Monthly Combat Update – December 2017

Jade1986 · December 2017

Ranger209 wrote: »

Thinking about PvE vs. PvP it seems that the classes with good DoT rotations thrive in PvE while the classes and skills with good burst thrive in PvP. DK's parse well in PvE yet struggle PvP, Wardens are great in PvP but not so hot in PvE. Just some examples and I'm not sure that it holds through the entire spectrum of classes and skills. It's a very general statement.

However, would it make sense to buff burst abilities, some/all, not sure, and reduce some/all DoT's raw power to get them more on equal terms in PvE. Then use Battle Spirit to mitigate say 60% of the direct damage/burst abilities, and mitigate Dots only say 30%. By separating them out and dealing with them more independently could you have a better chance of balancing the skills for both PvP and PvE? Am I all wet here, waist deep? Is that something that just sounds good at first blush, or is there some validity to that thought process? Any thoughts?

This is unfortunately a problem across most mmos atm. Same issue was in SWTOR. Sustain ruled in pve, and burst pvp. The problem is the TTK with sustain in pvp is too long to compete with burst, and the continual damage with sustain is far superiour to the burst damage in pve. There are ways around it, for example, burst classes and builds should be more squishy with less survivability , and sustain specs and builds should offer superior survivability in exchange for the longer ttk.

Emma_Overload · December 2017

Cinbri wrote: »

I afraid that you might do cast time abilities uninterruptable during cc immunity. It will be disastrous. Imagine tanks spamming relic take on bgs and you cant do anything to prevent it, etc.
Hopefully you also do searching for ways to fix such old bugs as jabs incorrectly calculation its area of cone attacks, that making use of jabs in movement to not connect with enemy in range.

Cast abilities need to be uninterruptible at some point, otherwise they are useless in PvP. I gave up trying to heal with Dark Conversion because good players just bash you. Twilight healing is just as bad because they kill the Twilight, but you can't summon a new one because of interrupts!

Emma_Overload · December 2017

Zer0oo wrote: »

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Since we posted the November update, we’ve been mainly focusing on fixing bugs (some that you’ve seen in recent incremental patches, but most of are still internal and for Update 17) and doing some work for Update 18, which we aren’t quite ready to discuss yet.

That is really nice to hear. Does that include a fix for invisible group members in dungeons or trials, stuck in heavy attack snare bug, feeding pit achievement, stuck in combat which means unable to rez after a wipe in a trial or the slide on the ground after cc breaking? Just to name a few bugs.

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

We’re also continuing to work on improving interrupt, including adding a short cooldown to any interrupted ability. We noticed some confusion when we first mentioned this change, so we’d like to clarify: the reasoning behind this change is to add more strategic play when you interrupt another player’s ability, and in turn give players using abilities with a cast time an opportunity to use them against other players who repeatedly use interrupts.

Don't think it is wise since many of the ability, that can be interrupted, don't offer any other counter-play than interrupting. And there are other skill i don't even want to use even if the enemy can't interrupt me anymore. e.g. crystal blast

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Last month, we mentioned that we were looking at shortening the Heavy Attack cooldown, but ultimately decided not to go with this change to avoid making too many dramatic changes at once.

Again that so many people left or don't enjoy the combat has only secondary to do with heavy attack are boring but more with the fact that you are forced to spam heavy attacks in pve. Heavy attack builds were already before morrowind not weak(infinit sustain and most of the time easier than light attack builds but lower dps than light attack build), but after morrowind you could not sustain a light attack build without loosing too much damage. For me the combat before morrowind was way more fun, faster, skill-based and interesting.

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Not enough effective options to deal damage to clustered groups from afar

In cyrodil is it not always possible not to stack especial if a group goes for objectives and tries to take a keep. The group will stack when the keep has a breach or to take a flag. If there would be a skill that could be safely used from range to kill stacked people there should be some kind of counter-play to prevent wiping a group on choke point which exists from game design. Also there is already some "zerg killer" ingame a.k.a proxi det/Vicious Death but this skill/set is more a skill which is used by exactly those groups they should kill or by "bomb-blades"(nightblades who sneak and try to ulti bomb a group who is not paying attention or has to stack at one of the choke points). So please do not give those extrem stacked groups another toy.

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Block cost changes

If you change it to make it harder to block there will be even less classes who can tank in pve. It is already so a big gap between the classes in this respect.

Maybe think about how much protection blocking with s&b provides in pvp (70+% damage reduction).
My idea:
Give players a stack-able buff when they are hitting a blocking target in pvp. This way pve doesn't get changed at all, player who only block a short tine don't get any disadvantages and players who block a lot for a long time will take more damage the longer they block till block doesn't offer any more protection.
Blocking is still a good defense but if you block too long the other player can build enough stacks of the buff to nullify your block protection but if you drop block from time to time the stacks getting lost and you can block again with full protection after some time.

The problem with your "counter play" argument is that there is currently NO counter play to interrupts in the first place! If a player wants to keep me from casting an ability, there is nothing I can do about it except run away from the fight, if I can. Even if I stun the player with an hard CC, they can still CC break and bash me before I'm even done casting. That's ridiculously unfair.

Ragnarock41 · December 2017

Machete wrote: »

I mean... instead of needing everything that is strong, make other things better. As for utility, return to my previous statement. DK and stam NB need a look over for group play. I ask (and likely won't get) a look look over for stam DK and stam Sorc.

Both stamsorc and stamDk are outdated at the moment.
StamDk is especially in a worse spot since the sustain changes hurt them harder than anyone else, and unlike other classes, they don't have the tools to be a burst build.
But the real issue is, sDKs lost their ''bruiser'' identity, lost it to stamdens. They need to be redesigned with a new theme.
I think most of the community loves this toon as a ''berserker'', A sDK does not burst down people in two seconds, like a stamblade or stamsorc, sDK grinds his enemies down, slowly, they work hard for a kill.
But the current way of game mechanics prevents this playstyle.
Dk needs a total rework, instead of free 2 dots, they need better steroids, like getting stronger as you hit people, think of it like fury set, but instead of getting hit, you need to hit people instead.which would make things interesting, but I don't see it happening in anytime soon.

Ffastyl wrote: »

While you're looking at basic mechanics, please review Dodge Roll. The behavior of Dodge Roll's i-frames and positioning makes it unintuitive to counter. Specifically,
Dodge property does not expire until the animation is fully over, meaning attacking a player that is almost completely upright and most certainly not rolling still misses.

