Armitas wrote: »

Vizier wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

Vizier wrote: »

Here we go again...

Armitas wrote: »

Ourorboros wrote: »

No matter how you want to frame the argument, you are essentially looking for a way to make the game easier and get around game design. Have as many polls as you want, I don't see ZOS giving ground on this, and don't believe they should.

That is a baseless accusation about me. I am looking for the flaw to be removed because I believe that 1 skill should cost 1 skill slot. Even though I don't even have a sorc I don't think 60% of one of their 3 lines should cost 2 slots each along with an innate penalty.

No it's not baseless. Your obviously attached to the subject. You want Mage Light to take 1 slot and work all the time. We get it. It's kind of a pain in the ass for it to take two slots. there is an impetus for this series of polls and discussions you've started on the subject and this incarnation has been crafted differently. Granted Ourorboros may not "know" your motivation to be a desire to make the game easier but it's a reasonable assumption. Maybe the game just doesn't make sense to you and having a toggle on both bars makes so little sense it's a distraction. Maybe you have a build you'd like to use but this two slot toggle is cramping your style? (that one has my vote.) Maybe your crusading for the good of all with total disregard for your self interest...maybe, but I recon his assumption is based on observation of both discussions and seems pretty reasonable to me and I wager a fair few others.

It's not a question of whether or not it makes sense if a skill stops working merely because you switch weapons. It's a game design issue. It's not a "flaw" as you like to refer to it as. It's a balancing measure implemented after game testing. People used to use their secondary action bar as a toggle bar. This was deemed a problem by ZoS and altered to it's current form.

I don't believe you'll see any changes in this anytime soon. People want balance more than they want it all to make sense. As for me I prefer balance be ZoS first priority.

His accusation was that I want the game easier, and that I want to get around the game mechanics. You need to show that that is true, despite the fact I have shown it to be false, and my record proves it. As it is non sequitur it will remain a baseless accusation until you show it to be based. There is also the matter of occam's razor which I mentioned already.

I want all toggles/summons to cost 1 skill slot rather than 2. This is not an incarnation, this is a different poll. 1 was a poll regarding a skill, the other is a poll regarding a category. I find it incredulous that you are unable to tell the difference between a single thing and a category.

People are using their secondary action bar as a buff bar now. The line between both bars is now non existent due to the fact that swaps are now instant. What their priority should or should not be has no bearing on the concept of whether it should or should not cost 1 skill slot. That could be true, and it never reach a priority. That is all not to mention that the poll, as stated if you read it like I asked at the beginning, assumes a maximal fix which entails that it must be balanced.

I did give you the benefit of the doubt on that but his assertion is a reasonable on. He doesn't have to prove anything. It's his opinion based on observing you. I personally don't believe you want to make the game easier. I think you want things to make more sense to you in the way they work in game or you got worked up about mage light on your DK build. I don't have to prove it. I've stated it based on my observation of you. I'm content to let others make up their minds as to the validity of my claim.

This IS another incarnation of the same subject you have a bug buzz about. You started with a poll on Mage Light, didn't dig the way that went and decided to rephrase the poll. Which by the way is a Bologna poll. You couch it at end with a assumption of "maximal fix" which you use to mean "balance?" WTF. OMG Dude. LOL. Love you man. You make me smile.

Can't address this as if the game is balanced....no, just no.

If you want to make baseless accusations about people publicly then you should show that it is based on something. Otherwise it is nothing more than forum warrioring. You say his accusation is a reasonable one, and yet provide no reason. In fact you deny that he has to provide any reason. Well then as far as we can know his assertion is unreasonable as well as contrary to a record of evidence.

You are free to make as many assumptions about me as you wish. But you are mistaken to do so.

Another assumption. I am happy with the way the poll went. I see nothing negative about it. It's a poll of less than 1% of the entire population. I started the poll to see where my thought was in line with other thoughts.

Maximal is a philosophical term. It is used in many philosophical arguments and debate. There is nothing wrong with it's use.

I told you what it is based on and what I believe the other poster based it upon. You don't have to accept that and you can say I'm full of crap. I don't care. I expressed my observation. That you didn't tap out a "tell-all" book on the subject doesn't mean people can't comment on what they've observed regarding your behavior on this subject, ie. these Poll discussions you started and your subsequent commentary and defense of your position.

You saying something is baseless doesn't make it so and as I said, I absolutely explained exactly what my opinion is based on. Take it or leave it, me responding to you repeating yourself over and over isn't warrioring. It's merely responding to you. You keep thinking we are in a court of law or engaged in some kind of forensics debate and that things needs be proven to you within your narrowly controlled parameters of the conversation. Keep dreaming.

