Maintenance for the week of April 13:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 13
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 13
Bleeds Are Overpowered
-
Chilly-McFreeze✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »Maybe a good solution for bleeds would be:
1) Don't let the 2h and dual wield passive bleeds stack.
2) Make master dual wield increase the damage of the twin slashes bleed by a certain percentage (maybe something like 65%?). This would mean that the bonus gets stronger for very squishy glass cannon builds but weaker for tanky builds.
And when do you people come up with stuff like "don't let different sources of healing stack"? Or is this mantra reserved only for damage?
Who are 'you people'. There are as many opinions on the forums as there are persons.
The argument that convinced me that both passive bleeds shouldn't stack was that the other weapon bonuses can't stack at all. If you run both dual wield swords + a 2h sword do you get 10% increase in damage done? How about maces? The problem with the dual wield passive is that since its a DOT you can get both passives at the same time, basically doubling the effectiveness.
"You people" as in "you people who demand that damage X should not stack with damage Y".
It just acts like dots do. If you hit someone with Poison Injection, PI will still tick if you switch to whatever other bar you have. If you then put a dot from the frontbar on one as well, both stack. Just because both passives are bleeds doesn't mean that we should ignore that they come from different sources. Reason why other passives don't carry over is because other passives aren't even compareable.
Or are they? What happens if I dodge roll on Bow and quickly switch to front? Does the major expedition of hasty retreat get cancelled? What happens if I stack up hawk eye, hit PI and switch to front, does it still boosts PI's dot?
If you want to discuss with me you can just address me directly and not some dubious group of people.
How are the passive bonuses from the exact same passive skill not comparable? I'm talking about 'Twin Blade and Blunt' and 'Heavy Weapons' (separately) and the bonuses they give to axes, swords and maces. It doesn't matter if something like bow passives can carry over, it has nothing to do with this. If it's the exact same passive skill, though? Hell yeah they should be comparable and balanced around each other. Maybe it would be better to just give axes a percentage based buff to bleed damage as a passive (for twin slashes and cleave). But the way it is you just get strong free damage that's stackable.
Right, stackable like everything else that comes from different sources.
So:
a) Why do swords and maces give bonuses that aren't stackable, while the source of these bonuses is the exact same passive as for axes?
b) Why are swords so much weaker than axes for bleed builds, even when they don't run sets like Blooddrinker? Shouldn't the strength of these bonuses be comparable because they have the same source?
Edit: Well, 20% also came to my mind. But I haven't done any calculations yet so I can't say what I think would be balanced.
a) What do you want to stack? Back bar + front bar effects? These don't stack because they are (for the lack of a better words) "current" effects, while the dot once applied is a "lasting" effect. Not really compareable if you ask me. Hence the former questions if hawk eye & hasty retreat, which are also "lasting effects" carry over.
But for what it's worth you can "stack" the boni of swords/ maces/ daggers when you mix them.
His point is: when the effects from one and the same passive do not stack with bar switching for swords and daggers, then neither should they for axes.Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »b) I see where you're heading. Why is X weaker than Y for Z? Are swords also weaker on burst builds than axes? Why is everyone preffering daggers over axes on crit/pve builds? But to answer your question, why the bleed-weapon is better on bleed builds than non-bleed weapons: because that's how it is designed. I already agreed a few postes ago than numbers in tooltips are always up to debate but the overall design idea is not, at least in my eyes.
It's not better on bleed builds, it's better, period. Because the passive is balanced in such a way as to provide roughly equal benefit regardless of what weapon you use - and then provides the benefit twice for axes, but not the other weapon types.
To balance this again, you need to either give me 20% armor ignore on my front weapon because i have a maul on my back, or stop the axe bleed once i swap the axe out.
I understand his point very well, I simply disagree. Why? Because it's not "one and the same passive". It's from an entirely different skill line which does the same. I guess it doesn't help that people are somewhat forced to run 2h anyway for Rally/FM.
I tried to show in the post you quoted that some passives that proc an ongoing effect carry over and some passives simply add a current buff. If the effect is similar doesn't matter, it's consistent with the rest of the game: different sources of damage stack, same source of dmg refreshes (from the same player). TBaB is not HW, it's a different passive in a different skill line But you and HankTwo ignore this.
Seems like you much rather have a problem with the dot mechanic in general when you complain about carrying over or stacking. You could very well proc TBaB and swap to your 2h sword which grants 5% dmg done, so these passives would "stack" as well. Or vice versa, proc 2h bleed and swap to DW daggers to get more crit, which would also mean a "stacking" of passives.
5 -
Sharee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »I tried to show in the post you quoted that some passives that proc an ongoing effect carry over and some passives simply add a current buff.
Different passives, sure. But here we have ONE passive that is buffing three different weapon types in different ways, and the buff is supposed to be the same overall value regardless of what weapon it currently buffs.
Yet, it is not, because one of the three weapons benefits from the buff even if not currently equipped, allowing its buff to be stacked. This is making the buff heavily favor that weapon type, when it was not supposed to.0 -
HankTwo✭✭✭✭✭Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »Maybe a good solution for bleeds would be:
1) Don't let the 2h and dual wield passive bleeds stack.
2) Make master dual wield increase the damage of the twin slashes bleed by a certain percentage (maybe something like 65%?). This would mean that the bonus gets stronger for very squishy glass cannon builds but weaker for tanky builds.
And when do you people come up with stuff like "don't let different sources of healing stack"? Or is this mantra reserved only for damage?
Who are 'you people'. There are as many opinions on the forums as there are persons.
The argument that convinced me that both passive bleeds shouldn't stack was that the other weapon bonuses can't stack at all. If you run both dual wield swords + a 2h sword do you get 10% increase in damage done? How about maces? The problem with the dual wield passive is that since its a DOT you can get both passives at the same time, basically doubling the effectiveness.
"You people" as in "you people who demand that damage X should not stack with damage Y".
It just acts like dots do. If you hit someone with Poison Injection, PI will still tick if you switch to whatever other bar you have. If you then put a dot from the frontbar on one as well, both stack. Just because both passives are bleeds doesn't mean that we should ignore that they come from different sources. Reason why other passives don't carry over is because other passives aren't even compareable.
Or are they? What happens if I dodge roll on Bow and quickly switch to front? Does the major expedition of hasty retreat get cancelled? What happens if I stack up hawk eye, hit PI and switch to front, does it still boosts PI's dot?
If you want to discuss with me you can just address me directly and not some dubious group of people.
How are the passive bonuses from the exact same passive skill not comparable? I'm talking about 'Twin Blade and Blunt' and 'Heavy Weapons' (separately) and the bonuses they give to axes, swords and maces. It doesn't matter if something like bow passives can carry over, it has nothing to do with this. If it's the exact same passive skill, though? Hell yeah they should be comparable and balanced around each other. Maybe it would be better to just give axes a percentage based buff to bleed damage as a passive (for twin slashes and cleave). But the way it is you just get strong free damage that's stackable.
Right, stackable like everything else that comes from different sources.
So:
a) Why do swords and maces give bonuses that aren't stackable, while the source of these bonuses is the exact same passive as for axes?
b) Why are swords so much weaker than axes for bleed builds, even when they don't run sets like Blooddrinker? Shouldn't the strength of these bonuses be comparable because they have the same source?
Edit: Well, 20% also came to my mind. But I haven't done any calculations yet so I can't say what I think would be balanced.
a) What do you want to stack? Back bar + front bar effects? These don't stack because they are (for the lack of a better words) "current" effects, while the dot once applied is a "lasting" effect. Not really compareable if you ask me. Hence the former questions if hawk eye & hasty retreat, which are also "lasting effects" carry over.
But for what it's worth you can "stack" the boni of swords/ maces/ daggers when you mix them.
