NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

No, but you could propose more realistic changes. ZOS does not want dodge roll to be a primary means of defense for anyone, even medium armor builds. Keep that in mind when making suggestions.

Source and reasons behind it, please, if you have those.

Well if not fixing dodge roll it is time to look at blocking.

• Not dodge roll specialized builds can freely use it. Costing them only 100% of the value and nothing more.
• Non blocking specialized builds NOT using MEDIUM ARMOR can freely use blocking. Costing them 100% of the value + their low stamina regen.
• Dodge roll specialized builds cannot use blocking during dodge roll. Outside of it they pay 100% of the value + 100% of their stamina regen each 2sec. Since their stamina regen is the highest of all other nonblocking builds. They pay the MOST of all. More than any heal or magicka specialized character.

Strider_Roshin wrote: »

In my honest opinion, I can rationalize ground AoEs being undodgeable, I can rationalize channels being undodgeable.

What I can not rationalize is the Cliff Racer being undodgeable simply because you can see it coming. I also can't rationalize non-ground AoEs being undodgeable. As someone that did MMA for quite some time you can most certainly "dodge" AoEs.

For example: if I get a pole, and I start swinging it in a circle do you mean to tell me that you are incapable of ducking or "rolling" out of the way of that pole?

I'm fine with certain abilities being undodgeable as a means of counterplay. I just find the list of undodgeable moves to be too generous, and irrational at times.

If they gave dodge rolling mitigation while trying to dodge undodgeable abilities it'll mitigate (pun intended) the stupidity that is their criteria for undodgeable attacks.

I can rationalize it. Watch every nightblade streaming/YouTube vid. What's one thing they have in common? Dodge roll as primary defense due to it's 100% mitigation.

It's a stupid rule to have Cliff racer undodgeable, as it incentivizes the zergs, but if they can land a shalk -crit rush-cluff racer then you better have vigor/Dodge roll/block/Los.

Everyone will be begging for the old Jesus beam channel lol.

Sugaroverdose wrote: »

Good luck doing it on consoles.

Gamepad players are perfectly capable to quickly turn around. After all we have all the varieties of competitive first person shooters on the consoles.

Sugaroverdose wrote: »

Oh right, and pay extreme amount of stamina for it, while still getting damage and do not be actually mobile, templar passive reduces cost only for blocking projectiles

Well, it appears that 'extreme amounts of stamina' are not that much extreme even on non-cp pts, since all magplars in pvp keep doing exactly this.

Sugaroverdose wrote: »

"Global cooldown", hah, did you ever played pvp or just pretending?

I happened to, yes

Sugaroverdose wrote: »

Templar:
Javeling+Luminous
Toppling+Luminous
Luminous+Ultimate

None of shards morph CCs on pts.

On live though none of this combination does anything meaningful in term of cc, because people will break free Luminous.

You point was you can stun a blocking person? In none of these examples you stun the blocking person, you stun already cc-ed one before he breaks free.

Sugaroverdose wrote: »

Sorc(if he really wants to):
Rune Prison+Frag
Rune Prison+Ultimate

I assume you meant Defensive rune, since both unmorphed and the other morph of Rune Prison don't do what you expect them to do.

And this 'rune combo' is really unreliable, because it requires the target to cc itself from the rune.

Sugaroverdose wrote: »

Magdk:
Petrify+Ultimate

2 gcd. 1 sec interval between petrify and ultimate.

Sugaroverdose wrote: »

All those stuff can be placed almost instantly

And none of them give the caster any substantial benefit, besides Defensive Rune one iff the target helps the caster:)

Sugaroverdose wrote: »

Even magblade can do that, and half of the battle i do not blockhold because you can't LA weave on consoles holding block, don't know how it works on PC

You can't la while blocking without releasing block.

If 'even magblade can do that' that's once again shows how unproportionally strong blocking is.

Dorrino wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

I see. And it should trust a person who yells in CAPS to everyone as if their opinions are somehow more than just that are are absolute truths that the rest of us are too ignorant to understand?

Ok, since you for some reason interpret CAPS as yelling instead of neutral means of emphasizing key points in the sentence, i'll use bold instead from now on. No yelling was meant.

The constant use comes across as condescending. Especially when you tell me

"Dorrino wrote: »

“Trust me i'm not making these examples up nor exaggerating anything

and

"Dorrino wrote: »

I'd ask you specifically not to diminish the problem with dodgerolls

But then proceed to be hypocritical and say things like some issues templars face in PvP are irrelevant

"Dorrino wrote: »

“since they are holding block the whole time”

which is exaggerating and diminishing the problem with the templar defense.

That may be “emphasizing key points.” But it is not neutral as you are cherry-picking instances that are convenient for your case and using a double standard.

Dorrino wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Whenever ZoS comes onto these forums they always ask people to consider the implication of a proposed change beyond the benefit of their class or spec. In particular how this might negatively impact the other mechanics in the game. I do not think you have met this standard.

I said multiple times that i think this change should be applied to any dodge instead of med armor only. Frankly i think adding it to med only will lead to inconsistency, confusion and negative disparity between different specs.

Thus the aim of my suggestion is to buff an underperforming defense mechanics for everybody using it. The change is aimed to benefit any class/spec and thus it meets your standard by definition.

I did not dispute either of these.

Dorrino wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

You yell at me:

Imagine that as a magplar you'd have NOT to spam bol and instead you'd HAVE to dodgeroll.

Well guess what? Because I actually played the class for three years as opposed to just hopping on the PTS, I can tell you there are situations where dodge roll is a better choice than BoL.

This is undeniably true. Though the point wasn't that 'bol is always the strongest defense choice'. The point was 'there're no circumstances when using bol would put the templar to a worse spot as compared to not using it'.

