Maintenance for the week of April 6:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 6
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 6
defiler set nerv shows the core of the problem?
-
TheStealthDude✭✭✭✭GrumpyDuckling wrote: »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.
All of these differences just goes to show that this set is unique in a lot of ways, making it tough to pinpoint a balanced # on the first try, which is my point. There are so many different factors that come into play, especially with this being a unique set, that I find it hard to see how anyone can blame ZOS for not getting everything right straight out of their (limited) internal testing. All this goes to show is that the PTS is working. It's certainly not an issue that we need to attack ZOS for.0 -
GrumpyDuckling✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭TheStealthDude wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »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.
All of these differences just goes to show that this set is unique in a lot of ways, making it tough to pinpoint a balanced # on the first try, which is my point. There are so many different factors that come into play, especially with this being a unique set, that I find it hard to see how anyone can blame ZOS for not getting everything right straight out of their (limited) internal testing. All this goes to show is that the PTS is working. It's certainly not an issue that we need to attack ZOS for.
The discussion was never about PTS. It was about how ZOS initially comes up with the numbers for these sets. Did you read the OP's post? Here's a quote from the OP:
"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??"
The fact that an AOE perma-stun proc set (Infector) was released into PTS with more initial burst damage than a single target, weapon reliant proc set without CC (Red Mountain), proves how little thought went into designing the damage component of Infector, thus proving the OP's point.
Again, it's not about whether or not PTS works, it's about how no red flags went off when designing the damage component of the set - so much so that it was quickly determined to be 40% off.0 -
Krileon✭✭✭✭It's an AOE 5s CD high damage proc with a stun.. yes it needed a nerf, lol. I plan on using it and tested it on PTS. Completely agree with the nerf. Still going to use it as it's perfect for my bow/bow warden combined with Skoria.0 -
Juhasow✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Nemesis7884 wrote: »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?
How about You imagine now one scenario. You're developer. You're making update that is over 10gb. You're part of larger team so You need to coordinate work with others and things like that. New map , new class new sets , new trial , battlegrounds , quests etc etc. You dont have lot of people to test thing basicly You can just check raw numbers maybe create some fight of bots on developer server with few actual real people. Every of mentioned things requires lot of work testing and preparing. Then You put created content on PTS server to be tested by larger amount of real people to get some feedback. And then if You miss 1 thing and after feedback from players You change it someone tells You're bad developer.
You think You would handle to make such huge update without making any mistake ?1 -
QuebraRegra✭✭✭✭✭
✭Nemesis7884 wrote: »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?
What is the background and the experience of the person responsible for combat balance changes? Does this person/people need help, additional guidance?0 -
SnubbS✭✭✭✭✭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
No—it isn't too much at all.It got nerf? Oh my god, awesome, finally something good, that set was going to be broken as hell
Do you even understand how the set procs? It would've been worse than viper if it had a 15k tooltip.
When you deal Critical Damage, you have an 8% chance to summon a Hunger that spews poison to all enemies in front of it, dealing 9999 Poison Damage and stunning any enemy hit for 5 seconds. This effect can occur once every 5 seconds.
So it has a cooldown of 5 seconds, and it only procs 8% of the time when you crit—and you can't crit shields. WOW MAN SO OP BROKEN STRONG. IT MIGHT HAVE HIT A SHIELDLESS SORC FOR 4.5k IN PVP WOOOAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.Edited by SnubbS on May 11, 2017 3:53PM1 -
GrumpyDuckling✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Nemesis7884 wrote: »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?
How about You imagine now one scenario. You're developer. You're making update that is over 10gb. You're part of larger team so You need to coordinate work with others and things like that. New map , new class new sets , new trial , battlegrounds , quests etc etc. You dont have lot of people to test thing basicly You can just check raw numbers maybe create some fight of bots on developer server with few actual real people. Every of mentioned things requires lot of work testing and preparing. Then You put created content on PTS server to be tested by larger amount of real people to get some feedback. And then if You miss 1 thing and after feedback from players You change it someone tells You're bad developer.
You think You would handle to make such huge update without making any mistake ?
Tell me, upon your initial viewing of the new Morrowind sets, that you didn't immediately notice the set and say something along the lines of, "Wow, that Infector set looks incredible."
- AOE perma-stun (5 second stun on multiple enemies on a 5 second cooldown)
- crit, crit, weapon damgage for bonuses
- and 9,999 AOE proc damage
Surely you can admit that it is at least funny that no one noticed that this set was too powerful compared to other sets. This set must have been perma-cloaked during development to make it into PTS in the original state it was released in.0 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭GrumpyDuckling wrote: »Nemesis7884 wrote: »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?
How about You imagine now one scenario. You're developer. You're making update that is over 10gb. You're part of larger team so You need to coordinate work with others and things like that. New map , new class new sets , new trial , battlegrounds , quests etc etc. You dont have lot of people to test thing basicly You can just check raw numbers maybe create some fight of bots on developer server with few actual real people. Every of mentioned things requires lot of work testing and preparing. Then You put created content on PTS server to be tested by larger amount of real people to get some feedback. And then if You miss 1 thing and after feedback from players You change it someone tells You're bad developer.