His point is: when the effects from one and the same passive do not stack with bar switching for swords and daggers, then neither should they for axes.Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »b) I see where you're heading. Why is X weaker than Y for Z? Are swords also weaker on burst builds than axes? Why is everyone preffering daggers over axes on crit/pve builds? But to answer your question, why the bleed-weapon is better on bleed builds than non-bleed weapons: because that's how it is designed. I already agreed a few postes ago than numbers in tooltips are always up to debate but the overall design idea is not, at least in my eyes.
It's not better on bleed builds, it's better, period. Because the passive is balanced in such a way as to provide roughly equal benefit regardless of what weapon you use - and then provides the benefit twice for axes, but not the other weapon types.
To balance this again, you need to either give me 20% armor ignore on my front weapon because i have a maul on my back, or stop the axe bleed once i swap the axe out.
I understand his point very well, I simply disagree. Why? Because it's not "one and the same passive". It's from an entirely different skill line which does the same. I guess it doesn't help that people are somewhat forced to run 2h anyway for Rally/FM.
I tried to show in the post you quoted that some passives that proc an ongoing effect carry over and some passives simply add a current buff. If the effect is similar doesn't matter, it's consistent with the rest of the game: different sources of damage stack, same source of dmg refreshes (from the same player). TBaB is not HW, it's a different passive in a different skill line But you and HankTwo ignore this.
Seems like you much rather have a problem with the dot mechanic in general when you complain about carrying over or stacking. You could very well proc TBaB and swap to your 2h sword which grants 5% dmg done, so these passives would "stack" as well. Or vice versa, proc 2h bleed and swap to DW daggers to get more crit, which would also mean a "stacking" of passives.
No, you still didn't fully get the point, because you are not looking at the passives separately. However, your last paragraph shows the problem well, so lets look at it from another perspective.
Imagine a stam build that runs snb frontbar for most of the damage as well as a 2h weapon backbar with most of the self buffs there. So, now only one of these passives plays a role, the 2h HW. Which weapon type do you think would be the strongest in this case and why?
The problem I see with the axe passive is that it can generate strong damage without investing any resources for it on the backbar. Both the sword and the mace buffs are only really useful when you actively use offensive skills on that bar.
Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that not letting the bleeds stack would still have this flaw, so I'm not sure if that's the best option. It's just an idea, and right now the added percentage bonus to bleed damage seems more reasonable to me tbh.PC EU
Stam DK, Magden, Magplar, Stamcro, Hybrid Sorc, Magblade & Mag DK1 -
Minno✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Savos_Saren wrote: »
I mean- if we consider that magDK block builds are melee ranged and SnB based- then why not convert Burning Embers into an ability that ignores all spell resistance? That way- it's fair n' square, right?
You mean the skill that costs like 800 magicka and has a massive burst heal on it? No not really fair at all. Comparing apples to oranges. If you wanna let the burning dot status effect ignore resist, thats more reasonable. Sure. Or alternatively, give every stam class class dots in the way most every magicka class has. Cus you do realize bleeds exist in the first place to give stam builds dot damage right?LeifErickson wrote: »
I don't know how you say bleeds are easy to deal with on a magsorc. Even Red thinks they are overtuned because the pressure they put on shields is insane.
Yeah the entire point of dual wield on stam is the pressure. It is high pressure, as it should be. As long as you can keep reapplying shields, bleeds are literally no different on a sorc than any other dot. Its only when they start ticking under the shields that its an issue. Keep in mind Red runs almost no impen, so of course they are insane on his build. I crit him for 3k last time we were dueling on a bleed tick. Generally, I dont really find the bleed damage to be overwhelming or that a fight is rendered noncompetitive because of it vs shield builds. Or any really. But I suppose that is 1v1. I can see bleeds being oppressive to certain specs when outnumbered. Like a bunch of other stuff in the game is.
Youve made this thread asking for nerfs, but havent suggested any. Instead of this cyclical back and forth, how bout some constructive suggestions? What do you think are appropriate nerfs that would make bleeds more manageable but still maintain their strength.
Heres one from me. I think it would be reasonable for the passive axe bleed procs to not crit. That alone would be a huge nerf to the damage.
The math supports this change. It's balanced because the benefit would be it ignores armor, which is the first mitigation to be calculated and thus have the first stab at using it's full percentage, but it will never crit letting current heals do their job.
For example, based on numbers I see in my build editor currently:
- 1504 base, 2120 crit off a 1.41 modifer, 1639 crit off a 1.09 modifer
If using minor/major protection:
-1128 base, 1590 crit off a 1.41 mod, 1229 off 1.09 mod.
Even with minor/major protection, bleeds will still serve a purpose under this change.
Another one would be to provide extra hots available to certain builds/classes while still letting it crit (my opinion this change is better because it doesn't let players ignore impen mechanics like OP and much of cyro was doing). But this could also come from spell crafting if they ever add it lol.Minno - DC - Forum-plar Extraordinaire
- Guild-lead for MV
- Filthy Casual1 -
Sharee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that not letting the bleeds stack would still have this flaw, so I'm not sure if that's the best option. It's just an idea, and right now the added percentage bonus to bleed damage seems more reasonable to me tbh.
I don't like it, because it just goes to the other extreme. Instead of being the clearly superior choice, axes become inferior (since they would only benefit you if you used bleeds, while the other two weapons always benefit you).
Making the bleeds not stack also isn't good, because axe is still superior for backbar weapon (people will just use mace or sword in front, and still have two "B&B" and/or "HW" passives stack)
I think the most logical solution would be to make axes work the same swords and maces do - if you swap the weapon away, its bonus goes away. Which in case of the axe means - the bleed stops.0 -
HankTwo✭✭✭✭✭Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that not letting the bleeds stack would still have this flaw, so I'm not sure if that's the best option. It's just an idea, and right now the added percentage bonus to bleed damage seems more reasonable to me tbh.
I don't like it, because it just goes to the other extreme. Instead of being the clearly superior choice, axes become inferior (since they would only benefit you if you used bleeds, while the other two weapons always benefit you).
Making the bleeds not stack also isn't good, because axe is still superior for backbar weapon (people will just use mace or sword in front, and still have two "B&B" and/or "HW" passives stack)
I think the most logical solution would be to make axes work the same swords and maces do - if you swap the weapon away, its bonus goes away. Which in case of the axe means - the bleed stops.
I see your points and I'm still not too sure myself what the best option would be.
Just a small note: Maces do not always benefit you, since they are useless against damage shields (and they don't buff your bleed damage).
The problem I see with your suggestion, that the bleed should go away when you swap your bars, is that no DOT in the game behaves like that, which makes it counterintuitive. So, I don't think this is a good option either.
How about this: Make swords increase your direct damage done while axes increase your DOT damage. Both would be a percentage modifier (maybe something around 8%, it doesn't necessarily need to be the same number, though).Edited by HankTwo on August 30, 2018 2:07PMPC EU
Stam DK, Magden, Magplar, Stamcro, Hybrid Sorc, Magblade & Mag DK0 -
Sharee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Just a small note: Maces do not always benefit you, since they are useless against damage shields (and they don't buff your bleed damage).
That's due to factors outside of the topic tho. Maces always benefit you, the "no added benefit" in this case comes from your target selection, which is beyond the scope of this discussion. (because if we go down that rabbit hole, you have to account for bleeds being constantly clenased by a magplar, for example, coming to the conclusion "axes dont always benefit you")The problem I see with your suggestion, that the bleed should go away when you swap your bars, is that no DOT in the game behaves like that, which makes it counterintuitive. So, I don't think this is a good option either.
"Counterintuitive" is a small price to pay for balance. Take heavy attacks restoring resources, for example. Counterintuitive as hell, and the game works fine.How about this: Make swords increase your direct damage done while axes increase your DOT damage. Both would be a percentage modifier (maybe something around 8%).
