Hardened Ward heal making it to live is a mistake and needs to be changed

StaticWave

Bushido2513 wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

So normally your experiment needs to be relevant to the target is what I'm saying.

Oh but it is.

See, many large scale PvP engagements involving randoms in Cyro or BGs can be broken down into a series of 1v1s. It may not be your playstyle, but I make it a point to go after isolated opponents, such as the guy obviously separated from his group, the lone reinforcement riding in, or most relevantly in Cyro siege operators.

This skillset also translates well to burning enemy camps and dropping friendly ones, probably the top way a solo PvPer in Cyro can impact keep battles. Of course in the process I'm going to be alone making myself a target, so I need to be ready to 1v1 significantly threatening opponents, from two shot gankers to dot brawler mirrors.

One of these random engagements the other day, I did 5.3k dps to a 5 light damage Sorc (whose unpracticed rotations only did 2.3k dps posing zero threat to me). But after 4 minutes of the Sorc's hp bar barely moving, I walked away. Slowly. A fight that lopsided between two damage builds should not stalemate, this is purely Ward making PvP pointless.

Ok so for example how does this translate to a player that just wants to zerg, get healed by someone else and attack whoever they see regardless of the outcome as long as they get a little ap here and there and get a killing blow now and then?


This player will just stay near the heals and zerg and not care about the sorc unless the group tries to kill the sorc. They won't care about why xyz class is living or how they heal through something, they will just zerg regardless.


My point is that Static's example and your example do of course matter but they are specific ways of looking at encounters and for balance you have to look at many different factors other than just pure damage, mitigation, healing, GCs, 1v1, viability, etc.

As has been said for better or worse ZOS uses spreadsheets to balance. I don't appreciate their balance but I can at least respect that they are trying to crunch massive data to create a direction going forward. Not just saying hey did you see that one clip that guy posted with a cmx, better get to nerfing.

Lol. This kind of reasoning is exactly why we have years of non-stop balance issues. When people raise concerns about certain overperforming aspects of the game, their concerns get shrugged off because "the game balances around a lot of things". HoT stacking is a problem in GvG but not so much in 1v1. Yet it hasn't been addressed despite being a topic of discussion for years. Status effect stacking is a problem in 1v1 but not so much for GvG, and it's just gotten buffed in U41. When you try to balance things on a large scale, you don't get anything done.

xylena_lazarow

Bushido2513 wrote: »

Ok so for example how does this translate to a player that just wants to zerg, get healed by someone else and attack whoever they see regardless of the outcome as long as they get a little ap here and there and get a killing blow now and then?

At some point they'll find themselves separated from their zerg, and that's when I'm attacking them 1v1. This is something that happens quite frequently in large scale open world PvP.

Bushido2513

StaticWave wrote: »

This is how every

Bushido2513 wrote: »

StaticWave wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

Why does your 1v1 data have any weight when we can see that ZOS doesn't use it for balancing at all?

It's the most controlled test environment available, and yes ZOS has made balance changes based on 1v1 before (the Draugrkin rework that added the healing debuff comes to mind). If you want evidence from open world zerg fights here's one, Ward alone provded 86.5% of my healing even though I was trying to run a bunch of dots to max Surge procs.


Here's what Arcanist looks like, Impervious doing 46.1% of my healing, notice how many different skills I'm using to obtain comparable HPS to my Sorc's one button spam.


Remember how many players were crying for Arc Impervious nerfs? Yea it does half of what Sorc Hardened does. Show me any other skill in any other context that does 86.5% of anything.

How is doing controlled testing in a 1v1 relevant when pvp scenarios are wildly uncontrolled and varied?

Doesn't matter that it's controlled if it only incidentally applies. Yes there are 1v1s in pvp but generally speaking they usually quickly turn into xv1 or gvg.

The game straight up promotes a large scale war. If you want to duel they give you an option for that and that's the extent of support dueling has ever really been given and that hasn't ever been updated that I know of. To the point that for years now if you want to hold a dueling tournament you had to balance it yourself.

Things like Draugurkin get balanced not because duels were being ruined but because it shows up as an outlier in too many areas of pvp. They most certainly fix and introduce outliers but it's plain to see that they just look at the bigger outcome of gvg.


At the end of the day you can definitely say how you felt on both sides of ward and provide data but your data doesn't paint a clear picture of the whole situation.

So let's say someone attacks you and you ward spam and they say man it's unfair that sorcs are so tanky and can just run away. This should be nerfed and now I'm leaving.

Let's say they get away or they can't and you light them up.


Then I come along and attack you and say oh well he's tanky and I'm tanky, we can't kill each other and now I either wait till your faction comes, my faction comes, or just find another target, oh well.

My point is that it can go so many ways and people can have several types of feeling about how it goes that you can't just nail this down based on one interaction, a few interactions, etc. That's not good for achieving actual balance and is more just making one group or another feel better with no logical reason for the change when you look at better types of data we don't have access to that would help make s much more logical choice.

And in a larger scaled war, HoT stacking alone negates the need for any burst heal, which makes your entire argument invalid because too many variables are skewing the analysis.

What matters is smaller sized fights where people actually have to rely more on their self healing. 1v1s, 1vXs, 2vXs, up to 4vXs are what matters. In those scenarios, we can clearly see the strength of healing abilities and can make an accurate comparison.

Lol matters to who? Notice I never talk about what matters and doesn't when it comes to players because different things matter to different players and so no one can say what "matters" to anyone other than themselves.

So yes in one way you see this change as a bad one, others like it, or just plain don't care. It's all opinion.

"We" don't see anything. The only group you can speak for is yourself and perhaps like minded individuals but even then that's not proof of specifically anything because you and people that agree with you don't make up the entire player base.


Again I'm not saying you're wrong but don't pass off your findings as if you somehow see deeper or on another level that others just can't because the truth is unless you work for ZOS development you only see just as much of the game as the rest of us general speaking. So your findings are no more authoritative than anyone else's except perhaps in dueling but that's not a metric ZOS uses so it's not saying much when we talk about balance that all players have to live with.

Lol. All I got from your post is "Don't make any combat balance suggestions because it doesn't matter".

I'm fine with changes, we need changes. I'm saying in this case when talking about this change that it's ok to present your side of things but that we need to understand that nobody here is going to have any more relevancy than anyone else regardless of how much you have or haven't played, how many videos you post, how much cmx data is added.