This to me is specious reasoning. If I cast BoL when it is a poor decision and it results in a defeat, then it does not matter that I was better off that it restored 4,000 health when I took 20,000. I'm still dead. You are taking an extremist position and holding onto it because of a technically. A better way to determine the relative effectiveness is who would survive more often, the always beneficial BoL dependent Templar or the med armor spec dependent dodge roller who is sometimes worse but also sometime far better off for having avoided an attack(s) entirely. It’s more complicated than you are making it out to be.

Dorrino wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

I could be heal debuffed, I might need LoS, I might be in an Eye of the Storm, a nearby ally might have lower health than me, I might want to create separation from multiple attackers beating on me, etc. Breath of Life is good, but it reactive and it has a huge drawback in that you have to eat things like Incapacitating Strike.

This 'huge' drawback is not even relevant, since templars purge defiles first and cast bol second. And since they are holding block the whole time they can't even get punished during 1sec gcd before bol.

It is very relevant. If I get Incaped, I get stunned, I suffer more incoming damage, and I get heal debuffed. I have to first break the stun, then cleanse, and finally hit BoL. That's two global cooldowns I have to trust in my passive defenses not to die. Oh, and since templars are hitting their opponents with puncturing sweeps, they are not holding block "the whole time."

You are constantly making assertions about how templars are played and just accept these as truths when you don’t even play them. You insist on bringing up the best-case scenario as the default scenario as the means in to argue balance. Yes templars can cleanse, but there are times when cleansing is not possible or optimal and thus they do suffer debuffs. Removing them requires opportunity and takes resources and global cooldowns. Yes Templars can hit players with sweeps, but they are best set up because otherwise opponents can avoid them without much difficulty or prevent them by immobilization (which has no cooldown). Yes magplars hold block, but their stamina pool is limited because they spec into magicka. But when it comes to dodge-rolling, you cite the worst-case scenario for your justifications why it is inadequate. And when I bring up the advantages of dodge you tell me "not to diminish the problem with dodgerolls " when you have no issue diminishing the problems with templars. If you want to have an honest discussion, how about yet abide by the standards you insist I follow.

Dorrino wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

It is not a panacea. It is not something in my estimation that is trustworthy as a reliable primary defense. I use secondary defenses like block, dodge roll, Mist form, potions of immovability & speed, etc. to cover the weaknesses of Breath of Life.

Just like med specs use block, pots, cloaks etc to cover the weaknesses of dodges. The problem is that combined effectiveness of bol+secondary means type of defense generally outweigh combined effectiveness of dodge+secondary means for the reasons outlined in the OP (not yelling caps).

I don't necessary disagree with that. But I don't necessarily see it as a problem. A stamina Nightblade has mechanics that allow it to attain a quick burst damage much easier than a Templar. A lot of stamina NBs insist that the price for this firepower is that they are squishy. OK, fair enough. If we make it so the NBs defenses are not outweighed by BoL+secondary means, I suppose you'll still think it fair and balanced for Nightblades to also keep that quick burst damage. Your suggestion would do nothing to diminish the firepower a Nightblade and give them equivalent defenses of a class designed for stationery powerful defense.

Dorrino wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

And you have yet to even address the disadvantages, namely interruption, no block-cast, no animation-cancel, limited mobility, that accompany channels because they are designed to defeat dodge-roll.

These 'disadvantages' occur against any target, dodging or not. They are not dodge specific.

But more importantly why would you claim 'they are designed to defeat dodge roll'? Besides that this is not true, please point at skills 'designed to defeat blocks' and 'skills designed to defeat shields' (skills, not sets). Even skills 'designed to defeat heals' don't work against classes with purge.

ZoS wrote:

Fixed an issue where channeled attacks (such as Radiant Destruction), Restoration and Lightning Staff Heavy Attacks could be avoided by dodge rolling. Channeled attacks cannot be dodged.

If ZoS is saying channeled attacks cannot be dodged, then it is intended for dodgerollers to take damage from them.

As for a skill designed to defeat blocks:

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

With the changes coming in Update 6, will Fear still go through block?
Yes, Fear will still go through block. We like that Fear has a unique role on the battlefield, but we’ll continue to monitor how this interaction affects balance.

and

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Fear should not be blockable.

.

ZoS has monitored this and have kept it. Also disorients also bypass block.

Anti-healing skills such as Dark Flare and Incap do work against classes with purge because it is possible to use these skills in combination to kill the opponent before they get a heal off. Once again, you are always assuming the best-case scenario when it is convenient for you. Incap stuns, giving you two global cooldowns to burst down a templar before the BoL is cast; the nightblade is designed for such a burst.

Dorrino wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

This is what ZoS means when considering the impact on other game mechanics. Why should a channeler subject themselves to those disadvantages just to have their damage reduced by 50%?

Yes, why? When his target dodge rolls the 'channeler' puts himself in zero danger, because the target has zero means to punish him for channeling. So why this 'channeler' has to be provided with a non-brainer/not punishable way to 'defeat dodge rolls'? Just because he slotted a universally effective med to high damage channeling skill?

Now this gets into the whole RD argument. You can't punish a channeler by dodge-rolling so don’t dodge-roll. This is going to be one of those situations where you have to rely on a secondary means of defense unless you are dodging for LOS. If you want to argue that RD shouldn't have the range it does and is overly restricts counter-play options and that the new soul assault also is too easy, I will not disagree. But these are issues that ought to be addressed by reforming these particular skills.