You'll get cries from people using swords that they got nerfed for no good reason...0 -
HankTwo✭✭✭✭✭
"Counterintuitive" is a small price to pay for balance. Take heavy attacks restoring resources, for example. Counterintuitive as hell, and the game works fine.The problem I see with your suggestion, that the bleed should go away when you swap your bars, is that no DOT in the game behaves like that, which makes it counterintuitive. So, I don't think this is a good option either.
Heavy attacks are maybe counterintuitive from an outside perspective, but for eso players its just a normal mechanic of the game. Another normal mechanic is that you can apply DOTs from one bar and then swap to the other while the damage is still ticking. Your idea would create an exception to this general DOT mechanic.
I just don't see it working that way. Imagine having both dw and 2h axes and bar swap often. Since the bleed DOT has no initial tick, it would diminish the bonus of the axes greatly. I don't think players should be punished for fast and dynamic gameplay. Maybe your idea could work if it would be something like 'whenever you deal melee damage you have a X% chance to deal Y% bleed damage (instantly, not over time)', but I don't see a DOT being desirable when it vanishes the moment you swap bars.PC EU
Stam DK, Magden, Magplar, Stamcro, Hybrid Sorc, Magblade & Mag DK0 -
LeifErickson✭✭✭✭✭
✭Savos_Saren wrote: »
I mean- if we consider that magDK block builds are melee ranged and SnB based- then why not convert Burning Embers into an ability that ignores all spell resistance? That way- it's fair n' square, right?
You mean the skill that costs like 800 magicka and has a massive burst heal on it? No not really fair at all. Comparing apples to oranges. If you wanna let the burning dot status effect ignore resist, thats more reasonable. Sure. Or alternatively, give every stam class class dots in the way most every magicka class has. Cus you do realize bleeds exist in the first place to give stam builds dot damage right?LeifErickson wrote: »
I don't know how you say bleeds are easy to deal with on a magsorc. Even Red thinks they are overtuned because the pressure they put on shields is insane.
Yeah the entire point of dual wield on stam is the pressure. It is high pressure, as it should be. As long as you can keep reapplying shields, bleeds are literally no different on a sorc than any other dot. Its only when they start ticking under the shields that its an issue. Keep in mind Red runs almost no impen, so of course they are insane on his build. I crit him for 3k last time we were dueling on a bleed tick. Generally, I dont really find the bleed damage to be overwhelming or that a fight is rendered noncompetitive because of it vs shield builds. Or any really. But I suppose that is 1v1. I can see bleeds being oppressive to certain specs when outnumbered. Like a bunch of other stuff in the game is.
Youve made this thread asking for nerfs, but havent suggested any. Instead of this cyclical back and forth, how bout some constructive suggestions? What do you think are appropriate nerfs that would make bleeds more manageable but still maintain their strength.
Heres one from me. I think it would be reasonable for the passive axe bleed procs to not crit. That alone would be a huge nerf to the damage.
The math supports this change. It's balanced because the benefit would be it ignores armor, which is the first mitigation to be calculated and thus have the first stab at using it's full percentage, but it will never crit letting current heals do their job.
For example, based on numbers I see in my build editor currently:
- 1504 base, 2120 crit off a 1.41 modifer, 1639 crit off a 1.09 modifer
If using minor/major protection:
-1128 base, 1590 crit off a 1.41 mod, 1229 off 1.09 mod.
Even with minor/major protection, bleeds will still serve a purpose under this change.
Another one would be to provide extra hots available to certain builds/classes while still letting it crit (my opinion this change is better because it doesn't let players ignore impen mechanics like OP and much of cyro was doing). But this could also come from spell crafting if they ever add it lol.
What do you mean by ignoring impen mechanics?0 -
LeifErickson✭✭✭✭✭
✭Savos_Saren wrote: »
I mean- if we consider that magDK block builds are melee ranged and SnB based- then why not convert Burning Embers into an ability that ignores all spell resistance? That way- it's fair n' square, right?
You mean the skill that costs like 800 magicka and has a massive burst heal on it? No not really fair at all. Comparing apples to oranges. If you wanna let the burning dot status effect ignore resist, thats more reasonable. Sure. Or alternatively, give every stam class class dots in the way most every magicka class has. Cus you do realize bleeds exist in the first place to give stam builds dot damage right?LeifErickson wrote: »
I don't know how you say bleeds are easy to deal with on a magsorc. Even Red thinks they are overtuned because the pressure they put on shields is insane.
Yeah the entire point of dual wield on stam is the pressure. It is high pressure, as it should be. As long as you can keep reapplying shields, bleeds are literally no different on a sorc than any other dot. Its only when they start ticking under the shields that its an issue. Keep in mind Red runs almost no impen, so of course they are insane on his build. I crit him for 3k last time we were dueling on a bleed tick. Generally, I dont really find the bleed damage to be overwhelming or that a fight is rendered noncompetitive because of it vs shield builds. Or any really. But I suppose that is 1v1. I can see bleeds being oppressive to certain specs when outnumbered. Like a bunch of other stuff in the game is.
Youve made this thread asking for nerfs, but havent suggested any. Instead of this cyclical back and forth, how bout some constructive suggestions? What do you think are appropriate nerfs that would make bleeds more manageable but still maintain their strength.
Heres one from me. I think it would be reasonable for the passive axe bleed procs to not crit. That alone would be a huge nerf to the damage.
I'm not a big fan of getting free damage from light attacking. I like your idea. Maybe making bleeds exclusive to rending and making the axe passive something like just a normal dot.0 -
Minno✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭LeifErickson wrote: »Savos_Saren wrote: »
I mean- if we consider that magDK block builds are melee ranged and SnB based- then why not convert Burning Embers into an ability that ignores all spell resistance? That way- it's fair n' square, right?
You mean the skill that costs like 800 magicka and has a massive burst heal on it? No not really fair at all. Comparing apples to oranges. If you wanna let the burning dot status effect ignore resist, thats more reasonable. Sure. Or alternatively, give every stam class class dots in the way most every magicka class has. Cus you do realize bleeds exist in the first place to give stam builds dot damage right?LeifErickson wrote: »
I don't know how you say bleeds are easy to deal with on a magsorc. Even Red thinks they are overtuned because the pressure they put on shields is insane.
Yeah the entire point of dual wield on stam is the pressure. It is high pressure, as it should be. As long as you can keep reapplying shields, bleeds are literally no different on a sorc than any other dot. Its only when they start ticking under the shields that its an issue. Keep in mind Red runs almost no impen, so of course they are insane on his build. I crit him for 3k last time we were dueling on a bleed tick. Generally, I dont really find the bleed damage to be overwhelming or that a fight is rendered noncompetitive because of it vs shield builds. Or any really. But I suppose that is 1v1. I can see bleeds being oppressive to certain specs when outnumbered. Like a bunch of other stuff in the game is.
Youve made this thread asking for nerfs, but havent suggested any. Instead of this cyclical back and forth, how bout some constructive suggestions? What do you think are appropriate nerfs that would make bleeds more manageable but still maintain their strength.
Heres one from me. I think it would be reasonable for the passive axe bleed procs to not crit. That alone would be a huge nerf to the damage.
The math supports this change. It's balanced because the benefit would be it ignores armor, which is the first mitigation to be calculated and thus have the first stab at using it's full percentage, but it will never crit letting current heals do their job.
For example, based on numbers I see in my build editor currently:
- 1504 base, 2120 crit off a 1.41 modifer, 1639 crit off a 1.09 modifer
If using minor/major protection:
-1128 base, 1590 crit off a 1.41 mod, 1229 off 1.09 mod.
Even with minor/major protection, bleeds will still serve a purpose under this change.
Another one would be to provide extra hots available to certain builds/classes while still letting it crit (my opinion this change is better because it doesn't let players ignore impen mechanics like OP and much of cyro was doing). But this could also come from spell crafting if they ever add it lol.
What do you mean by ignoring impen mechanics?
