Update 41 is now available for testing on the PTS! You can read the latest patch notes here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/categories/pts
Maintenance for the week of February 26:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – February 26

Itemization Overhaul

merpins
merpins
✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭
ESO needs a bit of spice when it comes to its itemization.
In PVP and PVE, we have maybe 20 sets total that everyone uses at end game, but there's 400 sets? And other than the ability to improve jewelry at a crafting station and Mythic items, we haven't had any major additions to the game's itemization.
I'm gonna list a couple things I'd like to see to improve the itemization of the game.

Suboptimal Set Reworks. One of the main problems I have in ESO is, at end game, there's only a couple optimal choices when it comes to your gear. All sets that aren't being used should be reworked or buffed to match the power of all the sets that are being used. Making builds in games like this is fun, but we are pretty limited on what we can actually build, since we all know what's actually optimal. This shouldn't be the case.

Additional Gear Slots. Hack the Minotaur recently made a video on this, outlining his positive opinion on it. He recommended a specific slot for the new class altering sets from the Infinite Archive. This is nice, but I don't totally agree with that: personally, this should just be a toggleable power you earn from the archive, rather than a set bonus of any kind, of which you can only have one active at a time.
What I mean by gear slots would be more ring or necklace slots, one or two additional slots total but no more than three, and possibly a mythic item slot. This would add more itemization to the game by just letting us equip more stuff, and having a dedicated mythic slot would make everyone really think about mythic items and what benefits their build most, since you'd be missing out if you didn't use one.

Set Bonus Reduction/Scaling.
1. 5 piece sets could instead be 4 piece sets. This could be implemented by removing one of the bonuses you get, meaning you get two minor bonuses and a major bonus, or by making it so you get your first bonus with one item equipped instead of two (I think removing one of the bonuses is more balanced).
2. base the number of set pieces on the power of the set. Pillar's of Nirn for example might stay a 5 piece set to get the full bonus, but a set like Ashen Grip might be a 3 piece set total. This would allow them to make some sets actually more powerful by just increasing the number of pieces you need to equip to get that bonus.
Personally, I think it would be better just to buff old unused sets, and make all set bonuses be 4-piece instead of 5 (for 5 piece sets specifically), but reworking the system by numbers like #2 might prove to be more interesting.

Set Cycles. There's a ton of sets in the game that no one uses. Like I said in Suboptimal Set Reworks, I'd love to see old sets reworked to be better. Although I wouldn't particularly like to have to collect a bunch of sets and gold them out, I think this idea would still be fun...
Select a few sets from the game, give them temporary buffs that make them unique and powerful. Let it last for 3 to 6 months, then remove those buffs and do it again for another batch of sets. You can still use the old hotness sets that everyone is using now and have consistent damage without needing to change it up each cycle, or you can play to the cycle. There can even be a cycle for both PVE and PVP, that way the PVE sets don't mess with PVP and vice verse. They can make it a toggle when you enter a dungeon or arena, and add leaderboards for when you use the buffed sets and for when you don't, since they'd probably be pretty strong. They can also add a new PVP option for the buffed sets, leaving the other pvp options alone. Though this isn't a solution that really fixes old sets, it does what I'd want it to do: breathe some life into the itemization of the game, making unused sets strong or even meta, without breaking the game since it's just a cycle and not permanent.

I have a couple more to add, but I can't remember them right now. I'll add em later.
Edited by merpins on January 2, 2024 9:43PM
  • merpins
    merpins
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    Billium813 wrote: »
    > All sets that aren't being used should be reworked or buffed to match the power of all the sets that are being used

    through

    ATM, the biggest division for BIS sets is Mag vs Stam, and even that distinction is being eroded.

    Totally possible. Tanks use a certain number of sets, as do DPS, and Healers. Then, PVP has their own couple sets for those roles, and then there are sustain sets and a couple niche sets as well. For every set, it's simple; tweak values of the 5 piece bonuses and test alternative 2-4 piece set bonuses. They could do a PTS where it's on all year round with weekly set tweak testing to balance old sets, and then re-release those sets in new zones rather than actual new sets. You'd be able to get them in the old zones, or the new zones.
    Billium813 wrote: »
    Hack > The solution is to add more gear slots
    Hack > You wouldn't even need to change your build at all, just use these new class slots


    through

    Different weapon builds can drive different build designs and bring in more viable sets.