This is a change that requires back end stats to properly balance for the population as a whole. Anything else is just someone saying how they feel this change affects the game and I can't stress enough the word feel.

Again to be clear I'm not talking about dueling which is something some care about here but that ZOS clearly cares very little about or just doesn't have the resources to address.

I'm totally fine if anyone wants to share an opinion and why they disagree with others but nobody here can be accused of denying the truth because there isn't one truth. Likewise if you have actually played in this patch at all your opinion is just as relevant as someone that has been playing since the patch dropped. How you see it is just how you see it and that's not what should be up for debate here.

HowlKimchi

Bushido2513 wrote: »

I'm totally fine if anyone wants to share an opinion and why they disagree with others but nobody here can be accused of denying the truth because there isn't one truth. Likewise if you have actually played in this patch at all your opinion is just as relevant as someone that has been playing since the patch dropped. How you see it is just how you see it and that's not what should be up for debate here.

Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But we have this thing called credibility and expert opinion. I have tried boxing casually IRL for fitness and I have opinions on the sport, but I am by no means an expert and you'd be a fool to listen to my thoughts on how to change the sport's rules and regulations.

Credibility and expert opinion is backed up by evidence, which one side here has provided multiple times.

Bushido2513

HowlKimchi wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

I'm totally fine if anyone wants to share an opinion and why they disagree with others but nobody here can be accused of denying the truth because there isn't one truth. Likewise if you have actually played in this patch at all your opinion is just as relevant as someone that has been playing since the patch dropped. How you see it is just how you see it and that's not what should be up for debate here.

Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But we have this thing called credibility and expert opinion. I have tried boxing casually IRL for fitness and I have opinions on the sport, but I am by no means an expert and you'd be a fool to listen to my thoughts on how to change the sport's rules and regulations.

Credibility and expert opinion is backed up by evidence, which one side here has provided multiple times.

But what you're talking about is a recognized support and competition. ESO is far from competitive. This is about what's fun for each person. So if someone comes to you at a casual ring gathering and says I like to punch with no guard up and prefer to just take the hit and shake it off because I saw it in a move guess what that's just as valid as a guy who says I'm keeping my guard up and going for a technical win.

Sure the guy with the no guard approach is likely going to get his bell rung but if that's fun for him then that's all there is to it.

ESO long ago lost any chance to be a game of competitive skill. At this point it's just purely for entertainment.

There are great gamers that play this game but I totally don't see anyone in any kind of elite status or anything like that because it's also just as easy to run cheese in this game and easily squeeze by.


This game has turned into the story mode setting for the most part.

xylena_lazarow

Bushido2513 wrote: »

ESO long ago lost any chance to be a game of competitive skill. At this point it's just purely for entertainment. There are great gamers that play this game but I totally don't see anyone in any kind of elite status or anything like that because it's also just as easy to run cheese in this game and easily squeeze by. This game has turned into the story mode setting for the most part.

HUH.

HowlKimchi

Bushido2513 wrote: »

HowlKimchi wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

I'm totally fine if anyone wants to share an opinion and why they disagree with others but nobody here can be accused of denying the truth because there isn't one truth. Likewise if you have actually played in this patch at all your opinion is just as relevant as someone that has been playing since the patch dropped. How you see it is just how you see it and that's not what should be up for debate here.

Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But we have this thing called credibility and expert opinion. I have tried boxing casually IRL for fitness and I have opinions on the sport, but I am by no means an expert and you'd be a fool to listen to my thoughts on how to change the sport's rules and regulations.

Credibility and expert opinion is backed up by evidence, which one side here has provided multiple times.

So if someone comes to you at a casual ring gathering and says I like to punch with no guard up and prefer to just take the hit and shake it off because I saw it in a move guess what that's just as valid as a guy who says I'm keeping my guard up and going for a technical win.

lmaooooo. what in the world is a casual ring gathering?

Also if a casual boxing enjoyer went and said that, the coaches, or even the professional in the same gym (who will definitely be there because casual boxers always need to be supervised) will give their expert opinion (wink wink, it's still related to my main point) and say, "no you do not just take the ***ing hit because you feel like it. You do it the right way."

Also, the whole sport of boxing nerfed punches (by adding the gloves) and they wont just allow people to box gloveless "because they feel like it and that's how they want to play." So yeah, balance matters, in sports and video games, regardless of the degree of competitiveness.

Bushido2513 wrote: »

Sure the guy with the no guard approach is likely going to get his bell rung but if that's fun for him then that's all there is to it.

lmao

Bushido2513 wrote: »

This game has turned into the story mode setting for the most part.

Why are you suddenly talking about PVE?

Miracle19

StaticWave wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

So normally your experiment needs to be relevant to the target is what I'm saying.

Oh but it is.

See, many large scale PvP engagements involving randoms in Cyro or BGs can be broken down into a series of 1v1s. It may not be your playstyle, but I make it a point to go after isolated opponents, such as the guy obviously separated from his group, the lone reinforcement riding in, or most relevantly in Cyro siege operators.

This skillset also translates well to burning enemy camps and dropping friendly ones, probably the top way a solo PvPer in Cyro can impact keep battles. Of course in the process I'm going to be alone making myself a target, so I need to be ready to 1v1 significantly threatening opponents, from two shot gankers to dot brawler mirrors.

One of these random engagements the other day, I did 5.3k dps to a 5 light damage Sorc (whose unpracticed rotations only did 2.3k dps posing zero threat to me). But after 4 minutes of the Sorc's hp bar barely moving, I walked away. Slowly. A fight that lopsided between two damage builds should not stalemate, this is purely Ward making PvP pointless.

Ok so for example how does this translate to a player that just wants to zerg, get healed by someone else and attack whoever they see regardless of the outcome as long as they get a little ap here and there and get a killing blow now and then?


This player will just stay near the heals and zerg and not care about the sorc unless the group tries to kill the sorc. They won't care about why xyz class is living or how they heal through something, they will just zerg regardless.


My point is that Static's example and your example do of course matter but they are specific ways of looking at encounters and for balance you have to look at many different factors other than just pure damage, mitigation, healing, GCs, 1v1, viability, etc.

As has been said for better or worse ZOS uses spreadsheets to balance. I don't appreciate their balance but I can at least respect that they are trying to crunch massive data to create a direction going forward. Not just saying hey did you see that one clip that guy posted with a cmx, better get to nerfing.