I'm sure "Maximal Fix" is used endlessly in philosophy and debate. You've said it therefor it must be so and certainly the philosophers in these forums are legion. I never said you were wrongly using it. So defensive. I do question the efficacy of it's use considering the obscurity of it's meaning to most (including me) here. I even tried to look it up before posting....it's pretty obscure bud and since everyone else countering your position over these last discussions referencing "balance" actually used the term "balance" I think it's pretty funny you went there. Sometimes it's about knowing your audience. While familiar with the term Maximal and Maximal Set your usage here eluded me. I am glad to have learned a new term though. I look forward to day I can use it.

Vizier wrote: »

I told you what it is based on and what I believe the other poster based it upon. You don't have to accept that and you can say I'm full of crap. I don't care. I expressed my observation. That you didn't tap out a "tell-all" book on the subject doesn't mean people can't comment on what they've observed regarding your behavior on this subject, ie. these Poll discussions you started and your subsequent commentary and defense of your position.

You saying something is baseless doesn't make it so and as I said, I absolutely explained exactly what my opinion is based on. Take it or leave it, me responding to you repeating yourself over and over isn't warrioring. It's merely responding to you. You keep thinking we are in a court of law or engaged in some kind of forensics debate and that things needs be proven to you within your narrowly controlled parameters of the conversation. Keep dreaming.

I'm sure "Maximal Fix" is used endlessly in philosophy and debate. You've said it therefor it must be so and certainly the philosophers in these forums are legion. I never said you were wrongly using it. So defensive. I do question the efficacy of it's use considering the obscurity of it's meaning to most (including me) here. I even tried to look it up before posting....it's pretty obscure bud and since everyone else countering your position over these last discussions referencing "balance" actually used the term "balance" I think it's pretty funny you went there. Sometimes it's about knowing your audience. While familiar with the term Maximal and Maximal Set your usage here eluded me. I am glad to have learned a new term though. I look forward to day I can use it.

You told me what you thought he was basing it on, while you were giving me the benefit of the doubt. He actual told me what he was basing it on.. "Hardly baseless, since you created this poll." That does not follow. Baseless accusation and baseless assumption is not constructive. The fact that I defend my position does not warrant the belief that I have an agenda or that I am using subterfuge. To make those accusations without providing a reason is nothing more than mudslinging forum warrioring.

Saying something is baseless only means that it has no believability. It is effete. There is no reason to even say it if one does not wish to provide a reason for it. That is called not being constructive. If someone wants to sling mud at me I will demand that he back it up. There is no place for that in this thread or the forums. If you wish to sling mud as well then please leave.

I expect my audience to rise to the occasion, fully understand what they are engaging in and respond appropriately to what is written. That is called respecting my audience rather than assuming they are incapable understanding something. However my audience assumes the worst of me, by default and accuses me of subterfuge and an agenda. Some of it so ridiculous as to accuse me of being sorc. That is blatant and unwarranted disrespect. In this modern era of google it should be readily possible to understand the things that I have written. You yourself prove that to be possible. If failing all that one could simply ask "what do you mean by X?" before posting. There is after all no point in answering a question one does not understand.

You question the efficacy of the use of maximal, though it is used by professionals. It is used by professionals due to its meaning. That meaning is not aptly described as balance alone, that is why I chose the term maximal, just as others have done.

You seem unimpressed with philosophy. I think one should use it every day of their life, in every thought. If life is anything more than what one does or believes in every attosecond of their life then knowing what is true and what is not would seem to me to be one of the most crucial things in ones life.

demonlkojipub19_ESO wrote: »

I picked this... but... so.... Since some skills will turn off if you don't put it on both ability sets, you want it to be forced to both ability sets rather than the player optionally place it on both ability sets?

One can fill 10 action slots with 10 different skills and use each of them to their full extent as if we have a single 10slot action bar and a weapon swap. This however is not the case with toggle abilities. With the exception of using an exploit they require both bars to reach their full potential because they cannot persist through a weapon swap, even though they have no relevance to the weapon itself.

To your question, in short, I want it to be sufficient that one slots a skill once, rather than twice to achieve the same result.

4. They should cost 0 skill slots. You should be able to turn them on/off on the skills menu. You should only need to slot them if you want to actually toggle them during combat.


