....did everyone gave up?

mzapkeneb18_ESO wrote: »

....did everyone gave up?

If Wrobel is going to assume that people are using builds with 3 block cost glyphs, 100 points into block expertise, and draw the conclusion that resources are dandy based on that assumption, then what is left to do?

I put this up on Wrobel's thread but the thread doesn't seem to get the same attention as the player generated threads, so I am copy/pasting the idea to here to get player base thoughts and input.

************************

In regards to moving Block Expertise to the Thief CP tree, and your consideration for switching the placement of Resilient with Shield Expert....

(1) There are obviously still a lot of qualms about the cost of blocking in PTS. If you proceed with moving Block Expertise to the Thief tree and thus straining our available points for other cost reductions and/or regen, would you consider increasing the Block Expertise cost reduction cap. It is currently 25% with 100 points into it. It might be more palpable if you increased the max to 30% or 35%, and in doing so make it so that you can get to 25% at around 75 CPs invested. This would allow players to either pursue additional cost reduction past the 25% for cheaper blocking or invest in other cost reductions/regens. This may help alleviate some of the concerns of a bottleneck limiting diversity. Still not a perfect solution, but I think it would be a good way to meet us players in the middle on these issues. Plus, with Block Expertise now being in the Thief Tree, there is little worry of DPS builds stacking in block cost reduction (and thus return of perma blocking) as they will likely be forced to choose cost reduction and regen over reducing block cost, so really increasing the high end-end cap of Block Expertise would really only benefit tanks or extremely niche builds.

(2) I like the idea of swapping the location of Shield Expert and Resilient. I would like to propose another option: Consider moving Shield Expert to The Lord, as this is where Heavy Armor Focus is (and also Bastion and Quick Recovery for that matter) and thus it is the 'Tanky' tree; Swap it with Infusion as both Field Physician and Revival fit the Tanky theme. But, to take this one step further... Consider moving Last Stand to The Lord. Last Stand should be more of a tank/support CP passive. The Ritual, where Last Stand currently resides, is largely a stamina/physical tree. Well (and this statement will certainly be controversial) we stamina toons have access the cheapest ultimates, that now scale to physical, and skills like Incapacitating Strikes are already extremely controversial in the PTS. Stamina DPS, or DPS in general for that matter, does not need additional ult generation. Move Last Stand to The Lord and let Tanks benefit from Last Stand as they are the ones who really should benefit the most, and will will help alleviate concerns about block cost since tanks could then drop ults more often (DKs can shell, Templars can Nova, NBs can VoB, Sorcs can do whatever it is Sorc tanks do, all of which help with surviveability, or they can simply Warhorn more often and thus feel as tho they are benefiting the team more). Personally, I would move Last Stand to The Lord, move Windrunning to The Ritual (where Last Stand currently resides) because Windrunning seems to go better with a stamina based tree, and move Determination to The Lover (where Windrunning currently resides) since The Lover is about recovery and Determination, a potion use passive, synergizes best with this tree.

I think these two ideas would help compensate, albeit only slightly, for the planned changes to the cost of blocking and Bracing.

Armitas wrote: »

So what about all these non-crafted heavy sets like black rose that don't come with sturdy?

It *may* come with sturdy with the traits changes now. I don't know. The template characters don't have any TV, so I couldn't buy a bunch of containers to find out.

Nebthet78 wrote: »

mzapkeneb18_ESO wrote: »

....did everyone gave up?

I can't wait until all the QQing starts in the general forums because people are having a hard time finding others who want to tank for Trials now, or the tank keeps dying and then the group wipes b/c of these changes.

But on a serious note, there is something fundamentally wrong when a game nerfs everything to "balance" a game. Perhaps actually equalizing and buffing players and making content slightly harder is the better way to go. These type of changes are making me miss the days when VR levels were initially released and they were harder as hell to complete solo.

A mediocre or even poorly played/geared tank will be sufficient for all 4-man dungeons now, so I doubt there will actually be much QQing from typical playres/PUG groupers. And tanks for trials are usually filled by trusted guildies who know their stuff, and who have probably been voicing their complaints here. But yea, the actual difficulty of the content is a big part of the problem. They can afford to make stupid design decisions about tanks because that role doesn't really matter anyways now for, what, 95% of the game (including PvP). I miss the old VR difficulty level as well Would be fun if they released a 'nightmare mode' zone that where every mob encounter was life or death--but that probably wouldn't sell much as a DLC.