You think You would handle to make such huge update without making any mistake ?
Tell me, upon your initial viewing of the new Morrowind sets, that you didn't immediately notice the set and say something along the lines of, "Wow, that Infector set looks incredible."
- AOE perma-stun (5 second stun on multiple enemies on a 5 second cooldown)
- crit, crit, weapon damgage for bonuses
- and 9,999 AOE proc damage
Surely you can admit that it is at least funny that no one noticed that this set was too powerful compared to other sets. This set must have been perma-cloaked during development to make it into PTS in the original state it was released in.
the part that gave me pause with that set were two things (neither of which were the damage):
First, the stun aoe 5s means the set's value is going to vary a LOT by content. With so many bosses being not stunable, its gains for the GT-PVE crowd is not that much. Its gains for PVP is much higher. its gvains for other content is mixed. this makes it more difficult to balance IMo than it needs to be.
Second, the crit only plus low proc % really makes it a very unreliable commodity. So it wont be a "burst on demand" gang thing as much as a gradual damage boost - which made the damage more reasonable. Remember, Vipers is good for burst but not that good for sustain dps. Well this thing is good for not the initial burst because it is unreliable but with a higher damage track is better for longer DPS issues where it procs off the multitude of crit chances etc overtime. honestly, the drop to 6k likely makes it not worth considering for GT-PVE DPS. I am not that sure it has a solid place now - maybe if the make it crafted?
Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."1 -
Juhasow✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭GrumpyDuckling wrote: »Nemesis7884 wrote: »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?
How about You imagine now one scenario. You're developer. You're making update that is over 10gb. You're part of larger team so You need to coordinate work with others and things like that. New map , new class new sets , new trial , battlegrounds , quests etc etc. You dont have lot of people to test thing basicly You can just check raw numbers maybe create some fight of bots on developer server with few actual real people. Every of mentioned things requires lot of work testing and preparing. Then You put created content on PTS server to be tested by larger amount of real people to get some feedback. And then if You miss 1 thing and after feedback from players You change it someone tells You're bad developer.
You think You would handle to make such huge update without making any mistake ?
Tell me, upon your initial viewing of the new Morrowind sets, that you didn't immediately notice the set and say something along the lines of, "Wow, that Infector set looks incredible."
- AOE perma-stun (5 second stun on multiple enemies on a 5 second cooldown)
- crit, crit, weapon damgage for bonuses
- and 9,999 AOE proc damage
Surely you can admit that it is at least funny that no one noticed that this set was too powerful compared to other sets. This set must have been perma-cloaked during development to make it into PTS in the original state it was released in.
According the fact that some current sets like Velidreth with 14k tooltip widowmaker with over 10k tooltip and few others also have high tooltips with 100 CP into mighty and due to lowering mighty down to 15% I was more like "Well it looks strong , but we'll se how it'll work with new sustain and CP's changes." I assume they maded that high toltip at the beggining to refund mighty nerf because on PTS reasonable number in mighty imo is around 12%. I was aware it can be strong but I could also see what devs was thinking when they maded that set to test it on PTS. Keep in mind some things can be really tested only on PTS when many real people lay hands on them. As for the stun and AoE I think that set is limited with those 2 by range and also fact it can be dodged similar to selene. Devs was wrong with 10k tooltip but I can see why and I dont think their mistake proves they're weak at their job in this particular example.Edited by Juhasow on May 11, 2017 6:19PM2 -
Avran_Sylt✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭TBH I look at that set more as a PUG offtank set. They should reduce the damage but increase the proc chance. that stun is really the most interesting part of the set (not to mention how it's applied).0 -
KingJ✭✭✭✭✭
✭They need to change all damage proc sets to not affect players. Balance the game this be a great first step.0 -
Kay1✭✭✭✭✭
✭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
No—it isn't too much at all.It got nerf? Oh my god, awesome, finally something good, that set was going to be broken as hell
Do you even understand how the set procs? It would've been worse than viper if it had a 15k tooltip.
When you deal Critical Damage, you have an 8% chance to summon a Hunger that spews poison to all enemies in front of it, dealing 9999 Poison Damage and stunning any enemy hit for 5 seconds. This effect can occur once every 5 seconds.
So it has a cooldown of 5 seconds, and it only procs 8% of the time when you crit—and you can't crit shields. WOW MAN SO OP BROKEN STRONG. IT MIGHT HAVE HIT A SHIELDLESS SORC FOR 4.5k IN PVP WOOOAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
I've been using this set for more than 60 hours, so I really think I know about what I'm talking about I can provide you screenshots of me going 22/0 with it.
It also doesn't hit for 4k but for 9k fix damage, you clearly not a closed beta tester and you decide to open your mouth about something you don't know.
Let's not talk about the range, the ability of this set to perma stun your target in 1v1s, it's a free stun every 5 seconds and you can use the Hunger with LoS and thats why it was so useful for 1vX.
8% crit was more like 90% proc chance and it proced every 5 seconds, just with rally, it procs from everything, any heal, any skill in crit, so again you talk but you know *** but don't worry it's apparently something very popular in these forums.
Next time you try to be the funny guy get some facts.Edited by Kay1 on May 11, 2017 7:44PMK1 The Big Monkey2