RA187 wrote: »

as a templar with off dps i dont even use toppling charge as its np use in pve when i have invasion (shield charge's morph) from sword & board skill line. i noticed that all 4 classes has some similarities in skills if you look through them but the toppling charge doesnt do much imo. tried using toppling charge in pvp but invasion does more for me.

Toppling Charge does a lot more than you give it credit for.

Instead of using stamina it uses magicka, it has a chance to proc the passive "Burning Light" doing extra damage, it acts as an interrupt/cc, and it does decent damage.

This is actually a well put together skill (when it works correctly).

You are also comparing each classes gap closers when you shouldn't. Both Sorcs (streak) and NB's (ambush) are instant "teleports" to the target. Toppling Charge has an animation and delay.

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

Gina, i'm just curious about this but last year (around patch 1.1) class changes were in incremental patches. Is that just a thing of the past now? Right now people have waited an excessive period of time for these kind of things and having the restriction of 'once every few months' for balance passes and bug fixes is only a good way to cause frustration. Is there no way to get fixes like that out sooner?

It's not completely a thing of the past, though it isn't as common as it once was. In general, we try to keep big changes to our larger content updates (now DLCs) for various reasons, and more minor fixes and exploits to incremental patches. One of the main reasons we do this is for stability; introducing big changes or complicated bug fixes into incremental patches increases the risk of having an unstable build, which would make for a sad time for everyone. Keeping them for DLCs allows us more time for more thorough testing that we can complete with all the other major changes (including any new systems). Hope that makes sense!

@ZOS_GinaBruno As fair your reasons are, and please don't get me wrong, I understand them. I strongly believe you are making a lot of the community leave the game for good by not fixing things quicker. I understand the risk is higher, but if everyone couldn't play for a day because the build needed fixing, players would react far better to this than the bugs that exist in game at the moment lasting months. If we would like a coffee, but it comes out cold with a frog in it, a company wouldn't say to the customer "We'll get you a new one, just come back or you can wait a month and you might have the frog removed."
Maybe give it a try? I mean when you say stability of the build, how serious are you talking? I would prefer a month with better gameplay to have 2 days off at the end of the month because the build was unstable because it couldn't be implemented stably in the first place for whatever reason.

All the same, thank you for your response and insight.