The rolling player's position is not updated until the dodge property expires. AoEs ignore the dodge property but because of the delayed positional update, targeting the rolling player's graphical body results in a complete miss because their hitbox is left where they started until the roll completes.

If you can address these issues, I'd also like to see a reduction in undodgeable attacks. If the above issues are addressed, roll punishing will come down to timing attacks and tracking with AoEs rather than relying on undodgeable moves like Screaming Cliff Racer.

As much as I want medium to be buffed, this shouldn't be the case.
Dodge roll is abused as a way of having immunity to dodgeable attacks because the you can keep the dodge buff after the animation ends.

Jade1986 wrote: »

Ranger209 wrote: »

Thinking about PvE vs. PvP it seems that the classes with good DoT rotations thrive in PvE while the classes and skills with good burst thrive in PvP. DK's parse well in PvE yet struggle PvP, Wardens are great in PvP but not so hot in PvE. Just some examples and I'm not sure that it holds through the entire spectrum of classes and skills. It's a very general statement.

However, would it make sense to buff burst abilities, some/all, not sure, and reduce some/all DoT's raw power to get them more on equal terms in PvE. Then use Battle Spirit to mitigate say 60% of the direct damage/burst abilities, and mitigate Dots only say 30%. By separating them out and dealing with them more independently could you have a better chance of balancing the skills for both PvP and PvE? Am I all wet here, waist deep? Is that something that just sounds good at first blush, or is there some validity to that thought process? Any thoughts?

This is unfortunately a problem across most mmos atm. Same issue was in SWTOR. Sustain ruled in pve, and burst pvp. The problem is the TTK with sustain in pvp is too long to compete with burst, and the continual damage with sustain is far superiour to the burst damage in pve. There are ways around it, for example, burst classes and builds should be more squishy with less survivability , and sustain specs and builds should offer superior survivability in exchange for the longer ttk.

This has to do with the type of the dot.
poisons are very burst and combined with Dual wield bleed dots, they are devastating.
Which is the meta for dot builds at the moment. played by either a stamblade or a stamsorc.

What, you would expect stamDK to be a great dot build right?

No. far from it actually.

claws and noxious breath do their damage over 10 seconds, obviously no dot build will only drop dots, you will also weave attacks between the dot spam, BUT, your enemy will purge,cloak, shield and heal. When your burst are doing damage soooo slowly, and when they also have better sustain than you, you're gonna lose. simple really.

nightblades will spam cloak to completely negate all those dots from ticking, and not to mention they have too much free sustain, how much you ask? Enough to outsustain anything, really. And they can always decide to just forget fighting and walk away. Which is a shame really, sDK is supposed to be the bane of these kind of builds, you're supposed to ''outsustain'' them.
Which is far from the truth tho.

Templars have just too much heals, and on top of that, purge.So you wont be killing one any time soon, not by yourself. Which is fine really. sDK was always a low damage spec for PvP, so I never expected to take out heal bots so easily.

wardens are like DKs, but as you said ,they have better burst and less garbage dots, with more free sustain, so they are in a better boat for PvP.

Dks, now things get interesting, Dks have little to no way of stopping dots from ticking on them, so a proper bleed build run by a sorc or nb will destroy a stamDk, and will give a mDk very hard time.

Savos_Saren · December 2017

Ragnarock41 wrote: »

Machete wrote: »

I mean... instead of needing everything that is strong, make other things better. As for utility, return to my previous statement. DK and stam NB need a look over for group play. I ask (and likely won't get) a look look over for stam DK and stam Sorc.

Both stamsorc and stamDk are outdated at the moment.
StamDk is especially in a worse spot since the sustain changes hurt them harder than anyone else, and unlike other classes, they don't have the tools to be a burst build.
But the real issue is, sDKs lost their ''bruiser'' identity, lost it to stamdens. They need to be redesigned with a new theme.
I think most of the community loves this toon as a ''berserker'', A sDK does not burst down people in two seconds, like a stamblade or stamsorc, sDK grinds his enemies down, slowly, they work hard for a kill.
But the current way of game mechanics prevents this playstyle.
Dk needs a total rework, instead of free 2 dots, they need better steroids, like getting stronger as you hit people, think of it like fury set, but instead of getting hit, you need to hit people instead.which would make things interesting, but I don't see it happening in anytime soon.

Ffastyl wrote: »

While you're looking at basic mechanics, please review Dodge Roll. The behavior of Dodge Roll's i-frames and positioning makes it unintuitive to counter. Specifically,
Dodge property does not expire until the animation is fully over, meaning attacking a player that is almost completely upright and most certainly not rolling still misses.

The rolling player's position is not updated until the dodge property expires. AoEs ignore the dodge property but because of the delayed positional update, targeting the rolling player's graphical body results in a complete miss because their hitbox is left where they started until the roll completes.

If you can address these issues, I'd also like to see a reduction in undodgeable attacks. If the above issues are addressed, roll punishing will come down to timing attacks and tracking with AoEs rather than relying on undodgeable moves like Screaming Cliff Racer.

As much as I want medium to be buffed, this shouldn't be the case.
Dodge roll is abused as a way of having immunity to dodgeable attacks because the you can keep the dodge buff after the animation ends.

Jade1986 wrote: »

Ranger209 wrote: »

Thinking about PvE vs. PvP it seems that the classes with good DoT rotations thrive in PvE while the classes and skills with good burst thrive in PvP. DK's parse well in PvE yet struggle PvP, Wardens are great in PvP but not so hot in PvE. Just some examples and I'm not sure that it holds through the entire spectrum of classes and skills. It's a very general statement.

However, would it make sense to buff burst abilities, some/all, not sure, and reduce some/all DoT's raw power to get them more on equal terms in PvE. Then use Battle Spirit to mitigate say 60% of the direct damage/burst abilities, and mitigate Dots only say 30%. By separating them out and dealing with them more independently could you have a better chance of balancing the skills for both PvP and PvE? Am I all wet here, waist deep? Is that something that just sounds good at first blush, or is there some validity to that thought process? Any thoughts?

