Maintenance for the week of December 29:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – December 29
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – December 29
Why is Max Attribute Damage Scaling Still in the Game?
-
Zagnut123Zagnut123✭✭✭✭GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »Why would we change such a core component of the game that doesn't bring with it any discernible issues.
I never agree with any of your posts man
Game was described as "play how you want" but the max attribute damage scaling design says otherwise. End game content discourages hybrids and encourages a stamina/magicka divide and binary builds.
That's an issue. I don't care if you agree.
Seems like faulty logic derived from an overly broad re-imagining of a core design element.
"play how you want " has been achieved. All the content on normal mode can be completed without optimal biS design structures as long as basic minimal "decent design decisions" are made.
"Play how you want" does not mean your decisions as a player are so meaningless that you cannot sabotage a build. it enever did.
So, yes, it is one of many things that narrows and limits the choices more and more as you set your gaols higher and higher. Your decisions matter and are more than just cosmetic choices that deploy different animations but the same net results.
So, no, max att scaling does not say "dont play how you want" but it is one of many things that says ';your choices matter."
Max attribute damage scaling doesn't say, "your choices matter." It says, " here are your two binary choices. Pick one."
While I do not agree with your unsubstantiated conclusion here, even if you are correct (for sale of argument) you have yet to show that removing it will produce **more than two** options for the same goal constraints -highest end damage output - that you assume for the claimed "binary".
Consider that when proc sets damage rose and was divorced from stat scaling, we did not see tons of hybrid diversity running amok in those builds but instead saw quite a surge in high health proc-for-kills play.
Going from your alleged binary option to a single attspec option is not making play how you want stronger.
Or did I miss the post where you showed your alternative did that?
I don't know why you're calling the current attribute damage scaling system an "alleged" binary, because it is. Stacking attribute points into one of the two damage resources (stamina or magicka) results in a character doing more damage. It's simple fact that any division of those resources lowers damage. It's not "alleged," it's fact.
Now consider the attribute placement options if damage scaling were to be removed from attributes. The possibilities would extend far beyond two binary attribute choices because you could actually (gasp!) make conscious choices on where to place your attributes rather than dump them all into one attribute! Your choices on where to place attributes would also matter more because you may consider allocation of attributes in a variety of different ways to fit your preferred style of game play - health for survival, magicka for skills/shields, and stamina for skills, sneak, dodge roll, sprint, block, and break free.
The attribute placement choices matter a lot more if attribute damage scaling is removed because you're not simply dumping all attribute points into one resource, but instead making more decisions on how you want your character to play.
Because heavy attack builds are meta at the moment end game pve players will just figure out how much stam or magika they need to complete there rotation with slight wiggle room and put everything else into health.
Unless you want the devs to nerf heavy attack builds as well.0 -
Seraphayel✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Zagnut123Zagnut123 wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »Why would we change such a core component of the game that doesn't bring with it any discernible issues.
I never agree with any of your posts man
Game was described as "play how you want" but the max attribute damage scaling design says otherwise. End game content discourages hybrids and encourages a stamina/magicka divide and binary builds.
That's an issue. I don't care if you agree.
Seems like faulty logic derived from an overly broad re-imagining of a core design element.
"play how you want " has been achieved. All the content on normal mode can be completed without optimal biS design structures as long as basic minimal "decent design decisions" are made.
"Play how you want" does not mean your decisions as a player are so meaningless that you cannot sabotage a build. it enever did.
So, yes, it is one of many things that narrows and limits the choices more and more as you set your gaols higher and higher. Your decisions matter and are more than just cosmetic choices that deploy different animations but the same net results.
So, no, max att scaling does not say "dont play how you want" but it is one of many things that says ';your choices matter."
Max attribute damage scaling doesn't say, "your choices matter." It says, " here are your two binary choices. Pick one."
While I do not agree with your unsubstantiated conclusion here, even if you are correct (for sale of argument) you have yet to show that removing it will produce **more than two** options for the same goal constraints -highest end damage output - that you assume for the claimed "binary".
Consider that when proc sets damage rose and was divorced from stat scaling, we did not see tons of hybrid diversity running amok in those builds but instead saw quite a surge in high health proc-for-kills play.
Going from your alleged binary option to a single attspec option is not making play how you want stronger.
Or did I miss the post where you showed your alternative did that?
I don't know why you're calling the current attribute damage scaling system an "alleged" binary, because it is. Stacking attribute points into one of the two damage resources (stamina or magicka) results in a character doing more damage. It's simple fact that any division of those resources lowers damage. It's not "alleged," it's fact.
Now consider the attribute placement options if damage scaling were to be removed from attributes. The possibilities would extend far beyond two binary attribute choices because you could actually (gasp!) make conscious choices on where to place your attributes rather than dump them all into one attribute! Your choices on where to place attributes would also matter more because you may consider allocation of attributes in a variety of different ways to fit your preferred style of game play - health for survival, magicka for skills/shields, and stamina for skills, sneak, dodge roll, sprint, block, and break free.
The attribute placement choices matter a lot more if attribute damage scaling is removed because you're not simply dumping all attribute points into one resource, but instead making more decisions on how you want your character to play.
Because heavy attack builds are meta at the moment end game pve players will just figure out how much stam or magika they need to complete there rotation with slight wiggle room and put everything else into health.
Unless you want the devs to nerf heavy attack builds as well.
The build diversity is much bigger without stat scaling therefore it would become more difficult to find the best build when you can mix stamina and magicka skills instead of being forced to use stamina OR magicka skills. We would have a much bigger variety of possible builds and sets. Right now for DPS there is only one way: max ressources. And that's poor.PS5EUAldmeri Dominion- Khajiit Arcanist -3 -
Zagnut123Zagnut123✭✭✭✭Seraphayel wrote: »Zagnut123Zagnut123 wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »Why would we change such a core component of the game that doesn't bring with it any discernible issues.
I never agree with any of your posts man
Game was described as "play how you want" but the max attribute damage scaling design says otherwise. End game content discourages hybrids and encourages a stamina/magicka divide and binary builds.
That's an issue. I don't care if you agree.
Seems like faulty logic derived from an overly broad re-imagining of a core design element.
"play how you want " has been achieved. All the content on normal mode can be completed without optimal biS design structures as long as basic minimal "decent design decisions" are made.
"Play how you want" does not mean your decisions as a player are so meaningless that you cannot sabotage a build. it enever did.
So, yes, it is one of many things that narrows and limits the choices more and more as you set your gaols higher and higher. Your decisions matter and are more than just cosmetic choices that deploy different animations but the same net results.
So, no, max att scaling does not say "dont play how you want" but it is one of many things that says ';your choices matter."
Max attribute damage scaling doesn't say, "your choices matter." It says, " here are your two binary choices. Pick one."
While I do not agree with your unsubstantiated conclusion here, even if you are correct (for sale of argument) you have yet to show that removing it will produce **more than two** options for the same goal constraints -highest end damage output - that you assume for the claimed "binary".
Consider that when proc sets damage rose and was divorced from stat scaling, we did not see tons of hybrid diversity running amok in those builds but instead saw quite a surge in high health proc-for-kills play.
Going from your alleged binary option to a single attspec option is not making play how you want stronger.
Or did I miss the post where you showed your alternative did that?
I don't know why you're calling the current attribute damage scaling system an "alleged" binary, because it is. Stacking attribute points into one of the two damage resources (stamina or magicka) results in a character doing more damage. It's simple fact that any division of those resources lowers damage. It's not "alleged," it's fact.
Now consider the attribute placement options if damage scaling were to be removed from attributes. The possibilities would extend far beyond two binary attribute choices because you could actually (gasp!) make conscious choices on where to place your attributes rather than dump them all into one attribute! Your choices on where to place attributes would also matter more because you may consider allocation of attributes in a variety of different ways to fit your preferred style of game play - health for survival, magicka for skills/shields, and stamina for skills, sneak, dodge roll, sprint, block, and break free.
The attribute placement choices matter a lot more if attribute damage scaling is removed because you're not simply dumping all attribute points into one resource, but instead making more decisions on how you want your character to play.
Because heavy attack builds are meta at the moment end game pve players will just figure out how much stam or magika they need to complete there rotation with slight wiggle room and put everything else into health.
Unless you want the devs to nerf heavy attack builds as well.
The build diversity is much bigger without stat scaling therefore it would become more difficult to find the best build when you can mix stamina and magicka skills instead of being forced to use stamina OR magicka skills. We would have a much bigger variety of possible builds and sets. Right now for DPS there is only one way: max ressources. And that's poor.
No it would still be a simple choice either max out wpn dmg or spell dmg and crit. Hybrids only ever worked in pvp from what I recall.
If the ok suggest diminishing returns in attributes I could get behind that idea.1 -
Seraphayel✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Zagnut123Zagnut123 wrote: »Seraphayel wrote: »Zagnut123Zagnut123 wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »Why would we change such a core component of the game that doesn't bring with it any discernible issues.
I never agree with any of your posts man
Game was described as "play how you want" but the max attribute damage scaling design says otherwise. End game content discourages hybrids and encourages a stamina/magicka divide and binary builds.
That's an issue. I don't care if you agree.
Seems like faulty logic derived from an overly broad re-imagining of a core design element.
"play how you want " has been achieved. All the content on normal mode can be completed without optimal biS design structures as long as basic minimal "decent design decisions" are made.
"Play how you want" does not mean your decisions as a player are so meaningless that you cannot sabotage a build. it enever did.
So, yes, it is one of many things that narrows and limits the choices more and more as you set your gaols higher and higher. Your decisions matter and are more than just cosmetic choices that deploy different animations but the same net results.
So, no, max att scaling does not say "dont play how you want" but it is one of many things that says ';your choices matter."
Max attribute damage scaling doesn't say, "your choices matter." It says, " here are your two binary choices. Pick one."
While I do not agree with your unsubstantiated conclusion here, even if you are correct (for sale of argument) you have yet to show that removing it will produce **more than two** options for the same goal constraints -highest end damage output - that you assume for the claimed "binary".
