Bashev wrote: »

Orchish wrote: »

That's why i am convinced this is a bug. With the block stam regen nerf there is absolutely no need to increase the cost of block at all.

I think that it is not a bug. It is part of the new balance update which is coming. They just forgot to disable this part of the code and uploaded in live. It is not coincidence that in PTS all the skill cost were 30% higher. Probably this will go in live with the next patch. This will try to balance the CP and no resource management that we have. On top of that I really hope that they will unnerf the no stamina regen while blocking.

I think also that something like this is on the agenda

It could even be one step beyond... preparing towards the real big picture:

not only the by you mentioned balance of CP but also towards the removal of the Vet ranks

Hateanthem wrote: »

This is the reason I hate systems like champion points, or systems where you can give little boosts to your character after level cap. It creates balancing nightmares. People will use the CP system as intended, which causes some to throw a huge fit because it counters them...then the "NURF BLOKS CUZ IT R HARD LOLZIES" type of people come out from under their rocks.

Yeah...
But anyways, the system shouldnt be balanced only for best builds and max cp. I think that earning cps to make your char a bit stronger sounds better than earning cps to make it less gimped.

Hateanthem wrote: »

The "it are TES I get to play however I want and win just like skyrim!" people are literally the bane of this games existence. There will never be balance because of them. I'm so sick of reading "it a TES title its how it are be gurgle gurgle". Really? Last time I checked TES didn't have pvp.

True. And those people tend to forget that even in Skyrim some gear/skill setups were more op than others. And since its an online game, exploits like crafting op potions and enchants (as well as using cheat code for invincibility) cannot be allowed.

Changes like this are the reason I gave up on tanking in ESO. This is the first MMO in my gaming history that I didn't main a tank or tanked in general. These changes don't make it fun or challenging, only frustrating. Great job, ZOS...

Castle wrote: »

Hey folks. We've read through the thread and identified what happened on our end. This turns out to be because the cost scaling for Blocking in the Veteran Rank levels was never scaling as intended. When we updated the Battle Leveling to the new version, the scaling began working as it was intended to.

Unfortunately, that means that Block (and possibly sneak and sprint costs, too, though we have not yet verified that) costs are much higher for players at the highest levels than it has been in the past. So, to correct that we're going to reduce the scaling value so that it will end up approximately the same as the previous cost at VR 16. This means it will actually be cheaper than it was before for all previous levels.

First of all : THANKS !

justy for my proper understanding:
This means it will actually be cheaper than it was before for all previous levels.
you mean by that that lower Vet levels will have lower Block Costs than we (say Vet 16's) had when we were at lower level?

Edit added: The relevance is that this will greatly help lower level tanks that do not have the optimal endgame armor sets.
That would be wonderfull

Castle wrote: »

Hey folks. We've read through the thread and identified what happened on our end. This turns out to be because the cost scaling for Blocking in the Veteran Rank levels was never scaling as intended. When we updated the Battle Leveling to the new version, the scaling began working as it was intended to.

Unfortunately, that means that Block (and possibly sneak and sprint costs, too, though we have not yet verified that) costs are much higher for players at the highest levels than it has been in the past. So, to correct that we're going to reduce the scaling value so that it will end up approximately the same as the previous cost at VR 16. This means it will actually be cheaper than it was before for all previous levels.

I am happy you replied, I have now leaned back in my chair.

Haha. Everyone goes mad, but just two paragraphs from zenimax gets everyone quiet again.

Castle wrote: »

Hey folks. We've read through the thread and identified what happened on our end. This turns out to be because the cost scaling for Blocking in the Veteran Rank levels was never scaling as intended. When we updated the Battle Leveling to the new version, the scaling began working as it was intended to.

Unfortunately, that means that Block (and possibly sneak and sprint costs, too, though we have not yet verified that) costs are much higher for players at the highest levels than it has been in the past. So, to correct that we're going to reduce the scaling value so that it will end up approximately the same as the previous cost at VR 16. This means it will actually be cheaper than it was before for all previous levels.

Thank you very much for handling this @Castle . Can you please also make sure that bashing and dodging are costing the appropriate amount? Finally, it would be nice if you could convince Eric Wrobel to set up a forum account. Many of us have many things we want to communicate to him, but feel as though we are hindered from doing so by Eric's lack of forum presence.

I repeat, thank you.

the angry mob has been pleased. . .for now. . .but while your fixing block cost could you indeed look at tanking as a whole and perhaps fix this weird bug that causes my stamina to stop regenerating when I block?