Meaning stop pretending 3k crit resists are enough when nightblades/Templars can get between 70-80% crit DMG and 40% crit chance. Especially in nCP where 7 impen only stops 27% DMG modifier while even normal builds still get their free 50%. That's why bleeds are getting the best out of players in nCP, they refuse to slot impreg or have a friend run trans.
Everyone's throwing around crits like candy lol.Minno - DC - Forum-plar Extraordinaire
- Guild-lead for MV
- Filthy Casual1 -
LeifErickson✭✭✭✭✭
✭LeifErickson wrote: »Savos_Saren wrote: »
I mean- if we consider that magDK block builds are melee ranged and SnB based- then why not convert Burning Embers into an ability that ignores all spell resistance? That way- it's fair n' square, right?
You mean the skill that costs like 800 magicka and has a massive burst heal on it? No not really fair at all. Comparing apples to oranges. If you wanna let the burning dot status effect ignore resist, thats more reasonable. Sure. Or alternatively, give every stam class class dots in the way most every magicka class has. Cus you do realize bleeds exist in the first place to give stam builds dot damage right?LeifErickson wrote: »
I don't know how you say bleeds are easy to deal with on a magsorc. Even Red thinks they are overtuned because the pressure they put on shields is insane.
Yeah the entire point of dual wield on stam is the pressure. It is high pressure, as it should be. As long as you can keep reapplying shields, bleeds are literally no different on a sorc than any other dot. Its only when they start ticking under the shields that its an issue. Keep in mind Red runs almost no impen, so of course they are insane on his build. I crit him for 3k last time we were dueling on a bleed tick. Generally, I dont really find the bleed damage to be overwhelming or that a fight is rendered noncompetitive because of it vs shield builds. Or any really. But I suppose that is 1v1. I can see bleeds being oppressive to certain specs when outnumbered. Like a bunch of other stuff in the game is.
Youve made this thread asking for nerfs, but havent suggested any. Instead of this cyclical back and forth, how bout some constructive suggestions? What do you think are appropriate nerfs that would make bleeds more manageable but still maintain their strength.
Heres one from me. I think it would be reasonable for the passive axe bleed procs to not crit. That alone would be a huge nerf to the damage.
The math supports this change. It's balanced because the benefit would be it ignores armor, which is the first mitigation to be calculated and thus have the first stab at using it's full percentage, but it will never crit letting current heals do their job.
For example, based on numbers I see in my build editor currently:
- 1504 base, 2120 crit off a 1.41 modifer, 1639 crit off a 1.09 modifer
If using minor/major protection:
-1128 base, 1590 crit off a 1.41 mod, 1229 off 1.09 mod.
Even with minor/major protection, bleeds will still serve a purpose under this change.
Another one would be to provide extra hots available to certain builds/classes while still letting it crit (my opinion this change is better because it doesn't let players ignore impen mechanics like OP and much of cyro was doing). But this could also come from spell crafting if they ever add it lol.
What do you mean by ignoring impen mechanics?
Meaning stop pretending 3k crit resists are enough when nightblades/Templars can get between 70-80% crit DMG and 40% crit chance. Especially in nCP where 7 impen only stops 27% DMG modifier while even normal builds still get their free 50%. That's why bleeds are getting the best out of players in nCP, they refuse to slot impreg or have a friend run trans.
Everyone's throwing around crits like candy lol.
Sounds to me like everyone is pigeonholed into running impreg which sucks. You are gonna cringe when you see this but I barely run 2k crit resist in cp land. But it doesn't really matter what I run because I'm saying bleeds are always strong against anyone.2 -
pieratsos✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
If we look at it this way then oblivion dmg is also balanced against shields cause the only difference between that and other types of dmg is that oblivion dmg just goes through shields. I mean, shields have no resistances and cant be critted so no difference there. If anything oblivion dmg should be "weaker" considering that dmg wise can be lower than other dots, abilities, sets or whatever. So it should be balanced right? Noooot. Unfortunately thats how our combat lead thinks which is precisely the reason why we have crap like that in the first place. PVP isnt as black and white as we make it out to be.
But considering that you are mostly playing a class which is literally only relevant because of bleeds and a class which has the only "reliable" way of fighting against them, i would understand why you think they are balanced.
That is a terrible argument logically. The point of shields is to completely absorb damage in totality. Oblivion damage by passes this mechanic completely. Resistance isn’t meant to nullify damage, it is just meant to diminish its potency. Shields and resist are not parallels, ergo bleeds and oblivion damage are not parallels in countering them either. In fact, resistance isn’t even a “mechanic” it’s a stat. That’s why these arguments about bleeds having no counterplay or by passing mechanics are faulty.
Its ur argument that its terrible logically. You are basically giving your own definitions of what a mechanic is or isnt without actually looking at reality just to conclude that bleeds dont bypass mechanics. It makes absolutely no sense. Dmg mitigation through resistances is a way of defense just like shields just like block, roll or whatever. Call them mechanics, stats or whatever it doesnt change what they do. Their effectiveness, which one is more powerful and how many of those mechanics you utilize in ur build is completely irrelevant. ZOS could come out tomorrow and change resistance scaling and up the cap to 100% and make shields useless. What then? Would that make armor a mechanic because it can "nullify damage" so bleeds would then "bypass mechanics". Thats not the point.
The point is just like one build can rely on shields and dodge roll as defensive mechanics the same way another build can rely on resistances and block as defensive mechanics. If oblivion dmg and bleeds go through those defenses respectively then they are absolutely parallel in terms of what they do to those builds. Whether you want to call resistances a stat or mechanic, it changes absolutely nothing. Oblivion dmg may look more broken against shields than bleeds against armor/block and it is but thats mostly because shield builds lack healing compared to heavy builds which makes oblivion dmg more of hard counter. However the counter to everything cant be "just heal it" or "just block it" or "just shield it". Its stupid and dumb. The game has a specific core design. We cant just ignore it whenever something is overperforming or underperforming.
I understand that stamplar would probably be completely useless without bleeds but that doesnt make them balanced. And as long as classes can crutch on stupid mechanics like that to stay relevant and give the delusion that they are good when they are not, they will keep getting nerf after nerf after nerf till we are all playing the same crap with maybe some class flavour. I mean we are already getting close to that, stamina builds with the exception stamblade are prety much the same. They are all just playing the same broken crap.Edited by pieratsos on August 30, 2018 4:25PM7 -
Minno✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭LeifErickson wrote: »LeifErickson wrote: »Savos_Saren wrote: »
I mean- if we consider that magDK block builds are melee ranged and SnB based- then why not convert Burning Embers into an ability that ignores all spell resistance? That way- it's fair n' square, right?
You mean the skill that costs like 800 magicka and has a massive burst heal on it? No not really fair at all. Comparing apples to oranges. If you wanna let the burning dot status effect ignore resist, thats more reasonable. Sure. Or alternatively, give every stam class class dots in the way most every magicka class has. Cus you do realize bleeds exist in the first place to give stam builds dot damage right?LeifErickson wrote: »
I don't know how you say bleeds are easy to deal with on a magsorc. Even Red thinks they are overtuned because the pressure they put on shields is insane.
Yeah the entire point of dual wield on stam is the pressure. It is high pressure, as it should be. As long as you can keep reapplying shields, bleeds are literally no different on a sorc than any other dot. Its only when they start ticking under the shields that its an issue. Keep in mind Red runs almost no impen, so of course they are insane on his build. I crit him for 3k last time we were dueling on a bleed tick. Generally, I dont really find the bleed damage to be overwhelming or that a fight is rendered noncompetitive because of it vs shield builds. Or any really. But I suppose that is 1v1. I can see bleeds being oppressive to certain specs when outnumbered. Like a bunch of other stuff in the game is.
Youve made this thread asking for nerfs, but havent suggested any. Instead of this cyclical back and forth, how bout some constructive suggestions? What do you think are appropriate nerfs that would make bleeds more manageable but still maintain their strength.