    I don't particularly disagree with Hack's ideas here. Subclasses is a good idea, but implemented that way would probably result in one overpowered option and 2 bad options, as you mentioned. If it's a toggleable power, on the other hand, this would allow them to release more than one power per skill line, more general powers for classes, and even powers based on other skill lines (like weapons or guilds). Just make it so you can only have one power active at a time, and slap a cooldown on when you can swap them to prevent cheese. For example, once you enter a dungeon, you can't swap a power for 30 minutes after you leave the dungeon unless the dungeon is complete to reset. This isn't really itemization though, so I didn't go very far in depth with it, but still mentioned it to a decent degree since the change would remove some item sets from the game.

    As for new gear slots, you're right. Adding underwear or tiaras or what have you as additional gear sets wouldn't work since Zos doesn't really like adding content like that, and it would be a lot of work. But if you read what I said, I suggested ring or necklace slots. Which is totally doable without changing anything but the number of slots we have at our disposal. Yes, I did mention Hack's video, since it helped illustrate some ideas here. But I wasn't suggesting what Hack suggested, so it seems you might have read Hack the Minotaur and ignored the rest of my suggestion here.

    New weapon skill lines? Sure, I'd love to see more skill lines! But this is a thread about itemization. Not about skill lines. New weapon skill lines would mean new weapons, which is itemization. However it's not really new itemization. It's just weapons, but again. It doesn't change the current itemization at all, though it does give more options, from weapons. So this isn't constructive to the point of this thread. It's reductive.
    I'm also going to quote you here. They can't add new weapon skill lines, due to the logic you put forward in your argument.
    Billium813 wrote: »
    I would be interested in seeing new gear slots in the future (earrings, tiaras, underwear, whatever)... but I just don't see how they could do that. They'd need to go back and add in 400 new items for each set, update the zones and drop tables. I just can't see them do that.
    But of course, this is only a limitation when it benefits me in an argument.
    Edited by merpins on January 2, 2024 6:00PM
  • aspergalas4
    aspergalas4
    ✭✭✭✭
    While I like your idea of reducing the set bonus from 5 to 4 and having just a single piece give a bonus. I think an interesting concept would be expanding the amount of sets we can use at a time to really make each build more unique and harder to replicate. What I mean by this is, allow sets to be "merged" so you can essentially have double the amount of sets equipped per character, but in any combination the player chooses. Basically an overhaul to how gear works so players can collect sets and apply the bonuses on top of another set they may have equipped.

    For example, lets say I want to use Defiler's, Essence Thief and A monster set. Right now I can do that. But lets say I also want to use Gryphon's reprisal and Scavenging Demise too. I propose a system where we can transfer the set bonuses from these 2 extra sets to the sets I would have equipped. So my Medium Chest, Gloves, Belt, Boots and Legs become Defiler's/Demise. My Weapons and Jewelry become Thief/Reprisal.

    I think this as a concept, while in need of refinement, would provide a really interesting adjustment to the meta and allow more class/player fantasy to be exercised through our builds. It would also allow more of the vast number of sets in the game to actually be used. Because while a set may not be the ideal choice on its own, it might be attractive as a buff to a more attractive set.

    Opens a can of worms balance wise but I think the fun factor outweighs that.
    Edited by aspergalas4 on January 3, 2024 4:30PM
  • merpins
    merpins
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭

    I could see it as a 5 piece bonus on another set, though it would probably be limited to crafted sets. Kinda like how Twice-Born Star lets you get two mundus stone, a 5 piece set bonus that allows you to take the 5 piece bonus from two other sets, but only crafted sets. And unfortunately, knowing Zos, it would probably have terrible 2, 3 and 4 piece bonuses. Likely hp, stam/mag, and pen to benefit every playstyle (albeit poorly). As a whole mechanic probably not, but it'd be a decent 5 piece set bonus. Or even a mythic that can take the 5 piece set bonus of a crafted set, though that might be too strong.
    Edited by merpins on January 2, 2024 6:13PM
  • Billium813
    Billium813
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    merpins wrote: »
    Billium813 wrote: »
    > All sets that aren't being used should be reworked or buffed to match the power of all the sets that are being used

    through

    ATM, the biggest division for BIS sets is Mag vs Stam, and even that distinction is being eroded.