Consider that when proc sets damage rose and was divorced from stat scaling, we did not see tons of hybrid diversity running amok in those builds but instead saw quite a surge in high health proc-for-kills play.
Going from your alleged binary option to a single attspec option is not making play how you want stronger.
Or did I miss the post where you showed your alternative did that?
I don't know why you're calling the current attribute damage scaling system an "alleged" binary, because it is. Stacking attribute points into one of the two damage resources (stamina or magicka) results in a character doing more damage. It's simple fact that any division of those resources lowers damage. It's not "alleged," it's fact.
Now consider the attribute placement options if damage scaling were to be removed from attributes. The possibilities would extend far beyond two binary attribute choices because you could actually (gasp!) make conscious choices on where to place your attributes rather than dump them all into one attribute! Your choices on where to place attributes would also matter more because you may consider allocation of attributes in a variety of different ways to fit your preferred style of game play - health for survival, magicka for skills/shields, and stamina for skills, sneak, dodge roll, sprint, block, and break free.
The attribute placement choices matter a lot more if attribute damage scaling is removed because you're not simply dumping all attribute points into one resource, but instead making more decisions on how you want your character to play.
Because heavy attack builds are meta at the moment end game pve players will just figure out how much stam or magika they need to complete there rotation with slight wiggle room and put everything else into health.
Unless you want the devs to nerf heavy attack builds as well.
The build diversity is much bigger without stat scaling therefore it would become more difficult to find the best build when you can mix stamina and magicka skills instead of being forced to use stamina OR magicka skills. We would have a much bigger variety of possible builds and sets. Right now for DPS there is only one way: max ressources. And that's poor.
No it would still be a simple choice either max out wpn dmg or spell dmg and crit. Hybrids only ever worked in pvp from what I recall.
If the ok suggest diminishing returns in attributes I could get behind that idea.
But the scaling for weapon and spell damage is different. And we don't need four stats that increase skill damage. Two are more than enough.PS5EUAldmeri Dominion- Khajiit Arcanist -0 -
Bobby_V_Rockit✭✭✭✭✭
✭Seraphayel wrote: »Zagnut123Zagnut123 wrote: »Seraphayel wrote: »Zagnut123Zagnut123 wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »Why would we change such a core component of the game that doesn't bring with it any discernible issues.
I never agree with any of your posts man
Game was described as "play how you want" but the max attribute damage scaling design says otherwise. End game content discourages hybrids and encourages a stamina/magicka divide and binary builds.
That's an issue. I don't care if you agree.
Seems like faulty logic derived from an overly broad re-imagining of a core design element.
"play how you want " has been achieved. All the content on normal mode can be completed without optimal biS design structures as long as basic minimal "decent design decisions" are made.
"Play how you want" does not mean your decisions as a player are so meaningless that you cannot sabotage a build. it enever did.
So, yes, it is one of many things that narrows and limits the choices more and more as you set your gaols higher and higher. Your decisions matter and are more than just cosmetic choices that deploy different animations but the same net results.
So, no, max att scaling does not say "dont play how you want" but it is one of many things that says ';your choices matter."
Max attribute damage scaling doesn't say, "your choices matter." It says, " here are your two binary choices. Pick one."
While I do not agree with your unsubstantiated conclusion here, even if you are correct (for sale of argument) you have yet to show that removing it will produce **more than two** options for the same goal constraints -highest end damage output - that you assume for the claimed "binary".
Consider that when proc sets damage rose and was divorced from stat scaling, we did not see tons of hybrid diversity running amok in those builds but instead saw quite a surge in high health proc-for-kills play.
Going from your alleged binary option to a single attspec option is not making play how you want stronger.
Or did I miss the post where you showed your alternative did that?
I don't know why you're calling the current attribute damage scaling system an "alleged" binary, because it is. Stacking attribute points into one of the two damage resources (stamina or magicka) results in a character doing more damage. It's simple fact that any division of those resources lowers damage. It's not "alleged," it's fact.
Now consider the attribute placement options if damage scaling were to be removed from attributes. The possibilities would extend far beyond two binary attribute choices because you could actually (gasp!) make conscious choices on where to place your attributes rather than dump them all into one attribute! Your choices on where to place attributes would also matter more because you may consider allocation of attributes in a variety of different ways to fit your preferred style of game play - health for survival, magicka for skills/shields, and stamina for skills, sneak, dodge roll, sprint, block, and break free.
The attribute placement choices matter a lot more if attribute damage scaling is removed because you're not simply dumping all attribute points into one resource, but instead making more decisions on how you want your character to play.
Because heavy attack builds are meta at the moment end game pve players will just figure out how much stam or magika they need to complete there rotation with slight wiggle room and put everything else into health.
Unless you want the devs to nerf heavy attack builds as well.
The build diversity is much bigger without stat scaling therefore it would become more difficult to find the best build when you can mix stamina and magicka skills instead of being forced to use stamina OR magicka skills. We would have a much bigger variety of possible builds and sets. Right now for DPS there is only one way: max ressources. And that's poor.
No it would still be a simple choice either max out wpn dmg or spell dmg and crit. Hybrids only ever worked in pvp from what I recall.
If the ok suggest diminishing returns in attributes I could get behind that idea.
But the scaling for weapon and spell damage is different. And we don't need four stats that increase skill damage. Two are more than enough.
So everyone will just stack attributes jnto health then stack either weapon or spell damage. The current system allows more freedom.0 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »Why would we change such a core component of the game that doesn't bring with it any discernible issues.
I never agree with any of your posts man
Game was described as "play how you want" but the max attribute damage scaling design says otherwise. End game content discourages hybrids and encourages a stamina/magicka divide and binary builds.
That's an issue. I don't care if you agree.
Seems like faulty logic derived from an overly broad re-imagining of a core design element.
"play how you want " has been achieved. All the content on normal mode can be completed without optimal biS design structures as long as basic minimal "decent design decisions" are made.
"Play how you want" does not mean your decisions as a player are so meaningless that you cannot sabotage a build. it enever did.
So, yes, it is one of many things that narrows and limits the choices more and more as you set your gaols higher and higher. Your decisions matter and are more than just cosmetic choices that deploy different animations but the same net results.
So, no, max att scaling does not say "dont play how you want" but it is one of many things that says ';your choices matter."
Max attribute damage scaling doesn't say, "your choices matter." It says, " here are your two binary choices. Pick one."
While I do not agree with your unsubstantiated conclusion here, even if you are correct (for sale of argument) you have yet to show that removing it will produce **more than two** options for the same goal constraints -highest end damage output - that you assume for the claimed "binary".
Consider that when proc sets damage rose and was divorced from stat scaling, we did not see tons of hybrid diversity running amok in those builds but instead saw quite a surge in high health proc-for-kills play.
Going from your alleged binary option to a single attspec option is not making play how you want stronger.
Or did I miss the post where you showed your alternative did that?
I don't know why you're calling the current attribute damage scaling system an "alleged" binary, because it is. Stacking attribute points into one of the two damage resources (stamina or magicka) results in a character doing more damage. It's simple fact that any division of those resources lowers damage. It's not "alleged," it's fact.
Now consider the attribute placement options if damage scaling were to be removed from attributes. The possibilities would extend far beyond two binary attribute choices because you could actually (gasp!) make conscious choices on where to place your attributes rather than dump them all into one attribute! Your choices on where to place attributes would also matter more because you may consider allocation of attributes in a variety of different ways to fit your preferred style of game play - health for survival, magicka for skills/shields, and stamina for skills, sneak, dodge roll, sprint, block, and break free.
The attribute placement choices matter a lot more if attribute damage scaling is removed because you're not simply dumping all attribute points into one resource, but instead making more decisions on how you want your character to play.
First bold - the fact that stacking atts into one results in more damage does not make it binary unless you consider tooltip damage the one thing of value. Since the game is a lot more complicated than just your tooltip damage values, i stick to the term "alleged."
First italics - you also make conscious choices now, though to you it seems the answers are too obvious. You imagine all these new options, but the same options exist now. The question still comes down to "is there a better than others" solution to the question of "where to spend att points" and there is some significant evidence from early play and from the more recent proc-olution that having damage divorced from attributes will tend to make "dump all into health" the "one solution". if that proves true, as others have suggested, then your "proposal" would take us from a "binary choice" to a "singular choice" for "best" and that is a step in the wrong direction.
look back at more recent changes.
changes to sustain led to adaptation to move towards more heavy attack and light attack metas.
Seems that removing the damage boost from attributes would favor the "dump into health for survival" and an even further shift to the DOT and heavy-to-sustain models, because while more magica or stamina wont help you hit things harder, more health definitely helps you survive things more. Given the light/heavy already have a bad "max pool to damage gain" ratio, it seems not too far a stretch to see those polls all but vanish if the ratio went to zero.
Going from two options in your imagined binary to a single option just means more options are ignored, not more are used.
If we suddenly added jewel crafting ti ashens grip set, that gives you more options on how to wear it, but since it is well below par, that just increases the number of "unused option" not the "used options."
this proposal seems to be that way.
in no small part because so many many many other factors in the game also are structured for the more "either/or but not both optimal" approach. The structure of CP points of most of the "top end sets" and so one all play their roles in working against the "utility" of hybrid stam-mag builds and IMo do so much more than the attributes do.
But as long as health pays out benefits against both damage sources (stam or mag) and so many other factors apply to "either/or" i still see no way it being clear that this change would not just drive the "optimal" answer from "stam or mag" to "only health".
other than your wishes for that to be true, do you have any evidence to support it?
case in point, the recent surge in light/heavy attack metas - those benefit less from the "pool-size damage element" than the prior metas were - but did that change result in a rise in hybrid builds due to the lesser impact of the damage boost from maxpool?
or did all the other aspects (cp, sustain, sets, etc) still keep maxpool builds the mainstay at the top-end?