Heres one from me. I think it would be reasonable for the passive axe bleed procs to not crit. That alone would be a huge nerf to the damage.
The math supports this change. It's balanced because the benefit would be it ignores armor, which is the first mitigation to be calculated and thus have the first stab at using it's full percentage, but it will never crit letting current heals do their job.
For example, based on numbers I see in my build editor currently:
- 1504 base, 2120 crit off a 1.41 modifer, 1639 crit off a 1.09 modifer
If using minor/major protection:
-1128 base, 1590 crit off a 1.41 mod, 1229 off 1.09 mod.
Even with minor/major protection, bleeds will still serve a purpose under this change.
Another one would be to provide extra hots available to certain builds/classes while still letting it crit (my opinion this change is better because it doesn't let players ignore impen mechanics like OP and much of cyro was doing). But this could also come from spell crafting if they ever add it lol.
What do you mean by ignoring impen mechanics?
Meaning stop pretending 3k crit resists are enough when nightblades/Templars can get between 70-80% crit DMG and 40% crit chance. Especially in nCP where 7 impen only stops 27% DMG modifier while even normal builds still get their free 50%. That's why bleeds are getting the best out of players in nCP, they refuse to slot impreg or have a friend run trans.
Everyone's throwing around crits like candy lol.
Sounds to me like everyone is pigeonholed into running impreg which sucks. You are gonna cringe when you see this but I barely run 2k crit resist in cp land. But it doesn't really matter what I run because I'm saying bleeds are always strong against anyone.
My math in this thread says otherwise. You need impen or major/minor protection sources to pull bleed down while keeping your hots higher.Minno - DC - Forum-plar Extraordinaire
- Guild-lead for MV
- Filthy Casual2 -
LeifErickson✭✭✭✭✭
✭LeifErickson wrote: »LeifErickson wrote: »Savos_Saren wrote: »
I mean- if we consider that magDK block builds are melee ranged and SnB based- then why not convert Burning Embers into an ability that ignores all spell resistance? That way- it's fair n' square, right?
You mean the skill that costs like 800 magicka and has a massive burst heal on it? No not really fair at all. Comparing apples to oranges. If you wanna let the burning dot status effect ignore resist, thats more reasonable. Sure. Or alternatively, give every stam class class dots in the way most every magicka class has. Cus you do realize bleeds exist in the first place to give stam builds dot damage right?LeifErickson wrote: »
I don't know how you say bleeds are easy to deal with on a magsorc. Even Red thinks they are overtuned because the pressure they put on shields is insane.
Yeah the entire point of dual wield on stam is the pressure. It is high pressure, as it should be. As long as you can keep reapplying shields, bleeds are literally no different on a sorc than any other dot. Its only when they start ticking under the shields that its an issue. Keep in mind Red runs almost no impen, so of course they are insane on his build. I crit him for 3k last time we were dueling on a bleed tick. Generally, I dont really find the bleed damage to be overwhelming or that a fight is rendered noncompetitive because of it vs shield builds. Or any really. But I suppose that is 1v1. I can see bleeds being oppressive to certain specs when outnumbered. Like a bunch of other stuff in the game is.
Youve made this thread asking for nerfs, but havent suggested any. Instead of this cyclical back and forth, how bout some constructive suggestions? What do you think are appropriate nerfs that would make bleeds more manageable but still maintain their strength.
Heres one from me. I think it would be reasonable for the passive axe bleed procs to not crit. That alone would be a huge nerf to the damage.
The math supports this change. It's balanced because the benefit would be it ignores armor, which is the first mitigation to be calculated and thus have the first stab at using it's full percentage, but it will never crit letting current heals do their job.
For example, based on numbers I see in my build editor currently:
- 1504 base, 2120 crit off a 1.41 modifer, 1639 crit off a 1.09 modifer
If using minor/major protection:
-1128 base, 1590 crit off a 1.41 mod, 1229 off 1.09 mod.
Even with minor/major protection, bleeds will still serve a purpose under this change.
Another one would be to provide extra hots available to certain builds/classes while still letting it crit (my opinion this change is better because it doesn't let players ignore impen mechanics like OP and much of cyro was doing). But this could also come from spell crafting if they ever add it lol.
What do you mean by ignoring impen mechanics?
Meaning stop pretending 3k crit resists are enough when nightblades/Templars can get between 70-80% crit DMG and 40% crit chance. Especially in nCP where 7 impen only stops 27% DMG modifier while even normal builds still get their free 50%. That's why bleeds are getting the best out of players in nCP, they refuse to slot impreg or have a friend run trans.
Everyone's throwing around crits like candy lol.
Sounds to me like everyone is pigeonholed into running impreg which sucks. You are gonna cringe when you see this but I barely run 2k crit resist in cp land. But it doesn't really matter what I run because I'm saying bleeds are always strong against anyone.
My math in this thread says otherwise. You need impen or major/minor protection sources to pull bleed down while keeping your hots higher.
The fact that you had to do all that math should in itself prove that bleeds are too strong. I toy with a rapid regen mdk build sometimes and I struggle with bleeds just as bad if not worse since I have to use a resto compared to my normal build.1 -
ak_pvp✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭The simplest fix to to just allow resists to mitigate them and change the bleed dmg accordingly if it becomes too weak. No, your clutch dot should not, with no downsides, ignore a mechanic just because you want it to. It gives nothing up for its immense strength.
An whilst it might be better in CP its still too strong comparably, It is however a guaranteed run or die in noCP.MagDK main. PC/EU @AK-ESO
Best houseknight EU.5 -
Minno✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭LeifErickson wrote: »LeifErickson wrote: »LeifErickson wrote: »Savos_Saren wrote: »
I mean- if we consider that magDK block builds are melee ranged and SnB based- then why not convert Burning Embers into an ability that ignores all spell resistance? That way- it's fair n' square, right?
You mean the skill that costs like 800 magicka and has a massive burst heal on it? No not really fair at all. Comparing apples to oranges. If you wanna let the burning dot status effect ignore resist, thats more reasonable. Sure. Or alternatively, give every stam class class dots in the way most every magicka class has. Cus you do realize bleeds exist in the first place to give stam builds dot damage right?LeifErickson wrote: »
I don't know how you say bleeds are easy to deal with on a magsorc. Even Red thinks they are overtuned because the pressure they put on shields is insane.
Yeah the entire point of dual wield on stam is the pressure. It is high pressure, as it should be. As long as you can keep reapplying shields, bleeds are literally no different on a sorc than any other dot. Its only when they start ticking under the shields that its an issue. Keep in mind Red runs almost no impen, so of course they are insane on his build. I crit him for 3k last time we were dueling on a bleed tick. Generally, I dont really find the bleed damage to be overwhelming or that a fight is rendered noncompetitive because of it vs shield builds. Or any really. But I suppose that is 1v1. I can see bleeds being oppressive to certain specs when outnumbered. Like a bunch of other stuff in the game is.
Youve made this thread asking for nerfs, but havent suggested any. Instead of this cyclical back and forth, how bout some constructive suggestions? What do you think are appropriate nerfs that would make bleeds more manageable but still maintain their strength.
Heres one from me. I think it would be reasonable for the passive axe bleed procs to not crit. That alone would be a huge nerf to the damage.
The math supports this change. It's balanced because the benefit would be it ignores armor, which is the first mitigation to be calculated and thus have the first stab at using it's full percentage, but it will never crit letting current heals do their job.
For example, based on numbers I see in my build editor currently:
- 1504 base, 2120 crit off a 1.41 modifer, 1639 crit off a 1.09 modifer
If using minor/major protection:
-1128 base, 1590 crit off a 1.41 mod, 1229 off 1.09 mod.
Even with minor/major protection, bleeds will still serve a purpose under this change.
Another one would be to provide extra hots available to certain builds/classes while still letting it crit (my opinion this change is better because it doesn't let players ignore impen mechanics like OP and much of cyro was doing). But this could also come from spell crafting if they ever add it lol.