    Totally possible. Tanks use a certain number of sets, as do DPS, and Healers. Then, PVP has their own couple sets for those roles, and then there are sustain sets and a couple niche sets as well. For every set, it's simple; tweak values of the 5 piece bonuses and test alternative 2-4 piece set bonuses. They could do a PTS where it's on all year round with weekly set tweak testing to balance old sets, and then re-release those sets in new zones rather than actual new sets. You'd be able to get them in the old zones, or the new zones.

    We are just gonna have to disagree then. You seem to think each set just needs a tweak and magically will be the same power level as every other set. I think it's impossible to make all of those tweaks objectively, to 100 sets, and account for everything. PTS will say "ok, this set is balanced now", then 1 month later someone will find a build that breaks it and abuses it. How would you start to find the issues with sets that no one uses and how to buff it? How do you know you aren't just creating more issues? This whole balancing act would be an endless effort in futility.
    merpins wrote: »
    Billium813 wrote: »
    Hack > The solution is to add more gear slots
    Hack > You wouldn't even need to change your build at all, just use these new class slots


    through

    Different weapon builds can drive different build designs and bring in more viable sets.

    New weapon skill lines? Sure, I'd love to see more skill lines! But this is a thread about itemization. Not about skill lines. New weapon skill lines would mean new weapons, which is itemization. However it's not really new itemization. It's just weapons, but again. It doesn't change the current itemization at all, though it does give more options, from weapons. So this isn't constructive to the point of this thread. It's reductive.
    I'm also going to quote you here. They can't add new weapon skill lines, due to the logic you put forward in your argument.
    Billium813 wrote: »
    I would be interested in seeing new gear slots in the future (earrings, tiaras, underwear, whatever)... but I just don't see how they could do that. They'd need to go back and add in 400 new items for each set, update the zones and drop tables. I just can't see them do that.

    Correct, this is a thread about itemization. The topic was concerned with "20/400" sets are "optimal" and no one uses the other 380 sets. I think it would be short sited to think that the only answer would be to change those 380 sets directly. ESO already has subclasses, it's called Weapon Skill Lines. Adding more sources of Bleed Damage, or Fire Damage, or weapon playstyles could help make existing sets viable without needing to do anything else. You even said yourself that it gives more options. I fail to see how that isn't on topic.

    Also, I said I can't see them updating 400 sets to add a couple new equipment slots, not that it's impossible. Would they go back and update 400 sets just to add new Earring slots? Probably not. Would they update 400 sets for a new Weapon Skill Line? Possibly. It's something players have been asking for for years, it helps add more subclasses to the game to make more sets viable, and it's a large enough addition to the game to warrant the effort of updating existing sets to add a new item.
  • Dagoth_Rac
    Dagoth_Rac
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭
    Are there really 20 viable sets and 380 useless sets? Or are there 20 sets that add 10,000 DPS and 380 sets that add 9,990 DPS? Or 20 meta sets and 20 awful sets and 360 hovering in the close-but-not-quite-meta area. At end game, everyone is going to use the best sets, even when they are only 0.01% better. And there is simply no way to make 400 sets all exactly the same power. An overhaul of those 380 sets would just stir up the meta and 20 new sets would shake out as best for various roles/styles of play. ZOS would attempt to make 380 sets equal to the best 20, but they would inevitably overshoot and undershoot a few sets and, voila, there is your new meta.

    And adding new gear slots or reducing 5-piece bonuses to 4-piece bonuses would just allow for even more combinations, some of which will overperform and become the new meta. Except now it will be a longer and harder process to farm meta gear because it will now involve more sets.

