lordrichter wrote: »

Galwylin wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

Sure they do.

Players have a tendency to become very focused with their specific form of play, and they tend to hang out with those who share that view. It is not uncommon to think that, when someone does something contrary to that form of play, that they are not connected with the game.

I am not sure what you're saying now. All I have to do is see the changes they've made of late to know there's a disconnect somewhere. Sorcerers have moved above other classes while nightblades have moved behind. Now, to take your assertion that this is for the good of the game then I must know what are they thinking. Elder Sorcerers Online?

But forget all that. This sustain issue. Why does this need to be address if they know what's going on. Did one you us sneak in there and adjust the numbers for them? How does something like that happen if resource management has always been important. If its always been important then they are very poor at their jobs.

You don't just throw stuff into the game and hope it doesn't break anything. A few proc sets here, a few there. Easy resources everywhere. It wasn't done properly so now they have to fix it. And if they screwed up that time then why will they not this time. Plus I'd like to know why they didn't just scale back what they did do before instead of this butchering of classes they're doing now. They can't admit a mistake? That maybe they weren't paying attention.

Well, what I am saying is that a lot of problems that people have with changes to the game tend to be centered around their own narrow perception of what those changes mean to their characters. They are definitely not looking at the whole game. If anyone can, and anyone is, it has to be ZOS and Wrobel. No one else can do it, although many find it fun to try.

I have no idea what the goals they have are regarding class balance. Sorcerers should be powerful. This is a magical game rooted very solidly in magic, and Sorcerers are the very definition of that. Dragonknights, Nightblades, and Templars, not so much. Wardens, we will see on Monday. What I do think is that the classes have not been perfect equals, by design. With this update, they talk about balance, but I do not think that being perfectly balanced is the goal. I think they are more interested, in this update, in making the choice of class be less rigid and more flexible. Homogenization, but not perfectly so.

There is a certain class of player that does not care. Where things are not perfectly balanced, they will take whatever race, class, weapon, and armor they think offers the best of whatever it is they are looking for. The forum is filled with this sort of talk. I don't think that ZOS should put a lot of emphasis on ending this.

More specific to this conversation, I'm not really here to discuss how we got to where we are. Suffice it to say that it has been pretty obvious that certain other game design goals are in conflict with core combat game design goals. As priorities shift, things like this happen. The thing is that I believe that they achieved whatever goals they had, at the time. Now, we are here with Update 14, and they have apparently decided that the core combat goals have been untended for too long, and with the introduction of a new class, decided on certain goals for the other classes regarding utility and flexibility. This work needs to be done.

Back to the top, ZOS does have a view of the entire game, in a manner that the players cannot have. It is not unlike being in a thunderstorm on the ground and watching that thunderstorm on satellite. Watching a football game from the first row in the stadium and watching it from a blimp floating over the stadium. Wrobel is getting statistics about class and weapon skills being used, DPS and RPS from those skills, how monsters are performing, and a whole lot of other numbers. He is in a sea of numbers from the perspective the whole game. The player is getting that same information, but only about themselves and those around them, and only about the limited manner in which they play. Because neither has a perfect view, one having detail, but not scope, the other having scope, but not detail, multiple perspectives are necessary. This is why they have a PTS where players can comment. This is why they do internal play testing. This is why they play the Live game themselves. ZOS is the one who gets perspectives from both. How aggressively they collect and use that information, we can debate, but any player that thinks they can have a better view than ZOS, is mistaken.

lordrichter wrote: »

colig wrote: »

Err, how is a sorcerer more 'magical' than a templar, dragonknight or nightblade. I can't make a shade or summon fire in real life. If 'sorcerers should be powerful', does that mean the rest must be weak?

Stop and think about what these words mean. Sorcerer. Dragon knight. Templar. Night blade. In a world dominated by magic, which one would you expect to be sitting at the top of the pile? So, yeah, think of Sorcerers as being "first among equals" or whatever. They were unbalanced just in the way they were thinking about the game, unbalanced when they shipped the game, and they are still unbalanced.

I don't think they will ever really be balanced. Not until they change how the game is designed.

Dubhliam wrote: »

sadownik wrote: »

@Dubhliam you dont get it, do you? Its not about "it wont be that bad" its about it wont be visibly better. Are people here so desensitized?

There are over 200 sets in the game.
How many can you name?

Why is that? Why are so many sets considered trash, while others are considered must have/meta sets?

Because: some sets focus on resource management, some on survivability, some are utility, and some are damage sets.
But the current state of the game does not require sustain sets to be effective.
All you need is to stack damage, and you will have no trouble.

Finally we will have great build diversity, finally you will be able to "play the way you want" and still have a viable build.