Lol. This kind of reasoning is exactly why we have years of non-stop balance issues. When people raise concerns about certain overperforming aspects of the game, their concerns get shrugged off because "the game balances around a lot of things". HoT stacking is a problem in GvG but not so much in 1v1. Yet it hasn't been addressed despite being a topic of discussion for years. Status effect stacking is a problem in 1v1 but not so much for GvG, and it's just gotten buffed in U41. When you try to balance things on a large scale, you don't get anything done.

Kinda yeah, the easiest way to explain is, most things aren’t a problem on their own. But simply combined with other abilities/passives, they can be maybe stronger than intended or simply overturned. CP is the biggest offender here, as in noCP w/ procs a lot of these issues do not exist(BGs) and a lot more is viable.

Balancing around the avg player versus the elite is historically a huge problem as well. The magsorc shield buff is a prime example. As far as we know, there are no longer any “elite” ZOS employee pvp’ers. So the general understanding of how a lot of these factors compound is not understood clearly. Players like @StaticWave are apart of the small elite percentage of players and has a grasp of these compounding effects, and post like these are important if we ever hope to have a healthy state of pvp for everyone.

Bushido2513

HowlKimchi wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

HowlKimchi wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

I'm totally fine if anyone wants to share an opinion and why they disagree with others but nobody here can be accused of denying the truth because there isn't one truth. Likewise if you have actually played in this patch at all your opinion is just as relevant as someone that has been playing since the patch dropped. How you see it is just how you see it and that's not what should be up for debate here.

Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But we have this thing called credibility and expert opinion. I have tried boxing casually IRL for fitness and I have opinions on the sport, but I am by no means an expert and you'd be a fool to listen to my thoughts on how to change the sport's rules and regulations.

Credibility and expert opinion is backed up by evidence, which one side here has provided multiple times.

So if someone comes to you at a casual ring gathering and says I like to punch with no guard up and prefer to just take the hit and shake it off because I saw it in a move guess what that's just as valid as a guy who says I'm keeping my guard up and going for a technical win.

lmaooooo. what in the world is a casual ring gathering?

Also if a casual boxing enjoyer went and said that, the coaches, or even the professional in the same gym (who will definitely be there because casual boxers always need to be supervised) will give their expert opinion (wink wink, it's still related to my main point) and say, "no you do not just take the ***ing hit because you feel like it. You do it the right way."

Also, the whole sport of boxing nerfed punches (by adding the gloves) and they wont just allow people to box gloveless "because they feel like it and that's how they want to play." So yeah, balance matters, in sports and video games, regardless of the degree of competitiveness.

Bushido2513 wrote: »

Sure the guy with the no guard approach is likely going to get his bell rung but if that's fun for him then that's all there is to it.

lmao

Bushido2513 wrote: »

This game has turned into the story mode setting for the most part.

Why are you suddenly talking about PVE?

Lol you think all boxing is done in a formal setting with rules and standards? There are those that practice and come up in gyms and there are those that practice and come up in other less formal settings. Point is, different strokes for different folks and that's just fine.

I'm sure we can easily find places where you can box any way you want to. Is it safe, respectable, etc? Who knows but point is that just because someone thinks it should be done according to some system doesn't mean everyone wants that system.

And I just meant the game is about being easy to pick up vs having any real challenge.

Bushido2513

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

ESO long ago lost any chance to be a game of competitive skill. At this point it's just purely for entertainment. There are great gamers that play this game but I totally don't see anyone in any kind of elite status or anything like that because it's also just as easy to run cheese in this game and easily squeeze by. This game has turned into the story mode setting for the most part.

HUH.

In trying to my more accessable to s wider audience this game has made staying alive easier than ever. This in itself throws off competitive balance.

HowlKimchi

Bushido2513 wrote: »

HowlKimchi wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

HowlKimchi wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

I'm totally fine if anyone wants to share an opinion and why they disagree with others but nobody here can be accused of denying the truth because there isn't one truth. Likewise if you have actually played in this patch at all your opinion is just as relevant as someone that has been playing since the patch dropped. How you see it is just how you see it and that's not what should be up for debate here.

Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But we have this thing called credibility and expert opinion. I have tried boxing casually IRL for fitness and I have opinions on the sport, but I am by no means an expert and you'd be a fool to listen to my thoughts on how to change the sport's rules and regulations.

Credibility and expert opinion is backed up by evidence, which one side here has provided multiple times.

So if someone comes to you at a casual ring gathering and says I like to punch with no guard up and prefer to just take the hit and shake it off because I saw it in a move guess what that's just as valid as a guy who says I'm keeping my guard up and going for a technical win.

lmaooooo. what in the world is a casual ring gathering?

Also if a casual boxing enjoyer went and said that, the coaches, or even the professional in the same gym (who will definitely be there because casual boxers always need to be supervised) will give their expert opinion (wink wink, it's still related to my main point) and say, "no you do not just take the ***ing hit because you feel like it. You do it the right way."

Also, the whole sport of boxing nerfed punches (by adding the gloves) and they wont just allow people to box gloveless "because they feel like it and that's how they want to play." So yeah, balance matters, in sports and video games, regardless of the degree of competitiveness.

Bushido2513 wrote: »

Sure the guy with the no guard approach is likely going to get his bell rung but if that's fun for him then that's all there is to it.

lmao

Bushido2513 wrote: »

This game has turned into the story mode setting for the most part.

Why are you suddenly talking about PVE?

Lol you think all boxing is done in a formal setting with rules and standards? There are those that practice and come up in gyms and there are those that practice and come up in other less formal settings. Point is, different strokes for different folks and that's just fine.

I'm sure we can easily find places where you can box any way you want to. Is it safe, respectable, etc? Who knows but point is that just because someone thinks it should be done according to some system doesn't mean everyone wants that system.

And I just meant the game is about being easy to pick up vs having any real challenge.

I was using analogies to explain my point that expert opinion and credibility is necessary in any sport/competition/video game that involves setting rules or balance. Why are you going off-topic and focusing on the wrong things in the discussion?

You seem to argue for argument's sake and your thesis statement (aka your main point) is only secondary to you. It's actually hard to have a discussion because of this. Your statements are excessively long ang quite vague to me, and you move the goal post when it's convenient. When all else fails you say something like, "I dont really care about it, and balance isn't important because different people have different skill levels and prefer different things."