What do you mean by ignoring impen mechanics?
Meaning stop pretending 3k crit resists are enough when nightblades/Templars can get between 70-80% crit DMG and 40% crit chance. Especially in nCP where 7 impen only stops 27% DMG modifier while even normal builds still get their free 50%. That's why bleeds are getting the best out of players in nCP, they refuse to slot impreg or have a friend run trans.
Everyone's throwing around crits like candy lol.
Sounds to me like everyone is pigeonholed into running impreg which sucks. You are gonna cringe when you see this but I barely run 2k crit resist in cp land. But it doesn't really matter what I run because I'm saying bleeds are always strong against anyone.
My math in this thread says otherwise. You need impen or major/minor protection sources to pull bleed down while keeping your hots higher.
The fact that you had to do all that math should in itself prove that bleeds are too strong. I toy with a rapid regen mdk build sometimes and I struggle with bleeds just as bad if not worse since I have to use a resto compared to my normal build.
Lol it proves bleeds are ok, but requires higher crit resist to account for the missing armor. It does also prove resto staff needs a buff since rapid Regen is terrible compared to vigor.Minno - DC - Forum-plar Extraordinaire
- Guild-lead for MV
- Filthy Casual3 -
Minno✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
There's like at least 1 Templar in every BG group (maybe the ones I'm in, I have to watch my repentance use too.) Unless everyone is a DK/NB these days.Minno - DC - Forum-plar Extraordinaire
- Guild-lead for MV
- Filthy Casual0 -
Chilly-McFreeze✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭
No, you still didn't fully get the point, because you are not looking at the passives separately. However, your last paragraph shows the problem well, so lets look at it from another perspective.
Imagine a stam build that runs snb frontbar for most of the damage as well as a 2h weapon backbar with most of the self buffs there. So, now only one of these passives plays a role, the 2h HW. Which weapon type do you think would be the strongest in this case and why?
The problem I see with the axe passive is that it can generate strong damage without investing any resources for it on the backbar. Both the sword and the mace buffs are only really useful when you actively use offensive skills on that bar.
Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that not letting the bleeds stack would still have this flaw, so I'm not sure if that's the best option. It's just an idea, and right now the added percentage bonus to bleed damage seems more reasonable to me tbh.
Nothing to add that you and Sharee didn't already wrote. Without stacking axe would still be the go to backbar weapon, with your suggestion axe would fall behind swords etc. It's difficult to balance, but like I now say the third time: number are always up to discuss. But the general idea of bleeds is there for a reason. Good that we don't have to do the actual balancing, even if it sometimes feels like it.The simplest fix to to just allow resists to mitigate them and change the bleed dmg accordingly if it becomes too weak. No, your clutch dot should not, with no downsides, ignore a mechanic just because you want it to.
Or you know, it won't change just because you want it so as well. Just saying.2 -
GloryClass RepresentativeLeifErickson wrote: »Savos_Saren wrote: »
I mean- if we consider that magDK block builds are melee ranged and SnB based- then why not convert Burning Embers into an ability that ignores all spell resistance? That way- it's fair n' square, right?
You mean the skill that costs like 800 magicka and has a massive burst heal on it? No not really fair at all. Comparing apples to oranges. If you wanna let the burning dot status effect ignore resist, thats more reasonable. Sure. Or alternatively, give every stam class class dots in the way most every magicka class has. Cus you do realize bleeds exist in the first place to give stam builds dot damage right?LeifErickson wrote: »
I don't know how you say bleeds are easy to deal with on a magsorc. Even Red thinks they are overtuned because the pressure they put on shields is insane.
Yeah the entire point of dual wield on stam is the pressure. It is high pressure, as it should be. As long as you can keep reapplying shields, bleeds are literally no different on a sorc than any other dot. Its only when they start ticking under the shields that its an issue. Keep in mind Red runs almost no impen, so of course they are insane on his build. I crit him for 3k last time we were dueling on a bleed tick. Generally, I dont really find the bleed damage to be overwhelming or that a fight is rendered noncompetitive because of it vs shield builds. Or any really. But I suppose that is 1v1. I can see bleeds being oppressive to certain specs when outnumbered. Like a bunch of other stuff in the game is.
Youve made this thread asking for nerfs, but havent suggested any. Instead of this cyclical back and forth, how bout some constructive suggestions? What do you think are appropriate nerfs that would make bleeds more manageable but still maintain their strength.
Heres one from me. I think it would be reasonable for the passive axe bleed procs to not crit. That alone would be a huge nerf to the damage.
The math supports this change. It's balanced because the benefit would be it ignores armor, which is the first mitigation to be calculated and thus have the first stab at using it's full percentage, but it will never crit letting current heals do their job.
For example, based on numbers I see in my build editor currently:
- 1504 base, 2120 crit off a 1.41 modifer, 1639 crit off a 1.09 modifer
If using minor/major protection:
-1128 base, 1590 crit off a 1.41 mod, 1229 off 1.09 mod.
Even with minor/major protection, bleeds will still serve a purpose under this change.
Another one would be to provide extra hots available to certain builds/classes while still letting it crit (my opinion this change is better because it doesn't let players ignore impen mechanics like OP and much of cyro was doing). But this could also come from spell crafting if they ever add it lol.
What do you mean by ignoring impen mechanics?
Meaning stop pretending 3k crit resists are enough when nightblades/Templars can get between 70-80% crit DMG and 40% crit chance. Especially in nCP where 7 impen only stops 27% DMG modifier while even normal builds still get their free 50%. That's why bleeds are getting the best out of players in nCP, they refuse to slot impreg or have a friend run trans.
Everyone's throwing around crits like candy lol.
You're basically saying that crits are the problem, and you're also saying that the solution is to be forced to run one of two ways:- You need to run impregnable, so your choice in gear slots is further limited
- You need to have a friend run transmutation
This doesn't even sound like a healthy solution for PvP in general...mDK will rise again.
Rebuild Necromancer pet AI.
@Glorious since I have too many characters to list
Ádamant
Strongly against Faction Lock3 -
Minno✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭LeifErickson wrote: »Savos_Saren wrote: »
I mean- if we consider that magDK block builds are melee ranged and SnB based- then why not convert Burning Embers into an ability that ignores all spell resistance? That way- it's fair n' square, right?
You mean the skill that costs like 800 magicka and has a massive burst heal on it? No not really fair at all. Comparing apples to oranges. If you wanna let the burning dot status effect ignore resist, thats more reasonable. Sure. Or alternatively, give every stam class class dots in the way most every magicka class has. Cus you do realize bleeds exist in the first place to give stam builds dot damage right?LeifErickson wrote: »
I don't know how you say bleeds are easy to deal with on a magsorc. Even Red thinks they are overtuned because the pressure they put on shields is insane.
Yeah the entire point of dual wield on stam is the pressure. It is high pressure, as it should be. As long as you can keep reapplying shields, bleeds are literally no different on a sorc than any other dot. Its only when they start ticking under the shields that its an issue. Keep in mind Red runs almost no impen, so of course they are insane on his build. I crit him for 3k last time we were dueling on a bleed tick. Generally, I dont really find the bleed damage to be overwhelming or that a fight is rendered noncompetitive because of it vs shield builds. Or any really. But I suppose that is 1v1. I can see bleeds being oppressive to certain specs when outnumbered. Like a bunch of other stuff in the game is.
Youve made this thread asking for nerfs, but havent suggested any. Instead of this cyclical back and forth, how bout some constructive suggestions? What do you think are appropriate nerfs that would make bleeds more manageable but still maintain their strength.
Heres one from me. I think it would be reasonable for the passive axe bleed procs to not crit. That alone would be a huge nerf to the damage.
The math supports this change. It's balanced because the benefit would be it ignores armor, which is the first mitigation to be calculated and thus have the first stab at using it's full percentage, but it will never crit letting current heals do their job.
