Moonsorrow wrote: »

@Masel

Masel wrote: »

Just a quick statement on the people focusing on % vs. flat value shere.

I think it is quite dangerous how much unreflected feedback we get from people who say they got nerfed hard. The only race that got nerfed overall is argonian, and there is a reason for that. the rest do benefit from the changes, so even if you keep the race you had before, you do NOT lose anything at all when you take all the passives into account.

If that only was true. Your examples are for generic pve builds so the flat bonus numbers are like counted from pretty much base and for pve dps point of view.

So.. when one goes to pvp builds, and have been using the % bonus strengths to each race to build high on them to make setup based on that, then adding other things according to it. There are BIG nerfs and you should not try to deny them, or have you all forgot pvp builds completely? Not everyone plays with generic youtube shackle/seventh/Blood Spawn builds at pvp. There are big nerfs and way less versatility now with the new flat number approach, since there are not many % based bonuses on sets.

Example: Nord, No-CP (Battlegrounds/Sotha Sil) : it had % based damage reduction, for pvp that actually did mitigate against bleeds, it had % Healthy Recovery. You could make big hp regen with that +20%. With the changes like these now on this preview. Nerfed in both cases.

Example: Khajiit. No-CP (Battlegrounds/Sotha Sil) : Health regen flat number +100 vs old +20% hp recovery. Now a simple question: Is old +20% hp recovery more with Troll King monster set, than the new +100? +20% wins by a large margin. Most of those type builds have more flat recovery bonuses on top of Troll King, so its even more.

I rest my case.

So what is "quite dangerous"? To let people know the truth that their pvp builds ARE getting nerfed and the flat values were clearly made for PVE base values in mind with low to average numbers in certain areas. Things will be nerfed hard on pvp builds. It is a fact.

Dracane wrote: »

Masel wrote: »

Dracane wrote: »

Masel wrote: »

Dracane wrote: »

Masel wrote: »

Dracane wrote: »

Masel wrote: »

Just a quick statement on the people focusing on % vs. flat value shere. In total, the stats the races have will be a slight buff to what they had before. 258 Spell Damage translates into more damage then the old damage done passive. I chose the word stat density specifically because i am not solely focused on resources (magicka and stamina), simply saying races get nerfed because our resource pools might be a bit lower is overlooking all other passives. Even the strongest races on damage dealers did not lose anything, and the weaker ones got stronger. Focusing on that one stat is ignoring the rest entirely. I made a table how much maximum resource you lose on a generic siroria+zaan+sorrow build right here:



This is basically just simulating the build values by taking out passives from the uesp build editor and adding the 2k magicka manually into the magicka formula.
This seems like the outcome will be negative, because builds will have slightly lower resources, right?

But when you consider the spell damage or sustain benefits that many stamina and magicka builds have, this gets turned around. Damage done (as we had previously on dunmer and altmer) sounds like a nice passive because it sounds like it buffs damage by that % value, but in CP content that translates to around half of what it actually says. You have between 40-50% damage done on most CP builds, so added 7% or 4% on elemental damage only will only be ~4.5 and ~2.5% respectively. The spell damage, cost reduction, recovery or whatever the new passives are are a lot more useful, because they do not shoehorn races nto a specific class. Say whatever you want about the balancing between races, but these changes are not a nerf to any of the races that qualify for the damage dealer position and bring them more on par. The only choice that lost a little bit of damage potentially is a dunmer magicka DK, since they can take full advantage of the 7% flame damage. The 258 SD they got for it boosts healing by a lot more than the damage you lose and gets amplified, so even IF there is a slight loss in damage for that specific combination, the added tooltips of all abilities make up for that.

There are still concerns that i see in them of course: Dunmer loses out to altmer in the magicka DD setting because of the lower recovery without an additional benefit that is relevant for a DD build. Health isnt doing a lot since you basically dont need it. So Dunmer could use a little bit of unique sustain for magicka builds (or the higher stat for that matter).

Then, Imperial and Argonian do not qualify for damage dealers really, since their passives are not really helpful. Imperial is basically forced to tank, since the block and bash cost reduction is too niceh to be noticable on anything else. Stamina DD are generally fine, we ahve to test the effectiveness of bosmer against redguard on PTS and see how they perform to evaluate that further. Khajiit is better than many people make it seem, but i agree that the recovery seems a bit low.