Then why are we having this conversation? Things actually moved forward when you said you were done with this topic and you stopped posting after experiencing it in your console version (after you argued for the ward change for days without even experiencing it first hand), but now it's back to a pointless back and forth.

Bushido2513

Miracle19 wrote: »

StaticWave wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

So normally your experiment needs to be relevant to the target is what I'm saying.

Oh but it is.

See, many large scale PvP engagements involving randoms in Cyro or BGs can be broken down into a series of 1v1s. It may not be your playstyle, but I make it a point to go after isolated opponents, such as the guy obviously separated from his group, the lone reinforcement riding in, or most relevantly in Cyro siege operators.

This skillset also translates well to burning enemy camps and dropping friendly ones, probably the top way a solo PvPer in Cyro can impact keep battles. Of course in the process I'm going to be alone making myself a target, so I need to be ready to 1v1 significantly threatening opponents, from two shot gankers to dot brawler mirrors.

One of these random engagements the other day, I did 5.3k dps to a 5 light damage Sorc (whose unpracticed rotations only did 2.3k dps posing zero threat to me). But after 4 minutes of the Sorc's hp bar barely moving, I walked away. Slowly. A fight that lopsided between two damage builds should not stalemate, this is purely Ward making PvP pointless.

Ok so for example how does this translate to a player that just wants to zerg, get healed by someone else and attack whoever they see regardless of the outcome as long as they get a little ap here and there and get a killing blow now and then?


This player will just stay near the heals and zerg and not care about the sorc unless the group tries to kill the sorc. They won't care about why xyz class is living or how they heal through something, they will just zerg regardless.


My point is that Static's example and your example do of course matter but they are specific ways of looking at encounters and for balance you have to look at many different factors other than just pure damage, mitigation, healing, GCs, 1v1, viability, etc.

As has been said for better or worse ZOS uses spreadsheets to balance. I don't appreciate their balance but I can at least respect that they are trying to crunch massive data to create a direction going forward. Not just saying hey did you see that one clip that guy posted with a cmx, better get to nerfing.

Lol. This kind of reasoning is exactly why we have years of non-stop balance issues. When people raise concerns about certain overperforming aspects of the game, their concerns get shrugged off because "the game balances around a lot of things". HoT stacking is a problem in GvG but not so much in 1v1. Yet it hasn't been addressed despite being a topic of discussion for years. Status effect stacking is a problem in 1v1 but not so much for GvG, and it's just gotten buffed in U41. When you try to balance things on a large scale, you don't get anything done.

Kinda yeah, the easiest way to explain is, most things aren’t a problem on their own. But simply combined with other abilities/passives, they can be maybe stronger than intended or simply overturned. CP is the biggest offender here, as in noCP w/ procs a lot of these issues do not exist(BGs) and a lot more is viable.

Balancing around the avg player versus the elite is historically a huge problem as well. The magsorc shield buff is a prime example. As far as we know, there are no longer any “elite” ZOS employee pvp’ers. So the general understanding of how a lot of these factors compound is not understood clearly. Players like @StaticWave are apart of the small elite percentage of players and has a grasp of these compounding effects, and post like these are important if we ever hope to have a healthy state of pvp for everyone.

I think the bigger point people miss of is that ZOS can fix this game at any time that want. They have always had the ability but just never chosen to make the investment over just collecting easy steady revenues.

I say this to say that it's not that some players see things ZOS can't. It's just that a lot of players want things ZOS just isn't willing to do because they have another vision for the future of the game.

The change on ward is just both good and bad depending on your desired pvp experience. I think for ZOS purposes though it hits the mark as is though it will probably get adjusted in the name of the devs saying they listen to us and try to help out

StaticWave

Here a 7 minute CMX screenshot of damage taken in a deathmatch BG game:



Here's my healing in that same 7 minute window:




40k HP build with 27k resist and 3.7k crit resist. Healing Ward accounted for a total of 36.9% of my healing. That's more than Vigor + Crit Surge, which only accounted for 35.7%.

Jsmalls

Just wait until major vitality is a regular buff from scribing. Sorcs will truly never die... Will have wards getting up to 18k and the heals doing 8k burst heals. But think we'll have other issues to worry about once scribing is here.

And we'll also get our answer Monday on whether Ward is going to be adjusted or not.

StaticWave

HowlKimchi wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

HowlKimchi wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

HowlKimchi wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

I'm totally fine if anyone wants to share an opinion and why they disagree with others but nobody here can be accused of denying the truth because there isn't one truth. Likewise if you have actually played in this patch at all your opinion is just as relevant as someone that has been playing since the patch dropped. How you see it is just how you see it and that's not what should be up for debate here.

Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But we have this thing called credibility and expert opinion. I have tried boxing casually IRL for fitness and I have opinions on the sport, but I am by no means an expert and you'd be a fool to listen to my thoughts on how to change the sport's rules and regulations.

Credibility and expert opinion is backed up by evidence, which one side here has provided multiple times.

So if someone comes to you at a casual ring gathering and says I like to punch with no guard up and prefer to just take the hit and shake it off because I saw it in a move guess what that's just as valid as a guy who says I'm keeping my guard up and going for a technical win.

lmaooooo. what in the world is a casual ring gathering?

Also if a casual boxing enjoyer went and said that, the coaches, or even the professional in the same gym (who will definitely be there because casual boxers always need to be supervised) will give their expert opinion (wink wink, it's still related to my main point) and say, "no you do not just take the ***ing hit because you feel like it. You do it the right way."

Also, the whole sport of boxing nerfed punches (by adding the gloves) and they wont just allow people to box gloveless "because they feel like it and that's how they want to play." So yeah, balance matters, in sports and video games, regardless of the degree of competitiveness.

Bushido2513 wrote: »

Sure the guy with the no guard approach is likely going to get his bell rung but if that's fun for him then that's all there is to it.

lmao

Bushido2513 wrote: »

This game has turned into the story mode setting for the most part.

Why are you suddenly talking about PVE?

Lol you think all boxing is done in a formal setting with rules and standards? There are those that practice and come up in gyms and there are those that practice and come up in other less formal settings. Point is, different strokes for different folks and that's just fine.

I'm sure we can easily find places where you can box any way you want to. Is it safe, respectable, etc? Who knows but point is that just because someone thinks it should be done according to some system doesn't mean everyone wants that system.

And I just meant the game is about being easy to pick up vs having any real challenge.

