defiler set nerv shows the core of the problem?

Nemesis7884 · May 2017

The defiler set damage proc was nerved 40% from 10'000 to 6'000...

How can something like this happen?

How is it possible that the values of a newly created set (that of course has been thoroughly tested) has to be adapted by 40%!!

This to me shows either that the involved people have no idea about the game mechanics and impact of changing such variables or that zos lacks a certain process in creating and changing variables to make sure this happens in a coherent or balanced fashion…

This is probably also the reason why they adapt and change things all over the place – like plugging leaks in a boat by hysterically running all over the place instead of setting up a core process that makes sure everything is done balanced.

I mean seriously 10% changes show me you're adjusting according to feedback and testing but 40%...if that’s the amount of quality and thought you put into other aspects of the game I'm no longer wondering why most mechanics seem to only get 80% done and then left…

I am in now way writing this to bash ZOS in any way, but one has to wonder if at this point they're just spitballing everything? Do they sit together and think - hey 9999 looks like a funny number, let's go witht it and see what happens??

If they'd focus more time on coming up with a core process for metrics maybe they'd stop changing things all over the place?

Gorthax · May 2017

you dont think 10k proc is too much? how much more insta derp damage do you want to give stamina people?

Edit: I do agree though, they do need to not make things so stupid high in numbers and then later adjust. They need to be reasonable with what they create. Not create then forget about it until it breaks things and then they blow it up with the nerf nuke lol

Wrecking_Blow_Spam · May 2017

Yea that is a big nerf considering veil tooltip is something like 13k I think and yet it only hits for about 3-5k in cyro. So I doubt that one would be too strong, I think ppl was more hoping it would help out stamina PVE DPS.

acw37162 · May 2017

You mean they came up with a value during creation and internal testing and after gaining more data from useage from test users then normalizing the set.

Yeah that reeks if we don't know what the *** were doing.

GrumpyDuckling · May 2017

It really does baffle me how they fail to see the drastic imbalance of sets. Look at the "nerf" to Burning Spellweave and tell me that it doesn't make you laugh.

ZOS, are you now implying that BSW has been "balanced?" Surely it is now equal to a set like Light Speaker... C'mon with this nonsense.

Wrekkedd · May 2017

K

Nemesis7884 · May 2017

Gorthax wrote: »

you dont think 10k proc is too much? how much more insta derp damage do you want to give stamina people?

Edit: I do agree though, they do need to not make things so stupid high in numbers and then later adjust. They need to be reasonable with what they create. Not create then forget about it until it breaks things and then they blow it up with the nerf nuke lol

I don't care about the nerv itself but the fact that if you have to nerv something that you thought about and tested and have expierence in by 40% right after release that this shows that you have either

a) no clue what youre doing
b) no processes in place that make sure metrics are adapted in a balanced fashion

And if they just spitball here all over the place they do it everywhere else and thats why things seem to be randomly changed all over the place - lack of process...

Nemesis7884 · May 2017

acw37162 wrote: »

You mean they came up with a value during creation and internal testing and after gaining more data from useage from test users then normalizing the set.

Yeah that reeks if we don't know what the *** were doing.

sure if youre adapting things 10% here 10% there...if you have to double or half stuff doesn't really raise my confidence in you knowing what youre doing

Phinix1 · May 2017

I am more concerned that you keep spelling 'nerf' like 'nerv.'

I do agree though, there should be more QC, internal testing, and follow-through on any number of things.

Shadow_Viper_vX · May 2017

*nerfed

STEVIL · May 2017

If you put your initial test score moderate you will get mixed results. Its not uncommon to aim high then cut back.

stevepdodson_ESO888 · May 2017

Wrecking_Blow_Spam wrote: »

Yea that is a big nerf considering veil tooltip is something like 13k I think and yet it only hits for about 3-5k in cyro. So I doubt that one would be too strong, I think ppl was more hoping it would help out stamina PVE DPS.

this is the point...it was meant as a helping hand to those few remaining PvE stam users...but has been abused in Battlegrounds during PTS

for example, a simple solution is to make it do damage to NPC's and not players (as they have sets that only affect players this is obviously something they can implement) and the create another new set that is suitable in PvP

Erynyes · May 2017

stevepdodson_ESO888 wrote: »

Wrecking_Blow_Spam wrote: »

Yea that is a big nerf considering veil tooltip is something like 13k I think and yet it only hits for about 3-5k in cyro. So I doubt that one would be too strong, I think ppl was more hoping it would help out stamina PVE DPS.

this is the point...it was meant as a helping hand to those few remaining PvE stam users...but has been abused in Battlegrounds during PTS

for example, a simple solution is to make it do damage to NPC's and not players (as they have sets that only affect players this is obviously something they can implement) and the create another new set that is suitable in PvP

so basically your solution for pve stam user is to give them proc set that do damage instead of user actually doing damage, interresting, ZOS are so bad they may consider hiring you who knows

M0bi · May 2017

ZoS have got alot of NERVE not balancing sets...ehehe..Eh..eh

acw37162 · May 2017

Nemesis7884 wrote: »

acw37162 wrote: »

You mean they came up with a value during creation and internal testing and after gaining more data from useage from test users then normalizing the set.