Bowser wrote: »

mzapkeneb18_ESO wrote: »

....did everyone gave up?

1. Adapt to changes.
2. ?????
3. Profit.

Wanting to adapt to nerfs is like wanting to adapt to waking up in the morning as a quadrapalegic. Yea, adaption happens, no-duh. Does that say anything about the reason for having to adapt? No, not at all and that is why adapting in and of itself is of absolute 0 value.

Bowser wrote: »

mzapkeneb18_ESO wrote: »

....did everyone gave up?

1. Adapt to changes.
2. ?????
3. Profit.

Can you explain me how those changes will promote more players to go tanking since ZOS went full silent mode again?

Supply and demand economics

There is no demand for nerfs

Stam regen while blocking was better before the nerf.

Bowser wrote: »

mzapkeneb18_ESO wrote: »

Bowser wrote: »

mzapkeneb18_ESO wrote: »

....did everyone gave up?

1. Adapt to changes.
2. ?????
3. Profit.

Can you explain me how those changes will promote more players to go tanking since ZOS went full silent mode again?

Supply and demand economics.

• Tanks unwilling to adapt leave the market.
• Demand for tanks remains constant, making those that remain more valuable.
• New players enter the market, and decide to tank to make themselves more valuable.
• New tank begins in post-nerf environment and learn strategies from those that adapted.

The last 2 steps never happened during all the other tank nerfs, why should they now?

Bowser wrote: »

mzapkeneb18_ESO wrote: »

Bowser wrote: »

mzapkeneb18_ESO wrote: »

Bowser wrote: »

mzapkeneb18_ESO wrote: »

....did everyone gave up?

1. Adapt to changes.
2. ?????
3. Profit.

Can you explain me how those changes will promote more players to go tanking since ZOS went full silent mode again?

Supply and demand economics.

• Tanks unwilling to adapt leave the market.
• Demand for tanks remains constant, making those that remain more valuable.
• New players enter the market, and decide to tank to make themselves more valuable.
• New tank begins in post-nerf environment and learn strategies from those that adapted.

The last 2 steps never happened during all the other tank nerfs, why should they now?

I didn't start tanking until after the nerfs so, yeah, the last 2 have occurred. I just learned it the hard way I guess.

It is unreal to me that you just say "adapt". Are you serious? So just because we can adapt means that we should ignore every design decision we disagree with. This makes absolutely zero sense. The dev team could destroy the entire game and make it unplayable and not fun and people would still be saying "adapt". The point is that this is not a good change. Take it from someone who tanked before the nerfs: tanking was more fun before you started tanking; before they started nerfing tanks. Tanks had far more options on how they could contribute to a group in a meaningful way. Guess what... I adapted and yes I CAN tank now... but I choose not to the vast majority of the time because it's not nearly as fun now and I can see that tanks are just going to have to adapt to nerf after nerf after nerf. No thanks.

Bowser wrote: »

mzapkeneb18_ESO wrote: »

Bowser wrote: »

mzapkeneb18_ESO wrote: »

Bowser wrote: »

mzapkeneb18_ESO wrote: »

....did everyone gave up?

1. Adapt to changes.
2. ?????
3. Profit.

Can you explain me how those changes will promote more players to go tanking since ZOS went full silent mode again?

Supply and demand economics.

• Tanks unwilling to adapt leave the market.
• Demand for tanks remains constant, making those that remain more valuable.
• New players enter the market, and decide to tank to make themselves more valuable.
• New tank begins in post-nerf environment and learn strategies from those that adapted.

The last 2 steps never happened during all the other tank nerfs, why should they now?

I didn't start tanking until after the nerfs so, yeah, the last 2 have occurred. I just learned it the hard way I guess.

I can adapt, I will adapt, and I will continue to tank after DB. That doesn't change the fact that I am annoyed at these changes. And it doesn't change my view that these are bad changes that ultimately harm the health of the game. Just because we can take a beating from the combat team doesn't mean that what they're doing is right.