I get that you want hybrids for whatever reason, or claim to, just not that this proposal makes them work in any meaningful way. Seems to reduce the optimal options.
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 -
Seraphayel✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Bobby_V_Rockit wrote: »Seraphayel wrote: »Zagnut123Zagnut123 wrote: »Seraphayel wrote: »Zagnut123Zagnut123 wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »Why would we change such a core component of the game that doesn't bring with it any discernible issues.
I never agree with any of your posts man
Game was described as "play how you want" but the max attribute damage scaling design says otherwise. End game content discourages hybrids and encourages a stamina/magicka divide and binary builds.
That's an issue. I don't care if you agree.
Seems like faulty logic derived from an overly broad re-imagining of a core design element.
"play how you want " has been achieved. All the content on normal mode can be completed without optimal biS design structures as long as basic minimal "decent design decisions" are made.
"Play how you want" does not mean your decisions as a player are so meaningless that you cannot sabotage a build. it enever did.
So, yes, it is one of many things that narrows and limits the choices more and more as you set your gaols higher and higher. Your decisions matter and are more than just cosmetic choices that deploy different animations but the same net results.
So, no, max att scaling does not say "dont play how you want" but it is one of many things that says ';your choices matter."
Max attribute damage scaling doesn't say, "your choices matter." It says, " here are your two binary choices. Pick one."
While I do not agree with your unsubstantiated conclusion here, even if you are correct (for sale of argument) you have yet to show that removing it will produce **more than two** options for the same goal constraints -highest end damage output - that you assume for the claimed "binary".
Consider that when proc sets damage rose and was divorced from stat scaling, we did not see tons of hybrid diversity running amok in those builds but instead saw quite a surge in high health proc-for-kills play.
Going from your alleged binary option to a single attspec option is not making play how you want stronger.
Or did I miss the post where you showed your alternative did that?
I don't know why you're calling the current attribute damage scaling system an "alleged" binary, because it is. Stacking attribute points into one of the two damage resources (stamina or magicka) results in a character doing more damage. It's simple fact that any division of those resources lowers damage. It's not "alleged," it's fact.
Now consider the attribute placement options if damage scaling were to be removed from attributes. The possibilities would extend far beyond two binary attribute choices because you could actually (gasp!) make conscious choices on where to place your attributes rather than dump them all into one attribute! Your choices on where to place attributes would also matter more because you may consider allocation of attributes in a variety of different ways to fit your preferred style of game play - health for survival, magicka for skills/shields, and stamina for skills, sneak, dodge roll, sprint, block, and break free.
The attribute placement choices matter a lot more if attribute damage scaling is removed because you're not simply dumping all attribute points into one resource, but instead making more decisions on how you want your character to play.
Because heavy attack builds are meta at the moment end game pve players will just figure out how much stam or magika they need to complete there rotation with slight wiggle room and put everything else into health.
Unless you want the devs to nerf heavy attack builds as well.
The build diversity is much bigger without stat scaling therefore it would become more difficult to find the best build when you can mix stamina and magicka skills instead of being forced to use stamina OR magicka skills. We would have a much bigger variety of possible builds and sets. Right now for DPS there is only one way: max ressources. And that's poor.
No it would still be a simple choice either max out wpn dmg or spell dmg and crit. Hybrids only ever worked in pvp from what I recall.
If the ok suggest diminishing returns in attributes I could get behind that idea.
But the scaling for weapon and spell damage is different. And we don't need four stats that increase skill damage. Two are more than enough.
So everyone will just stack attributes jnto health then stack either weapon or spell damage. The current system allows more freedom.
No it doesn't. You still need ressources, don't you? That's what Magicka and Stamina should be for.
There is absolutely no reason to have 4 different stats determine your damage / healing.
I don't understand how someone can think we have more freedom now when it's exactly the opposite and the game is locking you into either Stamina or Magicka. The way it is now it is preventing mixed/Hybrid builds.
You can go full Stamina but you can't use half of your skills because they scale with Magicka. You go full Magicka but you can't use half of your skills because they scale with Stamina. If they would remove this barrier we would end up with 50% more skills you could use (effectively). Weapon and spell damage should determine the strength of a skill, it is just useless to have skills that either scale with Magicka/Stamina, Weapon/Spell damage or both.PS5EUAldmeri Dominion- Khajiit Arcanist -0 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Seraphayel wrote: »Bobby_V_Rockit wrote: »Seraphayel wrote: »Zagnut123Zagnut123 wrote: »Seraphayel wrote: »Zagnut123Zagnut123 wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »Why would we change such a core component of the game that doesn't bring with it any discernible issues.
I never agree with any of your posts man
Game was described as "play how you want" but the max attribute damage scaling design says otherwise. End game content discourages hybrids and encourages a stamina/magicka divide and binary builds.
That's an issue. I don't care if you agree.
Seems like faulty logic derived from an overly broad re-imagining of a core design element.
"play how you want " has been achieved. All the content on normal mode can be completed without optimal biS design structures as long as basic minimal "decent design decisions" are made.
"Play how you want" does not mean your decisions as a player are so meaningless that you cannot sabotage a build. it enever did.
So, yes, it is one of many things that narrows and limits the choices more and more as you set your gaols higher and higher. Your decisions matter and are more than just cosmetic choices that deploy different animations but the same net results.
So, no, max att scaling does not say "dont play how you want" but it is one of many things that says ';your choices matter."
Max attribute damage scaling doesn't say, "your choices matter." It says, " here are your two binary choices. Pick one."
While I do not agree with your unsubstantiated conclusion here, even if you are correct (for sale of argument) you have yet to show that removing it will produce **more than two** options for the same goal constraints -highest end damage output - that you assume for the claimed "binary".
Consider that when proc sets damage rose and was divorced from stat scaling, we did not see tons of hybrid diversity running amok in those builds but instead saw quite a surge in high health proc-for-kills play.
Going from your alleged binary option to a single attspec option is not making play how you want stronger.
Or did I miss the post where you showed your alternative did that?
I don't know why you're calling the current attribute damage scaling system an "alleged" binary, because it is. Stacking attribute points into one of the two damage resources (stamina or magicka) results in a character doing more damage. It's simple fact that any division of those resources lowers damage. It's not "alleged," it's fact.
Now consider the attribute placement options if damage scaling were to be removed from attributes. The possibilities would extend far beyond two binary attribute choices because you could actually (gasp!) make conscious choices on where to place your attributes rather than dump them all into one attribute! Your choices on where to place attributes would also matter more because you may consider allocation of attributes in a variety of different ways to fit your preferred style of game play - health for survival, magicka for skills/shields, and stamina for skills, sneak, dodge roll, sprint, block, and break free.
The attribute placement choices matter a lot more if attribute damage scaling is removed because you're not simply dumping all attribute points into one resource, but instead making more decisions on how you want your character to play.
Because heavy attack builds are meta at the moment end game pve players will just figure out how much stam or magika they need to complete there rotation with slight wiggle room and put everything else into health.
Unless you want the devs to nerf heavy attack builds as well.
The build diversity is much bigger without stat scaling therefore it would become more difficult to find the best build when you can mix stamina and magicka skills instead of being forced to use stamina OR magicka skills. We would have a much bigger variety of possible builds and sets. Right now for DPS there is only one way: max ressources. And that's poor.
No it would still be a simple choice either max out wpn dmg or spell dmg and crit. Hybrids only ever worked in pvp from what I recall.
If the ok suggest diminishing returns in attributes I could get behind that idea.
But the scaling for weapon and spell damage is different. And we don't need four stats that increase skill damage. Two are more than enough.
So everyone will just stack attributes jnto health then stack either weapon or spell damage. The current system allows more freedom.
No it doesn't. You still need ressources, don't you? That's what Magicka and Stamina should be for.
There is absolutely no reason to have 4 different stats determine your damage / healing.
I don't understand how someone can think we have more freedom now when it's exactly the opposite and the game is locking you into either Stamina or Magicka. The way it is now it is preventing mixed/Hybrid builds.
You can go full Stamina but you can't use half of your skills because they scale with Magicka. You go full Magicka but you can't use half of your skills because they scale with Stamina. If they would remove this barrier we would end up with 50% more skills you could use (effectively). Weapon and spell damage should determine the strength of a skill, it is just useless to have skills that either scale with Magicka/Stamina, Weapon/Spell damage or both.
If o still need the resources to fuel abilities then with the game rewarding one att spends vs hybrids thru cp, thru sets, thru other elements then I still am better off with most/all in one stat since I can get more of those enhanced abities.
So, fails to achieve desired result.
If I can get around the fuel issue by a different heavy/light focused sequence then max health is the way to go cuz you lose no damage and gain health.
Key point is, this proposal is targeting the wrong thing to reach a hybrid friendly result.
Consider... What if the statpool damage add was a value determined by mag+stam, instead of divorcing it from maxpool.
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."0 -
GrumpyDuckling✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »Why would we change such a core component of the game that doesn't bring with it any discernible issues.
I never agree with any of your posts man
Game was described as "play how you want" but the max attribute damage scaling design says otherwise. End game content discourages hybrids and encourages a stamina/magicka divide and binary builds.
That's an issue. I don't care if you agree.
Seems like faulty logic derived from an overly broad re-imagining of a core design element.
"play how you want " has been achieved. All the content on normal mode can be completed without optimal biS design structures as long as basic minimal "decent design decisions" are made.
"Play how you want" does not mean your decisions as a player are so meaningless that you cannot sabotage a build. it enever did.
So, yes, it is one of many things that narrows and limits the choices more and more as you set your gaols higher and higher. Your decisions matter and are more than just cosmetic choices that deploy different animations but the same net results.
So, no, max att scaling does not say "dont play how you want" but it is one of many things that says ';your choices matter."
Max attribute damage scaling doesn't say, "your choices matter." It says, " here are your two binary choices. Pick one."
While I do not agree with your unsubstantiated conclusion here, even if you are correct (for sale of argument) you have yet to show that removing it will produce **more than two** options for the same goal constraints -highest end damage output - that you assume for the claimed "binary".
