Judging from your history of posts on this topic in which you blatantly ignore rebuttals and continue to repeat nonsensical arguments and demonstrate no indication that you actually play a sorc... all I can say is, look in the mirror when you say that.If you guys wsnt to exclude yourself from being included as capable of rational discussion, go right ahead.
FACT: The healing from the new Surge is less than that of the old Surge. This is what we call a "nerf". Don't come back until you can refute that convincingly.
Why do I have to refute that?
I have no reason to.
Is your argument based on "sorcs used to get more and sorcs can never have abilities reduced"?
If so, that's just incorrect.
The question is for balance purposes what SHOULD they have, not what they had.
That is why I kept asking for how much healing was wanted.
That's why I compared it to other existing tack-on-heal effects.
That's why I did not get obsessed with what it was over what it needs to be.
I did not and do not start with "sorcs survive with surge as only heal" or "surge gimme jabs level but at range and with aoe or dot or stun" as fundamental truths.
So, sorry, I don't see any reason to need to refute your nerfed designation.
I don't even necessarily disagree with it, as far as it goes (only addressing then vs now and some arbitrary total healing in generic circumstances)
Not sure why some seem more focused on what to call it than what it does now and should be.
cosmic_niklas_93b16_ESO wrote: »Judging from your history of posts on this topic in which you blatantly ignore rebuttals and continue to repeat nonsensical arguments and demonstrate no indication that you actually play a sorc... all I can say is, look in the mirror when you say that.If you guys wsnt to exclude yourself from being included as capable of rational discussion, go right ahead.
FACT: The healing from the new Surge is less than that of the old Surge. This is what we call a "nerf". Don't come back until you can refute that convincingly.
Why do I have to refute that?
I have no reason to.
Is your argument based on "sorcs used to get more and sorcs can never have abilities reduced"?
If so, that's just incorrect.
The question is for balance purposes what SHOULD they have, not what they had.
That is why I kept asking for how much healing was wanted.
That's why I compared it to other existing tack-on-heal effects.
That's why I did not get obsessed with what it was over what it needs to be.
I did not and do not start with "sorcs survive with surge as only heal" or "surge gimme jabs level but at range and with aoe or dot or stun" as fundamental truths.
So, sorry, I don't see any reason to need to refute your nerfed designation.
I don't even necessarily disagree with it, as far as it goes (only addressing then vs now and some arbitrary total healing in generic circumstances)
Not sure why some seem more focused on what to call it than what it does now and should be.
Cool, so sorcs shouldn't have anything viable to use then, that's what they should have according to you, lol.
cosmic_niklas_93b16_ESO wrote: »Judging from your history of posts on this topic in which you blatantly ignore rebuttals and continue to repeat nonsensical arguments and demonstrate no indication that you actually play a sorc... all I can say is, look in the mirror when you say that.If you guys wsnt to exclude yourself from being included as capable of rational discussion, go right ahead.
FACT: The healing from the new Surge is less than that of the old Surge. This is what we call a "nerf". Don't come back until you can refute that convincingly.
Why do I have to refute that?
I have no reason to.
Is your argument based on "sorcs used to get more and sorcs can never have abilities reduced"?
If so, that's just incorrect.
The question is for balance purposes what SHOULD they have, not what they had.
That is why I kept asking for how much healing was wanted.
That's why I compared it to other existing tack-on-heal effects.
That's why I did not get obsessed with what it was over what it needs to be.
I did not and do not start with "sorcs survive with surge as only heal" or "surge gimme jabs level but at range and with aoe or dot or stun" as fundamental truths.
So, sorry, I don't see any reason to need to refute your nerfed designation.
I don't even necessarily disagree with it, as far as it goes (only addressing then vs now and some arbitrary total healing in generic circumstances)
Not sure why some seem more focused on what to call it than what it does now and should be.
Cool, so sorcs shouldn't have anything viable to use then, that's what they should have according to you, lol.
Huh?
Said nothing of the dort.
My plan before the first patch notevdropoed was stamina khajit sorc with very high crits. Didnt expect shields to be the same. Didnt worry bout surge.@STEVIL Well in order to ensure you get your surge heal ticks regularly you'll either load up multiple DoTs or stack crit with fewer, either way you cannot really afford to miss with the Surge heals.. and it's not worth forcing them for a 3k heal (ie crit rush).
Wrt weapon vs class, I think you might have misunderstood my point. I wasn't suggesting magicka builds use stamina based weapons, just that the impact of the new weapon heals is potentially greater for other stamina classes (maybe not so much for Templars).
Ultimately my point is that stamina sorcerers will, I believe, have lower survivability in difficult pve content that the current situation on live. When I get time, I will try to demonstrate with a live vs pts comparison - but I suspect that it will be demonstrated on a massive scale when db goes live unless there are some survivability changes in the pipeline.
Indeed mathematically it's not hard to work out that a 9k heal from the live surge will take 3s on pts to occur. Even with 50% crit, you would do better on average on live.