Dorrino wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

I do think the suggestion posted by Bee by tying a smaller percentage tied to how many medium armor pieces is a good suggestion. Such a reform would also by a similar reform for Light Armor because it too is not reliable. Ideally both reforms would be implemented, perhaps with an accompanying passive to light armor that afford the user some passive protection while channeling.

ps. I hope i understood your silence correctly and we agree now that jabs/sweeps pose a big problem to specs with dodgerolls as their primary defense mechanism?:)

Not at all. Though I don’t know why it can’t be done on Live. You have fought me on my templar enough on PC NA to demonstrate that it is possible to stay mobile and avoid enough of the sweeps that such an attack is best set-up via a stun or immobilize if an opponent does not accept mano a mano melee combat. You do this every night you play yet come on these forums and exaggerate the ease in which a class you don’t even play has using this attack. Also you have made it quite clear in a tell to me that you do not think very much of me as an opponent. If you genuinely want to see me try and avoid your sweep attacks, then add me on the PTS as a contact. My @ name is the same as my forum account

Dorrino wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Yes I think it would be too strong to combine the best aspects of dodge (avoiding hits, mobility) and block (50% mitigation against everything in the game - even 50% mitigation against damage block does not currently mitigate) while adding snare removal and doing nothing to the drawbacks of channels.

Yet none of the few points that you provided as a justification of this position are strong enough to do so. It is still unclear too me, why people need to receive full damage through a damage-avoidance mechanics.


Med specs obviously will benefit more from this change because they use dodges more, we can discuss it this might have a negative impact on the game.

Ok, let's have this discussion.

At base I don't think it's unreasonable for dodge-rolling to sometimes receive full-damage because there are times it receives no damage. It's boom or bust. Your proposal only make it boom. There's no downside. It would always be strong mitigation and in too many instances be the best and by a large margin at that. Your proposal would give the best form of damage avoidance as the primary defense for med armor specs that invest everything into offense. It’s a broken combination.

Let's look at blocking. By default it mitigates 50% of many incoming attacks.
But blocking does not mitigate all; destro ult, ground AoEs, DoTs, Curse, etc., all completely penetrate it. It’s not fullproof. You love to throw the it’s wrong for a dodge-roll to be useless against certain attacks and somehow that a unique drawback but do not consider a blocker’s primary defense is useless against Eye of the Storm, Curse, and Power of the Light. Fear and disorients are in the game to defeat block as confirmed by Jessica Folsam and Gina Bruno. Also while blocking does prevent CC's it does not prevent procs or secondary effects such as snares and secondary DoTs. Yes this also happens to dodge, but only with skills that actually hit them. With block it’s everything. Block costs be default less than roll dodge, but next patch such a cost can be incurred 4 times in one second, making it potentially twice as expensive as dodge roll, not to mention dodge roll is reduced by stam cost reduction glyphs which still provide use for DPS builds unlike block cost reduction glyphs. Blocking merely reduces the effectiveness of many, albeit not all, incoming attacks

And, as you acknowledge, blocking restricts mobility that can and will get players who rely on it killed when mobility is called for.

Whether or not dodge is better than block is debatable. It certainly is in many cases because it is mobile and potentially zero damage, zero debuffs, and zero procs. Yes dodging doesn't help at all with an Eye of the Storm or a ground DoT, but dodging is still the better choice here than block because once the dodge roll is complete, potentially no additional damage is taken. Even a perma-blocking DK is going to have to rely on her secondary defenses, dodging, igneous spam, something, to defend against a destro ult attack. Against channels and beams, yes dodge is useless. It’s boom and bust Vs. more consistency. I would say dodge is better but block is more reliable. It’s debate.

What you want to do remove this ambiguity. You propose the baseline mitigation for block and have it apply to all damage in the game, something block cannot do. Just that alone is arguable more desirable than block. But you aren’t done, you also want to add to the best part of dodge, namely its 100% avoidance to many attacks in the game. And you are also removing a key detriment to blocking, the lack of mobility, because you want it to remove snares to a defense that already moves the user away from danger. Where is the weakness? It’s all strengths and benefits. At worst it takes 50% damage. It makes no concessions that blockers must by lowering their offensive potency, staying committed to a stationary defense, and still suffering every secondary effect in the game. OK there is a cumulative penalty for dodge, but the same can be said for blocking as it also has penalties for excessive use and these are getting more prohibitive next patch. Your dodge proposal is way stronger than block because it takes the best of both while discarding the drawbacks.

Now, to get to your admission that "Med specs obviously will benefit more from this change because they use dodges more," what is the offensive profile of a med spec? Quick burst damage, which is the best means to kill players. So not only do you want to reform dodge-roll into this powerful defense-mechanic, you want to have that very same defense mechanic to primarily benefit lethal offensive specs. Perma-block tanks may be super-frustrating because they don't die, but at least they can't kill me.

When it comes to shield stacking, this is also a highly frustrating defense mechanic that I think is too strong. They share the same basic problem with your proposal, strong defensive while investing nothing into it. However shield-stackers still take damage from when targeted by instant-casts. They still get snared, debuffed, and procced by these instant-casts. Their mobility is not as good because they can't sprint while casting shields (and they cannot spam Streak). Shields must be maintained every 6 seconds even when not taking damage. It would also be easier to overwhelm shields by a sheer number because every attack hits and eventually the light armor underneath is all the sorcerer is relying on. Not to mention CCs ignore shields. A dodger-roller under your proposal is avoiding many attacks in the first place and the attacks that do hit him are subject to a 50% damage reduction right off the bat. It’s not even close. They aren’t in the same tier. So while I would agree shield-stacking overshadows the current dodge in game and this ought to change, the issue is shield-stack overshadows all defense mechanics. The best way to handle that would be to reform shielding rather than adjust every other defense mechanic in the game.

I understand that your proposal would in the end also make every player’s overall defense stronger (including those perma-block tank builds, which I'm not sure is a good idea). That is not in dispute. But even though everyone would have access to it, that doesn’t mean it all specs would benefit equally. Magplars use block because that form of defense synergizes with Breath of Life and the classes strengths cater to a reactive, burst defense. DKs also tend toward blocking and stationary defense. Even if magicka classes desired to use your proposed dodge – and they absolutely would – their use is limited because of their relative small stamina pools. Magicka DKs and magplars also have to invest resources in relying on inferior forms of defense. The high firepower med armor specs that you admitted would be the primary beneficiaries of a defense mechanic that combines the best of dodge and block while avoiding the inherent flaws in each.