Consider that when proc sets damage rose and was divorced from stat scaling, we did not see tons of hybrid diversity running amok in those builds but instead saw quite a surge in high health proc-for-kills play.
Going from your alleged binary option to a single attspec option is not making play how you want stronger.
Or did I miss the post where you showed your alternative did that?
I don't know why you're calling the current attribute damage scaling system an "alleged" binary, because it is. Stacking attribute points into one of the two damage resources (stamina or magicka) results in a character doing more damage. It's simple fact that any division of those resources lowers damage. It's not "alleged," it's fact.
Now consider the attribute placement options if damage scaling were to be removed from attributes. The possibilities would extend far beyond two binary attribute choices because you could actually (gasp!) make conscious choices on where to place your attributes rather than dump them all into one attribute! Your choices on where to place attributes would also matter more because you may consider allocation of attributes in a variety of different ways to fit your preferred style of game play - health for survival, magicka for skills/shields, and stamina for skills, sneak, dodge roll, sprint, block, and break free.
The attribute placement choices matter a lot more if attribute damage scaling is removed because you're not simply dumping all attribute points into one resource, but instead making more decisions on how you want your character to play.
First bold - the fact that stacking atts into one results in more damage does not make it binary unless you consider tooltip damage the one thing of value. Since the game is a lot more complicated than just your tooltip damage values, i stick to the term "alleged."
First italics - you also make conscious choices now, though to you it seems the answers are too obvious. You imagine all these new options, but the same options exist now. The question still comes down to "is there a better than others" solution to the question of "where to spend att points" and there is some significant evidence from early play and from the more recent proc-olution that having damage divorced from attributes will tend to make "dump all into health" the "one solution". if that proves true, as others have suggested, then your "proposal" would take us from a "binary choice" to a "singular choice" for "best" and that is a step in the wrong direction.
look back at more recent changes.
changes to sustain led to adaptation to move towards more heavy attack and light attack metas.
Seems that removing the damage boost from attributes would favor the "dump into health for survival" and an even further shift to the DOT and heavy-to-sustain models, because while more magica or stamina wont help you hit things harder, more health definitely helps you survive things more. Given the light/heavy already have a bad "max pool to damage gain" ratio, it seems not too far a stretch to see those polls all but vanish if the ratio went to zero.
Going from two options in your imagined binary to a single option just means more options are ignored, not more are used.
If we suddenly added jewel crafting ti ashens grip set, that gives you more options on how to wear it, but since it is well below par, that just increases the number of "unused option" not the "used options."
this proposal seems to be that way.
in no small part because so many many many other factors in the game also are structured for the more "either/or but not both optimal" approach. The structure of CP points of most of the "top end sets" and so one all play their roles in working against the "utility" of hybrid stam-mag builds and IMo do so much more than the attributes do.
But as long as health pays out benefits against both damage sources (stam or mag) and so many other factors apply to "either/or" i still see no way it being clear that this change would not just drive the "optimal" answer from "stam or mag" to "only health".
other than your wishes for that to be true, do you have any evidence to support it?
case in point, the recent surge in light/heavy attack metas - those benefit less from the "pool-size damage element" than the prior metas were - but did that change result in a rise in hybrid builds due to the lesser impact of the damage boost from maxpool?
or did all the other aspects (cp, sustain, sets, etc) still keep maxpool builds the mainstay at the top-end?
I get that you want hybrids for whatever reason, or claim to, just not that this proposal makes them work in any meaningful way. Seems to reduce the optimal options.
1) We are discussing damage. It's a fact that stacking one of the two existing damage-tied attributes results in more damage. I don't know how to make that more clear for you. It is proven in the game. Just because you call this an "imaginary" or "alleged" binary doesn't make this fact go away.
2) Dumping all points into health results in a lack of magicka and stamina resources for:
- casting skills
- shielding
- blocking
- dodge rolling
- breaking free
- sprinting
So a player could absolutely dump all points into health if attribute damage scaling was removed, but then that player would be sacrificing sustain and the ability to perform necessities on the aforementioned list.0 -
CyrusArya✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Because scaling off both stat and damage is a central game mechanic at this point, that is reflected in all aspects of balance from itemization, to skills, to racial passives etc. Absolutely no reason to waste time fixing what's ain't broke and then spend another 3 patches rebalancing after the fact.
Stop asking for unnecessary changes.
3 -
eso_nya✭✭✭✭✭
✭There is 4 things to care of when speccing for PvE- DD:
#1 Penetration:
Mobs come with 9,1k resistance in overland and 18,3k* resistance in veteran content (i forgotted, could be 9,2 and 18,6? ). For every 500 points, they mitigate 1% of the dmg they take. Depending on the players penetration, they take 37% to 0% less dmg.
This is a hardcap, as stacking more than 9k/18k penetration doesnt do anything anymore.
#2 Crit:
Ciritcal Rating and Critical dmg r dependant stats, means one is useless without the other. The basevalue every toon has is 5% critical rating and 50% critical dmg (bite me, cant find the source to that anymore).
As they r linked, u can multiply them to calculate their average effect on your dps. -> 5% times 50% -> 0,05* 50 -> 2,5 -> that equals a 2,5% dps-increase if u dont do anything for it. The optimum is, when crit rate and crit dmg is equal.
Specifically for eso: there r very few options to increase critical dmg: cp, mundus, trap, warhorn, class passives. They come with high values and starting off at a high base, it is the harder thing to get critical rating up on par.
Generally stacking crit is more beneficial, if u run a spec that has a lot of little things hitting in short timeframes -> dot specs.
Critical rating also comes with a hardcap: You can not crit more than 100% of the time. (This is very hard to reach tho)
#3 Weapon/Spelldmg:
The way it stacks in eso, it comes with diminishing returns, very close to an actual softcap.
Over the thumb: Increasing your W/S-Dmg by n% increases your dmg by 0,5 * n%. (Major Brutallity/Sorcery will increase your dmg by 10%). There r exceptions to that rule: e.g. heals scale "stronger" with maxstat (0,6) and "weaker" with spelldmg (0,4) (lightspeaker is great :P), shields only scale with max magicka and not with spelldmg. Skills with a dmg and a heal component can have 0,6-scaling w/ spelldmg for the dmg-part and 0,4-scaling for the heal.
Additionally, the rule for stacking is (numbers + numbers) times (percentage + percetage) for example: a one handed golden axe, the 5 piece hundings rage, the 5 medium passive and major butallity stack:
(1335 + 300) * (12+20) -> 1635 * 1,32 -> 2158 weapondmg.
With sets, u always increase W/S-dmg by a flat number (129, 300, 400, 450,....).
If your only source of weapondmg is your bow, adding 129 weapondmg to 1335 will result in a 4,8% dmg increase.
If u have a bow and 3 weapondmg glyphs on your jewels, adding 129 weapondmg to 1857 will result in a 3,5% dmg increase.
So by adding the same amount of "points" u get a lower result in "dmg done".
#4 Max Stat:
Max Stat does scale in the same way weapon-/spell dmg does.
Personally, i consider max stat the least usefull to focus on. First, there r more/stronger %-buffs for weapon/spelldmg. Secondly, u hit dr sooner. Over the thumb 1 point of w/s-dmg is worth 10 points of max stat. U get 10 points for every cp invested in blue/green tree, attribute points, armor glyphs and buffood set u up at 30k~35k before thinking about sets. So with only base stats, u get nearly double the maxstatpool compared to weapon/spelldmg from weapon and jewelglyphs.
Next funny word: Meta as in most efficient tactics available. As eso gives u choices on how to gear, it is up to u, to either focus on a single stat, or to spread your points around all of them. The way dmg goes is tooltip gets boosted by max stat and w/s-dmg, that gets multiplied by crit and that gets multiplied by (1 - mitigation).
The formulas above r not precise, but they give u an estimate on what to expect if u swap one set for another. Also allows to get the sets on an equal ground for computing their performance.
My approach is: take care of mitigation -> equalize crit rating and crit dmg -> put the rest into w/s-dmg.
And finally back to topic: Max Stat scaling is "nice to have" but not gamechanging. Removing it, would be a nerf to overall dps and result in everyone putting 64 attribute points into health and swappping food for drinks. Would be fun to read the posts inspired by the effects on hardened ward and shrimp
1 -
Zagnut123Zagnut123✭✭✭✭Mag classes survive just fine in trials with there current stam pool. Putting everything into health would be like an extra shield. The only way I see true hybridization is if they make all skills do flat dmg and make wpn dmg and spell dmg and crit meaningless.1
-
Merkabeh✭✭✭I hate the design as well; however, no way it is going to change.
To prevent max health allocations for everyone, they'd need to completely rework all aspects of sustain (HA, sustain stats, passives and abilities that directly give resources). And likely rework all ability costs.
The system would need to be built to essentially make it impossible to reach 100% sustain (or even high percentage sustain; essentially guaranteeing with no allocations in magicka or stamina, OOM or OOS will eventually hit, regardless of build into sustain; spend must be always greater than return), no matter rotation, forcing players to allocate into non health to extend combat abilities. Players would need to decide how much magicka, stamina and health they need to win an engagement then, forcing them to allocate points in all 3 branches. This would be a major undertaking and just not feasible at this point.
Also, as stated, ZOS would need to address weapon/spell damage and crit; simce those will still drive players towards favoriting magic or stamina abilities; with the off stat being reserved for support abilities (same as ot is now).
I'd love if hybrids were feasible (in all content), but the game has been designed into a hole, where this is likely never going to happen.
Finally, we'd see a decrease in BiS builds actually, if it were ever pulled off. Right now, magicka and stamina each have BiS builds for each class. If this sytem were in place, each class would get 1/2 the BiS builds. Don't know if I'm explaining properly.Crusader of The Knights of the Alessian Order
Anything useful that players are wanting added into the game all fall under the category of "Yer ruinin my 'mersion!" - Sallington
#CommunicationEquality0 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »Why would we change such a core component of the game that doesn't bring with it any discernible issues.