I think it is quite dangerous how much unreflected feedback we get from people who say they got nerfed hard. The only race that got nerfed overall is argonian, and there is a reason for that. the rest do benefit from the changes, so even if you keep the race you had before, you do NOT lose anything at all when you take all the passives into account.

To the point of DoTs being direct damage above by @John_Falstaff, generally DoTs are DoTs. They can have a direct damage portion whcih will proc it, but if there are DoTs that count as direct still, we need to change that quickly so it cannot be abused in this context. Also consider that damage enchants assume the damage type of the ability they proc off. So a damage enchant proccing of Endless hail will be DoT-Damage, and therefore not be able to proc adrenaline rush. Ideally you'd ahve to really be able to keep doing direct damage on the enemy to proc this.

This is not the case for every race. For Altmer it will be a nerf for their main spells. Most spells used are elemental and we already have 4% elemental damage. 258 spell damage (with all spell damage % applied) is only slightly more than 4% damage. So this could be slight buff, if it wasn't for the huge amount of magicka we will loose. In the end, only magic damage spells will be better (very few pure magic is used) but elemental damage will be worse.

I really think all races should have their ressources values buffed. 2000 is too much of a loss to justify.
Pve Sorcerer don't have a single magic damage spell. Everything is either shock or fire. Only elemental weapons is magical and that alone won't be able to uphold the nerf and not everyone uses that anyway.

huge amount of magicka you lose? Look on the table above... 258 Spell Damage buffs healing too, and you lose 500 magicka, which is equal to 50 spell damage. So it is 200 spell damage vs. 4% damage done on 2/3 of your damage. There's no reason to be upset about this at all.

No, I loose over 1700 magicka. For your build, that might be the case. But not everyone uses your build and not everyone is a nightblade with mostly magic damage. It will be a nerf for many builds that do no follow your streamline.

Okay i am intrigued how you tested that. Explain to me how you lost 1700 magicka...

What am I supposed to explain ? The fact that gift of Magnus gives me 4237 magicka ?

In order to get to a loss of 1.7k you have to have over 70k magicka. i tried stacking as much as i could into max magicka and i couldnt get there. I'm sorry, but i trust the UESP guys and Combat Devs more than your own test.

Even IF you lose that 1700 magicka, you still get a return in exchange. On a sorcerer, 258 spell damage get boosted a lot (by major+minor sorcery+2% for every class skill on your bar) and even on a pet sorc it will most likely net you the same damage as before, simply because 258 spell damage outperform 4% damage done in CP content.

Then I have no clue how you came up with this. With 48k magicka, nothing fancy, 10% GoM gives me 4200 magicka. In pve it will be even more. I really don't know how you calculate those numbers. I can only say, it should be done rather than calculated.

Dracane wrote: »

Moonsorrow wrote: »

@Masel

Masel wrote: »

Just a quick statement on the people focusing on % vs. flat value shere.

I think it is quite dangerous how much unreflected feedback we get from people who say they got nerfed hard. The only race that got nerfed overall is argonian, and there is a reason for that. the rest do benefit from the changes, so even if you keep the race you had before, you do NOT lose anything at all when you take all the passives into account.

If that only was true. Your examples are for generic pve builds so the flat bonus numbers are like counted from pretty much base and for pve dps point of view.

So.. when one goes to pvp builds, and have been using the % bonus strengths to each race to build high on them to make setup based on that, then adding other things according to it. There are BIG nerfs and you should not try to deny them, or have you all forgot pvp builds completely? Not everyone plays with generic youtube shackle/seventh/Blood Spawn builds at pvp. There are big nerfs and way less versatility now with the new flat number approach, since there are not many % based bonuses on sets.

Example: Nord, No-CP (Battlegrounds/Sotha Sil) : it had % based damage reduction, for pvp that actually did mitigate against bleeds, it had % Healthy Recovery. You could make big hp regen with that +20%. With the changes like these now on this preview. Nerfed in both cases.