For example, based on numbers I see in my build editor currently:
- 1504 base, 2120 crit off a 1.41 modifer, 1639 crit off a 1.09 modifer
If using minor/major protection:
-1128 base, 1590 crit off a 1.41 mod, 1229 off 1.09 mod.
Even with minor/major protection, bleeds will still serve a purpose under this change.
Another one would be to provide extra hots available to certain builds/classes while still letting it crit (my opinion this change is better because it doesn't let players ignore impen mechanics like OP and much of cyro was doing). But this could also come from spell crafting if they ever add it lol.
What do you mean by ignoring impen mechanics?
Meaning stop pretending 3k crit resists are enough when nightblades/Templars can get between 70-80% crit DMG and 40% crit chance. Especially in nCP where 7 impen only stops 27% DMG modifier while even normal builds still get their free 50%. That's why bleeds are getting the best out of players in nCP, they refuse to slot impreg or have a friend run trans.
Everyone's throwing around crits like candy lol.
You're basically saying that crits are the problem, and you're also saying that the solution is to be forced to run one of two ways:- You need to run impregnable, so your choice in gear slots is further limited
- You need to have a friend run transmutation
This doesn't even sound like a healthy solution for PvP in general...
Just just need to add impen to the BS buff so that 7pc-1806 can become 3k. In nCP that would be enough to make bleeds less effective while not punishing builds that don't want to swap their pve gear. I think most PvP players agree this should of happened to help people get into PvP more easily.
In the past no one could go from 70-80% but with minor force readily available, zos unbalanced PvP in a way.
Neither of that means "nerf bleeds" though. It just means there's something else inflating the issue. In this case crit DMG, and having to deal with power creep (which is also why the suggestion to have it not crit is a good one).Minno - DC - Forum-plar Extraordinaire
- Guild-lead for MV
- Filthy Casual0 -
Lichbourne90✭✭✭LeifErickson wrote: »Savos_Saren wrote: »
I mean- if we consider that magDK block builds are melee ranged and SnB based- then why not convert Burning Embers into an ability that ignores all spell resistance? That way- it's fair n' square, right?
You mean the skill that costs like 800 magicka and has a massive burst heal on it? No not really fair at all. Comparing apples to oranges. If you wanna let the burning dot status effect ignore resist, thats more reasonable. Sure. Or alternatively, give every stam class class dots in the way most every magicka class has. Cus you do realize bleeds exist in the first place to give stam builds dot damage right?LeifErickson wrote: »
I don't know how you say bleeds are easy to deal with on a magsorc. Even Red thinks they are overtuned because the pressure they put on shields is insane.
Yeah the entire point of dual wield on stam is the pressure. It is high pressure, as it should be. As long as you can keep reapplying shields, bleeds are literally no different on a sorc than any other dot. Its only when they start ticking under the shields that its an issue. Keep in mind Red runs almost no impen, so of course they are insane on his build. I crit him for 3k last time we were dueling on a bleed tick. Generally, I dont really find the bleed damage to be overwhelming or that a fight is rendered noncompetitive because of it vs shield builds. Or any really. But I suppose that is 1v1. I can see bleeds being oppressive to certain specs when outnumbered. Like a bunch of other stuff in the game is.
Youve made this thread asking for nerfs, but havent suggested any. Instead of this cyclical back and forth, how bout some constructive suggestions? What do you think are appropriate nerfs that would make bleeds more manageable but still maintain their strength.
Heres one from me. I think it would be reasonable for the passive axe bleed procs to not crit. That alone would be a huge nerf to the damage.
The math supports this change. It's balanced because the benefit would be it ignores armor, which is the first mitigation to be calculated and thus have the first stab at using it's full percentage, but it will never crit letting current heals do their job.
For example, based on numbers I see in my build editor currently:
- 1504 base, 2120 crit off a 1.41 modifer, 1639 crit off a 1.09 modifer
If using minor/major protection:
-1128 base, 1590 crit off a 1.41 mod, 1229 off 1.09 mod.
Even with minor/major protection, bleeds will still serve a purpose under this change.
Another one would be to provide extra hots available to certain builds/classes while still letting it crit (my opinion this change is better because it doesn't let players ignore impen mechanics like OP and much of cyro was doing). But this could also come from spell crafting if they ever add it lol.
What do you mean by ignoring impen mechanics?
Meaning stop pretending 3k crit resists are enough when nightblades/Templars can get between 70-80% crit DMG and 40% crit chance. Especially in nCP where 7 impen only stops 27% DMG modifier while even normal builds still get their free 50%. That's why bleeds are getting the best out of players in nCP, they refuse to slot impreg or have a friend run trans.
Everyone's throwing around crits like candy lol.
You're basically saying that crits are the problem, and you're also saying that the solution is to be forced to run one of two ways:- You need to run impregnable, so your choice in gear slots is further limited
- You need to have a friend run transmutation
This doesn't even sound like a healthy solution for PvP in general...
Just just need to add impen to the BS buff so that 7pc-1806 can become 3k. In nCP that would be enough to make bleeds less effective while not punishing builds that don't want to swap their pve gear. I think most PvP players agree this should of happened to help people get into PvP more easily.
In the past no one could go from 70-80% but with minor force readily available, zos unbalanced PvP in a way.
Neither of that means "nerf bleeds" though. It just means there's something else inflating the issue. In this case crit DMG, and having to deal with power creep (which is also why the suggestion to have it not crit is a good one).
Dont want to swap PvE gear for PvP? I don't want to hear a single complaint from anyone about that. It's the players choice to not optimize for PvP and if they take that choice it's not our (the PvP community) fault!2 -
Aedaryl✭✭✭✭✭
✭[/list]The simplest fix to to just allow resists to mitigate them and change the bleed dmg accordingly if it becomes too weak. No, your clutch dot should not, with no downsides, ignore a mechanic just because you want it to. It gives nothing up for its immense strength.
An whilst it might be better in CP its still too strong comparably, It is however a guaranteed run or die in noCP.
The simpliest fix ?
What you said is a shame.
Bleeds are *** light armor shield too, buffing bleed and make it overall less efficient vs the build they are supposed to counter is the most JOKE I heard.
The true bleed fix is to just nerf the damage.Edited by Aedaryl on August 30, 2018 7:25PM0 -
Minno✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Lichbourne90 wrote: »LeifErickson wrote: »Savos_Saren wrote: »
I mean- if we consider that magDK block builds are melee ranged and SnB based- then why not convert Burning Embers into an ability that ignores all spell resistance? That way- it's fair n' square, right?
You mean the skill that costs like 800 magicka and has a massive burst heal on it? No not really fair at all. Comparing apples to oranges. If you wanna let the burning dot status effect ignore resist, thats more reasonable. Sure. Or alternatively, give every stam class class dots in the way most every magicka class has. Cus you do realize bleeds exist in the first place to give stam builds dot damage right?LeifErickson wrote: »
I don't know how you say bleeds are easy to deal with on a magsorc. Even Red thinks they are overtuned because the pressure they put on shields is insane.
Yeah the entire point of dual wield on stam is the pressure. It is high pressure, as it should be. As long as you can keep reapplying shields, bleeds are literally no different on a sorc than any other dot. Its only when they start ticking under the shields that its an issue. Keep in mind Red runs almost no impen, so of course they are insane on his build. I crit him for 3k last time we were dueling on a bleed tick. Generally, I dont really find the bleed damage to be overwhelming or that a fight is rendered noncompetitive because of it vs shield builds. Or any really. But I suppose that is 1v1. I can see bleeds being oppressive to certain specs when outnumbered. Like a bunch of other stuff in the game is.
Youve made this thread asking for nerfs, but havent suggested any. Instead of this cyclical back and forth, how bout some constructive suggestions? What do you think are appropriate nerfs that would make bleeds more manageable but still maintain their strength.