I never agree with any of your posts man
Game was described as "play how you want" but the max attribute damage scaling design says otherwise. End game content discourages hybrids and encourages a stamina/magicka divide and binary builds.
That's an issue. I don't care if you agree.
Seems like faulty logic derived from an overly broad re-imagining of a core design element.
"play how you want " has been achieved. All the content on normal mode can be completed without optimal biS design structures as long as basic minimal "decent design decisions" are made.
"Play how you want" does not mean your decisions as a player are so meaningless that you cannot sabotage a build. it enever did.
So, yes, it is one of many things that narrows and limits the choices more and more as you set your gaols higher and higher. Your decisions matter and are more than just cosmetic choices that deploy different animations but the same net results.
So, no, max att scaling does not say "dont play how you want" but it is one of many things that says ';your choices matter."
Max attribute damage scaling doesn't say, "your choices matter." It says, " here are your two binary choices. Pick one."
While I do not agree with your unsubstantiated conclusion here, even if you are correct (for sale of argument) you have yet to show that removing it will produce **more than two** options for the same goal constraints -highest end damage output - that you assume for the claimed "binary".
Consider that when proc sets damage rose and was divorced from stat scaling, we did not see tons of hybrid diversity running amok in those builds but instead saw quite a surge in high health proc-for-kills play.
Going from your alleged binary option to a single attspec option is not making play how you want stronger.
Or did I miss the post where you showed your alternative did that?
I don't know why you're calling the current attribute damage scaling system an "alleged" binary, because it is. Stacking attribute points into one of the two damage resources (stamina or magicka) results in a character doing more damage. It's simple fact that any division of those resources lowers damage. It's not "alleged," it's fact.
Now consider the attribute placement options if damage scaling were to be removed from attributes. The possibilities would extend far beyond two binary attribute choices because you could actually (gasp!) make conscious choices on where to place your attributes rather than dump them all into one attribute! Your choices on where to place attributes would also matter more because you may consider allocation of attributes in a variety of different ways to fit your preferred style of game play - health for survival, magicka for skills/shields, and stamina for skills, sneak, dodge roll, sprint, block, and break free.
The attribute placement choices matter a lot more if attribute damage scaling is removed because you're not simply dumping all attribute points into one resource, but instead making more decisions on how you want your character to play.
First bold - the fact that stacking atts into one results in more damage does not make it binary unless you consider tooltip damage the one thing of value. Since the game is a lot more complicated than just your tooltip damage values, i stick to the term "alleged."
First italics - you also make conscious choices now, though to you it seems the answers are too obvious. You imagine all these new options, but the same options exist now. The question still comes down to "is there a better than others" solution to the question of "where to spend att points" and there is some significant evidence from early play and from the more recent proc-olution that having damage divorced from attributes will tend to make "dump all into health" the "one solution". if that proves true, as others have suggested, then your "proposal" would take us from a "binary choice" to a "singular choice" for "best" and that is a step in the wrong direction.
look back at more recent changes.
changes to sustain led to adaptation to move towards more heavy attack and light attack metas.
Seems that removing the damage boost from attributes would favor the "dump into health for survival" and an even further shift to the DOT and heavy-to-sustain models, because while more magica or stamina wont help you hit things harder, more health definitely helps you survive things more. Given the light/heavy already have a bad "max pool to damage gain" ratio, it seems not too far a stretch to see those polls all but vanish if the ratio went to zero.
Going from two options in your imagined binary to a single option just means more options are ignored, not more are used.
If we suddenly added jewel crafting ti ashens grip set, that gives you more options on how to wear it, but since it is well below par, that just increases the number of "unused option" not the "used options."
this proposal seems to be that way.
in no small part because so many many many other factors in the game also are structured for the more "either/or but not both optimal" approach. The structure of CP points of most of the "top end sets" and so one all play their roles in working against the "utility" of hybrid stam-mag builds and IMo do so much more than the attributes do.
But as long as health pays out benefits against both damage sources (stam or mag) and so many other factors apply to "either/or" i still see no way it being clear that this change would not just drive the "optimal" answer from "stam or mag" to "only health".
other than your wishes for that to be true, do you have any evidence to support it?
case in point, the recent surge in light/heavy attack metas - those benefit less from the "pool-size damage element" than the prior metas were - but did that change result in a rise in hybrid builds due to the lesser impact of the damage boost from maxpool?
or did all the other aspects (cp, sustain, sets, etc) still keep maxpool builds the mainstay at the top-end?
I get that you want hybrids for whatever reason, or claim to, just not that this proposal makes them work in any meaningful way. Seems to reduce the optimal options.
1) We are discussing damage. It's a fact that stacking one of the two existing damage-tied attributes results in more damage. I don't know how to make that more clear for you. It is proven in the game. Just because you call this an "imaginary" or "alleged" binary doesn't make this fact go away.
2) Dumping all points into health results in a lack of magicka and stamina resources for:
- casting skills
- shielding
- blocking
- dodge rolling
- breaking free
- sprinting
So a player could absolutely dump all points into health if attribute damage scaling was removed, but then that player would be sacrificing sustain and the ability to perform necessities on the aforementioned list.
Noise but not answers.
A list of things pools are used for now that according to you are not enough to make splitting arts up says nothing about whether they will be enough to stop the alleged binary after your change or prevent the singular option from being top.
They key being that that list of stuff to do with pools even without damage has sacrifices built in, not just due to damage.
A character at 32/32 mag Stan has sacrificed by your list shield size or magical abilities casting vs dodging or blocking or sprinting etc. Removing damage from the list of sacrifices *by means of removing pool from damage* does not change that and so it pushes up the comparative value of health.
Right now and in recent past even,more we have seen in play the more damage you have that is divorced from pools the more we see health heavy low to no stam/mag pool builds relying on the non-polol damage and the survivability.
So again it comes back to, what evidence do you have that shows aremoval of the link between damage and pool size would lead to more hybrid builds when performance based decisions were made as opposed to just shifting us from your claimed "binary" choice to a singular "one option" choice"?
Health-based builds that find damage and sustain thru other means not linked to pools, like say we have seen happen with the rise of light/heavy centered builds once sustain changed, are not hurt at all by your proposed changes... they lost nothing. on the other hand, builds which gain from pool-size based damage are.
it should come as no surprise that in a game where even now the health-based builds have a place, the reduction of gains from stam-mag spends vs the gains from health spends would lead to more health-based builds.
If the thread were titled "lets make health builds even better" your proposal would be dead spot on.
As a way of promoting your fetish for "split spends between stam and mag" it fails and in no small part because it ignores all the wide variety of things in the game that would still keep split builds underperforming.
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."0 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭I hate the design as well; however, no way it is going to change.
To prevent max health allocations for everyone, they'd need to completely rework all aspects of sustain (HA, sustain stats, passives and abilities that directly give resources). And likely rework all ability costs.
The system would need to be built to essentially make it impossible to reach 100% sustain (or even high percentage sustain; essentially guaranteeing with no allocations in magicka or stamina, OOM or OOS will eventually hit, regardless of build into sustain; spend must be always greater than return), no matter rotation, forcing players to allocate into non health to extend combat abilities. Players would need to decide how much magicka, stamina and health they need to win an engagement then, forcing them to allocate points in all 3 branches. This would be a major undertaking and just not feasible at this point.
Also, as stated, ZOS would need to address weapon/spell damage and crit; simce those will still drive players towards favoriting magic or stamina abilities; with the off stat being reserved for support abilities (same as ot is now).
I'd love if hybrids were feasible (in all content), but the game has been designed into a hole, where this is likely never going to happen.
Finally, we'd see a decrease in BiS builds actually, if it were ever pulled off. Right now, magicka and stamina each have BiS builds for each class. If this sytem were in place, each class would get 1/2 the BiS builds. Don't know if I'm explaining properly.
There is no evidence to suggest a new paradigm of balance between stam and mag and hybrids would lead to less biS top-options. Every bit of evidence suggest it would just change what the toip abc sets and builds were, not make more of them.
if you want to get rid of the BiS you have to make a more fundamental change and make BiS more highly almost totally focused on "vs a given opposition" so that the best set to wear into "undead city" is very very different from what youn wear into "fire elemental city" and very very very different from what you wear into "spider city" or "constructs city" or "tempest island".
Right now, 99%+ of build is about getting "your numbers" up. With top numbers you can go anywhere pretty much the same and just learn a few local mechanics. That is because the vast majority of your gains apply anywhere against any foe, outside the local special gimmicks for some boss fights.
So, it is easy enough for a short order math-out and playtest period to flesh out what the top options are etc.
on the other hand, consider an alternative where within each role traits and choices were far more focused along the lines of three tiers:
For each type of adversary/threat ONE trait was tops, by a significant margin.
For **all** types of adversary content ONE trait was second best, by a significant margin.(i imagine norn as the mid-everywhere option myself)
For **all** types of adversary/content all the other traits/choices was third place by a significant margin.
Now instead of one BiS you have one BiS per type of adversary/content... a lot more different builds/combos are needed across the variety of content.
But just changing how the internal numbers are figured wount increase or decrese the number of "top choices" only change which choices fill those slots.
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."0 -
Faulgor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I agree it's a stupid design (which frankly has its roots in TESV and Todd "Intelligence is redundant" Howard removing all other attributes), but at this point the downside to changing it is obviously that it would require a lot of work and upset the current game balance too much for little gain.
About a year ago in an AMA, the devs said they wanted to make Health more worthwhile to invest in, but so far I have seen no shift away from the 64 Magicka/Stamina meta. Unless you use Witchmother/Camoran Throne and need some more health to survive in raids.Alandrol Sul: He's making another Numidium?!?
Vivec: Worse, buddy. They're buying it.0 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭"Hey dad, when folks buy our ice cream, they always buy either vanilla, strawberry or chocolate but never use our swirl and mix option?"