Example: Khajiit. No-CP (Battlegrounds/Sotha Sil) : Health regen flat number +100 vs old +20% hp recovery. Now a simple question: Is old +20% hp recovery more with Troll King monster set, than the new +100? +20% wins by a large margin. Most of those type builds have more flat recovery bonuses on top of Troll King, so its even more.

I rest my case.

So what is "quite dangerous"? To let people know the truth that their pvp builds ARE getting nerfed and the flat values were clearly made for PVE base values in mind with low to average numbers in certain areas. Things will be nerfed hard on pvp builds. It is a fact.

That is my impression as well. I really mean no harm to anyone. Accusing someone is the last thing I want to do. But I can't help thinking that Masel tries to lie to us. All those calculations are not based on reality and are purely theoretical, hence not representative of the real results.

I think, they try to sell us nerfs as buffs.

Masel wrote: »

Dracane wrote: »

Masel wrote: »

Dracane wrote: »

Masel wrote: »

Dracane wrote: »

Masel wrote: »

Dracane wrote: »

Masel wrote: »

Just a quick statement on the people focusing on % vs. flat value shere. In total, the stats the races have will be a slight buff to what they had before. 258 Spell Damage translates into more damage then the old damage done passive. I chose the word stat density specifically because i am not solely focused on resources (magicka and stamina), simply saying races get nerfed because our resource pools might be a bit lower is overlooking all other passives. Even the strongest races on damage dealers did not lose anything, and the weaker ones got stronger. Focusing on that one stat is ignoring the rest entirely. I made a table how much maximum resource you lose on a generic siroria+zaan+sorrow build right here:



This is basically just simulating the build values by taking out passives from the uesp build editor and adding the 2k magicka manually into the magicka formula.
This seems like the outcome will be negative, because builds will have slightly lower resources, right?

But when you consider the spell damage or sustain benefits that many stamina and magicka builds have, this gets turned around. Damage done (as we had previously on dunmer and altmer) sounds like a nice passive because it sounds like it buffs damage by that % value, but in CP content that translates to around half of what it actually says. You have between 40-50% damage done on most CP builds, so added 7% or 4% on elemental damage only will only be ~4.5 and ~2.5% respectively. The spell damage, cost reduction, recovery or whatever the new passives are are a lot more useful, because they do not shoehorn races nto a specific class. Say whatever you want about the balancing between races, but these changes are not a nerf to any of the races that qualify for the damage dealer position and bring them more on par. The only choice that lost a little bit of damage potentially is a dunmer magicka DK, since they can take full advantage of the 7% flame damage. The 258 SD they got for it boosts healing by a lot more than the damage you lose and gets amplified, so even IF there is a slight loss in damage for that specific combination, the added tooltips of all abilities make up for that.

There are still concerns that i see in them of course: Dunmer loses out to altmer in the magicka DD setting because of the lower recovery without an additional benefit that is relevant for a DD build. Health isnt doing a lot since you basically dont need it. So Dunmer could use a little bit of unique sustain for magicka builds (or the higher stat for that matter).

Then, Imperial and Argonian do not qualify for damage dealers really, since their passives are not really helpful. Imperial is basically forced to tank, since the block and bash cost reduction is too niceh to be noticable on anything else. Stamina DD are generally fine, we ahve to test the effectiveness of bosmer against redguard on PTS and see how they perform to evaluate that further. Khajiit is better than many people make it seem, but i agree that the recovery seems a bit low.

I think it is quite dangerous how much unreflected feedback we get from people who say they got nerfed hard. The only race that got nerfed overall is argonian, and there is a reason for that. the rest do benefit from the changes, so even if you keep the race you had before, you do NOT lose anything at all when you take all the passives into account.

To the point of DoTs being direct damage above by @John_Falstaff, generally DoTs are DoTs. They can have a direct damage portion whcih will proc it, but if there are DoTs that count as direct still, we need to change that quickly so it cannot be abused in this context. Also consider that damage enchants assume the damage type of the ability they proc off. So a damage enchant proccing of Endless hail will be DoT-Damage, and therefore not be able to proc adrenaline rush. Ideally you'd ahve to really be able to keep doing direct damage on the enemy to proc this.