I don’t think you consider the perspectives of those who disagree with you seriously. You lecture me about how a templar is played even though you don’t even have one on live, and the very fact that you ask me not to diminish dodge-rolls downfalls suggests you do not want to discuss, let alone confront, perspectives that do not conform to your beliefs.

You had the same mindsight when you released your add-on.

I don’t think it’s a hack, I don’t think it breaks the letter of the law, and I will acknowledge that you did make this available to the PC community. You didn’t have to do that, you could have kept it just for yourself.

Because you were incapable of convincing the ESO community or the developers of your opinion that stealth gameplay was too strong and that ZoS should make it so beginning a channeled attack pulls the attacker out of stealth, you decided to write a program that does. That epitomizes selfishness. You cared nothing about ZoS’s perspective, ZoS’s intention, or the opinions of the other players of the PvP community. Instead you were convinced of your righteousness and dropped a fait accompli on everyone because you personally wanted it in the game.

Who are you to make such a decision? That you would implement features into a game something the developers did not is conceit and arrogance. I don’t care if the information was accessible on the UI. There was a reason ZoS did not change the gameplay even after it was debated, but that did not matter to you. You felt that since you know what fun for PvP better than ZoS, you made your vision a reality.

Then claiming you just did this to make Cyrodiil more fun and beneficial to everyone is nothing but self-justification. You try to claim objectivity because you main a stam NB, but that meaningless because that’s not the only class that ganks or uses stealth and stam NBs are also victims of stealth attacks. You comfort yourself in the idea that this makes the gameplay between stealth and non stealth more even and that everyone can enjoy its features, but you do not care about those players whose gameplay and advantages against you are circumvented by your add-on. You do not care about the people who do not use your add-on are losing access to a critical piece of combat information the ZoS developers did not intend. Your entire mode of thinking here is selfish; what you wanted, what you felt was balanced, what you thought was fun. You claim to accept other people’s opinions, but your actions say otherwise.

I will acknowledge that dodge-rolling has been undermined by questionable changes instituted by ZoS; I see no justification for spammables such as crushing shock and cliff-racer to act as channels because it does not have the accompany disadvantages. But I think your proposal to grant them 50% mitigation against everything on top of the 100% avoidance on many things without any investment would have an overall negative impact on game balance.

Medium armor stamina dps is considered a liability in competitive trials, and medium armor stamina is approaching liability status in PVP if not already there. Dorrino hit the nail on the head with how poorly dodge works as a defense mechanic, and it is very much related to the feast or famine nature of dodge. More and more effects are becoming undodgeable, adding base mitigation to dodge would not be an unreasonable change.


Thing is dodge isn't less effective for magicka stacked, it simply costs more. Shields are undeniably less effective for stamina stacked and they cost considerably more.

The only reason you do not see more magicka stacked solo players is because the single greatest threat to solo PVP is to be CC'd or immobile.

Joy_Division wrote: »

The constant use comes across as condescending.
That may be “emphasizing key points.” But it is not neutral as you are cherry-picking instances that are convenient for your case and using a double standard.

I do apologize if anything i said could've been interpreted that way.

I admit i got microtriggered, when instead of disputing my reasoning that has been laid out in the OP i received 'you don't need it' type of response, followed by 'don't bend the game to your personal shortcomings'.

Joy_Division wrote: »

I did not dispute either of these.

You disputed that my approach doesn't take into account other classes/specs. This response was meant to show that it does.

Joy_Division wrote: »

This to me is specious reasoning. If I cast BoL when it is a poor decision and it results in a defeat, then it does not matter that I was better off that it restored 4,000 health when I took 20,000. I'm still dead. You are taking an extremist position and holding onto it because of a technically. A better way to determine the relative effectiveness is who would survive more often, the always beneficial BoL dependent Templar or the med armor spec dependent dodge roller who is sometimes worse but also sometime far better off for having avoided an attack(s) entirely. It’s more complicated than you are making it out to be.

Yet again, sorry for being not clear, but you misunderstood me. I never meant that bol is ALWAYS the best and winning choice, like in 'bol and laugh'. It's indeed more complicated than that.

What i meant, and that's one of the key problems with dodges, that you can't make it worse for you if you happen to cast bol. If immediately after casting it, you realize you need to block, dodge or bash - you can do it. You are allowed to be reactive. Meanwhile when dodge started you cannot do anything until it ends. So, say, you pressed bol and noticed a dk leaping you from some distance - you block/dodge it. If i pressed dodge and noticed the same dk leap i just take it. Full damage. And stun. And i'm taking that all purely because i failed to predict that in the next 1 sec i'll be the target of the leap. Any other primary defense mechanics is much more forgiving than dodge, because it allows the person to react. Dodge, besides stacking costs, requires you to predict.

In this sense dodge is quite similar to cloak. Both are casually denied by a multitude of abilities not just wasting their costs, but preventing any effective defense. With both of them you can't be sure your defense will work. Unlike blocking, where if you have cc immunity literally nothing can prevent your blocking to predictably succeed.

Joy_Division wrote: »

It is very relevant. If I get Incaped, I get stunned, I suffer more incoming damage, and I get heal debuffed. I have to first break the stun, then cleanse, and finally hit BoL. That's two global cooldowns I have to trust in my passive defenses not to die. Oh, and since templars are hitting their opponents with puncturing sweeps, they are not holding block "the whole time."

