The Gold Road Chapter – which includes the Scribing system – and Update 42 is now available to test on the PTS! You can read the latest patch notes here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/656454/
Maintenance for the week of April 29:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 29
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 29
Should Magelight take 2 skill slots?
-
Magelight should only have to be slotted once, not twice.if mage light takes one slot then so should other toggle buffs.......1 -
Two-Dogs✭✭✭Magelight should have to be slotted twice.The scientific method is not the study of knowledge it is a method to acquire knowledge, just as Empiricism and Rationalism are. Epistemology is how knowledge can be acquired, not simply a study of knowledge.
Oh the joys of typos! Meanwhile, as I stated:If you want to refer to the study of knowledge, including its transfer and extent, then refer to epistemology.There is no single "epistemological method" but there are "epistemological" "Methods".
I am fully aware of this. Perhaps, next time you wish to use terminology you will be sure to use the correct terminology. You stated:I am not setting any rules. We have an epistemological method for a reason.
Using an, the definite article, makes it clear you are refering to epistemologucal method as a single object, which is incorrect. That you are attempting to wriggle out of your poor choice of terminology is clear.
Furthermore, your statement...Something either is or it is not and there are correct and incorrect ways of determining that.
..is also false. I suggest you study epistemology and learn why.
If you wish to refer to methods that can be used within the study of epistemology you should either refer to those methods by name or, if you do now wish to put the effort in, be sure to rephrase and restructure your responses appropriately.2. We enjoy the benefits of all skills on both load outs while slotting once, other than toggles.
No we don't. See my Critical Charge example. I must slot it twice to gain its benefits. Just this one example disproves your statement.The majority is 35 people man, out of far less than 1% of players, I hope you are kidding.
It's a majority. For someone who likes to play science, you should appreciate the data before you. You asked for opinions, you got them - if you don't value the input of your fellow gamers, why make a poll?
0 -
Two-Dogs✭✭✭Magelight should have to be slotted twice.You are using a scientific approach and technical terms, I assume you are coming from such a background.
From his misuse of terminology it is clear that he is certainly not from a scientific background. At best, he's a hobbyist (..he's certainly not writing academic papers!)
0 -
Vizier✭✭✭✭✭
✭Magelight should have to be slotted twice.
Detachment from the data would be a start. It's clear the quest was not for data. It was for agenda as shown by strong emotional response when met with disagreement.
If a "scientific" methodology was being observed the response would be something like:
"uh, huh. I seee. Would you care to explain your reasoning? I see. Have you considered 'X?" Uh huh. I see. Well, Thank you for your feedback."
Instead we learned we can't read, write or understand the English language and probably shouldn't even try. heh.Edited by Vizier on September 19, 2014 1:37AM1 -
Jacques Berge✭✭✭✭Magelight should have to be slotted twice.This forum needs more cowbell."Shadow hide you"
Jacques Berge - v14 NB - DC0 -
Vizier✭✭✭✭✭
✭Magelight should have to be slotted twice.Jacques Berge wrote: »This forum needs more cowbell.
Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGBD1KUz2RA0 -
Armitas✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Magelight should only have to be slotted once, not twice.
If you were fully aware you would not have repeated your assertion twice in a row now. If you were fully aware you would not have such a narrow view of epistemology in the first place, thinking it only to be the study of knowledge. I used the correct terminology, those are two separate adjectives not a single term. I have stated this 3x now and yet the concept still escapes you. If you knew more about it you would not have mistaken 1 for the other.
I am fully aware of this. Perhaps, next time you wish to use terminology you will be sure to use the correct terminology. You stated:
Even the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy calls your view narrow. From the opening lines...Defined narrowly, epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. (Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy)
The scientific method is an epistemological method. Rationalism is an epistemological method. I am referring to rationalism specifically rather than the scientific method. Of the different methods it should have been obvious which one I was referring to... If it's not enough for you just to realize how narrow your view is then let me give you a standard dictionary explanation. Epistemology - a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge. (dictionary.com)I am not setting any rules. We have an epistemological method for a reason.