Yeah that reeks if we don't know what the *** were doing.

sure if youre adapting things 10% here 10% there...if you have to double or half stuff doesn't really raise my confidence in you knowing what youre doing

Your, "your" expectation is they be within 10% deviation on all new content creation.

Not withstanding what hundreds to thousands of players do with itbon test and not withstanding what hundreds of thousands of players will do with it on live servers.

Your expectation is not only unrealistic I would wager quite a handsome some of money in your own professional life your not within a quantifiable 10% standard deviation and you would consider yourself more then compentent Im sure.

This thread reeks of someone who is upset something broken didn't make to live covered up with the blanket of developers are so incompetent that can't properly evaluate new set values.

EDIT:

And it might still be broken at a 6K proc and I'm sure they will tune it down or tune it up as needed.

ParaNostram · May 2017

To be fair, it wasn't 10k but rather 9999 which was a very, VERY satisfying number to see. Made me think it was Final Fantasy with maxed out stats or something.

Not commenting on whether things are good or bad, just wanted to point out how satisfying a number 9999 is.

stevepdodson_ESO888 · May 2017

Erynyes wrote: »

stevepdodson_ESO888 wrote: »

Wrecking_Blow_Spam wrote: »

Yea that is a big nerf considering veil tooltip is something like 13k I think and yet it only hits for about 3-5k in cyro. So I doubt that one would be too strong, I think ppl was more hoping it would help out stamina PVE DPS.

this is the point...it was meant as a helping hand to those few remaining PvE stam users...but has been abused in Battlegrounds during PTS

for example, a simple solution is to make it do damage to NPC's and not players (as they have sets that only affect players this is obviously something they can implement) and the create another new set that is suitable in PvP

so basically your solution for pve stam user is to give them proc set that do damage instead of user actually doing damage, interresting, ZOS are so bad they may consider hiring you who knows

not "my" solution...ZOS put this set in Morrowind not me...I would much prefer they improved basic stamina skills to hit harder, cost less and require actual user interaction...but hey I can but dream of this one day becoming a reality

Merlin13KAGL · May 2017

If you do the math on most sets, they work out to about the same average. Whether that's +DPS, damage, regen.

That is a reasonable way to balance - some providing burst or specific utility based on certain conditions, some providing more sustained results. One set may have double the proc chance, but half the result, for instance, or the cooldown vs active time will average it out.

Do it this way and you have multiple set options with different, interesting, useful abilities and combinations.

It's a handful of sets that take these numbers a bit too extreme that muck it up and lead to 'required' BiS gear.

10k, even when halved with battle spirit is a pretty significant number and probably should have been dialed back before it even hit PTS.

You give diversity by allowing different options, not by taking a handful of things and purposely making them OP.

Qbiken · May 2017

Because ZOS might not want to make the same mistake again and release a set that might be to good. I Think it´s better to start with a lower tooltip and if they feels like the set is to weak, maybe they can buff it in a future patch.

TheStealthDude · May 2017

It's like people don't even understand the point of public TESTING. It's specifically to find issues like these on a wider scale than can be achieved with the limited resources available internally.

You are complaining that they put something out for testing and found that they needed to change it, while it is still in TESTING.

Really don't understand why this would upset someone.

GrumpyDuckling · May 2017

TheStealthDude wrote: »

It's like people don't even understand the point of public TESTING. It's specifically to find issues like these on a wider scale than can be achieved with the limited resources available internally.

You are complaining that they put something out for testing and found that they needed to change it, while it is still in TESTING.

Really don't understand why this would upset someone.

The point that I believe the OP is making is that ZOS didn't give thought about how the set fits into the game and slapped a random number on it.

Think about it. They know what the damage numbers and cooldowns are on the other proc sets, yet they still needed to "test" the new set to see how it fit in with other sets?

Please.

TheStealthDude · May 2017

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

TheStealthDude wrote: »

It's like people don't even understand the point of public TESTING. It's specifically to find issues like these on a wider scale than can be achieved with the limited resources available internally.

You are complaining that they put something out for testing and found that they needed to change it, while it is still in TESTING.

Really don't understand why this would upset someone.

The point that I believe the OP is making is that ZOS didn't give thought about how the set fits into the game and slapped a random number on it.