1. I feel toggleable skills should be "self balanced". There should be a sufficient downside to having them on such that having them on shouldn't be a "no brainer". I.e. summon familiar. It reduces your max magica by 10%, which (presumably, if it doesn't it should) reduces the damage you do with magica abilities by the appropriate amount. So if you don't *really* need the CC abilities of your pet, you want to turn it off for improved damage dealing.

2. Unless they change it so any damage you deal with your destro staff abilities gets restored when you change to a resto staff, or any healing you do with resto staff abilities gets undone when you change to destro staff, or any class CC snares/stuns/knockdowns/damage/healing gets immediately undone when you change weapons, there is no reason why toggleable class abilities should behave that way. This is particularly true for the pet summons, which are largely just another form of crowd control.

GnatB wrote: »

1. I feel toggleable skills should be "self balanced". There should be a sufficient downside to having them on such that having them on shouldn't be a "no brainer". I.e. summon familiar. It reduces your max magica by 10%, which (presumably, if it doesn't it should) reduces the damage you do with magica abilities by the appropriate amount. So if you don't *really* need the CC abilities of your pet, you want to turn it off for improved damage dealing.

It doesn't appear that summons (and possibly the other toggle skills) work that way. Before, while, and after having a summons, the character display shows the same max magica. However, while having a summons, the current magica will only go up to 90% of the max magica. So I don't think that having a summons reduces damage dealt that is based on max magica (but I haven't actually tested that). However, there is still 10% less magica to use for other abilities.

smacx250 wrote: »

It doesn't appear that summons (and possibly the other toggle skills) work that way. Before, while, and after having a summons, the character display shows the same max magica. However, while having a summons, the current magica will only go up to 90% of the max magica. So I don't think that having a summons reduces damage dealt that is based on max magica (but I haven't actually tested that). However, there is still 10% less magica to use for other abilities.

Some smart person once said: "It doesn't matter if how deep a pool is, as long as it's deep enough to swim in, and you can refill it fast enough to keep it from emptying."

(ok, yeah, it was me, just now. Though I'm pretty sure I've heard it before.)

Anyways, point being that if you can use pots/regen abilities to keep up your magica supply (and from what I've seen, you can) reducing the pool by 10% is pretty much irrelevant. If those skills aren't actually reducing your damage with magica abilities appropriately, then as far as I'm concerned they are badly bugged. (and, I'd argue said reduction should be calculated *post* soft/hard cap.)

Vizier wrote: »

I do question the efficacy of your poll on a couple levels, but typically for the integrity of a poll to valid those answering need to understand what is actually being asked of them. The ESO forums are not comprised of philosphy professionals and majors but rather a large diverse population given to variants in age, profession and education. For this reason I believe the poll tainted, but hey man, it's your poll. Word it how you want.

I'm curious though. What is the purpose of this poll if we are all so off base with our assumptions? If:

1. Toggled skills were Previously allowed continuous activation on one action bar slot. ZoS obviously thought 1 slot was a good idea and now, after testing, do not. Is this intended to change their minds?
2. Changed the action bar design to require toggle on both bars for balance issues. Didn't they even reduce the action bar size?
3. The player base overwhelmingly continues to support balance over convenience.

Are you merely attempting to see if the player base would want more options if the game was balanced? If so then just ask that.

If balance wasn't an issue, of course, who wouldn't want more options available on their action bar? It's kind of a no brainer. Just curious where your going with this? If we are so off base, just lay your cards on the table.

Pitting "real world" logic against the rules and design of a fantasy game just seems pretty futile IMO. It seems you have to work in the reverse. The designers have goals in mind with regard to what they want to achieve with the game, then work within the confines of the engine to produce the desired effect. As issues come up they adjust in accordance to the world rules as defined by the engine and programming. If you can't address the balance issues it is pointless to even discuss whether toggles should take 1 or 2 slots since we already know it was altered to it's current design for precisely that reason.

I am referring to assumptions about me not the game. I am not aware of them ever reducing the number of skills in the game. While it may be true that in the past they changed it to require both bars, they have just recently, effectively removed the two bars with instant swaps. As I stated in the poll this is a maximal fix, which would entail balance. It is a poll of the concept itself.

If you would like to address the balance issues that can be done on another thread. As the poll states this is a poll of the concept, assuming a maximal fix. The poll is not mandatory, but voluntary. I am the OP and I have chosen the context of the poll because that is what I wanted to see.

What you propose would actually double the skillbar you can use, and this doesn't seem right to me. The two skill bars aren't one the extension of the other, but two completely different skillbars.

'MERICA!!!