I was using analogies to explain my point that expert opinion and credibility is necessary in any sport/competition/video game that involves setting rules or balance. Why are you going off-topic and focusing on the wrong things in the discussion?

You seem to argue for argument's sake and your thesis statement (aka your main point) is only secondary to you. It's actually hard to have a discussion because of this. Your statements are excessively long ang quite vague to me, and you move the goal post when it's convenient. When all else fails you say something like, "I dont really care about it, and balance isn't important because different people have different skill levels and prefer different things."

Then why are we having this conversation? Things actually moved forward when you said you were done with this topic and you stopped posting after experiencing it in your console version (after you argued for the ward change for days without even experiencing it first hand), but now it's back to a pointless back and forth.

This is my problem with this whole thing too. My stance on this topic has been precise and unchanged since the beginning. It's so hard to argue vs some people here because they keep changing their definition and stance when convenient, and then you have to make another argument for that and it just goes on and on and nothing is constructive.

You're either against Ward, pro Ward, or neutral. If you're neutral, then you shouldn't really participate in the discussion anyway. Being neutral is already a sign that you don't really care, which means you don't really bother to do the testing and that's not constructive for any combat balance discussion.

Bushido2513

StaticWave wrote: »

You're either against Ward, pro Ward, or neutral. If you're neutral, then you shouldn't really participate in the discussion anyway. Being neutral is already a sign that you don't really care, which means you don't really bother to do the testing and that's not constructive for any combat balance discussion.

The arguments probably seem more complex or even meaningless to you because you think someone should be binary when the situation is not exactly that.

It's funny to watch people try to boil a complex issue down to something they can more so easily digest even if the issue is requires complex thinking.

I see good points on all sides especially when you factor in the larger more complex aspects of pvp.

Like on my build I don't even use ward to the maximum potential and I'm happy with the performance overall. But I also think it's not the best change we could have gotten. So in some ways I'm for ward and in others I'm not super happy with it.

Simply put the change has pros and cons that will matter to different groups.

See I could say oh well how about we put a cap on the upper limit and that sounds easy enough right? Well not to me because I haven't really seen anyone abuse the upper limit and to me it just makes sorc more competitive in standing up against other classes and builds. Now is that a good thing, well depends on who you ask and I can see why some wouldn't like it and how it can be troublesome in certain situations.

I could go on for a while about different situations where ward could be anything from not noticeable to seemingly unkillable. This is where having back end data would provide a more true view of what's really happening in pvp as a whole and where someone just saying I saw this or that becomes more unreliable.


Again I'm not talking about dueling because that's its own thing that isn't really a factor to this discussion since that's not a metric used by zos in balancing things.


So it's not as simple as ward is good or ward is bad, ward is different things depending on the situation you find yourself in and how often certain situations are currently actually happening which is the thing we don't have true numbers on.

Again, I'm not saying it doesn't need to be adjusted or that people shouldn't have an opinion. I'm just saying having an opinion isn't an accurate basis for something needing to be changed or not.

HowlKimchi

Bushido2513 wrote: »

StaticWave wrote: »

You're either against Ward, pro Ward, or neutral. If you're neutral, then you shouldn't really participate in the discussion anyway. Being neutral is already a sign that you don't really care, which means you don't really bother to do the testing and that's not constructive for any combat balance discussion.

The arguments probably seem more complex or even meaningless to you because you think someone should be binary when the situation is not exactly that.

...

[snipping to keep the quote short]

...

See, you did it again. All you're saying is "yes and no, and yes and no. For me it doesnt matter because yes... but no."

And it's super long... but does it even contribute anything meaningful??

You keep saying ZoS has the data. Yeah. They do. But that doesnt stop us (and you for that matter) from getting your own. Sure it will be a small sample size, but in scientific research, sample sizes do not have to be very big to start being significant.

You also mention that this is a complex problem, and yes it is. And that's precisely why breaking down the complex matter to find and focus on what is causing the problem is so important. Frankly, being able to explain complex things and break it down to simpler matters is a skill that comes with expertise.

Turtle_Bot

StaticWave wrote: »

You're either against Ward, pro Ward, or neutral. If you're neutral, then you shouldn't really participate in the discussion anyway. Being neutral is already a sign that you don't really care, which means you don't really bother to do the testing and that's not constructive for any combat balance discussion.

And then there's me:

I am pro ward in the sense that it needs to be a strong ability to give proper defense to balanced sorc builds since every other class gets access to plenty of free/easy movement speed currently, so much so that sorc (magsorc especially) isn't the speedy kiting class that it used to be and shield mechanics have been gutted over the years to where block healing is just objectively stronger as a defensive mechanic (assuming tooltips/scaling are equal).

However, I am also against the peak potential that ward currently has when stacking everything into max magicka and don't want it to be that strong when built that hard into it either (same how I don't like the peak potential of max health polar wardens, or max damage offering/MR NBs, max health Arcs, etc.) as that will just end up getting the entire class nerfed into oblivion (just like savage werewolf stacking light attack procs did in the past).

I am definitely not neutral because I care enough to not want ZOS to do their typical lazy mega over-nerf to ward to hit the max mag stacking builds that then completely kills off all other builds, but I also understand that the peak potential needs to be addressed in some form to balance the ability.

It's why I hope that ZOS listens to reason and goes after the peak mag stacking capabilities instead of trying to go super heavily after ward specifically (since there's not much to adjust for ward since its a flat shield + heal and that's it, no secondary effects/utility to adjust to make up for direct nerfs to its size). I say this because that hits the specific problem build (max mag stacking) while not drastically nerfing more balanced builds that aren't abusing that specific combination of max mag + ward.

Stacking anything to extremes in this game has always (and will always) cause issues. Just look at HoT stacking ball groups, shield stacking sorcs (long ago), proc stacking NBs, block/mitigation stacking troll tanks, health stacking polar winds, etc, etc.

Stacking of anything in this game needs to be heavily limited/carefully implemented to prevent potential interactions that will cause huge balance issues.

HowlKimchi

Turtle_Bot wrote: »

StaticWave wrote: »

You're either against Ward, pro Ward, or neutral. If you're neutral, then you shouldn't really participate in the discussion anyway. Being neutral is already a sign that you don't really care, which means you don't really bother to do the testing and that's not constructive for any combat balance discussion.