"Well son, lets reduce the amount we put in each scoop of strawberry and chocolate so those picking those will get less. Then more folks will use the swirl."
"uhh, dad, wont that just make people buy more vanilla since its not being reduced and the others are?"
"No son, i know what i am talking about. just reduce the scoops for the two and all will be swirling goodness!!!"
"Mom, MOM... we need to chat about Dad."
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."0 -
RPGplayer13579✭✭✭✭Does max stamina/magicka strengthen class skills as well as weapon skills?My Characters.
Mike Snow - Imperial - Templar - One-Handed and Shield - Tank - Daggerfall Covenant - Commander.
Catelyn Rivers - Breton - Sorcerer - Destruction Staff - Daggerfall Covenant - Telvanni Magister.
Ashara Sand - Redguard - Warden - Two-Handed/One-Handed and Shield - Daggerfall Covenant - Heroic.
Tormund gro-Largash - Orsimer - Dragonknight - Two-Handed - Daggerfall Covenant - Furious.
Lysa Rivers - Breton - Nightblade - Bow/One-Handed and Shield - Vampire - Daggerfall Covenant - Brassy Assassin.
Jon Karstark - Nord - Dragonknight - Two-Handed - Ebonheart Pact - Drunk.
Arya Sand - Dunmer - Dragonknight - Dual Wield - Ebonheart Pact - Assassin.
Sansa Snow - Impeial - Warden - Destruction Staff/One-Handed and Shield - Ebonheart Pect - Swashbuckler.
Jojen Reed-Walker - Argonian - Templar - Restoration Staff - Healer - Ebonheart Pact - Melancholy.
Alys Karstark - Nord - Nightblade - Bow/Dual Wield - Ebonheart Pact - Minstrel.
Nymeria Woods - Bosmer - Nightblade - Bow - Aldmeri Dominion - Thief.
Brandon Wings - Altmer - Templar - Restoration Staff - Healer - Aldmeri Dominion - Scholar.
Lyanna Flowers - Altmer - Sorcerer - Sword/Destruction Staff - Aldmeri Dominion - Duchess.
Marvolo-jo Riddle - Khajiit - Necromancer - Destruction Staff - Aldmeri Dominion - Deadlands Firewalker.
Obara Woods - Bosmer - Templar - Bow - Werewolf - Aldmeri Dominion - Cheerful.0 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭RPGplayer13579 wrote: »Does max stamina/magicka strengthen class skills as well as weapon skills?
yes... though the ratio by which maxpool adds to damage varies by skill and type of effect. most are at about 10-to-1 but there are notable exceptions including light/heavy attacks but also others. IIRC daedric mines was a very bad pool-to-damage ratio combined with large pool cost.
There are lots of ways the scaling between pool and damage could be used to help the hybrids out some, but just removing pool from damage is simply not one of them or at least not a good one.
1 - Diminishing returns - have the pool to damage ratio be very good at low levels of pool and then much worse at higher levels of pool, significantly enough that it can even compete/offset at mid-levels with the shifts from Cp and buffs.
2 - Make the damage bonus work off combined stam/mag pool, which leaves the value of stam/mag relative to health as it is now but with less trouble when you divide between the two "offensivce" stats.
But just reducing the value earned by spending on stam/mag... that just helps the health spends.
of course, a more radical change would be to change the trio of stats from two offensive ones and one defensive ones to say:
Potency (Offense)
Toughness (Defense)
Endurance (Sustain)
But right now a lot needs to change to make hybrid builds to anything like what the Op may be seeking and not suroprisingly reducing the value of stamina and magica while leaving health as is actually is not one of them. Go figure.
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 -
Integral1900✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Well as usual the conversation has wandered away...
I would read it all but I have a limited tolerance for over important types talking cobblers...
As has been stated maxstats dictating the builds is just artificial content inflation. It wasn't in the game at launch. Builds were meant to be a mix of stamina and magic, balancing them according to your needs. Why do you thing most class skills are magic and the weapons are more stamina oriented? The original intent was that you would use both to a greater or lesser degree. Now on one hand you should never take the word of anyone who says it was all sunshine and rainbows back then, the game was a generic mess with a list of issues as long as your arm. I barely recognise the game it's become and that's a good thing, but I do miss play as you want being there...
I would run round with spells and great swords flying, the whole hybrid thing was a solid choice, it gave up in some areas and gained in others. Now however that time is dead. It's no longer play as you want, especially in vet content, I've spent millions of gold and tens of thousands of mats trying to make an end game hybrid and it's just not going to work! It's a shame as these days it seems every stamina build is all but identical, that isn't going to change any time soon but unlocking damage from max stats would create an explosion of build diversity. If you can't see that then I'm sorry but that's your problem not ours. Personally I would have a hell of a time choosing where to put stat points, these days it's not a decision at all... oh I'm a stamina build, guess that's where it's all going... that's not choice! That's a bloody pigeon hole!2 -
Merkabeh✭✭✭I hate the design as well; however, no way it is going to change.
To prevent max health allocations for everyone, they'd need to completely rework all aspects of sustain (HA, sustain stats, passives and abilities that directly give resources). And likely rework all ability costs.
The system would need to be built to essentially make it impossible to reach 100% sustain (or even high percentage sustain; essentially guaranteeing with no allocations in magicka or stamina, OOM or OOS will eventually hit, regardless of build into sustain; spend must be always greater than return), no matter rotation, forcing players to allocate into non health to extend combat abilities. Players would need to decide how much magicka, stamina and health they need to win an engagement then, forcing them to allocate points in all 3 branches. This would be a major undertaking and just not feasible at this point.
Also, as stated, ZOS would need to address weapon/spell damage and crit; simce those will still drive players towards favoriting magic or stamina abilities; with the off stat being reserved for support abilities (same as ot is now).
I'd love if hybrids were feasible (in all content), but the game has been designed into a hole, where this is likely never going to happen.
Finally, we'd see a decrease in BiS builds actually, if it were ever pulled off. Right now, magicka and stamina each have BiS builds for each class. If this sytem were in place, each class would get 1/2 the BiS builds. Don't know if I'm explaining properly.
There is no evidence to suggest a new paradigm of balance between stam and mag and hybrids would lead to less biS top-options. Every bit of evidence suggest it would just change what the toip abc sets and builds were, not make more of them.
if you want to get rid of the BiS you have to make a more fundamental change and make BiS more highly almost totally focused on "vs a given opposition" so that the best set to wear into "undead city" is very very different from what youn wear into "fire elemental city" and very very very different from what you wear into "spider city" or "constructs city" or "tempest island".
Right now, 99%+ of build is about getting "your numbers" up. With top numbers you can go anywhere pretty much the same and just learn a few local mechanics. That is because the vast majority of your gains apply anywhere against any foe, outside the local special gimmicks for some boss fights.
So, it is easy enough for a short order math-out and playtest period to flesh out what the top options are etc.
on the other hand, consider an alternative where within each role traits and choices were far more focused along the lines of three tiers:
For each type of adversary/threat ONE trait was tops, by a significant margin.
For **all** types of adversary content ONE trait was second best, by a significant margin.(i imagine norn as the mid-everywhere option myself)
For **all** types of adversary/content all the other traits/choices was third place by a significant margin.
Now instead of one BiS you have one BiS per type of adversary/content... a lot more different builds/combos are needed across the variety of content.
But just changing how the internal numbers are figured wount increase or decrese the number of "top choices" only change which choices fill those slots.
It very much would reduce top options if truly pulled off. Right now, each class has at least 1 BiS Stamina and 1 BiS Magicka.
However, if hybrids were effective, I can guarantee, there would only be 1 BiS for each class, mathed out, proven and accepted. The hybrid build would use all the best abilities (regardless of resource pool), and since in this hypothetical situation OP is asking for, no damage/effect is lost running abilities for hybrids, there is no harm mixing stamina and magicka abilities, no trade off.
So, the number crunchers would come up with the most synergistic and strongest combination of abilities; then the best sets of gear to support them; and best CP choices to support that. Similar to now, but with one pool of abilities for each class, instead of the current 2 different pools.
And your poimts on gearing for strengths weaknesses in specific content (like between different dungeons) is irrelevant; that apparently isn't ZOS' strategy; so there is no reason to expect they'd take on even more work, to make that happen, when undertaking this massive load of work suggested to make hybrids possible.Edited by Merkabeh on September 16, 2017 8:06AMCrusader of The Knights of the Alessian Order
Anything useful that players are wanting added into the game all fall under the category of "Yer ruinin my 'mersion!" - Sallington
#CommunicationEquality1 -
Destruent✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭such threads are really funny...
atm: max damage/healing= function(maxStat, Wep/spelldmg, CP, crit, critdmg) --> Function with 5 variables which will lead to 5 (will be 4 +1 because CP are more or les independent from your Stats) theoretical solutions if you find if you find enough equations (hidden into your setcombinations, bc they define the relative value of the variables to each other)...if you can't find enough there are more solutions.
without max-Stat-scaling: max damage/healing= function(Wep/spelldmg, CP, crit, critdmg) --> Function with 4 variables so 3+1 solution
TL; DR: deleting one variable from your function will also delete atleast one solution for this function and therefore DECREASE builddiversity for a given goal of maximizing dmg/healing-output.
You cannot count in Hybrid-builds, bc they will never be as strong as single-statbuilds bc: crit, CP, wasted 5pc if you equalize wep/spelldmg.Noobplar1 -
GrumpyDuckling✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Integral1900 wrote: »Well as usual the conversation has wandered away...
I would read it all but I have a limited tolerance for over important types talking cobblers...
As has been stated maxstats dictating the builds is just artificial content inflation. It wasn't in the game at launch. Builds were meant to be a mix of stamina and magic, balancing them according to your needs. Why do you thing most class skills are magic and the weapons are more stamina oriented? The original intent was that you would use both to a greater or lesser degree. Now on one hand you should never take the word of anyone who says it was all sunshine and rainbows back then, the game was a generic mess with a list of issues as long as your arm. I barely recognise the game it's become and that's a good thing, but I do miss play as you want being there...