    This also sounds like it has the potential for a lot of power creep if we have new slots, and powerful bonuses with less pieces of gear worn.
  • Billium813
    Billium813
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Dagoth_Rac wrote: »
    Are there really 20 viable sets and 380 useless sets? Or are there 20 sets that add 10,000 DPS and 380 sets that add 9,990 DPS? Or 20 meta sets and 20 awful sets and 360 hovering in the close-but-not-quite-meta area?

    There are 20 sets that Alcast, Deltia, Hack, and the YouTube community as a whole have all decided are the Top 20. Therefore, all players think they are the only sets that exist because they don't have the time, or desire, to figure it out themselves.

    Devils advocate, there are some pretty terrible sets.... https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/616785/the-most-underpowered-set-wall-of-fame-pc-na-as-voted-on-by-the-community, but you're correct that the issue isn't as bad as it's being made out to be. I'd rather ZOS just add more playstyles to incentive the use of those 380 other sets.
  • merpins
    merpins
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    Billium813 wrote: »
    Dagoth_Rac wrote: »
    Are there really 20 viable sets and 380 useless sets? Or are there 20 sets that add 10,000 DPS and 380 sets that add 9,990 DPS? Or 20 meta sets and 20 awful sets and 360 hovering in the close-but-not-quite-meta area?

    There are 20 sets that Alcast, Deltia, Hack, and the YouTube community as a whole have all decided are the Top 20. Therefore, all players think they are the only sets that exist because they don't have the time, or desire, to figure it out themselves.

    Devils advocate, there are some pretty terrible sets.... https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/616785/the-most-underpowered-set-wall-of-fame-pc-na-as-voted-on-by-the-community, but you're correct that the issue isn't as bad as it's being made out to be. I'd rather ZOS just add more playstyles to incentive the use of those 380 other sets.

    There's 20 or so optimal meta sets. And another 20 or so suboptimal but still good sets that no one talks about. Then the other 340 sets are unused. I'm sure you can make a chart that will outline the power scaling of all sets in the game, where each set lays on the chart, you'd probably see a scale where there's Maybe 50 to 100 sets that are useable for end game purposes, but not really optimal. But there shouldn't be a chart, and everything should actively be viable. More itemization means more build diversity.
    Edited by merpins on January 2, 2024 7:41PM
  • merpins
    merpins
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    Added Set Cycles to the suggestions.
  • chessalavakia_ESO
    chessalavakia_ESO
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Unless you use automated alterations the meta at the top is probably always going to be believed to be solved. We frequently see people think they solve updates on the PTS before they hit live.

    More diversity would likely be possible for people that don't min-max that far with some changes but, those aren't necessarily going to be popular.

    If you've got a few items that are beating out the others the easy solution is to just nerf them.
  • merpins
    merpins
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    Unless you use automated alterations the meta at the top is probably always going to be believed to be solved. We frequently see people think they solve updates on the PTS before they hit live.

    More diversity would likely be possible for people that don't min-max that far with some changes but, those aren't necessarily going to be popular.

    If you've got a few items that are beating out the others the easy solution is to just nerf them.

    Absolutely. The easy solution is to just nerf the top sets. But that's a self-perpetuating problem. Nerf the top sets. Oh, now people are using these 20 sets? Nerf the top sets. Oh , now people are using these 20 sets. Nerf the- see what I mean? If you nerf the top 20 sets over and over, yes you'll eventually cause all sets to be pretty balance (most likely), but you'll also anger the playerbase. If you buff the bottom 5-10 sets every quarter, then you're making more players happy and eventually it'll be balanced. As long as all sets are within 5 to 10% of one another, then it's all good, but right now it's really big swings.

    This is also why my last solution suggestion exists. If they give big buffs in a cycle that aren't permanent, but are there for fun for 3 to 6 months, then we'll see diversity in the itemization without any nerfs or buffs. It's probably the easiest way to do it without needing to buff 300+ sets, or fundamentally changing game systems. I'd prefer the long way, but this way would be fun as well.
    Edited by merpins on January 2, 2024 11:16PM
  • Turtle_Bot
    Turtle_Bot
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    There's about 20 BiS sets, and probably about another 30-40 "potential" sets that have niche uses or still perform in their designated role, but cannot match the power of the BiS sets, then there's the rest.