Heres one from me. I think it would be reasonable for the passive axe bleed procs to not crit. That alone would be a huge nerf to the damage.
The math supports this change. It's balanced because the benefit would be it ignores armor, which is the first mitigation to be calculated and thus have the first stab at using it's full percentage, but it will never crit letting current heals do their job.
For example, based on numbers I see in my build editor currently:
- 1504 base, 2120 crit off a 1.41 modifer, 1639 crit off a 1.09 modifer
If using minor/major protection:
-1128 base, 1590 crit off a 1.41 mod, 1229 off 1.09 mod.
Even with minor/major protection, bleeds will still serve a purpose under this change.
Another one would be to provide extra hots available to certain builds/classes while still letting it crit (my opinion this change is better because it doesn't let players ignore impen mechanics like OP and much of cyro was doing). But this could also come from spell crafting if they ever add it lol.
What do you mean by ignoring impen mechanics?
Meaning stop pretending 3k crit resists are enough when nightblades/Templars can get between 70-80% crit DMG and 40% crit chance. Especially in nCP where 7 impen only stops 27% DMG modifier while even normal builds still get their free 50%. That's why bleeds are getting the best out of players in nCP, they refuse to slot impreg or have a friend run trans.
Everyone's throwing around crits like candy lol.
You're basically saying that crits are the problem, and you're also saying that the solution is to be forced to run one of two ways:- You need to run impregnable, so your choice in gear slots is further limited
- You need to have a friend run transmutation
This doesn't even sound like a healthy solution for PvP in general...
Just just need to add impen to the BS buff so that 7pc-1806 can become 3k. In nCP that would be enough to make bleeds less effective while not punishing builds that don't want to swap their pve gear. I think most PvP players agree this should of happened to help people get into PvP more easily.
In the past no one could go from 70-80% but with minor force readily available, zos unbalanced PvP in a way.
Neither of that means "nerf bleeds" though. It just means there's something else inflating the issue. In this case crit DMG, and having to deal with power creep (which is also why the suggestion to have it not crit is a good one).
Dont want to swap PvE gear for PvP? I don't want to hear a single complaint from anyone about that. It's the players choice to not optimize for PvP and if they take that choice it's not our (the PvP community) fault!
You missed out on the irony of my statement and some players defense on why bleeds should be nerfed lolEdited by Minno on August 30, 2018 7:30PMMinno - DC - Forum-plar Extraordinaire
- Guild-lead for MV
- Filthy Casual1 -
Xsorus✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Again... you have classes that can instant wipe large groups with 3 skills and you guys are talking about bleedshttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXpX7JMwRXtczc5GTrIYRIw
ESO and GW2 PvP videos5 -
Lichbourne90✭✭✭Lichbourne90 wrote: »LeifErickson wrote: »Savos_Saren wrote: »
I mean- if we consider that magDK block builds are melee ranged and SnB based- then why not convert Burning Embers into an ability that ignores all spell resistance? That way- it's fair n' square, right?
You mean the skill that costs like 800 magicka and has a massive burst heal on it? No not really fair at all. Comparing apples to oranges. If you wanna let the burning dot status effect ignore resist, thats more reasonable. Sure. Or alternatively, give every stam class class dots in the way most every magicka class has. Cus you do realize bleeds exist in the first place to give stam builds dot damage right?LeifErickson wrote: »
I don't know how you say bleeds are easy to deal with on a magsorc. Even Red thinks they are overtuned because the pressure they put on shields is insane.
Yeah the entire point of dual wield on stam is the pressure. It is high pressure, as it should be. As long as you can keep reapplying shields, bleeds are literally no different on a sorc than any other dot. Its only when they start ticking under the shields that its an issue. Keep in mind Red runs almost no impen, so of course they are insane on his build. I crit him for 3k last time we were dueling on a bleed tick. Generally, I dont really find the bleed damage to be overwhelming or that a fight is rendered noncompetitive because of it vs shield builds. Or any really. But I suppose that is 1v1. I can see bleeds being oppressive to certain specs when outnumbered. Like a bunch of other stuff in the game is.
Youve made this thread asking for nerfs, but havent suggested any. Instead of this cyclical back and forth, how bout some constructive suggestions? What do you think are appropriate nerfs that would make bleeds more manageable but still maintain their strength.
Heres one from me. I think it would be reasonable for the passive axe bleed procs to not crit. That alone would be a huge nerf to the damage.
The math supports this change. It's balanced because the benefit would be it ignores armor, which is the first mitigation to be calculated and thus have the first stab at using it's full percentage, but it will never crit letting current heals do their job.
For example, based on numbers I see in my build editor currently:
- 1504 base, 2120 crit off a 1.41 modifer, 1639 crit off a 1.09 modifer
If using minor/major protection:
-1128 base, 1590 crit off a 1.41 mod, 1229 off 1.09 mod.
Even with minor/major protection, bleeds will still serve a purpose under this change.
Another one would be to provide extra hots available to certain builds/classes while still letting it crit (my opinion this change is better because it doesn't let players ignore impen mechanics like OP and much of cyro was doing). But this could also come from spell crafting if they ever add it lol.
What do you mean by ignoring impen mechanics?
Meaning stop pretending 3k crit resists are enough when nightblades/Templars can get between 70-80% crit DMG and 40% crit chance. Especially in nCP where 7 impen only stops 27% DMG modifier while even normal builds still get their free 50%. That's why bleeds are getting the best out of players in nCP, they refuse to slot impreg or have a friend run trans.
Everyone's throwing around crits like candy lol.
You're basically saying that crits are the problem, and you're also saying that the solution is to be forced to run one of two ways:- You need to run impregnable, so your choice in gear slots is further limited
- You need to have a friend run transmutation
This doesn't even sound like a healthy solution for PvP in general...
Just just need to add impen to the BS buff so that 7pc-1806 can become 3k. In nCP that would be enough to make bleeds less effective while not punishing builds that don't want to swap their pve gear. I think most PvP players agree this should of happened to help people get into PvP more easily.
In the past no one could go from 70-80% but with minor force readily available, zos unbalanced PvP in a way.
Neither of that means "nerf bleeds" though. It just means there's something else inflating the issue. In this case crit DMG, and having to deal with power creep (which is also why the suggestion to have it not crit is a good one).
Dont want to swap PvE gear for PvP? I don't want to hear a single complaint from anyone about that. It's the players choice to not optimize for PvP and if they take that choice it's not our (the PvP community) fault!
You missed out on the irony of my statement and some players defense on why bleeds should be nerfed lol
I missed nothing. Simply made a statement.0 -
ak_pvp✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭[/list]The simplest fix to to just allow resists to mitigate them and change the bleed dmg accordingly if it becomes too weak. No, your clutch dot should not, with no downsides, ignore a mechanic just because you want it to. It gives nothing up for its immense strength.
An whilst it might be better in CP its still too strong comparably, It is however a guaranteed run or die in noCP.
The simpliest fix ?
What you said is a shame.
Bleeds are *** light armor shield too, buffing bleed and make it overall less efficient vs the build they are supposed to counter is the most JOKE I heard.
The true bleed fix is to just nerf the damage.
I don't know why you think that though. Bleeds themselves are only med strength compared to something like venomous claw or even embers if fully pen'd. Their benefit and overpowering aspect is that they ignore resists.
For you, the problem isn't bleeds themselves, like it is for most DKs, its just dot stacking, if you wanted to add validity to your point you could mention the ease of access and overall strength (not having a down side for its resist ignore)
The problem with lowering their strength directly means it affects PvE too.
@Chilly-McFreeze
You were saying it won't change because I want it to, and yeah that is fair. But it makes more sense for ZOS to change bleeds to be more like normal dots with their theme of normalization than it does to keep them obviously overtuned compared to others. They won't change the full pen'd damage as I said because that affects PvEMagDK main. PC/EU @AK-ESO
Best houseknight EU.0