And then there's me:

I am pro ward in the sense that it needs to be a strong ability to give proper defense to balanced sorc builds since every other class gets access to plenty of free/easy movement speed currently, so much so that sorc (magsorc especially) isn't the speedy kiting class that it used to be and shield mechanics have been gutted over the years to where block healing is just objectively stronger as a defensive mechanic (assuming tooltips/scaling are equal).

However, I am also against the peak potential that ward currently has when stacking everything into max magicka and don't want it to be that strong when built that hard into it either (same how I don't like the peak potential of max health polar wardens, or max damage offering/MR NBs, max health Arcs, etc.) as that will just end up getting the entire class nerfed into oblivion (just like savage werewolf stacking light attack procs did in the past).

I am definitely not neutral because I care enough to not want ZOS to do their typical lazy mega over-nerf to ward to hit the max mag stacking builds that then completely kills off all other builds, but I also understand that the peak potential needs to be addressed in some form to balance the ability.

It's why I hope that ZOS listens to reason and goes after the peak mag stacking capabilities instead of trying to go super heavily after ward specifically (since there's not much to adjust for ward since its a flat shield + heal and that's it, no secondary effects/utility to adjust to make up for direct nerfs to its size). I say this because that hits the specific problem build (max mag stacking) while not drastically nerfing more balanced builds that aren't abusing that specific combination of max mag + ward.

Stacking anything to extremes in this game has always (and will always) cause issues. Just look at HoT stacking ball groups, shield stacking sorcs (long ago), proc stacking NBs, block/mitigation stacking troll tanks, health stacking polar winds, etc, etc.

Stacking of anything in this game needs to be heavily limited/carefully implemented to prevent potential interactions that will cause huge balance issues.

That just means you're against the current version of the ward and want it adjusted to a balanced level, but with a side of trauma because of how ZoS tends to do blanket nerfs to overperforming classes instead of addressing the disproportionately strong outlier in the kit.

I still remember how I felt when they gutted harmony necros by outright deleting the playstyle...

StaticWave

Bushido2513 wrote: »

The arguments probably seem more complex or even meaningless to you because you think someone should be binary when the situation is not exactly that.

It's funny to watch people try to boil a complex issue down to something they can more so easily digest even if the issue is requires complex thinking.

This ain't rocket science lol. Ward is either overperforming, underperforming, or balanced. You come to a conclusion by doing these tests:

- Test 1: Use Ward in a 1v1 environment
- Test 2: Use Ward in a small scale environment
- Test 3: Use Ward in a large scale environment

Skill difference is removed from all 3 tests because it is the biggest obstruction to an accurate analysis. If you want to test whether X car is faster than Y car around corners, you don't want a slow driver on X car and a fast driver on Y car. You want both drivers to be as skilled as possible. You also don't want random factors that could skew the analysis, like a slippery road or an unseen object in the middle of the road, so you organize the test in a controlled environment, which is a race track.

Apply the same logic to ESO. Test 1 can be done with dueling. Test 2 can be done with GvGs with group size less than 5 players. Test 3 can be done in Cyrodiil or IC with capped group sizes. I've posted multiple samples of Test 1 and Test 2. Test 3 requires setting up large groups, and quite frankly it's not worth the time for me to do so. However, you can take a look at an Arcanist giving shields to group members and see how potent a shield can be in a large group setting. All tests must be controlled though. The moment you throw random variables like a ganker doing 30k dmg from stealth or a zerg of 20 ppl approaching you, then the test is meaningless. No amount of shielding or block-healing is going to save you from those scenarios. But I've seen a few people use this to argue in favor of Ward, and that's an argument of bad faith.

StaticWave

Turtle_Bot wrote: »

StaticWave wrote: »

You're either against Ward, pro Ward, or neutral. If you're neutral, then you shouldn't really participate in the discussion anyway. Being neutral is already a sign that you don't really care, which means you don't really bother to do the testing and that's not constructive for any combat balance discussion.

And then there's me:

I am pro ward in the sense that it needs to be a strong ability to give proper defense to balanced sorc builds since every other class gets access to plenty of free/easy movement speed currently, so much so that sorc (magsorc especially) isn't the speedy kiting class that it used to be and shield mechanics have been gutted over the years to where block healing is just objectively stronger as a defensive mechanic (assuming tooltips/scaling are equal).

However, I am also against the peak potential that ward currently has when stacking everything into max magicka and don't want it to be that strong when built that hard into it either (same how I don't like the peak potential of max health polar wardens, or max damage offering/MR NBs, max health Arcs, etc.) as that will just end up getting the entire class nerfed into oblivion (just like savage werewolf stacking light attack procs did in the past).

I am definitely not neutral because I care enough to not want ZOS to do their typical lazy mega over-nerf to ward to hit the max mag stacking builds that then completely kills off all other builds, but I also understand that the peak potential needs to be addressed in some form to balance the ability.

It's why I hope that ZOS listens to reason and goes after the peak mag stacking capabilities instead of trying to go super heavily after ward specifically (since there's not much to adjust for ward since its a flat shield + heal and that's it, no secondary effects/utility to adjust to make up for direct nerfs to its size). I say this because that hits the specific problem build (max mag stacking) while not drastically nerfing more balanced builds that aren't abusing that specific combination of max mag + ward.

Stacking anything to extremes in this game has always (and will always) cause issues. Just look at HoT stacking ball groups, shield stacking sorcs (long ago), proc stacking NBs, block/mitigation stacking troll tanks, health stacking polar winds, etc, etc.

Stacking of anything in this game needs to be heavily limited/carefully implemented to prevent potential interactions that will cause huge balance issues.

Right, and I'm also on the same boat, but I prefer other abilities get buffed instead of shoehorning Sorc into stacking max mag to be competitive. There are so many options to buff magSorc without making it overperforming, like giving Major Savagery and Breach to its class skills and freeing up bar space, or making one morph of Dark Exchange instant cast to act as a pseudo burst heal, or reworking Surge to be a reliable HoT.

Zabagad

StaticWave wrote: »

You're either against Ward, pro Ward, or neutral. If you're neutral, then you shouldn't really participate in the discussion anyway. Being neutral is already a sign that you don't really care, which means you don't really bother to do the testing and that's not constructive for any combat balance discussion.

No - I strongly disagree
If 90% are neutral and 3% are pro and 7% are con, that would lead to a discussion where it would look like 2/3 are con and only 1/3 are pro...
So neutral doesn't mean "I don't care" or whatever you address to the maybe big majority.