Think about it. They know what the damage numbers and cooldowns are on the other proc sets, yet they still needed to "test" the new set to see how it fit in with other sets?

Please.

That would be a valid point if this set was the same type of proc as other sets, but it's not. The proc is a % chance based on crit damage, meaning it has to go through 2 layers of RNG. They don't have any other burst damage proc sets that operate that way to compare it against. So because of that, it should be entirely reasonable that a new set like this needs to be tested.

But even if that wasn't the case, it's still entirely pathetic to be complaining about balance changes being made during a testing period.

Smmokkee · May 2017

STEVIL wrote: »

If you put your initial test score moderate you will get mixed results. Its not uncommon to aim high then cut back.

You defend zos like a good little boy everywhere I see you.

Kodrac · May 2017

Smmokkee wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

If you put your initial test score moderate you will get mixed results. Its not uncommon to aim high then cut back.

You defend zos like a good little boy everywhere I see you.

And you cry like a little girl everywhere you're seen. So I guess that makes you guys even?

GrumpyDuckling · May 2017

TheStealthDude wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

TheStealthDude wrote: »

It's like people don't even understand the point of public TESTING. It's specifically to find issues like these on a wider scale than can be achieved with the limited resources available internally.

You are complaining that they put something out for testing and found that they needed to change it, while it is still in TESTING.

Really don't understand why this would upset someone.

The point that I believe the OP is making is that ZOS didn't give thought about how the set fits into the game and slapped a random number on it.

Think about it. They know what the damage numbers and cooldowns are on the other proc sets, yet they still needed to "test" the new set to see how it fit in with other sets?

Please.

That would be a valid point if this set was the same type of proc as other sets, but it's not. The proc is a % chance based on crit damage, meaning it has to go through 2 layers of RNG. They don't have any other burst damage proc sets that operate that way to compare it against. So because of that, it should be entirely reasonable that a new set like this needs to be tested.

But even if that wasn't the case, it's still entirely pathetic to be complaining about balance changes being made during a testing period.

I see what you're going for, but I still disagree because Red Mountain is pretty similar, so I'm surprised that wasn't used as the standard.

http://elderscrollsonline.wiki.fextralife.com/Shadow+of+the+Red+Mountain+Set

Red Mountain is 10% proc chance from only weapon skills, meaning you are severely limited in your options of making it proc for ~8400 damage.

Infector is 8% chance on ANY crit (most damage builds have >50% crit chance), from ANY skill (not just weapon, like Red Mountain), can hit MORE than one enemy (Red Mountain targets just one) AND has a 5 second stun (Red Mountain doesn't have a CC component).

Despite all the perks that Infector has over Red Mountain, ZOS still initially put Infector into PTS with more damage than Red Mountain... that's... I just... how?

TheStealthDude · May 2017

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

TheStealthDude wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

TheStealthDude wrote: »

It's like people don't even understand the point of public TESTING. It's specifically to find issues like these on a wider scale than can be achieved with the limited resources available internally.

You are complaining that they put something out for testing and found that they needed to change it, while it is still in TESTING.

Really don't understand why this would upset someone.

The point that I believe the OP is making is that ZOS didn't give thought about how the set fits into the game and slapped a random number on it.

Think about it. They know what the damage numbers and cooldowns are on the other proc sets, yet they still needed to "test" the new set to see how it fit in with other sets?

Please.

That would be a valid point if this set was the same type of proc as other sets, but it's not. The proc is a % chance based on crit damage, meaning it has to go through 2 layers of RNG. They don't have any other burst damage proc sets that operate that way to compare it against. So because of that, it should be entirely reasonable that a new set like this needs to be tested.

But even if that wasn't the case, it's still entirely pathetic to be complaining about balance changes being made during a testing period.

I see what you're going for, but I still disagree because Red Mountain is pretty similar, so I'm surprised that wasn't used as the standard.

http://elderscrollsonline.wiki.fextralife.com/Shadow+of+the+Red+Mountain+Set

Red Mountain is 10% proc chance from only weapon skills, meaning you are severely limited in your options of making it proc for ~8400 damage.

Infector is 8% chance on ANY crit (most damage builds have >50% crit chance), from ANY skill (not just weapon, like Red Mountain), can hit MORE than one enemy (Red Mountain targets just one) AND has a 5 second stun (Red Mountain doesn't have a CC component).

Despite all the perks that Infector has over Red Mountain, ZOS still initially put Infector into PTS with more damage than Red Mountain... that's... I just... how?

You ignore the cooldown on both sets. Defiler has a 5 second cooldowns, compared to 2 seconds for Red Mountain. When you look at it that way, RM provides more DPS even if procced only every 4 seconds. If you can keep it up better than that, you out damage defiler. That's not too hard to do when you combine Poison arrow, volley, twin slashes and flurry.