I would run round with spells and great swords flying, the whole hybrid thing was a solid choice, it gave up in some areas and gained in others. Now however that time is dead. It's no longer play as you want, especially in vet content, I've spent millions of gold and tens of thousands of mats trying to make an end game hybrid and it's just not going to work! It's a shame as these days it seems every stamina build is all but identical, that isn't going to change any time soon but unlocking damage from max stats would create an explosion of build diversity. If you can't see that then I'm sorry but that's your problem not ours. Personally I would have a hell of a time choosing where to put stat points, these days it's not a decision at all... oh I'm a stamina build, guess that's where it's all going... that's not choice! That's a bloody pigeon hole!
"...unlocking damage from max stats would create an explosion of build diversity. If you can't see that then I'm sorry but that's your problem not ours."
Well said, because you'll have others who refuse to recognize fact and instead call it imaginary. It's a simple, proven fact that the current system rewards damage output for players who stack points into a single attribute.0 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭@Integral1900
I remember launch too.
We just remember it differently.
I don't recall hybrid sta mag split builds being strong or competitive. i seem to recall a whole lot of health based builds doing quite well over hybrid builds.
But, even allowing for your rose-glasses views, i think you may be forgetting somethings:
THERE WERE CAPS THEN
Back then iirc there were caps on atts. After a certain point which was well before the max your variables, was it all of them, had caps beyond which adding more got cut way way way back. So, stacking all atts into magica and piling on spell damage and spell crit and so on and so forth started hitting walls where your values would show yellow or orange to indicate that you were over max and now any new additions were seriously cut back.
For some getting your scores into the yellow was a sign that you had built well. it was one of the few objective benchmarks.
So, it was CAPS not the contribution to spell and weapon damage that promoted and practically forced any push away from stat-maxed builds - at least that is how i recall it.
THERE WAS LESS SYSTEMATIC IN THE SYSTEM THEN
There were not as much of a codified and unified set of "stamina or magica" type buffs and boosts then. As we have gone on through the game development after caps were removed and poll-to-damage codified and Cp added and the major/minor buffs worked in and even more fundamental gear redesign (did you notice how many of the "split type" sets have been "fixed" to now serve either magica or stamina but not both over the last year of optimization)
Its now a lot harder to get the augmentation to support both magica and stamina from all those other well ensconced elements in the game added since launch and more and more streamlined to fit the magica or stamina primary model. More builds can be found now that support well a stamina primary approach or a magica primary approach than can support **as well** a stamina and magica joint approach.
So, if you do not see that reducing the value of stamina and magica by removing their damage component will lead to mre health-based investment builds because health is already doing well as a competitor and reducing all its competition only makes it a better deal, that is not on us, its on you.
So, if you cannot see that cutting the ties between damage and pool size for stam/mag is not going torecreate any explosion of options since the factors pushing hybrids which existed back then (caps) are not there and because so much more in the game also drives the magica or stamina push, thats on you, not them.
Myopic oversimplification (looking at one thing in isolation and then pretending the other factors dont weigh in when hypothesizing what will happen if) produces bad results and faulty predictions.
We have some bit of evidence with what happens when damage gets more divorced from pool sioze - rise of the healthy proc set builds.
We have seen how players choose to cope with lack of resoruces to maintain an ability spamming routine - it was not to keep chasing pool and recovery but to adopt attack-recovery routines using more light/heavy attack sequences.
So, pretending that folks wont adjust to severing the tie between mag or stamina and damage by sinking points into the still full value unreduced health alternative and feeding their fuel needs by even more use of heavy/light attack based builds and procs while keeping their buffs and boosts all focused in one "type" instead of split across a variety of types flies in the face of what bit of evidence we have seen.
Regardless of whether one has a fetish for hydrid builds or not, regardless of whether one thinks it is better to have one hybrid best instead of a magica and a stamina best, the simple basic question about this change is does it accomplish what it was intended to do?
To me, it doesn't help hybrid builds sufficiently to matter and in fact since it leaves the competitor for stamina or magica (health) still at full value, its going to result in less points spent into stamina or magica overall and more into health.
So, count me in those who don't see the removal of stamina and magica pool from launching this explosion of diversity goodness. This change will literally, (in fact not in wishy-dreamy-hopey) not made hybrid spending "better" just made stamina and magica less useful while leaving health just as good as ever.
There are other possibilities to consider if making hybrid builds "better" such as linking damage to "stamina plus magica pool" (still leave all the other stuff working against you so.. meh), re-instating caps, merging "recovery" so that whenever one gets magica from any source they also get stamina but you get less of the one and more between the two so sustain with one pool is much harder but sustain with two pools is much easier.)
That last option, for instance, could result in the following type of split:
Single pool builds have more sustain issues and have to rely on light/heavy focused schemes.
Multi-pool builds have easier, much easier, sustain play and can even afford the olde rotations with lots of spam of harder hitting abilities because they are burning thru two pools with "effectively" twice the sustain coming in every time they do heavy attack.
this could lead to having a significant difference in play between hybrid schemes and single pool schemes and the "ability vs light/heavy" sustain thing driving a way to help offset the damage differences.
See, the thing that keeps getting missed in the myopic, tunnel vison of how its the poll-size damage thing that is holding the hybrid man down, is that its a lot more than that, that other more interesting changes can actually move towards the alleged goals.
of course, all this assumes the whole hybrid diverstiy thing mismatch with the proposed fix is not just a sheep's clothing wrapper on a "pro-health" agenda.
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."0 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭GrumpyDuckling wrote: »Integral1900 wrote: »Well as usual the conversation has wandered away...
I would read it all but I have a limited tolerance for over important types talking cobblers...
As has been stated maxstats dictating the builds is just artificial content inflation. It wasn't in the game at launch. Builds were meant to be a mix of stamina and magic, balancing them according to your needs. Why do you thing most class skills are magic and the weapons are more stamina oriented? The original intent was that you would use both to a greater or lesser degree. Now on one hand you should never take the word of anyone who says it was all sunshine and rainbows back then, the game was a generic mess with a list of issues as long as your arm. I barely recognise the game it's become and that's a good thing, but I do miss play as you want being there...
I would run round with spells and great swords flying, the whole hybrid thing was a solid choice, it gave up in some areas and gained in others. Now however that time is dead. It's no longer play as you want, especially in vet content, I've spent millions of gold and tens of thousands of mats trying to make an end game hybrid and it's just not going to work! It's a shame as these days it seems every stamina build is all but identical, that isn't going to change any time soon but unlocking damage from max stats would create an explosion of build diversity. If you can't see that then I'm sorry but that's your problem not ours. Personally I would have a hell of a time choosing where to put stat points, these days it's not a decision at all... oh I'm a stamina build, guess that's where it's all going... that's not choice! That's a bloody pigeon hole!
"...unlocking damage from max stats would create an explosion of build diversity. If you can't see that then I'm sorry but that's your problem not ours."
Well said, because you'll have others who refuse to recognize fact and instead call it imaginary. It's a simple, proven fact that the current system rewards damage output for players who stack points into a single attribute.
As stated before, that is not in dispute at all.
What is being called imaginary and unproven and challenges are the conclusions that that leads to only binary choices (it doesn't) or that removing that would result in a rise in diversity from split hybrid stamina/magica builds instead of more focus on health only one-stat builds of a different flavor.
you keep intentionally (it now seems obvious) dodging that with your redirections.
your proposal seems much more pro-health-centirc builds than pro-hybrid-stam-mag builds by a long shot (and based off some extrapolations based off recent evidence in changes) and the onoy counter to that from you seems to be some form of ""see no evil."
You gotta look beyond "one thing" in a system this complex to achieve a significant change. if you refuse to see that, its on you.
But you can cloak your pro-health-build proposal wrapped in a pro-hybrid's pelt as long as you want but that wont make it a workable solution for hybrids.
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."0 -
GrumpyDuckling✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭GrumpyDuckling wrote: »Integral1900 wrote: »Well as usual the conversation has wandered away...
I would read it all but I have a limited tolerance for over important types talking cobblers...
As has been stated maxstats dictating the builds is just artificial content inflation. It wasn't in the game at launch. Builds were meant to be a mix of stamina and magic, balancing them according to your needs. Why do you thing most class skills are magic and the weapons are more stamina oriented? The original intent was that you would use both to a greater or lesser degree. Now on one hand you should never take the word of anyone who says it was all sunshine and rainbows back then, the game was a generic mess with a list of issues as long as your arm. I barely recognise the game it's become and that's a good thing, but I do miss play as you want being there...
I would run round with spells and great swords flying, the whole hybrid thing was a solid choice, it gave up in some areas and gained in others. Now however that time is dead. It's no longer play as you want, especially in vet content, I've spent millions of gold and tens of thousands of mats trying to make an end game hybrid and it's just not going to work! It's a shame as these days it seems every stamina build is all but identical, that isn't going to change any time soon but unlocking damage from max stats would create an explosion of build diversity. If you can't see that then I'm sorry but that's your problem not ours. Personally I would have a hell of a time choosing where to put stat points, these days it's not a decision at all... oh I'm a stamina build, guess that's where it's all going... that's not choice! That's a bloody pigeon hole!
"...unlocking damage from max stats would create an explosion of build diversity. If you can't see that then I'm sorry but that's your problem not ours."
Well said, because you'll have others who refuse to recognize fact and instead call it imaginary. It's a simple, proven fact that the current system rewards damage output for players who stack points into a single attribute.
As stated before, that is not in dispute at all.
What is being called imaginary and unproven and challenges are the conclusions that that leads to only binary choices (it doesn't) or that removing that would result in a rise in diversity from split hybrid stamina/magica builds instead of more focus on health only one-stat builds of a different flavor.
you keep intentionally (it now seems obvious) dodging that with your redirections.
your proposal seems much more pro-health-centirc builds than pro-hybrid-stam-mag builds by a long shot (and based off some extrapolations based off recent evidence in changes) and the onoy counter to that from you seems to be some form of ""see no evil."
