clarify that while this specific implementation wasn't asked for, there were definitely those that wanted this.

Several people complained about the power of heavy attack build in both PVP and PVE. Now to be fair it seemed to still be less than the number of people that liked what this did for heavy attacks but still.

It would be incorrect and unfair to say that nobody wanted this and that there aren't people that will be happy to see it.

The most confusing thing about these changes is really that ZOS never gives any kind of roadmap to where this is all going so good or bad, the changes just seem random.

But I think one thing people also have to notice that one trend with ZOS is to just constantly shift power. Sucks when you're the one to take the nerf but eventually they will just come out with a change or item that gives the power back in another way. Helps keep the game "fresh" for some I suppose.

Changing things for the sake of changing things does not really do much to keep the game fresh. It just leads to change fatigue which then leads to people leaving the game.

Bushido2513

CGPsaint wrote: »

Changing things for the sake of changing things does not really do much to keep the game fresh. It just leads to change fatigue which then leads to people leaving the game.

There's a few layers to it really. Usually whenever one group loses another wins. So in this case heavy attack users may see decline but those in favor of non heavy attack builds, people who died in PVP zones to trifocus, and newer players that didn't know the difference or weren't previously invested won't care a much.

If you go back over the course if time with this game this is pretty cyclical.

I remember when heavy attack oaken builds hit their peak and which made some non oaken users unhappy but helped that chapter sell well. Now chapter has moved some units, heavy attack gets the nerf and non heavy attack is back closer to where it started.

There are better ways of course to refresh the game but shuffling is just usually cheaper and easier than continued innovation.

CGPsaint

Bushido2513 wrote: »

CGPsaint wrote: »

Changing things for the sake of changing things does not really do much to keep the game fresh. It just leads to change fatigue which then leads to people leaving the game.

There's a few layers to it really. Usually whenever one group loses another wins. So in this case heavy attack users may see decline but those in favor of non heavy attack builds, people who died in PVP zones to trifocus, and newer players that didn't know the difference or weren't previously invested won't care a much.

If you go back over the course if time with this game this is pretty cyclical.

I remember when heavy attack oaken builds hit their peak and which made some non oaken users unhappy but helped that chapter sell well. Now chapter has moved some units, heavy attack gets the nerf and non heavy attack is back closer to where it started.

There are better ways of course to refresh the game but shuffling is just usually cheaper and easier than continued innovation.

You've made some fair points, and honestly at this point based on the past couple of updates I'm not expecting much in terms of innovation.

Bushido2513

CGPsaint wrote: »

You've made some fair points, and honestly at this point based on the past couple of updates I'm not expecting much in terms of innovation.

This game, like many things in life is just more enjoyable when you can accept it for what it is and isn't and get enjoyment out of that.

I gave a decent chunk of money when the game was better but haven't in a long time. So I just play the free portion and think of it as hey it's not the best but I'm also not currently paying anything.

I'd advise people to pay to play if it feels worth it but not pay with the expectation of anything changing just because you're a paying customer.

CGPsaint

Bushido2513 wrote: »

CGPsaint wrote: »

You've made some fair points, and honestly at this point based on the past couple of updates I'm not expecting much in terms of innovation.

This game, like many things in life is just more enjoyable when you can accept it for what it is and isn't and get enjoyment out of that.

I gave a decent chunk of money when the game was better but haven't in a long time. So I just play the free portion and think of it as hey it's not the best but I'm also not currently paying anything.

I'd advise people to pay to play if it feels worth it but not pay with the expectation of anything changing just because you're a paying customer.

I get what you're saying. Castle Thorn has been broken since that content dropped. My expectation is that they either not release broken content, or at least make an effort to fix said broken content. It's the little things that really suck the enjoyment out of the game.

Bushido2513

CGPsaint wrote: »

I get what you're saying. Castle Thorn has been broken since that content dropped. My expectation is that they either not release broken content, or at least make an effort to fix said broken content. It's the little things that really suck the enjoyment out of the game.

Unfortunately we live in a world where it's sadly considered ok by the majority to release it broken and fix in a patch later.

In ZOS case they've accumulated soooo many bugs that the list of things to fix is out of control. Along with this they keep releasing new content to sell and doing these balance changes for xyz reason.

Hopefully your bug will make it to the top of the list soon but sadly I could say the same for sooo many

Rishikesa108

Bushido2513 wrote: »

It would be incorrect and unfair to say that nobody wanted this and that there aren't people that will be happy to see it.

The only people who wanted this change were those who envied the good performance of HA-Oakensoul builds compared to weaving-builds, or those who suffered from financial losses due to lower demand for paid runs.

Luckily... I have tested the performance of my HA-Oakensoul build and I have to say that it hasn't lost any dps since before the patch. The single target damage boost made up for the AOE damage loss

Bushido2513

Rishikesa108 wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

It would be incorrect and unfair to say that nobody wanted this and that there aren't people that will be happy to see it.

The only people who wanted this change were those who envied the good performance of HA-Oakensoul builds compared to weaving-builds, or those who suffered from financial losses due to lower demand for paid runs.

Luckily... I have tested the performance of my HA-Oakensoul build and I have to say that it hasn't lost any dps since before the patch. The single target damage boost made up for the AOE damage loss

I mean, I'm not going to say no to not getting possibly blown up in IC while trying to kill a boss. Also not wanting the game to be made too simple isn't the same as envying something.

Some people just enjoy chess over checkers and don't want to see the two mixed.


And yes that's the thing, you'll feel the loss more or less depending on the type of fight, if you're solo or grouped, etc.