Using an, the definite article, makes it clear you are refering to epistemologucal method as a single object, which is incorrect. That you are attempting to wriggle out of your poor choice of terminology is clear.
Maybe you should look up logical impossibility. Without a false dichotomy argument this is nothing more than an assertion and hand waving.
Critical Charge is just a single cast weapon ability. You don't need to put it on both bars, just the bar with a two hander. If you are slotting Critical charge twice to use it once you are doing it really wrong.The majority is 35 people man, out of far less than 1% of players, I hope you are kidding.
It's a majority. For someone who likes to play science, you should appreciate the data before you. You asked for opinions, you got them - if you don't value the input of your fellow gamers, why make a poll?
35 people out of 1% is not appreciable data. The forums are not a democracy... I made the poll so that I could see what others think about it. I wanted to see if others were having the same thought as me, that is what this poll is about. I am appalled that you consider that conclusive scientific data. At any rate appeal to majority is a logical fallacy. You are free to make fallacious points all you want, but I am also free to disregard fallacious reasoning.
Edited by Armitas on September 19, 2014 2:35PMRetired.
Nord mDK0 -
Armitas✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Magelight should only have to be slotted once, not twice.
Detachment from the data would be a start. It's clear the quest was not for data. It was for agenda as shown by strong emotional response when met with disagreement.
If a "scientific" methodology was being observed the response would be something like:
"uh, huh. I seee. Would you care to explain your reasoning? I see. Have you considered 'X?" Uh huh. I see. Well, Thank you for your feedback."
Instead we learned we can't read, write or understand the English language and probably shouldn't even try. heh.
Right back into mudslinging and assumption making I see. Pointing out fallacious reasoning is not an emotional response, nor is it an "attack", it's a responsibility if you want to know the truth. I treat people in kind to how they treat me. I responded politely to your first post and you ended your reply to that with "nice try". Detachment from the data indeed! You are everything but detached, wanting there to be no skill counter to stealth.
BTW: There is a thread in the pvp forums asking for the same thing as you, for cloak to trump magelight. Here is the link if you want to support your belief. http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/131695/nb-wishes-nerf-magelight/p1
Edited by Armitas on September 19, 2014 2:32PMRetired.
Nord mDK0 -
Armitas✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Magelight should only have to be slotted once, not twice.
I would not go pointing fingers at others when the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy calls your understanding of epistemology a "narrow" understanding (cited earlier). It is that same narrow understanding that lead to your mistake of assuming 2 adjectives as a single overarching term. Beyond that I have nothing but incredulity over your inability to overcome that narrowness despite explanation.Edited by Armitas on September 19, 2014 2:27PMRetired.
Nord mDK0 -
Vizier✭✭✭✭✭
✭Magelight should have to be slotted twice.
"This is not a democracy?" Oh wow. All Hail, Armitas! Our benevolent dictator. And you know..."With great power comes great responsibilty." LOLLLS
Detachment from the data would be a start. It's clear the quest was not for data. It was for agenda as shown by strong emotional response when met with disagreement.
If a "scientific" methodology was being observed the response would be something like:
"uh, huh. I seee. Would you care to explain your reasoning? I see. Have you considered 'X?" Uh huh. I see. Well, Thank you for your feedback."
Instead we learned we can't read, write or understand the English language and probably shouldn't even try. heh.
Right back into mudslinging and assumption making I see. Pointing out fallacious reasoning is not an emotional response, nor is it an "attack", it's a responsibility if you want to know the truth. I treat people in kind to how they treat me. I responded politely to your first post and you ended your reply to that with "nice try". Detachment from the data indeed! You are everything but detached, wanting there to be no skill counter to stealth.
BTW: There is a thread in the pvp forums asking for the same thing as you, for cloak to trump magelight. Here is the link if you want to support your belief. http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/131695/nb-wishes-nerf-magelight/p1
LOL- Oh. Your so detached. ROFL. If "seeing" you and commenting on what I see is fallacious reasoning, I'm guilty as charged. Oh my dear person- This thread is not the ointment. It is the fly....true story.