And again unfortunately i was misinterpreted. Obviously templars don't hold block at all times. 'The whole time' refers to 'the whole time necessary to recover'. So in your example templar can hold block all the way through purge and bol spam. if after say, 3 bols he's still not at full hp - he'll just hold block more and bol more.

This is in drastic contrast with dodges, because of stacking costs and unreliability. If you vigor and do a couple of dodges and realize you're not recovered yet you can't just do 5 more dodges. Additionally you wigor and dodge and still can get hit for half of your hp through the dodge - something that never happens with blocks.

Joy_Division wrote: »

You are constantly making assertions about how templars are played and just accept these as truths when you don’t even play them.

i play against them, so what do they do to recover is perfectly clear to me (since my goal is to somehow prevent that).

Joy_Division wrote: »

You insist on bringing up the best-case scenario as the default scenario as the means in to argue balance.

On the contrary each my example was my typical encounter with a mag templar. Unless they are not really experienced. Then obviously what they do is all over the place and is not really worth discussion.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Yes templars can cleanse, but there are times when cleansing is not possible or optimal and thus they do suffer debuffs.

Sometimes they dodge cancel bol and then cleanse. Sorry i omitted that detail.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Yes Templars can hit players with sweeps, but they are best set up because otherwise opponents can avoid them without much difficulty

That's why i didn't propose for the jabs to miss a dodging target. We all have been there, there was a reason why zos changed that.

Joy_Division wrote: »

prevent them by immobilization (which has no cooldown).

Which is perfectly countered by cleanse again:) And new 2 sec immobilization immunity after dodge.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Yes magplars hold block, but their stamina pool is limited because they spec into magicka.

Magdk's stam pool is also limited, yet by using tri food and sturdy glyphs they make up for this disadvantage.

Joy_Division wrote: »

But when it comes to dodge-rolling, you cite the worst-case scenario for your justifications why it is inadequate.

See, i don't describe my encounters with less experienced people for the reasons outlined above. All my examples had good opponents in mind. Yes, you average templar will struggle turning around, getting out of immobilization, cleansing in time etc etc. The point is that a good templar won't. Thus the scenarios that i discuss.

Joy_Division wrote: »

And when I bring up the advantages of dodge you tell me "not to diminish the problem with dodgerolls " when you have no issue diminishing the problems with templars. If you want to have an honest discussion, how about yet abide by the standards you insist I follow.

Dodge definitely have unique advantages. It would be stupid to argue that. The point is that despite its unique advantages dodge underperforms as the primary defense mechanism. Which would be fine if med armor builds had an option there. Unfortunately they don't.

Joy_Division wrote: »

I don't necessary disagree with that. But I don't necessarily see it as a problem.

I do:)

Joy_Division wrote: »

A stamina Nightblade has mechanics that allow it to attain a quick burst damage much easier than a Templar. A lot of stamina NBs insist that the price for this firepower is that they are squishy. OK, fair enough. If we make it so the NBs defenses are not outweighed by BoL+secondary means, I suppose you'll still think it fair and balanced for Nightblades to also keep that quick burst damage. Your suggestion would do nothing to diminish the firepower a Nightblade and give them equivalent defenses of a class designed for stationery powerful defense.

There's still a misconception with some people that stamina nightblades somehow possess higher burst than other classes and thus fall under 'glass cannon' gameplay paradigm.

Even though non-ganking stamblades month after month tell otherwise.

This misconception originates from a stereotype that a stamblade is a ganker. And many of them are. But gankers don't need the change i'm proposing. Gankers are more than fine in stealth, crouching around.

This problem with dodge becomes crucial for non-ganking stamblades (and, partially, other med armor specs). And a non-ganking stamblade does not have a specific burst that by any means is higher than any other class' one.

Templars with pol/purify and undodgable means of stacking the damage outburst stamblades easily (yes, both mag- and stamplars). Mag sorcs outburst stamblades easily from 28 meters range. Meta stama dk outburst stamblade easily while having way higher defenses.

That's the deal with non-ganking stamblades. They are glass cannons with bb guns instead of cannons:) Glass part doesn't get balanced by their cannon sizes. If it did - we wouldn't have this topic and this conversation.

Joy_Division wrote: »

ZoS wrote:

Fixed an issue where channeled attacks (such as Radiant Destruction), Restoration and Lightning Staff Heavy Attacks could be avoided by dodge rolling. Channeled attacks cannot be dodged.

If ZoS is saying channeled attacks cannot be dodged, then it is intended for dodgerollers to take damage from them.

That means, as i said in the post you quoted:

'Channels were made uninterruptable by dodges to prevent making them totally useless against a spammable mechanic. That, in turn, as a collateral, made them too strong against dodges. My change aims at reducing this gap to a more balanced amount.'

Joy_Division wrote: »

As for a skill designed to defeat blocks:

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

With the changes coming in Update 6, will Fear still go through block?
Yes, Fear will still go through block. We like that Fear has a unique role on the battlefield, but we’ll continue to monitor how this interaction affects balance.

and

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Fear should not be blockable.

.

ZoS has monitored this and have kept it. Also disorients also bypass block.

None of these skills damage you through block. None of these skills necessarily catch you in a gcd, unable to break free.

Imagine leap and dawnbreaker going through block and dealing their full damage in addition to cc. I'd switch to db instead of incap instantly:)

Joy_Division wrote: »

Anti-healing skills such as Dark Flare and Incap do work against classes with purge because it is possible to use these skills in combination to kill the opponent before they get a heal off.

Magplar in heavy from full to zero before having a chance to block+purge and bol?

Didn't happen once outside of ganking. Sorry.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Once again, you are always assuming the best-case scenario when it is convenient for you. Incap stuns, giving you two global cooldowns to burst down a templar before the BoL is cast; the nightblade is designed for such a burst.