This is unfortunately a problem across most mmos atm. Same issue was in SWTOR. Sustain ruled in pve, and burst pvp. The problem is the TTK with sustain in pvp is too long to compete with burst, and the continual damage with sustain is far superiour to the burst damage in pve. There are ways around it, for example, burst classes and builds should be more squishy with less survivability , and sustain specs and builds should offer superior survivability in exchange for the longer ttk.

This has to do with the type of the dot.
poisons are very burst and combined with Dual wield bleed dots, they are devastating.
Which is the meta for dot builds at the moment. played by either a stamblade or a stamsorc.

What, you would expect stamDK to be a great dot build right?

No. far from it actually.

claws and noxious breath do their damage over 10 seconds, obviously no dot build will only drop dots, you will also weave attacks between the dot spam, BUT, your enemy will purge,cloak, shield and heal. When your burst are doing damage soooo slowly, and when they also have better sustain than you, you're gonna lose. simple really.

nightblades will spam cloak to completely negate all those dots from ticking, and not to mention they have too much free sustain, how much you ask? Enough to outsustain anything, really. And they can always decide to just forget fighting and walk away. Which is a shame really, sDK is supposed to be the bane of these kind of builds, you're supposed to ''outsustain'' them.
Which is far from the truth tho.

Templars have just too much heals, and on top of that, purge.So you wont be killing one any time soon, not by yourself. Which is fine really. sDK was always a low damage spec for PvP, so I never expected to take out heal bots so easily.

wardens are like DKs, but as you said ,they have better burst and less garbage dots, with more free sustain, so they are in a better boat for PvP.

Dks, now things get interesting, Dks have little to no way of stopping dots from ticking on them, so a proper bleed build run by a sorc or nb will destroy a stamDk, and will give a mDk very hard time.

And don't forget that MagWardens have a purge. Every time they resummon their Blue Betty Netch (for free, mind you) they gain health and remove a negative effect (DK's Burning Embers or Claws).

Edited for grammar. Still on my first cup of coffee.

Ragnarock41 · December 2017

Savos_Saren wrote: »

Ragnarock41 wrote: »

Machete wrote: »

I mean... instead of needing everything that is strong, make other things better. As for utility, return to my previous statement. DK and stam NB need a look over for group play. I ask (and likely won't get) a look look over for stam DK and stam Sorc.

Both stamsorc and stamDk are outdated at the moment.
StamDk is especially in a worse spot since the sustain changes hurt them harder than anyone else, and unlike other classes, they don't have the tools to be a burst build.
But the real issue is, sDKs lost their ''bruiser'' identity, lost it to stamdens. They need to be redesigned with a new theme.
I think most of the community loves this toon as a ''berserker'', A sDK does not burst down people in two seconds, like a stamblade or stamsorc, sDK grinds his enemies down, slowly, they work hard for a kill.
But the current way of game mechanics prevents this playstyle.
Dk needs a total rework, instead of free 2 dots, they need better steroids, like getting stronger as you hit people, think of it like fury set, but instead of getting hit, you need to hit people instead.which would make things interesting, but I don't see it happening in anytime soon.

Ffastyl wrote: »

While you're looking at basic mechanics, please review Dodge Roll. The behavior of Dodge Roll's i-frames and positioning makes it unintuitive to counter. Specifically,
Dodge property does not expire until the animation is fully over, meaning attacking a player that is almost completely upright and most certainly not rolling still misses.

The rolling player's position is not updated until the dodge property expires. AoEs ignore the dodge property but because of the delayed positional update, targeting the rolling player's graphical body results in a complete miss because their hitbox is left where they started until the roll completes.

If you can address these issues, I'd also like to see a reduction in undodgeable attacks. If the above issues are addressed, roll punishing will come down to timing attacks and tracking with AoEs rather than relying on undodgeable moves like Screaming Cliff Racer.

As much as I want medium to be buffed, this shouldn't be the case.
Dodge roll is abused as a way of having immunity to dodgeable attacks because the you can keep the dodge buff after the animation ends.

Jade1986 wrote: »

Ranger209 wrote: »

Thinking about PvE vs. PvP it seems that the classes with good DoT rotations thrive in PvE while the classes and skills with good burst thrive in PvP. DK's parse well in PvE yet struggle PvP, Wardens are great in PvP but not so hot in PvE. Just some examples and I'm not sure that it holds through the entire spectrum of classes and skills. It's a very general statement.

However, would it make sense to buff burst abilities, some/all, not sure, and reduce some/all DoT's raw power to get them more on equal terms in PvE. Then use Battle Spirit to mitigate say 60% of the direct damage/burst abilities, and mitigate Dots only say 30%. By separating them out and dealing with them more independently could you have a better chance of balancing the skills for both PvP and PvE? Am I all wet here, waist deep? Is that something that just sounds good at first blush, or is there some validity to that thought process? Any thoughts?

This is unfortunately a problem across most mmos atm. Same issue was in SWTOR. Sustain ruled in pve, and burst pvp. The problem is the TTK with sustain in pvp is too long to compete with burst, and the continual damage with sustain is far superiour to the burst damage in pve. There are ways around it, for example, burst classes and builds should be more squishy with less survivability , and sustain specs and builds should offer superior survivability in exchange for the longer ttk.

This has to do with the type of the dot.
poisons are very burst and combined with Dual wield bleed dots, they are devastating.
Which is the meta for dot builds at the moment. played by either a stamblade or a stamsorc.

What, you would expect stamDK to be a great dot build right?

No. far from it actually.

claws and noxious breath do their damage over 10 seconds, obviously no dot build will only drop dots, you will also weave attacks between the dot spam, BUT, your enemy will purge,cloak, shield and heal. When your burst are doing damage soooo slowly, and when they also have better sustain than you, you're gonna lose. simple really.

nightblades will spam cloak to completely negate all those dots from ticking, and not to mention they have too much free sustain, how much you ask? Enough to outsustain anything, really. And they can always decide to just forget fighting and walk away. Which is a shame really, sDK is supposed to be the bane of these kind of builds, you're supposed to ''outsustain'' them.
Which is far from the truth tho.

Templars have just too much heals, and on top of that, purge.So you wont be killing one any time soon, not by yourself. Which is fine really. sDK was always a low damage spec for PvP, so I never expected to take out heal bots so easily.

wardens are like DKs, but as you said ,they have better burst and less garbage dots, with more free sustain, so they are in a better boat for PvP.