No. You don't treat people in kind. Typically throughout this and other discussions the personal attacks start with you, not always, but typically. Folks responded to your question in good faith and gave their reasoning. You commonly attacked them personally afterword. At this point I can't be bothered to review this failed scientific experiment of a thread for quotes and examples. Anyone with a modicum of common sense and social graces that has read your bullocks will see clearly enough.Edited by Vizier on September 19, 2014 4:22PM0 -
Armitas✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Magelight should only have to be slotted once, not twice.
"This is not a democracy?" Oh wow. All Hail, Armitas! Our benevolent dictator. And you know..."With great power comes great responsibilty." LOLLLS
Detachment from the data would be a start. It's clear the quest was not for data. It was for agenda as shown by strong emotional response when met with disagreement.
If a "scientific" methodology was being observed the response would be something like:
"uh, huh. I seee. Would you care to explain your reasoning? I see. Have you considered 'X?" Uh huh. I see. Well, Thank you for your feedback."
Instead we learned we can't read, write or understand the English language and probably shouldn't even try. heh.
Right back into mudslinging and assumption making I see. Pointing out fallacious reasoning is not an emotional response, nor is it an "attack", it's a responsibility if you want to know the truth. I treat people in kind to how they treat me. I responded politely to your first post and you ended your reply to that with "nice try". Detachment from the data indeed! You are everything but detached, wanting there to be no skill counter to stealth.
BTW: There is a thread in the pvp forums asking for the same thing as you, for cloak to trump magelight. Here is the link if you want to support your belief. http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/131695/nb-wishes-nerf-magelight/p1
LOL- Oh. Your so detached. ROFL. If "seeing" you and commenting on what I see is fallacious reasoning, I'm guilty as charged. Oh my dear person- This thread is not the ointment. It is the fly....true story.
No. You don't treat people in kind. Typically throughout this and other discussions the personal attacks start with you, not always, but typically. Folks responded to your question in good faith and gave their reasoning. You commonly attacked them personally afterword. At this point I can't be bothered to review this failed scientific experiment of a thread for quotes and examples. Anyone with a modicum of common sense and social graces that has read your bullocks will see clearly enough.
A poll is not a democracy. Taking things out of context to besmirch me is true to your MO, and reveals the substance of your position.
If my reasoning is wrong I want to know, I have no problem with counterpoints. I do have a problem when people place themselves in their arguments such that if the argument falls they fall. People who turn a discussion into a drama, just as you have just done, and your post here is a brilliant example of that. After reading that outburst I am just amazed that you complained that I should be detached. You couldn't even handle one reply before turning on the drama in your second post of the thread.
I have done no so such thing. I have never attacked the person, unless they attacked me. Apparently you can be bothered to have emotional outburst all over the thread.Edited by Armitas on September 20, 2014 11:57AMRetired.
Nord mDK1 -
Luvsfuzzybunnies✭✭✭killerintheline9 wrote: »Since it gives huge buff to crit, it is decent "penalty" to having it.
Radiant magelight would suffer the same "penalty" for only 10% crit.
Never mind it gives stealthed damage mitigation to the tune of 5x% and 10% crit. .. which is way more valueable.Jukette VR12 DC Nightblade 14 day campaign.
Kitten Kisser VR12 DC Sorcerer 14 day campaign0 -
Vizier✭✭✭✭✭
✭Magelight should have to be slotted twice.I wouldn't call laughter and mockery an outburst, but to each their own.
You asked for opinions and reasons. People gave them and from my perspective they were articulate and well thought out. At no point did you accept their reasoning as anything other than "Bullheaded" and "Absurd" and then continued to push your agenda and limit the conversation and redefine the parameters of what is being asked such as balance considerations, design considerations as if they have no place in the discussion when they are directly related to the "should" part of your question, thus discounting their reasonable objections to a designed game mechanic you assert as a "flaw" and so on it goes...rinse, repeat. I give to the conversation what I think it deserves. At this point it doesn't deserve much serious consideration.