My Orc has put down his Axe and shall relax a little now. Thank you for the reply.

robkrush wrote: »

Question. If the battle scaling had been calculating block cost correctly would you guys still have chosen to nurf stam regen while blocking or would this have potentially impacted your reason for nurfing stam regen while blocking?

actually yeah wait a sec, ill take higher block cost if we get stamina regen back, instead of low block cost and no stamina regen.

Personofsecrets wrote: »

Thank you @heystreethawk for the balanced insight (which should be mandatory reading for @ZOS_BrianWheeler @ZOS_RichLambert & @zos_OneWithNoForumAccount).
[...]
I will take at face value what you say about the PVP community. We do all have to remember that OneWithNoForumAccount mentioned PVP and PVE reasons for the nerf.
[...]
It is really amazing to watch Shelzia and Sypher duke it out with DKs that are almost always blocking while doing some serious damage to each other and then see how an entire group can't kill one of them. That is quite a skill barrier.

You're quite welcome! Thanks for taking the time to read it; I'm happy to have been able to flesh out another perspective. It's tough to know how things play out on the other side of the table -- I feel like there's such a time sink and learning curve to becoming serious about / getting yourself prepared for either endgame PvE or competitive PvP, and there's enough of a difference in terms of equipment, skill bars, and attribute distribution (to say nothing of play style!) that I wouldn't expect many players from either camp to have a fully-formed picture of how the changes from patch-to-patch play out in the other environment. Not enough hours in the day.

Implementing changes that affect both sides of the game, then, has gotta be a grueling and complicated business; I'm sympathetic to the developers, as I imagine you are, even as I grow more frustrated with the oversights inherent to some of their decisions. I feel like every major change of this nature actually brings at least two major changes into effect (not counting bugs or mathematical errors): there's the initial change to game mechanics, which might have a transparent and predictable effect, but then there are the changes that the players make to compensate for the changes to familiar mechanics, which tend to skew the balance in a different direction -- especially in PvP.

I think that Wrobel has had some solid and innovative ideas for balance in the past, and a lot of the changes that were tough for me to swallow circa 1.6 wound up being good for the game overall. I'm glad he moved PvP away from a game of Who Has the Most Negates, for example! With the block change and a few others, though, it feels more like abstract theorycrafting than actual strategic balance, because it's not taking into consideration either the current tendencies of players, or what they'll do to their builds in response to the changes. I can understand making changes that you know will be unpopular, if they're for the longevity of the game... But it disappoints me that it was portrayed as something that would make PvPers happy, because now people are under the impression that PvPers had been asking for the change. I understand offering up a "silver lining" type example of how a change might benefit people, but this one was a significant stretch of the imagination.

I'm glad you mentioned those recorded matchups -- I agree that they're a blast to watch, and it's worthwhile for me to note that it was possible to dish out competitive damage while staying on the defensive for that long in a duel situation (or a 1vX against much less experienced players)... With just one source of incoming damage to account for in a duel, you can manage your stamina well enough on a build that isn't designed exclusively for that purpose. But in a group situation with ground AoEs, damage from different sources (including ultimates), CCs, all that jazz, it's gonna be gone in an instant if you try to turtle up. The stam drain doesn't even feel proportionate to the damage reduction -- my health bar moves a lot slower when I'm eating the damage than my stamina bar does while I'm blocking! It's become more worthwhile for me to swap that shield out for another sword, and dish out more effective self-heals with the extra spell power. We'll see how the cost adjustment pans out. Either way: c'est la vie.

Castle wrote: »

comments.

Cool handle by the way, but I would have chosen Malcolm Reynolds...

Castle wrote: »

Hey folks. We've read through the thread and identified what happened on our end. This turns out to be because the cost scaling for Blocking in the Veteran Rank levels was never scaling as intended. When we updated the Battle Leveling to the new version, the scaling began working as it was intended to.

Unfortunately, that means that Block (and possibly sneak and sprint costs, too, though we have not yet verified that) costs are much higher for players at the highest levels than it has been in the past. So, to correct that we're going to reduce the scaling value so that it will end up approximately the same as the previous cost at VR 16. This means it will actually be cheaper than it was before for all previous levels.

I think you are miss interpreting it guys.

This is what it sounds like to me:

If you were to draw a graph of the new cost of blocking and compare them all, the new graph will have a steeper slope but will still intersect with the graph before the current one at v16.

This means blocking will be cheaper at lower levels prior to v16, but at v16 it will be exactly as it was before. I wouldn't call it a buff, just a rebalancing.