Dks, now things get interesting, Dks have little to no way of stopping dots from ticking on them, so a proper bleed build run by a sorc or nb will destroy a stamDk, and will give a mDk very hard time.

And don't forget that MagWardens have a purge. Every time they resummon their Blue Betty Netch (for free, mind you) they gain health and remove a negative effect (DK's Burning Embers or Claws).

Edited for grammar. Still on my first cup of coffee.

Compared to mnb and msorc they seem to be at least someehat balanced but then the bird spam.... Good thing block works against that crap.otherwise Its a 3 button kill on any stam toon really.

Jtj87 · December 2017

So...basically pve will continue to receive all the resources and pvp will get some changes here and there and will not be receiving big changes that it so desperately needs.Every patch that gets released just makes pvp worse. I think I've had about enough and will be stepping away from this game.

Rainraven · December 2017

Ragnarock41 wrote: »

Machete wrote: »

I mean... instead of needing everything that is strong, make other things better. As for utility, return to my previous statement. DK and stam NB need a look over for group play. I ask (and likely won't get) a look look over for stam DK and stam Sorc.

Both stamsorc and stamDk are outdated at the moment.
StamDk is especially in a worse spot since the sustain changes hurt them harder than anyone else, and unlike other classes, they don't have the tools to be a burst build.
But the real issue is, sDKs lost their ''bruiser'' identity, lost it to stamdens. They need to be redesigned with a new theme.
I think most of the community loves this toon as a ''berserker'', A sDK does not burst down people in two seconds, like a stamblade or stamsorc, sDK grinds his enemies down, slowly, they work hard for a kill.
But the current way of game mechanics prevents this playstyle.
Dk needs a total rework, instead of free 2 dots, they need better steroids, like getting stronger as you hit people, think of it like fury set, but instead of getting hit, you need to hit people instead.which would make things interesting, but I don't see it happening in anytime soon.

That would be an interesting theme shift for the DK. I'd love to see how that would work.

But I also don't play DK and don't have any investment in how things work right now. Maybe better for a new class instead?

Ragnarock41 · December 2017

Rainraven wrote: »

Ragnarock41 wrote: »

Machete wrote: »

I mean... instead of needing everything that is strong, make other things better. As for utility, return to my previous statement. DK and stam NB need a look over for group play. I ask (and likely won't get) a look look over for stam DK and stam Sorc.

Both stamsorc and stamDk are outdated at the moment.
StamDk is especially in a worse spot since the sustain changes hurt them harder than anyone else, and unlike other classes, they don't have the tools to be a burst build.
But the real issue is, sDKs lost their ''bruiser'' identity, lost it to stamdens. They need to be redesigned with a new theme.
I think most of the community loves this toon as a ''berserker'', A sDK does not burst down people in two seconds, like a stamblade or stamsorc, sDK grinds his enemies down, slowly, they work hard for a kill.
But the current way of game mechanics prevents this playstyle.
Dk needs a total rework, instead of free 2 dots, they need better steroids, like getting stronger as you hit people, think of it like fury set, but instead of getting hit, you need to hit people instead.which would make things interesting, but I don't see it happening in anytime soon.

That would be an interesting theme shift for the DK. I'd love to see how that would work.

But I also don't play DK and don't have any investment in how things work right now. Maybe better for a new class instead?

Well, why not but, how about sDk having an identity then

Well, either way I know I'm hoping for too much.

I never liked my sDk as a tank,tanks are boring to play.. but devs want it as a tank soo... sometimes you just gotta accept your fate and move on. I hated what zos did to my class, but overall balance is improving each patch, can't really say they dont know what to do.
The game is more balanced than ever, but at what cost...

Pinja · December 2017

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Another thing you’ll see when Update 17 goes to the PTS is a reduction in damage for some charge abilities. Decreasing their damage is going to ensure that at-range players who are utilizing movement and terrain to maintain their distance from melee enemies are better rewarded for that tactical advantage.

I advise against this direction.
If your referring to 'charge' abilities in the sense of Gap-Closers then you'd be referring to suicidal counter play options.
Stam toons are not bombs to most extremes.
A gap close into a zerg means:

A. Your survival based not doing much damage or...
B. Dead or dipping out of your mistakes.

If your looking to revolve cryrodill around group play nerfing Gap-Closers in general would be detrimental in multiple forms. Except Bomb-blades in which they use their Gap-Closer damage to encourage an initial death on the first of a chain target.

Why you'd want to make it easier for that one guy to run away I can't say but they already have a multitude of options to do so & don't need any more assistants.
Proper kiting messes up LoS of abilities, Nightblades have an LoS built in, & really who wants to chase that one pestilence longer then they have to.
Also recognize & respect the difference between diffrent forms of Gap-Closers some have greater utility stun, snare, ect. While others are just used in combos... Crit Rush, is used for nothing but this & thus does not need to be reduced or made mundane to it's purpose. Remembering not all combinations are as great. And not all can be returned in other moves as there many varying forms of 2h combos, like using just stampede & rally from 2h.

ak_pvp · December 2017

Inb4 leap is gapcloser, we reduced its damage by 50%

Curragraigue · December 2017

Range interrupt is the counter to Jeebus beam spammers. I hope the interrupt change includes this skill on the list of can always interrupt.

Draxys · December 2017

Pinja wrote: »

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Another thing you’ll see when Update 17 goes to the PTS is a reduction in damage for some charge abilities. Decreasing their damage is going to ensure that at-range players who are utilizing movement and terrain to maintain their distance from melee enemies are better rewarded for that tactical advantage.

I advise against this direction.
If your referring to 'charge' abilities in the sense of Gap-Closers then you'd be referring to suicidal counter play options.
Stam toons are not bombs to most extremes.
A gap close into a zerg means:
A. Your survival based not doing much damage or...

B. Dead or dipping out of your mistakes.

If your looking to revolve cryrodill around group play nerfing Gap-Closers in general would be detrimental in multiple forms. Except Bomb-blades in which they use their Gap-Closer damage to encourage an initial death on the first of a chain target.