Just as others reasons where their own, so are yours. Your not "wrong." You're just not "right." Which in turn doesn't make the others "wrong." A point you feel you have to make regarding other opinions and reasons. You seem to think because you made a point and provided a reason it must be accepted as truth and foundation for the rest of the conversation. lol This sir is the crux of your problem. You merely were not persuasive to the vast majority of this conversations participants..shrug.
The poll stands or falls on it's merits. You aren't really interested in the data for the sake of seeing where it leads but only in so much as it supports your position. Both discussions / Polls you started on this subject failed to push your agenda. It is what it is, but I will say I'm content with that. :-)
Corrected typo and grammatical nuisance - cuz I'z dumbz.
Edited by Vizier on September 21, 2014 8:48AM1 -
Armitas✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Magelight should only have to be slotted once, not twice.I wouldn't call laughter and mockery an outburst, but to each their own.
You falsely accuse me of making personal attacks at people and then admit to intentionally mocking me? You have now gone through an entire page providing nothing but vacuous accusations and personal attacks. The man reduced to laughing and mockery has lost his position a long time ago. At this point you are all heat and no light.
Since you quoted "Bullheaded" and "Absurd" and said that I did not accept their reasoning for those reasons I hope you are prepared to reference where that happened. You're not? So this is just more of the same tripe as before where you make accusations and assumptions that never happened? Small wonder. As the OP the parameters are my right. Balance is a parameter that is a part of this poll. It has been the predominant part of the discussion, that is until you turned the last few pages into your soapbox for making emotional outbursts, laughter, mockery, and vacuous accusations that you fail to ever back up.You asked for opinions and reasons. People gave them and from my perspective they were articulate and well thought out. At no point did you accept their reasoning as anything other than "Bullheaded" and "Absurd" and then continued to push your agenda and limit the conversation and redefine the parameters of what is being asked such as balance considerations, design considerations as if they have no place in the discussion when they are directly related to the "should" part of your question, thus discounting their reasonable objections to a designed game mechanic you assert as a "flaw" and so on it goes...rinse, repeat. I give to the conversation what I think it deserves. At this point it doesn't deserve much serious consideration.
I value the reasoned posts I did get, very much in fact, even your own initial post... while ignoring your snide remarks like "Nice Try". Do I value the filth you put out now? Not at all, that is just the worthless posturing of a dying flame.Just as others reasons where their own, so are yours. Your not "wrong." You're just not "right." Which in turn doesn't make the others "wrong." A point you feel you have to make regarding other opinions and reasons. You seem to think because you made a point and provided a reason it must be accepted as truth and foundation for the rest of the conversation. lol This sir is the crux of your problem. You merely were not persuasive to the vast majority of this conversations participants..shrug.
Another false accusation. The principle of credulity is perfectly sufficient for one to rationally hold to their prior belief on something via intrinsic defeaters. I would never deny that as that principle is indubitable.
However this is a public forum about a specific topic. There is no reason to hide those defeaters. I certainly expect people to provide that rather than the accusations, laughter and mockery that you have been providing.The poll stands or falls on it's merits. You aren't really interested in the data for the sake of seeing where it leads but only in so much as it supports your position. Both discussions / Polls you started on this subject failed to push your agenda. It is what it is, but I will say I'm content with that. :-)
Corrected typo and grammatical nuisance - cuz I'z dumbz.
The data doesn't lead anywhere conclusive. It is insufficient for that. If you want to find out who has an agenda then look to see who tries to use that data to an affirmative conclusion.Edited by Armitas on September 22, 2014 1:58PMRetired.