2nd gcd will go to block. So 1 gcd. At best.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Now this gets into the whole RD argument. You can't punish a channeler by dodge-rolling so don’t dodge-roll. This is going to be one of those situations where you have to rely on a secondary means of defense unless you are dodging for LOS.

And use vastly inferior defense mechanics instead. I know. I do that (besides when i can't not to dodge channeler's friends).

The question was, why if i ran a non-med build i wouldn't care about that, since i could just block it all? Why block is allowed to be universally useful and dodges in particular shouldn't be?

Joy_Division wrote: »

If you want to argue that RD shouldn't have the range it does and is overly restricts counter-play options and that the new soul assault also is too easy, I will not disagree. But these are issues that ought to be addressed by reforming these particular skills.

Rd is fine. it's not the point. The point is that rd alone was 'unique'.

Rd and soul assault was 'at least i can cloak in 2 sec'.

Rd, soul assault and purifing light already became 'i might not have these 2 sec'.

Undodgeable jabs became 'i'd better deal with rd+soul assault':)

Etc, etc, etc.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Not at all. Though I don’t know why it can’t be done on Live.

Because you couldn't articulate your point good enough and offered a demonstration. Leveling a templar on live, for you to be proved wrong carries zero insensitive for me and is frankly really stupid. I'm already accepting this weird way of proving your point, don't make it harder for me. Just log into pts.

Joy_Division wrote: »

You have fought me on my templar enough on PC NA to demonstrate that it is possible to stay mobile and avoid enough of the sweeps that such an attack is best set-up via a stun or immobilize if an opponent does not accept mano a mano melee combat. You do this every night you play yet come on these forums and exaggerate the ease in which a class you don’t even play has using this attack. Also you have made it quite clear in a tell to me that you do not think very much of me as an opponent. If you genuinely want to see me try and avoid your sweep attacks, then add me on the PTS as a contact. My @ name is the same as my forum account

Again, that wasn't me who wanted that demonstration:) I know your point won't work, because i did that many times before. Average templars might get confused. Good templars won't skip a beat. Also good templars won't run towards you with jabs. They will run in a large circle around you this alone makes dodging through them almost impossible if we take latency into account.

Joy_Division wrote: »

At base I don't think it's unreasonable for dodge-rolling to sometimes receive full-damage because there are times it receives no damage. It's boom or bust. Your proposal only make it boom. There's no downside. It would always be strong mitigation and in too many instances be the best and by a large margin at that.

Just like there's no downside to blocking/shielding. You still look at dodges as on a secondary defense mechanism. Like in 'let me try to dodge, if it succeeds - awesome, if not - well i'll dodge less next time' and fail to see that for some specs dodges are the defense. The only defense strong enough to rely on. Just like shields/bol/blocks.

There's no 'high risk - high reward'. There's 'it better work since everything else is bad'.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Your proposal would give the best form of damage avoidance as the primary defense for med armor specs that invest everything into offense. It’s a broken combination.

Med specs unlike meta heavy specs on live do not 'invest everything in offense'. They primarily invest in high regen. Then in defense (the only reason to use eternal hunt). Then in defense again (troll king because tk is the only way available to a stam nb to have noticeable heals) and only then to offense.

It definitely feels that you have some misconceptions about med specs in general and stamblades in particular:)

Joy_Division wrote: »

Let's look at blocking. By default it mitigates 50% of many incoming attacks.

While you consistently point out the best-case scenario for blocking (DK, sword & shield, gear) making that mitigation higher and the cost lower, this is not universally true and those that heavily invest in block undermine their offensive firepower. You say "I put out justifications why 50% might even be too low." That's not a justification. That's cherry picking the best case scenario while conveniently ignoring the loss of offensive potency that a dodge roller would not have to suffer.

As in a couple examples above when i talk about specs with their primary defense being blocking i assume they block with s&b, otherwise blocking can't be their primary defense:)

So for blocking specs blocks mitigate at least 60% (corrected, thanks to @Sugaroverdose) of damage. This is my reference point.

Joy_Division wrote: »

But blocking does not mitigate all; destro ult, ground AoEs, DoTs, Curse, etc., all completely penetrate it. It’s not fullproof.
You love to throw the it’s wrong for a dodge-roll to be useless against certain attacks and somehow that a unique drawback but do not consider a blocker’s primary defense is useless against Eye of the Storm, Curse, and Power of the Light.

Since all that is shared with dodges it gets canceled out from out comparison as irrelevant.

The point is not blocking is strong. The point is dodging is not strong enough compared to other means of defense.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Fear and disorients are in the game to defeat block as confirmed by Jessica Folsam and Gina Bruno.

Fear and disorients 'defeat' dodges just as much as they 'defeat' blocks. With an added perk of not being able to break free for 0.5 sec on average.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Also while blocking does prevent CC's it does not prevent procs or secondary effects such as snares and secondary DoTs. Yes this also happens to dodge, but only with skills that actually hit them. With block it’s everything.

Agreed here. I don't find this important enough, but this is a valid point.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Block costs be default less than roll dodge, but next patch such a cost can be incurred 4 times in one second, making it potentially twice as expensive as dodge roll

Now you're cherry-picking scenarios^_^

Joy_Division wrote: »

, not to mention dodge roll is reduced by stam cost reduction glyphs

They don't. I wish they do.

Joy_Division wrote: »

And, as you acknowledge, blocking restricts mobility that can and will get players who rely on it killed when mobility is called for.

This is another valid point, but since 'a blocker' can do a couple of dodges when needed to, it doesn't feel as crucial disadvantage. Discussable.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Whether or not dodge is better than block is debatable. It certainly is in many cases because it is mobile and potentially zero damage, zero debuffs, and zero procs.

Or full damage from some spammables and full procs while in the mid of a dodge:)

Joy_Division wrote: »

What you want to do remove this ambiguity. You propose the baseline mitigation for block and have it apply to all damage in the game, something block cannot do.