You gotta look beyond "one thing" in a system this complex to achieve a significant change. if you refuse to see that, its on you.
But you can cloak your pro-health-build proposal wrapped in a pro-hybrid's pelt as long as you want but that wont make it a workable solution for hybrids.
You wrote, "What is being called imaginary and unproven and challenges are the conclusions that that leads to only binary choices (it doesn't)."
If you really think that, then go make a damage build (which is the type of build that we've been talking about all along) that isn't binary (stamina or magicka) and split your attributes up evenly. Then join a trial or do some VMA and let me know how you do compared to those using binary builds. The simple fact is that the game promotes binary damage builds for end-game content. You can't deny that and expect anyone to take you seriously.
Concerning your comments on health, I don't know how many times I have to keep reminding you of this, but if the removal of attribute damage scaling were to happen, then putting points into health would mean less resources for skill usage, shielding, roll dodge, break free, block, and sneak.
You can wrongly call this a "pro-health build proposal" all you want, but until you realize that an all-health build significantly lowers your sustained use of skills and your ability to perform the aforementioned actions, then you'll just keep arguing in vain. You seem to have this idea in mind that my stance promotes removal of damage scaling from max attributes without any other balance being conducted. Of course tweaks and adjustments would be made when testing is conducted. No one is arguing against that.
Read my comments in this thread and you will see that the only things I argue with you about is 1) your continued denial of and refusal to recognize that the game promotes binary damage builds for end-game, and 2) your insistence that everyone would simply stack health if attribute damage scaling were to be removed.
#1 just doesn't make sense (see my comment above about splitting attributes for your damage build and doing trials or VMA, and #2 your concern about stacking of health, if it were to even be a problem at all, would be handled during balance testing. I can't be any more clear about these two topics.Edited by GrumpyDuckling on September 16, 2017 4:12PM0 -
GrumpyDuckling✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Because scaling off both stat and damage is a central game mechanic at this point, that is reflected in all aspects of balance from itemization, to skills, to racial passives etc. Absolutely no reason to waste time fixing what's ain't broke and then spend another 3 patches rebalancing after the fact.
Stop asking for unnecessary changes.
@CyrusArya
That's the kind of attitude ("but nothing is broken") that would have prevented an awesome update like One Tamriel, which was a significant overhaul to central game mechanics that included:
- completely reconstructed enemy level scaling instead of static level-dependent areas
- zones are accessible to every player, regardless of alliance
- set-specific drops in zones
- delves, world bosses, and dolmens contain specific drops and unique named drops
You're entirely ruling out improvement by way of your "nothing is broken" attitude.0 -
Malacthulhu✭✭✭✭It would be funny if they made it so the dmg from resource applys to current resource (as in what you have left currently) and not max ans removed the timer on shields but, unable to recover that resource spent on a shield till the shield is dropped.Edited by Malacthulhu on September 16, 2017 4:46PMXbox One Na0 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭GrumpyDuckling wrote: »GrumpyDuckling wrote: »Integral1900 wrote: »Well as usual the conversation has wandered away...
I would read it all but I have a limited tolerance for over important types talking cobblers...
As has been stated maxstats dictating the builds is just artificial content inflation. It wasn't in the game at launch. Builds were meant to be a mix of stamina and magic, balancing them according to your needs. Why do you thing most class skills are magic and the weapons are more stamina oriented? The original intent was that you would use both to a greater or lesser degree. Now on one hand you should never take the word of anyone who says it was all sunshine and rainbows back then, the game was a generic mess with a list of issues as long as your arm. I barely recognise the game it's become and that's a good thing, but I do miss play as you want being there...
I would run round with spells and great swords flying, the whole hybrid thing was a solid choice, it gave up in some areas and gained in others. Now however that time is dead. It's no longer play as you want, especially in vet content, I've spent millions of gold and tens of thousands of mats trying to make an end game hybrid and it's just not going to work! It's a shame as these days it seems every stamina build is all but identical, that isn't going to change any time soon but unlocking damage from max stats would create an explosion of build diversity. If you can't see that then I'm sorry but that's your problem not ours. Personally I would have a hell of a time choosing where to put stat points, these days it's not a decision at all... oh I'm a stamina build, guess that's where it's all going... that's not choice! That's a bloody pigeon hole!
"...unlocking damage from max stats would create an explosion of build diversity. If you can't see that then I'm sorry but that's your problem not ours."
Well said, because you'll have others who refuse to recognize fact and instead call it imaginary. It's a simple, proven fact that the current system rewards damage output for players who stack points into a single attribute.
As stated before, that is not in dispute at all.
What is being called imaginary and unproven and challenges are the conclusions that that leads to only binary choices (it doesn't) or that removing that would result in a rise in diversity from split hybrid stamina/magica builds instead of more focus on health only one-stat builds of a different flavor.
you keep intentionally (it now seems obvious) dodging that with your redirections.
your proposal seems much more pro-health-centirc builds than pro-hybrid-stam-mag builds by a long shot (and based off some extrapolations based off recent evidence in changes) and the onoy counter to that from you seems to be some form of ""see no evil."
You gotta look beyond "one thing" in a system this complex to achieve a significant change. if you refuse to see that, its on you.
But you can cloak your pro-health-build proposal wrapped in a pro-hybrid's pelt as long as you want but that wont make it a workable solution for hybrids.
You wrote, "What is being called imaginary and unproven and challenges are the conclusions that that leads to only binary choices (it doesn't)."
If you really think that, then go make a damage build (which is the type of build that we've been talking about all along) that isn't binary (stamina or magicka) and split your attributes up evenly. Then join a trial or do some VMA and let me know how you do compared to those using binary builds. The simple fact is that the game promotes binary damage builds for end-game content. You can't deny that and expect anyone to take you seriously.
Concerning your comments on health, I don't know how many times I have to keep reminding you of this, but if the removal of attribute damage scaling were to happen, then putting points into health would mean less resources for skill usage, shielding, roll dodge, break free, block, and sneak.
You can wrongly call this a "pro-health build proposal" all you want, but until you realize that an all-health build significantly lowers your sustained use of skills and your ability to perform the aforementioned actions, then you'll just keep arguing in vain. You seem to have this idea in mind that my stance promotes removal of damage scaling from max attributes without any other balance being conducted. Of course tweaks and adjustments would be made when testing is conducted. No one is arguing against that.
Read my comments in this thread and you will see that the only things I argue with you about is 1) your continued denial of and refusal to recognize that the game promotes binary damage builds for end-game, and 2) your insistence that everyone would simply stack health if attribute damage scaling were to be removed.
#1 just doesn't make sense (see my comment above about splitting attributes for your damage build and doing trials or VMA, and #2 your concern about stacking of health, if it were to even be a problem at all, would be handled during balance testing. I can't be any more clear about these two topics.
I guess i am just going to have to dub this the Grumpy Shuffle if you keep doing it.
Whenever it ic convenient you shuffle between "pool damage scaling" and "the game" to hide your error or misdirection.
it is shown again in your post right off, where you take a reference by me that refers to your claims about damage scaling and what it does and swerve it into a "proof case" and reference to "the game" where suddenly your test case about how pool damage scaling is to be tested using the whole game, all those other elements i have pointed to over and over as additional factors that push against hybrid stam/mag output...
your test case needing to include all those other facftors in fact proves my point.
Again you swerve like anyone is disputing that "the game" pushes against hybridn stam.mag builds. Again, they are not.
What is being argued is whether your pro-hralth anti-stam,/mag proposal would make an ounce of difference as far as there being more hybrid builds or whether it would promote more diversity of the explosion of diversity as opposed to jusy hurting stam/mag builds as opposed to health based builds.
you keep trying to hide that by misdirecting... the Grumpy Shuffle.
As for the repreating of the "need pool for abilities" you keep over and over as if its something new...
thats how it works now and even now health builds run and sustain is handled by means of increased light and heavy use and guess what, your proposal does nothing at all to affect that. removing the damage gain from pool does nothing about that issue. All it does is make health a more appealing buy than it is now because health keeps all its goodies and stam/mag lose their damage gains.
Lets play "pretend the gurmpy is serious" for a moment:
Case 1: just remove the damage elements from stam and magica pools as is proposed
build1.1: typical stamina or magica binary build - loses decent amount of damage damage compared to now .
Build1.2: typical health heavy build (damage mostly from procs and light and ulti) - loses a little bit of damage output from its free starter pool.
Build 1.3 - stamina magica hybrid build - loses a significant amount of damage from its already moderate damage output but less than 1.1 did and more than 1.2 did.
all three lose damage output but health loses the least. nobody gains but the health one lost the least.
Case 2: Remove the damage from pools but add it in as a freebie so damage is not lost. (not the grumpy shuffle proposal but lets assume some sense is applied)
build 2.1: typical stam or mag binary build - no real change to current
build 2.2: typical health heavy build - gains a crap load of damage since it gets the damage boost from whatever replaced the pool size boost.
build 2.3 - hybrid stam/mag split build - gains a bit of increase in damage to bring its base up to the pre-buffed levels of the binary case and the health case.
No losers this time but the health build gained the most... got a bigger boost to its damage and kept all its healthy gains.
its pro-health because no matter how you slice it the impact of the change change is better for the health builds than for the magica and stamina ones.
There are ways to help make hybrid builds viable...
they are not the one you are proposing.
they are also going to have to be more broad reaching and significant and well thought out.
and even if they succeed at making the hybrids competitive, they might not be diversity improving.
Now, if you have a proposal that incluees mysterious "other things" that will make it all be better and happier, please put it on the table.
But your title for this thread and repreated comments have been about changing damage scaling from pools... not about some mystery cornucopia of panolplies of other things. The folks bringing up the many other things that impact the viability of hybrid builds have been myself and others.
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."0 -
technohic✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Seems most issues with this can be pointed to the removal of soft caps. It screwed everything up and has had fixes applied on that now broken foundation0