Nord mDK0 -
Jacques Berge✭✭✭✭Magelight should have to be slotted twice.HOLY COW.... it happened... ARMITAS... you can have your stupid magelight anyway you like it now. I no longer care.... hahahahah IT HAPPENED!!! WE DID IT GUYS!!! WE DID IT!!!Edited by Jacques Berge on September 22, 2014 2:31PM"Shadow hide you"
Jacques Berge - v14 NB - DC0 -
Vizier✭✭✭✭✭
✭Magelight should have to be slotted twice.Nothing false about it Armitas. When you call people "Bullheaded" and "Absurd" after they gave a reasoned response, discount them, insinuate they can't understand the trope you spew it is an attack. You attack them personally, you attack their intelligence. You attack, discount, re-spew or alter discussion parameters, re-spew. It's your MO...shrug. My hope is, for your sake, you gracefully let it go. I'm embarrassed for you.
You're really owed nothing more here. But I do find your verbal and reasoning gymnastics entertaining. The people here resoundingly rejected your trip here and appears so did Zeni, seeing that Magelight was nerfed in addition to the fix given to NBs cloak....
...This is me moving on. Love you man. Really.1 -
Armitas✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Magelight should only have to be slotted once, not twice.Nothing false about it Armitas. When you call people "Bullheaded" and "Absurd" after they gave a reasoned response, discount them, insinuate they can't understand the trope you spew it is an attack. You attack them personally, you attack their intelligence. You attack, discount, re-spew or alter discussion parameters, re-spew. It's your MO...shrug. My hope is, for your sake, you gracefully let it go. I'm embarrassed for you.
You're really owed nothing more here. But I do find your verbal and reasoning gymnastics entertaining. The people here resoundingly rejected your trip here and appears so did Zeni, seeing that Magelight was nerfed in addition to the fix given to NBs cloak....
...This is me moving on. Love you man. Really.
I asked you to cite that. You did not, and yet continue to claim I did. Back up your assertions and accusations with reality. Otherwise this is just another episode in your saga of vacuous accusations, assumptions, and mudslinging.
If yelling loudly is what you call resounding sure, I'll go by that term. It doesn't mean anything though. Magelight still does exactly what it says it does, reveals hidden and invisible enemies. It was a bug fix not a nerf, neither of which has anything to do with this poll, or your suggestion that cloak trump magelight. Those points have nothing to do with this topic, they do not stand or fall on each other. Your "walking away" point doesn't make sense, it isn't accurate, and it wouldn't even make a difference if it was...Edited by Armitas on September 22, 2014 6:30PMRetired.
Nord mDK0 -
Still_Mind✭✭✭Magelight should only have to be slotted once, not twice.
You aren't comparing the potential of Magicka builds to Stamina builds, are you?
When weapon crit has the same 2 slot requirement to reach the amount of crit it can reach now then magelight taking 2 slots would be justified.killerintheline9 wrote: »Since it gives huge buff to crit, it is decent "penalty" to having it.
"I'm not *giving* him cake, I'm *assaulting* him with cake!"0 -
SrauSoul ShrivenMagelight should have to be slotted twice.Long answer : it is not just magelight but several triggered buffs for other classes that have the same issue. It is clearly a choice to make when you pick your skills for your bars. So if you allow it for one allow it for all.
Tldr answer : no way, two is the way to go.
Edited by Srau on September 23, 2014 10:56AM1 -
Magelight should have to be slotted twice.Magelight procs the max magicka % passive increase from the mages guild skill line, so yes, it should be slotted twice
its more than just crit light
"A man is only as great as the beard that wears him" - Sai Sahan2 -
dodgehopper_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Magelight should have to be slotted twice.If you didn't have to keep it in both bars, they'd have to allow this for all abilities. I want you to imagine a world where Sorcerors are even more powerful than they already are, and this is the world you would live in. Not every class gets the same access to the # of toggles it can use. There are other balance problems with this as well.US/AD - Dodge Hopper - Vet Imperial Templar | US/AD - Goj-ei-Raj - Vet Argonian Nightblade
US/AD - Arondonimo - Vet Altmer Sorcerer | US/AD - Azumarax - Vet Dunmer Dragon Knight
US/AD - Barkan al-Sheharesh - Vet Redguard Dragon Knight | US/AD - Aelus Vortavoriil - Vet Altmer Templar
US/AD - Shirari Qa'Dar - Vet Khajiit Nightblade | US/AD - Ndvari Mzunchvolenthumz - Vet Bosmer Nightblade
US/EP - Yngmar - Vet Nord Dragon Knight | US/EP - Reloth Ur Fyr - Vet Dunmer Sorcerer
US/DC - Muiredeach - Vet Breton Sorcerer | US/DC - Nachtrabe - Vet Orc Nightblade
EU/DC - Dragol gro-Unglak - Vet Orc Dragon Knight | EU/DC - Targan al-Barkan - Vet Redguard Templar
EU/DC - Wuthmir - Vet Nord Sorcerer | EU/DC - Kosh Ragotoro - Vet Khajiit Nightblade
<And plenty more>0 -
ghengis_dhan✭✭✭Magelight should have to be slotted twice.