I for myself are more neutral then I'm pro or con. But I do my own testing and look for the data.
(and my personal stats are and my feeling is - yes it's very strong - maybe to strong - but I still see so many other ppl running around with unkillable builds, that I'm still not convinced that hard is now the biggest outlier)

In my opinion there is unfortunately no real way to proof any standpoint - like you tried again with:
"40k HP build with 27k resist and 3.7k crit resist. Healing Ward accounted for a total of 36.9% of my healing. That's more than Vigor + Crit Surge, which only accounted for 35.7%.
1) You solution of a HoT wouldn't change that.
2) The new U41 part is only ~ 11% of the "36.9%" - the rest 27% was the same before.
3) Compare whatever with Surge - which was nerfed during the last years and is claimed as "needs a buff"
It's just not easy...

So I overall try to take my own numbers (my killcounter results and my population stats) and take the impression from better people like you (like I always did) to come to my "position".
And overall we Sorcs are a clear #2 now (after a long time where we were #5 and slowly stepping up).
And so I'm still fine if we get a HoT (you) or the two major buffs instead of the heal (Xylena) on ward.

But - at the same time, I would like to see nerfs to NB - big buffs to necro and small-medium buffs to templar/warden and maybe even DKs. And If they don't do the other points - I'm fine if ward stays like it is now.
Why nerf #2 first and not #1?
Why not first buffing #7 after 2 years? (and buffing #3-#5?)

So - you see? I'm neutral - I see arguments for both views and I'm fine with nerfing or not.... (But I care enough to read this and other threads and even try sometimes to write here...)

StaticWave

Zabagad wrote: »

StaticWave wrote: »

You're either against Ward, pro Ward, or neutral. If you're neutral, then you shouldn't really participate in the discussion anyway. Being neutral is already a sign that you don't really care, which means you don't really bother to do the testing and that's not constructive for any combat balance discussion.

No - I strongly disagree
If 90% are neutral and 3% are pro and 7% are con, that would lead to a discussion where it would look like 2/3 are con and only 1/3 are pro...
So neutral doesn't mean "I don't care" or whatever you address to the maybe big majority.

Well, if you're neutral then you don't care if Ward is overperforming, underperforming, or balanced. Usually people who are neutral are those that play the game casually. They don't really care where an ability sits on the power scale. They most likely don't really talk about combat balance either. They log on to enjoy the game with friends and go with the flow.

Then there's also people who keep switching stances and say they don't care how an ability turns out to be. It's usually harder to have an honest discussion with these people because they argue for the sake of arguing. They'll go from "Ward is not overperforming" to "Ward is overperforming on 1 aspect of the game" then back to "Ward is not overperforming" lol.

Bushido2513

HowlKimchi wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

StaticWave wrote: »

You're either against Ward, pro Ward, or neutral. If you're neutral, then you shouldn't really participate in the discussion anyway. Being neutral is already a sign that you don't really care, which means you don't really bother to do the testing and that's not constructive for any combat balance discussion.

The arguments probably seem more complex or even meaningless to you because you think someone should be binary when the situation is not exactly that.

...

[snipping to keep the quote short]

...

See, you did it again. All you're saying is "yes and no, and yes and no. For me it doesnt matter because yes... but no."

And it's super long... but does it even contribute anything meaningful??

You keep saying ZoS has the data. Yeah. They do. But that doesnt stop us (and you for that matter) from getting your own. Sure it will be a small sample size, but in scientific research, sample sizes do not have to be very big to start being significant.

You also mention that this is a complex problem, and yes it is. And that's precisely why breaking down the complex matter to find and focus on what is causing the problem is so important. Frankly, being able to explain complex things and break it down to simpler matters is a skill that comes with expertise.

We can't really ever know if our contributions will resonate with anyone. We just make them because we think our thoughts matter and maybe they will resonate.

It's you can gather data but if there's no rhyme or reason you might as well pick up 5 random pieces of a 60k piece puzzle set and try to tell me what the picture is and what you think that picture means to the other x amount of people holding the rest of the pieces. I mean yeah feel free to make observations based on your very limited set of pieces but I doubt you'll get very close to the finished picture.


Breaking down a complex problem works best when you have more data to work back from.

There's a vast difference between ZOS trying to work out balance with what they can see vs anyone here trying to guess at how to properly balance this from their client side perspective

I'm not saying I haven't seen ideas I like just saying that nobody here can speak from any position of certainty, authority, etc. And certainly nobody here should feel they are more valuable in input on a problem we're only all guessing at.

Bushido2513

StaticWave wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

The arguments probably seem more complex or even meaningless to you because you think someone should be binary when the situation is not exactly that.

It's funny to watch people try to boil a complex issue down to something they can more so easily digest even if the issue is requires complex thinking.

This ain't rocket science lol. Ward is either overperforming, underperforming, or balanced. You come to a conclusion by doing these tests:

- Test 1: Use Ward in a 1v1 environment
- Test 2: Use Ward in a small scale environment
- Test 3: Use Ward in a large scale environment

Skill difference is removed from all 3 tests because it is the biggest obstruction to an accurate analysis. If you want to test whether X car is faster than Y car around corners, you don't want a slow driver on X car and a fast driver on Y car. You want both drivers to be as skilled as possible. You also don't want random factors that could skew the analysis, like a slippery road or an unseen object in the middle of the road, so you organize the test in a controlled environment, which is a race track.

Apply the same logic to ESO. Test 1 can be done with dueling. Test 2 can be done with GvGs with group size less than 5 players. Test 3 can be done in Cyrodiil or IC with capped group sizes. I've posted multiple samples of Test 1 and Test 2. Test 3 requires setting up large groups, and quite frankly it's not worth the time for me to do so. However, you can take a look at an Arcanist giving shields to group members and see how potent a shield can be in a large group setting. All tests must be controlled though. The moment you throw random variables like a ganker doing 30k dmg from stealth or a zerg of 20 ppl approaching you, then the test is meaningless. No amount of shielding or block-healing is going to save you from those scenarios. But I've seen a few people use this to argue in favor of Ward, and that's an argument of bad faith.

Test 2 and 3 are as random as it gets though! In your car analogy that's like testing how fast each car is and how well they handle on public roads at random times of the day.

There isn't a way to really rest reliably in multiple opponent scenarios because there are just sooooo many variations you'd need to test repeatedly with so many factors.

In your car analogy that's like trying to compare but if all cars could trade out parts that you wouldn't be able to know about and were only using 20 to 30 percent of the parts available to them. You'll get data but it's not going to be very useful for accurately balancing future race conditions.