Why you'd want to make it easier for that one guy to run away I can't say but they already have a multitude of options to do so & don't need any more assistants.
Proper kiting messes up LoS of abilities, Nightblades have an LoS built in, & really who wants to chase that one pestilence longer then they have to.
Also recognize & respect the difference between diffrent forms of Gap-Closers some have greater utility stun, snare, ect. While others are just used in combos... Crit Rush, is used for nothing but this & thus does not need to be reduced or made mundane to it's purpose. Remembering not all combinations are as great. And not all can be returned in other moves as there many varying forms of 2h combos, like using just stampede & rally from 2h.

I read your reasons and none of them are good reasons for keeping high damage gap closers. We need balance, not to keep skills that do way too many things at once (yep, still looking at incap, but that’s another thread.) It’s a gap closer, not an attack you should be able to spam and kill someone with 4 hits. They will still work the same way mechanically. You can still catch that one player you’re so obsessed with. And how in world would this change revolve cyrodiil around group play?

Ragnarock41 · December 2017

Draxys wrote: »

Pinja wrote: »

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Another thing you’ll see when Update 17 goes to the PTS is a reduction in damage for some charge abilities. Decreasing their damage is going to ensure that at-range players who are utilizing movement and terrain to maintain their distance from melee enemies are better rewarded for that tactical advantage.

I advise against this direction.
If your referring to 'charge' abilities in the sense of Gap-Closers then you'd be referring to suicidal counter play options.
Stam toons are not bombs to most extremes.
A gap close into a zerg means:
A. Your survival based not doing much damage or...

B. Dead or dipping out of your mistakes.

If your looking to revolve cryrodill around group play nerfing Gap-Closers in general would be detrimental in multiple forms. Except Bomb-blades in which they use their Gap-Closer damage to encourage an initial death on the first of a chain target.

Why you'd want to make it easier for that one guy to run away I can't say but they already have a multitude of options to do so & don't need any more assistants.
Proper kiting messes up LoS of abilities, Nightblades have an LoS built in, & really who wants to chase that one pestilence longer then they have to.
Also recognize & respect the difference between diffrent forms of Gap-Closers some have greater utility stun, snare, ect. While others are just used in combos... Crit Rush, is used for nothing but this & thus does not need to be reduced or made mundane to it's purpose. Remembering not all combinations are as great. And not all can be returned in other moves as there many varying forms of 2h combos, like using just stampede & rally from 2h.

I read your reasons and none of them are good reasons for keeping high damage gap closers. We need balance, not to keep skills that do way too many things at once (yep, still looking at incap, but that’s another thread.) It’s a gap closer, not an attack you should be able to spam and kill someone with 4 hits. They will still work the same way mechanically. You can still catch that one player you’re so obsessed with. And how in world would this change revolve cyrodiil around group play?

having a gapcloser isnt a must in cyrodiil.
Some top tier players don't even use them right now.
If you don't want skills to do 3 things at once , you gotta nerf almost everything in this game.

Anyways, I think that you clearly talk from a magicka player's perspective.
gapclosers are vital for some stamina classes.
and counterplay to them exists.

dodge rolls.(cheaper than a gapcloser and the dodge buff stays long enough for you to get up and start the fight with an advantage)
mines.
eternal hunt(this one can completely shut down gapcloser users)

So TL:DR

Nerfing gapcloser damage will not make them balanced. It will make them disappear.Everyone will start running speed pots.
wardens already use bird of prey instead, and stam sorcs will keep using streak.

It will only hurt the classes that truly rely on them. so another indirect stamDk nerf and nothing else really.

As far as I know nobody but stamDks, and some stamsorcs really rely and make combos based on crit rush.

IxSTALKERxI · December 2017

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Hi everyone,

Hi Gina.

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

We’re still moving full steam ahead with the synergy improvements we talked about last month,

Excellent.

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

add more strategic play when you interrupt another player’s ability, and in turn give players using abilities with a cast time an opportunity to use them against other players who repeatedly use interrupts.

Hmm I see. Sounds fair enough. Will be interesting to see if there are any flaws with this change though, will have to see on PTS.

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

a reduction in damage for some charge abilities.

Sounds reasonable, may even help a little when getting zerged down by gapcloser spam.

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

looking at shortening the Heavy Attack cooldown, but ultimately decided not to go with this change to avoid making too many dramatic changes at once.

Hmm yes. A Wise move indeed.

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Finally, once Update 17 is available on the PTS, you’ll notice that not many class abilities have changed. We’ve instead focused our efforts on the things we previously talked to you about

Nice, hopefully some of the changes indirectly buff magplar a little as they are in a terrible place right now imo, I only lasted a day playing magplar before switching to mag dk lol.

I did notice this though which is nice:

ZOS_Wrobel wrote: »

We have a fix for the bug where Puncturing Sweeps doesn’t stack correctly with damage taken bonuses. We have identified a bug with Radiant Oppression where it’s damage bonus is being calculated additively with the execute damage instead of multiplicatively.

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Synergy improvements

Updates to cast time and channeled abilities

Block cost changes

Improvements to off-balance and Heavy Attacks

All these changes should be good. Will be interesting to see how they play out on PTS.

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

We’re also beginning to look at ways to improve group combat in Cyrodiil, particularly when groups of varying sizes fight each other. Some specific concerns we’ve been looking into include:
Not enough effective options to deal damage to clustered groups from afar

I guess... but we do have placed morph of destro ult which hits extremely hard... no one uses it at the moment due to earthgore, and even if there was no earthgore the problem with these abilities is you can't control the damage as effectively as most enemies can get out of the damage (or move away from each other by the time inevitable det / unstable core goes off) Inevitable det shouldn't have a cast time though imo. Abilities like this will be used by zerg surfers and ungrouped players inside faction zergs participating in fights such as defending a keep etc.

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Earthgore is too powerful in group vs group battles

Indeed it is. This change alone will improve gameplay / meta greatly. It shouldn't remove ultimates - and may even be better as a single target heal even.

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Not enough diversity in Ultimate choice

Yes this is correct. Earthgore change alone will help a lot with this. Also look at things such as veil of blade radius (quite small compared to other things) PBAoE ultimates should have a slightly smaller radius than ultimates that are placed on the ground in my opinion. Also look at ultimate costs for ultimates that get placed on the ground - they shouldn't be too expensive as they can be easily countered.