Wrong. Magelight is great in Cyrodiil to boost critical heals. You also get critical damage on NPC guards when taking keeps and resources.Outside of PvE Magelight isn't even great. Only use is Stealth detect or the reduced DMG Taken out of stealth. Cause in PvP, good players are at least Crit Immun up to 50% anyway.Edited by ghengis_dhan on September 29, 2014 2:07AM"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."
Teddy Roosevelt, Paris, 19100 -
Merlin13KAGL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Michaeljdaveyb16_ESO wrote: »Magelight procs the max magicka % passive increase from the mages guild skill line, so yes, it should be slotted twice
its more than just crit light
That massive 1%/skillpoint on two attributes that are likely already overcharged?
Just because you don't like the way something is doesn't necessarily make it wrong...
Earn it.
IRL'ing for a while for assorted reasons, in forum, and in game.I am neither warm, nor fuzzy...
Probably has checkbox on Customer Service profile that say High Aggro, 99% immunity to BS0 -
chipputer✭✭✭Any constant buff should take a constant skill slot. I honestly don't care how they do it, but they clearly changed the way they work for a reason (as stated earlier in the thread-- to prevent people from stacking one full bar of constant buffs and having the other bar be their damage).
I don't believe the magicka loss is a proper way to prevent people from stacking (it doesn't currently stop people), and I can easily see people stacking everything and then having a full bar of damage utility.
If they let it happen and it's fine then I'd be okay with it (roll it out on the test server), but I'd like to see it tested and messed around with well before I pass judgment on if I believe it's a thing to be allowed or not.0 -
NotSo✭✭✭✭Magelight should have to be slotted twice.I would like to see magelight work as a passive skill where I can slot it on one bar and it will function right off the bat but if I swap to my alternate bar then magelight will extinguish and stop providing its bonus effect, then if I change back to the main bar, 'voila' magelight is working again. (no button mashing to reignite my magelight)Edited by NotSo on November 2, 2014 1:37AMGar'Sol the Wanderer VR14 Khajiit Sorcerer Spellblade0 -
Dublicious✭✭✭Magelight should have to be slotted twice.It's a toggled ability. They're all like that. It makes sense since the second bar is considered an entirely independent bar (I.E. "while slotted" effects only apply when the right bar is up).ESO Username: @Dublicious
Title: Splitter of Hairs
ESO Characters:
Claricea Starlinor Vet 14Sorcerer DPS -- Woodworker/Blacksmith/Clothier -- Provisioner
Liquado Starlinor Vet 4 DK Tank, alchemist
Some low level Templar and NB...0 -
Gyudan✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Magelight should only have to be slotted once, not twice.It makes sense that mage light only works when it's on the bar and toggled on BUT right now switching weapons (if bar 2 doesn't have it) and coming back to the original bar disables the toggle and it has to be activated again. That's a waste of time and DPS, which is why most people keep it on both bars. I'd like to have a second bar with more weapons/stamina skills but having to put mage light on it too is quite pointless.Wololo.0 -
Solanum✭✭✭Magelight should have to be slotted twice.My siphoning attacks requires two slots, a sorcerers summons require two slots. Either change them all or change none.0