    The rest suffer from multiple issues.
    • Over nerfing - the set was too strong on release so it got nerfed too much to make way for new sets.
    • Power creep - the set got power crept by a new set that does the same thing, but better.
    • Redundancy - there were already existing sets that do the same thing.
    • Design - the set was designed to be filler.
    • Ease of use - the set would be fine (part of the 30-40 "potential" sets) if it had easier conditions.
    There's probably more and many sets suffer from multiple aspects, but these are what I could think of, off the top of my head.

    Some good examples of each issue respectively above are as follows:
    • Hrothgar's Chill/Overwhelming Surge - yes, technically HC was bugged, but when the bug got fixed, it also got its damage halved on top of the fix. OS just got hard nerfed with its damage reduced into the ground making its sustain component entirely pointless.
    • Death-dealers Fete - basically got power crept once Sea-serpents Coil and Markyn got released.
    • Julianos/Hundings or False God/Vicious Serpent - mag/stam versions of the same sets that are no longer required due to hybridization.
    • Monolith of Storms - ZOS was told day 1 of PTS that the design of this set was bad and needed a complete rework, the feedback was ignored and the set got nerfed as well.
    • Wrathsun - the overall idea of this set was good, the conditions to use it were far too extreme which makes it too hard to use effectively.

    How to fix these issues ranges a lot between the different sets, but for the above examples respectively, it could be as follows:
    • Increase HC damage from its current 13% to say 15% or 18% (doesn't need it's old 26% back). OS needs its damage buffed by a significant amount (150%) from its current base of 149/second to 372/second, can reduce its resource restore to 5% or 10% if the sustain from the set becomes too problematic, but at least let the set do some actual damage.
    • Give DDF some baseline stats to account for power creep (say 5 stacks just for having it equipped).
    • Pick 1 of Julianos/Hundings and 1 of FG/VS to make into hybrid versions of their current forms then rework the other 2 sets to be something entirely new and different.
    • Redesign Monolith of Storms completely, a lot has been suggested for this set on many other threads already.
    • Reduce Wrathsun stacks required down to 10 or 15 at most and the magicka regen/loss mechanics, and even adjust the proc damage if required, to suit the new lower stack count. Can give it a 10 second cooldown if needed.

    One final thing that would help a lot is fixing the imbalance of the different Armor weights - light armor is currently the worst of the 3 weights and it's not even close.
    Outside of specific light armor sets such as Rallying Cry and Draugrkin where their procs are strong enough to carry the set, light armor sets have all but vanished as medium became the default BiS weight when hybridization was implemented, due to light armor passives buffing easily capped stats while medium passives buff harder to cap/uncapped stats. This alone eliminates a minimum of 25% of sets from viability.

    Light armor in general needs a balance parse done on it. Remove the additional martial damage taken per piece of light armor, since you already take significant additional damage (of all types) due to the heavily reduced base armor values of light armor pieces. There was zero need to double down on this downside. This alone might be enough, however, if not, give light armor a healing done passive (since almost all healer sets are light armor) so that light armor is a viable alternative, not through additional mitigation, but by slightly increasing your heals.
  • Castagere
    Castagere
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    This post takes me back to the Anarchy Online days in 2001. The game had so many sets and weapons that were never used. They tried to improve them with armor and weapons upgrade kits but it failed badly because nothing could match the new stuff they added with expansions. So shopping was a nightmare because all the useless items would always show up at terminals that you had to wade through. If they could fix now would be the time because it would get worse.
    Edited by Castagere on January 3, 2024 12:23AM
  • Tannus15
    Tannus15
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭
    @Turtle_Bot nails it as usual.