Bushido2513

StaticWave wrote: »

Zabagad wrote: »

StaticWave wrote: »

You're either against Ward, pro Ward, or neutral. If you're neutral, then you shouldn't really participate in the discussion anyway. Being neutral is already a sign that you don't really care, which means you don't really bother to do the testing and that's not constructive for any combat balance discussion.

No - I strongly disagree
If 90% are neutral and 3% are pro and 7% are con, that would lead to a discussion where it would look like 2/3 are con and only 1/3 are pro...
So neutral doesn't mean "I don't care" or whatever you address to the maybe big majority.

Well, if you're neutral then you don't care if Ward is overperforming, underperforming, or balanced. Usually people who are neutral are those that play the game casually. They don't really care where an ability sits on the power scale. They most likely don't really talk about combat balance either. They log on to enjoy the game with friends and go with the flow.

Then there's also people who keep switching stances and say they don't care how an ability turns out to be. It's usually harder to have an honest discussion with these people because they argue for the sake of arguing. They'll go from "Ward is not overperforming" to "Ward is overperforming on 1 aspect of the game" then back to "Ward is not overperforming" lol.

You should probably phrase your argument or qualify it at least to say is ward too strong 1v1 if you dedicate your build to max mag.

If that's your argument I agree.

How many people run said build and how it affects open world is where I would say we get into the territory of it just coming down to individual preferences and experiences which can vary too wildly to really be used as accurate and repeatable data.

xylena_lazarow

Bushido2513 wrote: »

In trying to my more accessable to s wider audience this game has made staying alive easier than ever. This in itself throws off competitive balance.

If the goal was to make Sorc more accessible, they failed miserably as this thread is full of casual Sorc players wondering what's so op about Ward, i.e. they aren't building properly, they don't know how to use it alongside Streak, etc.

Nevermind the fact that when a lot of casual players lose to a seemingly untouchable Sorc, the response isn't "Ward is op" as they don't even know how shields work, instead they blame nonsense like "bunny hopping is cheating."

StaticWave

Bushido2513 wrote: »

StaticWave wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

The arguments probably seem more complex or even meaningless to you because you think someone should be binary when the situation is not exactly that.

It's funny to watch people try to boil a complex issue down to something they can more so easily digest even if the issue is requires complex thinking.

This ain't rocket science lol. Ward is either overperforming, underperforming, or balanced. You come to a conclusion by doing these tests:

- Test 1: Use Ward in a 1v1 environment
- Test 2: Use Ward in a small scale environment
- Test 3: Use Ward in a large scale environment

Skill difference is removed from all 3 tests because it is the biggest obstruction to an accurate analysis. If you want to test whether X car is faster than Y car around corners, you don't want a slow driver on X car and a fast driver on Y car. You want both drivers to be as skilled as possible. You also don't want random factors that could skew the analysis, like a slippery road or an unseen object in the middle of the road, so you organize the test in a controlled environment, which is a race track.

Apply the same logic to ESO. Test 1 can be done with dueling. Test 2 can be done with GvGs with group size less than 5 players. Test 3 can be done in Cyrodiil or IC with capped group sizes. I've posted multiple samples of Test 1 and Test 2. Test 3 requires setting up large groups, and quite frankly it's not worth the time for me to do so. However, you can take a look at an Arcanist giving shields to group members and see how potent a shield can be in a large group setting. All tests must be controlled though. The moment you throw random variables like a ganker doing 30k dmg from stealth or a zerg of 20 ppl approaching you, then the test is meaningless. No amount of shielding or block-healing is going to save you from those scenarios. But I've seen a few people use this to argue in favor of Ward, and that's an argument of bad faith.

Test 2 and 3 are as random as it gets though! In your car analogy that's like testing how fast each car is and how well they handle on public roads at random times of the day.

There isn't a way to really rest reliably in multiple opponent scenarios because there are just sooooo many variations you'd need to test repeatedly with so many factors.

In your car analogy that's like trying to compare but if all cars could trade out parts that you wouldn't be able to know about and were only using 20 to 30 percent of the parts available to them. You'll get data but it's not going to be very useful for accurately balancing future race conditions.

Which is why I use Test 1 as a basis for my analysis lol. We go straight back to square one on this 🤣

Bushido2513

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

In trying to my more accessable to s wider audience this game has made staying alive easier than ever. This in itself throws off competitive balance.

If the goal was to make Sorc more accessible, they failed miserably as this thread is full of casual Sorc players wondering what's so op about Ward, i.e. they aren't building properly, they don't know how to use it alongside Streak, etc.

Nevermind the fact that when a lot of casual players lose to a seemingly untouchable Sorc, the response isn't "Ward is op" as they don't even know how shields work, instead they blame nonsense like "bunny hopping is cheating."

I mean technically they don't have to know anything about how to use the. If they just want to try sorc now is as good a time as ever to pick it up because the ward is just flat out easier than before to use

StaticWave

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

In trying to my more accessable to s wider audience this game has made staying alive easier than ever. This in itself throws off competitive balance.

If the goal was to make Sorc more accessible, they failed miserably as this thread is full of casual Sorc players wondering what's so op about Ward, i.e. they aren't building properly, they don't know how to use it alongside Streak, etc.

Nevermind the fact that when a lot of casual players lose to a seemingly untouchable Sorc, the response isn't "Ward is op" as they don't even know how shields work, instead they blame nonsense like "bunny hopping is cheating."

Yea lol. I’ve fought both sweaty and casual magsorcs and the difference is very clear. Even if both players are wearing identical builds, good magsorcs always try to do these things:

- Keep a high shield uptime and weave abilities in between.
- Block weave a lot to avoid getting stunned
- Have a fast defensive rotation

Casual magsorcs will demonstrate these characteristics:

- Only occasionally use Ward preemptively, and mostly spam Ward when they’re low health.
- Rarely block weave
- Have a slow defensive rotation

This Ward change will just buff the good magsorcs even more tbh. I’ve killed casual magsorcs just as easily as last patch because they lack consistent use of mechanical skills described above. Good magsorcs are always super difficult to kill and can be unkillable unless you’re also a very very good dueler and using specific setups to counter them.

We can buff magsorc to benefit casual players without making the top end broken, and that’s by giving the class Major buffs and reworking certain abilities to be more reliable defensively.