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Large groups can have players take on specialized utility roles, reducing counter-play options against them

whoa whoa whoa hold up a sec... Ok becareful with this one. You can have specialized utility roles in a group as small as 6. In fact I do this as I struggle to get groups larger than around 8-10. It allows smaller groups to actually participate in the stupidly zergy mess you call cyrodiil. If you are not careful, you could nerf the smaller group sizes of 6-12, whilst the larger group sizes of 24 can easily compensate by adding more players to a dedicated role etc to make up for the nerf. This would kill cyrodiil for a lot of people so be very careful when messing with this stuff.

ZOS_Wrobel wrote: »

We’re working on making big group battles more tactical so players focus on spreading their positioning instead of moving as 1

The reason why people stack and move together is because 90% of all healing and utility abilities and armor sets in the game require you to be near each other to be effective. So unless you plan on changing these things, people are always going to move together rather than spread & recondense. Honestly it would be impossible to change these things without making a complete mess and ruining the entire game lol. I'm talking everything from healing springs to sanctury set etc, like I could make a list of 20+ sets that proc on nearby allies etc. all the aoe healing is within a radius to. That's why groups stay close with each other. Spreading to avoid damage is only viable if the group has a method of healing people that are spread out eg. old breath of life that hit 3 targets, long duration hots such as mutagen etc but too many skills like this will empower large faction zergs that are so large that they spread out over an area. So really, a group moving tight together isn't really a bad thing when you think about it, so long as their group isn't too large (I think any organised groups larger than 16 is over kill).

The larger the fight, the faster the fight, there is more healing more damage, you either live or you die, individuals micro- managing positioning is less of a thing in large battles. So you need to scale the size of these battles down to really see more clever use of positioning. Like 6-11vX you will see some spreading and more thoughtful positioning but any larger than that it will always be more effective to stack, and most of cyrodiil is like fights of 20+vs 60+ or some zergy mess with everyone faction stacking. Need to reduce the group sizes everyone runs around in somehow, and create multiple fights on the map instead of 95% of server population being split up between 2 fights on the map.

IxSTALKERxI · December 2017

@Xsorus

I agree with what you are saying as far as group sizes go. In an ideal world I'd like group size to be capped at 12 however there is one issue with this. That is, if a group leader feels like their group isn't strong enough to start a fight of their own, they will simply surf their own faction. So you end up with a bunch of 8mans surfing each other too scared to break off and siege brindle or whatever.

I think reducing group size to 18 is viable though. It's not too extreme of a change but may help slightly in some cases.

The other option is to split healing + support of large groups into 2. So you can have a large 24 man group but purge/ rapids doesn't carry over from the first 12 into the second and vice versa. So basically it's 2x 12 man groups that can't heal / support each other thus need their own healer/ support in each group, however all 24 can show up in UI and possibly have different colored chevrons for each 12 man unit, even a different crown for each unit. This kind of thing could encourage more tactical group play.

Xsorus · January 2018

IxSTALKERxI wrote: »

@Xsorus

I agree with what you are saying as far as group sizes go. In an ideal world I'd like group size to be capped at 12 however there is one issue with this. That is, if a group leader feels like their group isn't strong enough to start a fight of their own, they will simply surf their own faction. So you end up with a bunch of 8mans surfing each other too scared to break off and siege brindle or whatever.

I think reducing group size to 18 is viable though. It's not too extreme of a change but may help slightly in some cases.

The other option is to split healing + support of large groups into 2. So you can have a large 24 man group but purge/ rapids doesn't carry over from the first 12 into the second and vice versa. So basically it's 2x 12 man groups that can't heal / support each other thus need their own healer/ support in each group, however all 24 can show up in UI and possibly have different colored chevrons for each 12 man unit, even a different crown for each unit. This kind of thing could encourage more tactical group play.

Its completely possible someone will do that, But let me ask you this

Would you do this? and if not...Why?

Maura_Neysa · January 2018

Xsorus wrote: »

IxSTALKERxI wrote: »

@Xsorus

I agree with what you are saying as far as group sizes go. In an ideal world I'd like group size to be capped at 12 however there is one issue with this. That is, if a group leader feels like their group isn't strong enough to start a fight of their own, they will simply surf their own faction. So you end up with a bunch of 8mans surfing each other too scared to break off and siege brindle or whatever.

I think reducing group size to 18 is viable though. It's not too extreme of a change but may help slightly in some cases.

The other option is to split healing + support of large groups into 2. So you can have a large 24 man group but purge/ rapids doesn't carry over from the first 12 into the second and vice versa. So basically it's 2x 12 man groups that can't heal / support each other thus need their own healer/ support in each group, however all 24 can show up in UI and possibly have different colored chevrons for each 12 man unit, even a different crown for each unit. This kind of thing could encourage more tactical group play.

Its completely possible someone will do that, But let me ask you this

Would you do this? and if not...Why?

Group size is completing irrealavent. Zergs are all the time made out of more than one group, and even just a big cluster of people playing solo. Yes there is efficeney losses that way, but usually my guild group wont invite randoms in (unless its a recruiting run) yet we almost always have other people running with us.

Xsorus · January 2018

Maura_Neysa wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

IxSTALKERxI wrote: »

@Xsorus

I agree with what you are saying as far as group sizes go. In an ideal world I'd like group size to be capped at 12 however there is one issue with this. That is, if a group leader feels like their group isn't strong enough to start a fight of their own, they will simply surf their own faction. So you end up with a bunch of 8mans surfing each other too scared to break off and siege brindle or whatever.

I think reducing group size to 18 is viable though. It's not too extreme of a change but may help slightly in some cases.

The other option is to split healing + support of large groups into 2. So you can have a large 24 man group but purge/ rapids doesn't carry over from the first 12 into the second and vice versa. So basically it's 2x 12 man groups that can't heal / support each other thus need their own healer/ support in each group, however all 24 can show up in UI and possibly have different colored chevrons for each 12 man unit, even a different crown for each unit. This kind of thing could encourage more tactical group play.

Its completely possible someone will do that, But let me ask you this

Would you do this? and if not...Why?

Group size is completing irrealavent. Zergs are all the time made out of more than one group, and even just a big cluster of people playing solo. Yes there is efficeney losses that way, but usually my guild group wont invite randoms in (unless its a recruiting run) yet we almost always have other people running with us.

No it’s not; there is a difference between a zerg and zergballs and there are multiple group only abilities in the game that wouldn’t apply to people outside your group.