    I don't mind the duplicate sets like leviathan and mothers sorrow since they are different weights, but crafted sets hunding / julianos is really pointless. just pick one and change the 2pc bonus to double stat or something good for both.

    light armour sucks and badly needs some buffs. the main disadvantage of mag builds is needing the sustain of light armour. the funny thing is that this issue has partially been resolved by the bow changes. the fact that the best way to play a ranged mag build is with a bow and not a destro staff so you can run more medium armour, on a magicka build, is hilarious to me.
    something is clearly broken here.

    other sets just feel like traps to new players to me. a good example is spider cultist. you can pack as many destro staff skills onto the bar as possible and you'd still be better off just running julianos. this set is just straight up, objectively bad.
    I feel bad for anyone who uses it because they are all "i'm using a destro staff and skills, so it should be a perfect fit right?"

    then there are sets like spelunker which i'm left wondering exactly under what situation you're meant to run this. it's a medium set, but it's terrible for dps, it's terrible for support. it's a weak sustain set that requires you to spam out synergies for other people from the undaunted line? like, what?

    and it's not just base game sets. Talfyg's Treachery is just a bad version of julianos, or an even worse version of new moon acolyte. just, why?

    someone at ZoS needs to get a list of every sets for which the 5pc bonus equates to +300ish spell/weapon damage and work out why they even exist in the first place. when they nerfed CP and granted everyone +1000 weapon/spell damage the value of these sets decreased. the difference between 300 and 372 spell damage went from %15 of your total to 10% of your total. it has less impact now than when it was released.

    if you're willing to lean hard into a skill line like destro staff to make a set like spider cultist then it should be much stronger than julianos with literally the same build.

    the fact that builds that handicap you in some way don't compete in the most favourable setups is tragic.

    also i'm just going to throw out there that for some reason silks of the sun has the same 5pc bonus as netch's touch, except in theory a DK could run all fire skills however a sorc can't run all lightning skills. the sets are the same, but the ability to USE them isn't the same. they shouldn't have the same numbers because one can be fully utilised and the other can't. It's so stupid to "balance" sets in isolation like that.
    never mind the fact that an all fire build is STILL better off running something generic anyway!
  • chessalavakia_ESO
    chessalavakia_ESO
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    merpins wrote: »
    Unless you use automated alterations the meta at the top is probably always going to be believed to be solved. We frequently see people think they solve updates on the PTS before they hit live.

    More diversity would likely be possible for people that don't min-max that far with some changes but, those aren't necessarily going to be popular.

    If you've got a few items that are beating out the others the easy solution is to just nerf them.

    Absolutely. The easy solution is to just nerf the top sets. But that's a self-perpetuating problem. Nerf the top sets. Oh, now people are using these 20 sets? Nerf the top sets. Oh , now people are using these 20 sets. Nerf the- see what I mean? If you nerf the top 20 sets over and over, yes you'll eventually cause all sets to be pretty balance (most likely), but you'll also anger the playerbase. If you buff the bottom 5-10 sets every quarter, then you're making more players happy and eventually it'll be balanced. As long as all sets are within 5 to 10% of one another, then it's all good, but right now it's really big swings.

    This is also why my last solution suggestion exists. If they give big buffs in a cycle that aren't permanent, but are there for fun for 3 to 6 months, then we'll see diversity in the itemization without any nerfs or buffs. It's probably the easiest way to do it without needing to buff 300+ sets, or fundamentally changing game systems. I'd prefer the long way, but this way would be fun as well.

    In December, I tried to rework some of the Overland sets to go with another idea I had. I gave up after a few days of it because it doesn't really work out well as you run into the issue that if you balance them with the other Overland sets they can end up too far behind the meta sets to really be worth reworking as they aren't that far off and if you balance them against the meta sets they end up being a bit broken.

    For example, consider Night Terror. It's a pain to proc as you need to take melee damage. You need to proc it every second to get full value. It scales with your weapon/spell damage. It does only single target damage.

    If you compare it to the base game Overland proc sets it does hit harder than them if you can keep it up but, realistically it generally will not deliver because you aren't going to get hit that much by melee attackers when you have high weapon/spell damage.

    If you compare it to Pillar of Nirn though it actually does less damage even though it is harder to proc than Pillar of Nirn and only does single target damage.

    If you want to balance it with Pillar of Nirn you will need to move it's damage up significantly which could easily produce complaints.