If zos persists to have unblockable stuff in the game, the proposed dodge damage reduction might share it. It's not the important part.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Where is the weakness?

Compared to blocking? Stacking costs, susceptibility to a wide range of cc and still lower damage reduction.

As i said above alternatively making blocks to work in the dodge would solve most of the problems with dodge at the expense of higher stam drain.

Joy_Division wrote: »

OK there is a cumulative penalty for dodge, but the same can be said for blocking as it also has penalties for excessive use and these are getting more prohibitive next patch.

This is totally not the same. This distinction alone heavily limits dodge performance as the main defense source because it forces the player to rely on their secondary defense mechanism.

As if magplar could make 5 bols and then he'd have to rely on dodges for 4-5 sec.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Your dodge proposal is way stronger than block because it takes the best of both while discarding the drawbacks.

As i showed above - i disagree.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Now, to get to your admission that "Med specs obviously will benefit more from this change because they use dodges more," what is the offensive profile of a med spec? Quick burst damage, which is the best means to kill players. So not only do you want to reform dodge-roll into this powerful defense-mechanic, you want to have that very same defense mechanic to primarily benefit lethal offensive specs. Perma-block tanks may be super-frustrating because they don't die, but at least they can't kill me.

As i showed above this assumption about med specs is incorrect.

And zos themselves said they want for med and heavy specs to be similarly represented in pvp.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Their mobility is not as good because they can't sprint while casting shields (and they cannot spam Streak).

Still they can use it enough times to not to call their mobility 'not as good':)

Joy_Division wrote: »

Shields must be maintained every 6 seconds even when not taking damage. It would also be easier to overwhelm shields by a sheer number because every attack hits and eventually the light armor underneath is all the sorcerer is relying on.

Easier than what?:)

And we shouldn't forget that 'shieldwearers' can and do utilize both dodges and blocks.

That's the best things about mag sorcs. If shields got nerfed they will go into blocking specs. With albeit weaker shields.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Not to mention CCs ignore shields. A dodger-roller under your proposal is avoiding many attacks in the first place and the attacks that do hit him are subject to a 50% damage reduction right off the bat. It’s not even close. They aren’t in the same tier.

I too feel that shields are still stronger:)

Really need a justification here if you didn't mean my interpretation above.

Joy_Division wrote: »

The high firepower med armor specs that you admitted would be the primary beneficiaries of a defense mechanic that combines the best of dodge and block while avoiding the inherent flaws in each.

Since this statement fully depends on the assumption of 'high fire power' and as i showed above this assumption is shaky at best - i have to disagree with it entirely.

Joy_Division wrote: »

I don’t think you consider the perspectives of those who disagree with you seriously.

I do, why would i have a discussion. I respect your opinion, but find it to be based on outdated and/or incomplete information.

Joy_Division wrote: »

You lecture me about how a templar is played even though you don’t even have one on live, and the very fact that you ask me not to diminish dodge-rolls downfalls suggests you do not want to discuss, let alone confront, perspectives that do not conform to your beliefs.

I try to encourage constructive discussion, mostly because i don't see a point otherwise.

By now i found out that the main reason for your objection (besides me CAPSING at you^_^) was that you believe that med specs in pvp trade off their defense for a better offense. And since this part is provably wrong we should be able to find an agreement on the subject.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Because you were incapable of convincing the ESO community or the developers of your opinion that stealth gameplay was too strong and that ZoS should make it so beginning a channeled attack pulls the attacker out of stealth, you decided to write a program that does. That epitomizes selfishness. You cared nothing about ZoS’s perspective, ZoS’s intention, or the opinions of the other players of the PvP community. Instead you were convinced of your righteousness and dropped a fait accompli on everyone because you personally wanted it in the game.

This is precisely correct. Devs explicitly allowed to make that ui addition and i did it. Then devs (evaluating feedback) came to the conclusion that they, devs, were wrong initially (when they allowed it) and altered the api. Literally nothing in this whole process should've pushed me into asking everybody would they like to have it in the game.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Who are you to make such a decision?

A player that wastes his free time to make something he loves and hopes that some other people would love as well.

Joy_Division wrote: »

That you would implement features into a game something the developers did not is conceit and arrogance.

See above. Devs allowed that. Consciously. By choice.

Joy_Division wrote: »

I don’t care if the information was accessible on the UI.

I do.

Joy_Division wrote: »

There was a reason ZoS did not change the gameplay even after it was debated, but that did not matter to you.

They had a chance to change it. They decided otherwise. I'm happy either way. Life (and this game) doesn't have to follow my desires. I can only suggest, as i do right now.

Joy_Division wrote: »

You felt that since you know what fun for PvP better than ZoS, you made your vision a reality.

Yes i did.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Then claiming you just did this to make Cyrodiil more fun and beneficial to everyone is nothing but self-justification.

It's easier than that. I find it great. It solves a problem. I hope other people would find it great as well. If they do 'i made Cyrodiil more fun and beneficial' if they don't - i made something useless, at least i like it.

As to the 'for everyone' part - you can't make everybody happy.

Devs finally making exciting changes to the game's balance and we see rivers and rivers of tears instead of thanks. Even your tears have been spotted there:)

Today i did vmsa on my template stamblade - it was SO FUN (caps justified:)). The need to use heavies from time to time spiced out the gameplay much stronger than i anticipated. Zero real problems with sustain, but instead an important mechanics to watch for. All dps spec with 1 recovery and 1 cost glyph. Worked flawlessly.

So yeah, i didn't care that my addon invoked the controversy we all observed. it's fine for people to have different opinions.

Joy_Division wrote: »

You try to claim objectivity because you main a stam NB, but that meaningless because that’s not the only class that ganks or uses stealth and stam NBs are also victims of stealth attacks.