Why can't you get past the "OMFG I GIT NURFED!" and look at the broader picture?

I can't wait to try out some of the sets that are in the game for a very long time but were never necessary to play.

Ever heard of Syrabane? Do you know what it does?
Ever heard of Bloodthorn? Do you know what it does?
Warlock, Lich, WIthered Hand, Magicka Furnace, Desert Rose etc. etc. etc.

And these are only magicka sustain examples.
Finally we will be able to mix and match sets, then use food and jewelry enchantments to tweak our desired playstyle.

I mean, take a look at your jewelry enchantments.
Damage enchantments are a MUST currently on live.
Did anyone ever stop to remember the time when we had no Champion System? The good old times where you had to actually THINK about how many cost reduction or resource regen enchantments you need to sustain.

I am glad ZOS is vigilant to bring back resource management.
It is the one major thing that distinguishes ESO from other MMOs.

lordrichter wrote: »

colig wrote: »

Err, how is a sorcerer more 'magical' than a templar, dragonknight or nightblade. I can't make a shade or summon fire in real life. If 'sorcerers should be powerful', does that mean the rest must be weak?

Stop and think about what these words mean. Sorcerer. Dragon knight. Templar. Night blade. In a world dominated by magic, which one would you expect to be sitting at the top of the pile? So, yeah, think of Sorcerers as being "first among equals" or whatever. They were unbalanced just in the way they were thinking about the game, unbalanced when they shipped the game, and they are still unbalanced.

I don't think they will ever really be balanced. Not until they change how the game is designed.

lordrichter wrote: »

colig wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

colig wrote: »

Err, how is a sorcerer more 'magical' than a templar, dragonknight or nightblade. I can't make a shade or summon fire in real life. If 'sorcerers should be powerful', does that mean the rest must be weak?

Stop and think about what these words mean. Sorcerer. Dragon knight. Templar. Night blade. In a world dominated by magic, which one would you expect to be sitting at the top of the pile? So, yeah, think of Sorcerers as being "first among equals" or whatever. They were unbalanced just in the way they were thinking about the game, unbalanced when they shipped the game, and they are still unbalanced.

I don't think they will ever really be balanced. Not until they change how the game is designed.

Shall everyone in this forum now discount all of your opinions regarding class balance, then? Since you've just openly admitted you want sorcerers to be first among equals simply because they sound like they should.

Public service announcement: lordrichter demands sorcerers be better because the dictionary says they should.

Yes, of course. All game design is based on dictionary definitions.

But, more seriously, when there is a game that has a "warrior" and a "healer", one expects that the "warrior" will be the better fighter, not the healer. The dictionary does not demand that sorcerers are better, but the people doing the game design, by using the term "Sorcerer", are showing their own bias towards that definition. It should nor surprise anyone that, in a game rooted in magic, containing a class called "Sorcerer", said game will probably be biased towards said class. They could have called the class anything else but Sorcerer, you know. They named the classes based on their own pre-conceived notions about what those classes would be like. The rest is just following one step after another.

lordrichter wrote: »

colig wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

colig wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

colig wrote: »

Err, how is a sorcerer more 'magical' than a templar, dragonknight or nightblade. I can't make a shade or summon fire in real life. If 'sorcerers should be powerful', does that mean the rest must be weak?

Stop and think about what these words mean. Sorcerer. Dragon knight. Templar. Night blade. In a world dominated by magic, which one would you expect to be sitting at the top of the pile? So, yeah, think of Sorcerers as being "first among equals" or whatever. They were unbalanced just in the way they were thinking about the game, unbalanced when they shipped the game, and they are still unbalanced.

I don't think they will ever really be balanced. Not until they change how the game is designed.

Shall everyone in this forum now discount all of your opinions regarding class balance, then? Since you've just openly admitted you want sorcerers to be first among equals simply because they sound like they should.

Public service announcement: lordrichter demands sorcerers be better because the dictionary says they should.

Yes, of course. All game design is based on dictionary definitions.

But, more seriously, when there is a game that has a "warrior" and a "healer", one expects that the "warrior" will be the better fighter, not the healer. The dictionary does not demand that sorcerers are better, but the people doing the game design, by using the term "Sorcerer", are showing their own bias towards that definition. It should nor surprise anyone that, in a game rooted in magic, containing a class called "Sorcerer", said game will probably be biased towards said class. They could have called the class anything else but Sorcerer, you know. They named the classes based on their own pre-conceived notions about what those classes would be like. The rest is just following one step after another.

These are your attributions, not those of the developer. In other words, you want them to be powerful, because you think they sound like they do. If I'm repeating myself, it's because you are.

I say they are powerful because I think they have been powerful since launch, and this is why I think that is the case.