So group size isn’t irrevalant.

ak_pvp · January 2018

What needs to be done to groups is a total full removal of AoE caps, both damage and effects. Unless the main effect is ST whilst the rest is splash (a la crystal blast)

This would mean attacks won't just fall short against groups, i.e. fear would send the whoever is in range and not CC immune packing. And would be a massive buff to small group/solo.

More things like the removal of cost poisons and limitation on Xv1 skills like snipe (should be targeted, but remove ct and go through block, no mindless spamming)/Soul assault. Return of non group abusable zergbuster skills like blazing shield (Requires many people to deal decent damage, not sustainable for a long time anymore, so should deal 100% of damage taken.)

Earthewen · January 2018

I have been lurking here for quite sometime and I'm wondering something. Is it logical at all to adjust things so that a solo person can wipe a group of 24? For that matter, how is it even logical to contend that a small group of say four, should ever be able to wipe a group of 24 toe to toe? What is the motivation for this reasoning? I'd like to really hear an honest answer as I am trying to wrap my head around this.

To me, it sort of feels like a quarterback saying that he is going to play solo or in a group of four in a game that was specifically designed for large groups. Are we changing the entire game of PVP to gear it for only small groups and solo?

OdinForge · January 2018

Earthewen wrote: »

I have been lurking here for quite sometime and I'm wondering something. Is it logical at all to adjust things so that a solo person can wipe a group of 24? For that matter, how is it even logical to contend that a small group of say four, should ever be able to wipe a group of 24 toe to toe? What is the motivation for this reasoning? I'd like to really hear an honest answer as I am trying to wrap my head around this.

To me, it sort of feels like a quarterback saying that he is going to play solo or in a group of four in a game that was specifically designed for large groups. Are we changing the entire game of PVP to gear it for only small groups and solo?

Long have you been an advocate for "I demand to be safe so long as my zerg is bigger than my enemy". Numbers does not and should not definitively mean you are safe from anything with less numbers, especially players of a higher skill level than you. Limiting success in PvP to having more numbers is boring gameplay, just because it's a RvRvR game does not mean skillful PvP shouldn't be rewarded or promoted.

Being outnumbered in combat is a thing in every form of media. It's also a thing that the every day human can relate with at some point, being the underdog. You cannot compare combat to a QB playing football solo, a game specifically designed around teamwork. If you gave the QB a knife and a gun and told him to strap the ball to his back and run around some LOS, he may very well defeat the team even if they are equipped similar.

https://youtu.be/hu1MtT_S3bc?t=2m41s

https://youtu.be/cS8ex1LlqpU?t=2m34s

https://youtu.be/pKen2B2cOkU?t=19s

https://youtu.be/xZE0bn-_SOE?t=10s

ZOS_Mika · January 2018

We have recently removed a few non-constructive comments from this thread. Please be sure to keep this discussion civil and respectful.

Joy_Division · January 2018

Earthewen wrote: »

I have been lurking here for quite sometime and I'm wondering something. Is it logical at all to adjust things so that a solo person can wipe a group of 24? For that matter, how is it even logical to contend that a small group of say four, should ever be able to wipe a group of 24 toe to toe? What is the motivation for this reasoning? I'd like to really hear an honest answer as I am trying to wrap my head around this.

To me, it sort of feels like a quarterback saying that he is going to play solo or in a group of four in a game that was specifically designed for large groups. Are we changing the entire game of PVP to gear it for only small groups and solo?

Yes. It's logical. And it's also realistic.

IIn 1063, roughly 250 Norman knights and infantry decisively defeated thousands of Muslim horseman at the Battle of Cerami in Sicily.

In 1565, maybe 6,000 knights and conscripted Maltese withstood an attack by 40,000 Ottoman Spahis, Janissaires, and mercenary corsairs, utterly defeating them in the Siege of Malta.

In 1571, 13 Korean ships fought against at least ten times their number of Japanese ships. Dozens of Japanese ships were sunk and half the Japanese soldiers were killed and wounded. The Koreans suffered just 5 casualties and lost no ships.

In 1939, about 4,000 lightly armed Finnish troops surrounded and wiped out an entire Soviet division, consisting of some 20,000 men, dozens of tanks, and hundreds of supporting aircraft at the Battle of Tolvajärvi.

In 1966, 108 Australians inflicted a decisive defeat against roughly 2,000 Viet Cong and North Vietnamese at the battle of Long Tan.

History is full of many defeats inflicted against vastly numerically superior forces. One common theme in all these defeats is the arrogance of these huge armies who simply assumed that because their opponents were so few in numbers that victory would be easy and required nothing more than simply by showing up.

Usually in art, entertainment, movies, etc., are criticized for discarding realism for the sake of drama, exaggeration, and a good story. Hence the motif of the adventuring hero who overcomes seemingly insurmountable odds to defeat the Big Bad Evil Guy and save the world. This is what the Elder Scrolls franchise is all about.

I don't find it illogical at all that a group of 4 players can beat 24. It is consistent with history, consistent with the tradition of heroic deeds in the Elder Scrolls, and healthy for the spirit of competition.

Rainraven · January 2018

Joy_Division wrote: »

Earthewen wrote: »

I have been lurking here for quite sometime and I'm wondering something. Is it logical at all to adjust things so that a solo person can wipe a group of 24? For that matter, how is it even logical to contend that a small group of say four, should ever be able to wipe a group of 24 toe to toe? What is the motivation for this reasoning? I'd like to really hear an honest answer as I am trying to wrap my head around this.

To me, it sort of feels like a quarterback saying that he is going to play solo or in a group of four in a game that was specifically designed for large groups. Are we changing the entire game of PVP to gear it for only small groups and solo?

Yes. It's logical. And it's also realistic.

IIn 1063, roughly 250 Norman knights and infantry decisively defeated thousands of Muslim horseman at the Battle of Cerami in Sicily.

In 1565, maybe 6,000 knights and conscripted Maltese withstood an attack by 40,000 Ottoman Spahis, Janissaires, and mercenary corsairs, utterly defeating them in the Siege of Malta.

In 1571, 13 Korean ships fought against at least ten times their number of Japanese ships. Dozens of Japanese ships were sunk and half the Japanese soldiers were killed and wounded. The Koreans suffered just 5 casualties and lost no ships.

In 1939, about 4,000 lightly armed Finnish troops surrounded and wiped out an entire Soviet division, consisting of some 20,000 men, dozens of tanks, and hundreds of supporting aircraft at the Battle of Tolvajärvi.