    You hit similar issues with other sets like Robes of the Withered Hand when compared vs Perfected False God's Devotion
  • VoidCommander
    VoidCommander
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I just want frost-based proc sets to be meta for Ice Wardens. Elemental power fantasy should be able to be met even in end game. Nightblades should have a strong synergy with a shadowy damage proc set or effect. Templars should have a holy sun set (like their class set, but maybe tuned up a little bit). Dragonknights should have their flame damage set, like Valkyn Skoria was before it was nerfed into the ground. Necromancers should have a set that provides extra animations to compliment their undead asthetic. Sorcerers and Wardens need POWERFUL sets that lean into their class' main elements.
  • Turtle_Bot
    Turtle_Bot
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Tannus15 wrote: »

    i'm just going to throw out there that for some reason silks of the sun has the same 5pc bonus as netch's touch, except in theory a DK could run all fire skills however a sorc can't run all lightning skills. the sets are the same, but the ability to USE them isn't the same. they shouldn't have the same numbers because one can be fully utilised and the other can't. It's so stupid to "balance" sets in isolation like that.
    never mind the fact that an all fire build is STILL better off running something generic anyway!

    I had forgotten about this point, but yes, you are correct here. The ability to use (and also obtain) these sets effectively factors in as well (quite a lot actually).

    It's why you see PoN being recommended over other similarly powerful sets like aegis caller, even though, in a vacuum, aegis caller deals roughly the same damage, but in a large AoE, PoN is easier to get and proc, so it gets ran over AC.
  • ghastley
    ghastley
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    One way things could be made more diverse is to make the niche sets more viable. E.g take a set like Sword-singer which has a bonus for two-handed and bring it up to par, so two-handed users want to use it. Do the same for each weapon line, and that includes separate sets for fire/ice/lightning staves. Synergies with class or race could multiply the combinations. How about a set specifically for Redguard Nightblade dual-wielding swordsmen? Or Dunmer Arcanist fire mages?

    And maybe stop adding more to the pile? There are already too many sets. I could understand adding new ones if the old ones were set in stone, but the nerfs do happen. Go back and rework sets, starting with the ones nobody uses.
  • TankHealz2015
    TankHealz2015
    ✭✭✭
    Minor tweaks could go a long way...
    Edited by TankHealz2015 on January 3, 2024 10:25PM
  • merpins
    merpins
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    Turtle_Bot wrote: »
    Tannus15 wrote: »

    i'm just going to throw out there that for some reason silks of the sun has the same 5pc bonus as netch's touch, except in theory a DK could run all fire skills however a sorc can't run all lightning skills. the sets are the same, but the ability to USE them isn't the same. they shouldn't have the same numbers because one can be fully utilised and the other can't. It's so stupid to "balance" sets in isolation like that.
    never mind the fact that an all fire build is STILL better off running something generic anyway!

    I had forgotten about this point, but yes, you are correct here. The ability to use (and also obtain) these sets effectively factors in as well (quite a lot actually).

    It's why you see PoN being recommended over other similarly powerful sets like aegis caller, even though, in a vacuum, aegis caller deals roughly the same damage, but in a large AoE, PoN is easier to get and proc, so it gets ran over AC.

    I don't think it's a huge deal to have overland and crafted sets be similar, power wise, to dungeon sets. Gotta keep in mind that there are overland and crafted sets that are better than the vast majority of dungeon and trial sets, despite them being much easier to get. I don't think it's a deliberate design decision, but more of a player decision to recommend the easier to obtain or easier to use sets, rather than the harder to obtain or harder to use sets like in the PoN Aegis Caller example. Otherwise it would be pretty tiered as to what sets are stronger; Trial would be best, and BiS would be Trial Set + Trial Set + Monster Helm, always.
    Edited by merpins on January 3, 2024 7:22PM
  • TankHealz2015
    TankHealz2015
    ✭✭✭
    Love to see a bit of flexibility with the major/minor system.

    Like overland sets use the major/minor buff/debuff system but some top tier sets offer stackable not major/minor benefits....
Sign In or Register to comment.