I never used this arguments. Others did for me. I never found it important.

Joy_Division wrote: »

You comfort yourself in the idea that this makes the gameplay between stealth and non stealth more even and that everyone can enjoy its features, but you do not care about those players whose gameplay and advantages against you are circumvented by your add-on.

That was kinda the point of the addon:) To inform the players about 'those players whose gameplay and advantages against you are circumvented by your add-on'.

Joy_Division wrote: »

You do not care about the people who do not use your add-on are losing access to a critical piece of combat information

No they don't. They might decide they don't want it for a multitude of reasons people poured on me over these months:) Addon is free. You like it - you use it. You don't like it - you don't. You find it unfair - that falls into 'don't like it' category unless you're fine being hypocritical.

Joy_Division wrote: »

the ZoS developers did not intend.

They did by nature of API.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Your entire mode of thinking here is selfish; what you wanted, what you felt was balanced, what you thought was fun.

Totally correct again.

Joy_Division wrote: »

You claim to accept other people’s opinions, but your actions say otherwise.

You, as anybody else, could've asked for additional features in the addon. And i'd make sure to consider adding them. That you didn't like it can't force me to stop developing it. Because other people did like it. Why your discontent is more important that their happiness?

Joy_Division wrote: »

I will acknowledge that dodge-rolling has been undermined by questionable changes instituted by ZoS; I see no justification for spammables such as crushing shock and cliff-racer to act as channels because it does not have the accompany disadvantages. But I think your proposal to grant them 50% mitigation against everything on top of the 100% avoidance on many things without any investment would have an overall negative impact on game balance.

I see your point and respect it.

ps. WE BRAKE FOR NOBODY (c) Space Balls

Sugaroverdose wrote: »

@Dorrino stop posting this large post, it's extremely difficult to read them.

What can i do, people ask many questions and make many points:)

Sugaroverdose wrote: »

Also check your calculations, 70% mitigation isn't possible with just S&B equipped it's (damage*0.5*0.8)=which is actually 60% of mitigation and not (damage*(1-0.5-0.2)) which would result in your numbers

I assumed it was additive. My bad.

60% then.

Sugaroverdose wrote: »

Also there's no GDC between ultimate and ability, this how nightblades does actually kill people HA+Ulti+Execute

There is. Each ability invokes a gcd. I don't know any exceptions.

'HA+Ulti+Execute' works because either ha or ult stuns and at the very best the target will be at the end of its 1 sec gcd after instantaneous break free (yes, break free is an ability and it does start a gcd).

Sugaroverdose wrote: »

There's no GDC between ability,LA,(bash|dodge),ulti they're all can be placed in 1s
Breakfree isn't "typical" ability, it stun lock you for 1s to watch stupid animation, so it's not GDC.

There're multiple cds in anim canceling.

LA/HA starts LA-cd (1 sec) no other la/ha are allowed.

Abilities start Ability-cd (1sec) no other abilities AND la/ha are allowed.

Bash starts Bash-cd (450ms) no la/ha, bash or ability is allowed.

Break Free, besides following Ability-cd starts it's own Break Free-cd (1sec) when nothing is allowed.
edit: was wrong. Just tested. You indeed can use bash/dodge/block right after Break Free-cd ends (after 500ms), but for the abilities you have the full 1sec cd from Break Free.

It's not the animation. The game doesn't care about animation at all.

I even started developing an addon to show all those cds to teach people to anim cancel properly, but unfortunately got bored half way through:)

So you can use la->ability at the same time, but not ability->la

You can use ability->bash or la->bash, but not bash->ability or bash->la.

All ults (no exception) are abilities are thus start ability cd.

That's why, for instance you can use la->incap->bash at the same time, but then still need to wait incap cd of 1 sec (or bash cd if you used bash later than 550ms from incap).

add: you might be thinking about Ambush->la->incap. The time interval betwen Ambush landing and la is indeed less that 1sec, because its gcd started when you hit the button, so by the time it lands some part of it already passed.

add1:

Sugaroverdose wrote: »

in mDK case it's Metheor, 1s wait, petrify - both lands in the same time, zero chance to mitigate if dk does not get distracted between those two.

This works precisely because it takes 2 sec for meteor to land. So a dk has just enough time to use petrify before meteor lands. One of the strongest combos in the game.

ps. Forgot about dodge. Dodge starts Dodge-cd:P 1 sec when nothing is allowed, just like Break Free. Dodge itself follows only Dodge-cd and Break Free-cd, so you can do la->ability->bash->dodge.

Sugaroverdose wrote: »

i've rechecked my vids 5 seconds ago - Ultimate do nothing to GDC, ability bar isn't grayed out at all.
Maybe you're right in this case i don't have anything to test it out properly: console does not give such amount of data to make accurate test

On PC i can find exact times up to ms when each event happens. So break free is weird (see my edit), but the rest works as described.

We do need way to make stamina char more viable in high end trials. Any way that could help, would be nice.

Sugaroverdose wrote: »

Don't tell me that mDK main defence is blockhold or shieldstack in LA it's just not true, even igeous with it's 4k value is mitigation mechanics which must be used when it fits your needs

it doesn't have to:) Just on live blockcasting dks in heavy are the meta. They are more effective.

As to the video, i really don't want to sound bad, because i assume you're the dk there, but literally everybody in the video fails to fight skillfully.

People run in random directions, sorc casts dark deal after popping destro (:D), nightblade went for cloak->magelight->onslaght gank and dk never tried to block as soon as nb cloaked. Nb didn't even run fear. Etc etc etc.

My change to dodge won't help anybody there:)

Sugaroverdose wrote: »

And yeah, tallons and fossilise as you can see are also good mitigation mechanics(as well as SalamiPirate retreat), so it's about situation awareness instead of reflexes

Yep they are.