In 1966, 108 Australians inflicted a decisive defeat against roughly 2,000 Viet Cong and North Vietnamese at the battle of Long Tan.

History is full of many defeats inflicted against vastly numerically superior forces. One common theme in all these defeats is the arrogance of these huge armies who simply assumed that because their opponents were so few in numbers that victory would be easy and required nothing more than simply by showing up.

Usually in art, entertainment, movies, etc., are criticized for discarding realism for the sake of drama, exaggeration, and a good story. Hence the motif of the adventuring hero who overcomes seemingly insurmountable odds to defeat the Big Bad Evil Guy and save the world. This is what the Elder Scrolls franchise is all about.

I don't find it illogical at all that a group of 4 players can beat 24. It is consistent with history, consistent with the tradition of heroic deeds in the Elder Scrolls, and healthy for the spirit of competition.

applause

I'd add this: there should be zero things in PVP that guarantee a win. What's the point in the fight if you're that safe?

But seriously? There will be no adjustments made "so a solo person can wipe a group of 24". When and if that happens, good for him, but it's never going to be the norm and I don't see anybody asking for it to be. We don't actually have to go to the greatest possible extreme one way or the other.

KingExecration · January 2018

Joy_Division wrote: »

Earthewen wrote: »

I have been lurking here for quite sometime and I'm wondering something. Is it logical at all to adjust things so that a solo person can wipe a group of 24? For that matter, how is it even logical to contend that a small group of say four, should ever be able to wipe a group of 24 toe to toe? What is the motivation for this reasoning? I'd like to really hear an honest answer as I am trying to wrap my head around this.

To me, it sort of feels like a quarterback saying that he is going to play solo or in a group of four in a game that was specifically designed for large groups. Are we changing the entire game of PVP to gear it for only small groups and solo?

Yes. It's logical. And it's also realistic.

IIn 1063, roughly 250 Norman knights and infantry decisively defeated thousands of Muslim horseman at the Battle of Cerami in Sicily.

In 1565, maybe 6,000 knights and conscripted Maltese withstood an attack by 40,000 Ottoman Spahis, Janissaires, and mercenary corsairs, utterly defeating them in the Siege of Malta.

In 1571, 13 Korean ships fought against at least ten times their number of Japanese ships. Dozens of Japanese ships were sunk and half the Japanese soldiers were killed and wounded. The Koreans suffered just 5 casualties and lost no ships.

In 1939, about 4,000 lightly armed Finnish troops surrounded and wiped out an entire Soviet division, consisting of some 20,000 men, dozens of tanks, and hundreds of supporting aircraft at the Battle of Tolvajärvi.

In 1966, 108 Australians inflicted a decisive defeat against roughly 2,000 Viet Cong and North Vietnamese at the battle of Long Tan.

History is full of many defeats inflicted against vastly numerically superior forces. One common theme in all these defeats is the arrogance of these huge armies who simply assumed that because their opponents were so few in numbers that victory would be easy and required nothing more than simply by showing up.

Usually in art, entertainment, movies, etc., are criticized for discarding realism for the sake of drama, exaggeration, and a good story. Hence the motif of the adventuring hero who overcomes seemingly insurmountable odds to defeat the Big Bad Evil Guy and save the world. This is what the Elder Scrolls franchise is all about.

I don't find it illogical at all that a group of 4 players can beat 24. It is consistent with history, consistent with the tradition of heroic deeds in the Elder Scrolls, and healthy for the spirit of competition.

But but but my 24 man. If we get ulti dumped at least 6 of us get hit.

For real very true post. Got an awesome from me. People shouldn't be crutched because they have numbers. Numbers should be the only advantage they have.

Onefrkncrzypope · January 2018

Block cost won't stop the unkillable tanks. They will find a way. It's what they like to do. Therfore this is only a Nerf for pve. Put it in battle spirit that what it there for.

SodanTok · January 2018

Onefrkncrzypope wrote: »

Block cost won't stop the unkillable tanks. They will find a way. It's what they like to do. Therfore this is only a Nerf for pve. Put it in battle spirit that what it there for.

if PVP unkillable tanks find a way, then PVE will too

IxSTALKERxI · January 2018

Earthewen wrote: »

I have been lurking here for quite sometime and I'm wondering something. Is it logical at all to adjust things so that a solo person can wipe a group of 24? For that matter, how is it even logical to contend that a small group of say four, should ever be able to wipe a group of 24 toe to toe? What is the motivation for this reasoning? I'd like to really hear an honest answer as I am trying to wrap my head around this.

To me, it sort of feels like a quarterback saying that he is going to play solo or in a group of four in a game that was specifically designed for large groups. Are we changing the entire game of PVP to gear it for only small groups and solo?

No one is asking for 24 to be equal to 1. Well at least I'm not.

Right now, it feels like an organised group of 24 is 5 times stronger than an organised group of 8. It would be better for the health of the game imo if 24 was only 3 times or even 2 times stronger than a group of 8. Still stronger than a group of 8 obviously but just not overwhelmingly stronger. This concept could also be applied to all scales of the game which would allow for all group sizes to participate more in cyrodiil without feeling like they are being run over wherever they go. Less people would feel like they need a large group in order to even participate.

Hopefully some of these new synergies will be useful for smaller - medium sized groups, and let's hope any changes to support abilities don't further increase the gap between a group of 24 and a group of 8.

Edit: Also I wanted to add, organised group pvp is still important to keep large unorganized zergs in check. A highly skilled min-maxed organised group should continue to be the equivalent of around 2-3 times the amount of ungrouped players. It should max out at around 36 ungrouped players though (12vs36).

Onefrkncrzypope · January 2018

SodanTok wrote: »

Onefrkncrzypope wrote: »

Block cost won't stop the unkillable tanks. They will find a way. It's what they like to do. Therfore this is only a Nerf for pve. Put it in battle spirit that what it there for.

if PVP unkillable tanks find a way, then PVE will too

Well if ZoS decides to cap dps at 25k max people will find a way to still do vMoL but that's not the point. These unkillable tanks that people complain about( instead of just ignoring the walking rock) will not go away because of a Nerf directed at them. Why damage the sustain balance when it doesn't accomplish anything. If the block cost nerf is really needed put it into battle spirit.