Can you see why this comparison is flawed and why the original values didn't seem so outlandish in theory?

STEVIL · May 2017

Smmokkee wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

If you put your initial test score moderate you will get mixed results. Its not uncommon to aim high then cut back.

You defend zos like a good little boy everywhere I see you.

then you dont look hard enough, like even into my sig, where i have lists of things i want to be different.

but then you seem to like to go after posters not topics, so... not as surprising.

But in fact, you are right that i do not attack ZOS. Even when i point out things that need changing, need improvement, need to be better or which IMO/IMX are just wrong, i do not choose to frame it as an attack but as a point of discussion with constructive criticism.

Here, however, i am pointing out the fact that may be unknown to some that in testing it is often easier and quicker to make sure you aim to one side or the other of the mark so all your results can be consistently pointing in one direction. that gets you a lot of analysis points. When i first saw thew 9999 (which was an uncharacteristic number for them to use) i saw it as a "purely for test" number, obviously, and it made sense.

To you thats defending ZOS... to me its just an obvious statement of an equally obvious conclusion..

STEVIL · May 2017

Kodrac wrote: »

Smmokkee wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

If you put your initial test score moderate you will get mixed results. Its not uncommon to aim high then cut back.

You defend zos like a good little boy everywhere I see you.

And you cry like a little girl everywhere you're seen. So I guess that makes you guys even?

Hey... @Kodrac Just saying you did not do me any favors with that conclusion!!

Kodrac · May 2017

STEVIL wrote: »

Kodrac wrote: »

Smmokkee wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

If you put your initial test score moderate you will get mixed results. Its not uncommon to aim high then cut back.

You defend zos like a good little boy everywhere I see you.

And you cry like a little girl everywhere you're seen. So I guess that makes you guys even?

Hey... @Kodrac Just saying you did not do me any favors with that conclusion!!

Best I could do on short notice. My bad.

GrumpyDuckling · May 2017

TheStealthDude wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

TheStealthDude wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

TheStealthDude wrote: »

It's like people don't even understand the point of public TESTING. It's specifically to find issues like these on a wider scale than can be achieved with the limited resources available internally.

You are complaining that they put something out for testing and found that they needed to change it, while it is still in TESTING.

Really don't understand why this would upset someone.

The point that I believe the OP is making is that ZOS didn't give thought about how the set fits into the game and slapped a random number on it.

Think about it. They know what the damage numbers and cooldowns are on the other proc sets, yet they still needed to "test" the new set to see how it fit in with other sets?

Please.

That would be a valid point if this set was the same type of proc as other sets, but it's not. The proc is a % chance based on crit damage, meaning it has to go through 2 layers of RNG. They don't have any other burst damage proc sets that operate that way to compare it against. So because of that, it should be entirely reasonable that a new set like this needs to be tested.

But even if that wasn't the case, it's still entirely pathetic to be complaining about balance changes being made during a testing period.

I see what you're going for, but I still disagree because Red Mountain is pretty similar, so I'm surprised that wasn't used as the standard.

http://elderscrollsonline.wiki.fextralife.com/Shadow+of+the+Red+Mountain+Set

Red Mountain is 10% proc chance from only weapon skills, meaning you are severely limited in your options of making it proc for ~8400 damage.

Infector is 8% chance on ANY crit (most damage builds have >50% crit chance), from ANY skill (not just weapon, like Red Mountain), can hit MORE than one enemy (Red Mountain targets just one) AND has a 5 second stun (Red Mountain doesn't have a CC component).

Despite all the perks that Infector has over Red Mountain, ZOS still initially put Infector into PTS with more damage than Red Mountain... that's... I just... how?

You ignore the cooldown on both sets. Defiler has a 5 second cooldowns, compared to 2 seconds for Red Mountain. When you look at it that way, RM provides more DPS even if procced only every 4 seconds. If you can keep it up better than that, you out damage defiler. That's not too hard to do when you combine Poison arrow, volley, twin slashes and flurry.

Can you see why this comparison is flawed and why the original values didn't seem so outlandish in theory?

You're ignoring the fact the Infector hits more than one target and has a group stun. That's way more DPS because you can hit more than one enemy, and way more defense (stunned targets can't hurt you) than Red Mountain offers.

And have you taken the stun duration of Infector into consideration when you're talking about cooldowns? It's a 5 second stun duration on a 5 second cooldown! You can keep up an almost infinite group stun!

If your argument is solely about attacking one enemy, then I can kind of see where you're coming from, but Infector has way more promise when you factor in its perks - which is why I can't believe it ever made it to testing with more initial burst damage than Red Mountain.

Kay1 · May 2017

It got nerf? Oh my god, awesome, finally something good, that set was going to be broken as hell