This is not the case for every race. For Altmer it will be a nerf for their main spells. Most spells used are elemental and we already have 4% elemental damage. 258 spell damage (with all spell damage % applied) is only slightly more than 4% damage. So this could be slight buff, if it wasn't for the huge amount of magicka we will loose. In the end, only magic damage spells will be better (very few pure magic is used) but elemental damage will be worse.

I really think all races should have their ressources values buffed. 2000 is too much of a loss to justify.
Pve Sorcerer don't have a single magic damage spell. Everything is either shock or fire. Only elemental weapons is magical and that alone won't be able to uphold the nerf and not everyone uses that anyway.

huge amount of magicka you lose? Look on the table above... 258 Spell Damage buffs healing too, and you lose 500 magicka, which is equal to 50 spell damage. So it is 200 spell damage vs. 4% damage done on 2/3 of your damage. There's no reason to be upset about this at all.

No, I loose over 1700 magicka. For your build, that might be the case. But not everyone uses your build and not everyone is a nightblade with mostly magic damage. It will be a nerf for many builds that do no follow your streamline.

Okay i am intrigued how you tested that. Explain to me how you lost 1700 magicka...

What am I supposed to explain ? The fact that gift of Magnus gives me 4237 magicka ?

In order to get to a loss of 1.7k you have to have over 70k magicka. i tried stacking as much as i could into max magicka and i couldnt get there. I'm sorry, but i trust the UESP guys and Combat Devs more than your own test.

Even IF you lose that 1700 magicka, you still get a return in exchange. On a sorcerer, 258 spell damage get boosted a lot (by major+minor sorcery+2% for every class skill on your bar) and even on a pet sorc it will most likely net you the same damage as before, simply because 258 spell damage outperform 4% damage done in CP content.

Then I have no clue how you came up with this. With 48k magicka, nothing fancy, 10% GoM gives me 4200 magicka. In pve it will be even more. I really don't know how you calculate those numbers. I can only say, it should be done rather than calculated.

It gives you 4200 magicka, i didnt debate that. Its just that the difference will not be 1700 magicka, especially in PvE, where you have more amplifiers than in solo/pvp content...

Dracane wrote: »

Moonsorrow wrote: »

@Masel

Masel wrote: »

Just a quick statement on the people focusing on % vs. flat value shere.

I think it is quite dangerous how much unreflected feedback we get from people who say they got nerfed hard. The only race that got nerfed overall is argonian, and there is a reason for that. the rest do benefit from the changes, so even if you keep the race you had before, you do NOT lose anything at all when you take all the passives into account.

If that only was true. Your examples are for generic pve builds so the flat bonus numbers are like counted from pretty much base and for pve dps point of view.

So.. when one goes to pvp builds, and have been using the % bonus strengths to each race to build high on them to make setup based on that, then adding other things according to it. There are BIG nerfs and you should not try to deny them, or have you all forgot pvp builds completely? Not everyone plays with generic youtube shackle/seventh/Blood Spawn builds at pvp. There are big nerfs and way less versatility now with the new flat number approach, since there are not many % based bonuses on sets.

Example: Nord, No-CP (Battlegrounds/Sotha Sil) : it had % based damage reduction, for pvp that actually did mitigate against bleeds, it had % Healthy Recovery. You could make big hp regen with that +20%. With the changes like these now on this preview. Nerfed in both cases.

Example: Khajiit. No-CP (Battlegrounds/Sotha Sil) : Health regen flat number +100 vs old +20% hp recovery. Now a simple question: Is old +20% hp recovery more with Troll King monster set, than the new +100? +20% wins by a large margin. Most of those type builds have more flat recovery bonuses on top of Troll King, so its even more.

I rest my case.

So what is "quite dangerous"? To let people know the truth that their pvp builds ARE getting nerfed and the flat values were clearly made for PVE base values in mind with low to average numbers in certain areas. Things will be nerfed hard on pvp builds. It is a fact.

That is my impression as well. I really mean no harm to anyone. Accusing someone is the last thing I want to do. But I can't help thinking that Masel tries to lie to us. All those calculations are not based on reality and are purely theoretical, hence not representative of the real results.

I think, they try to sell us nerfs as buffs.

I try to lie to you? Good grief.

ZOS_Gilliam wrote: »

...

The Problem Space

Below are the higher level reasons on why we decided to move toward reworking many of the racial changes for U21, and explanations of them to help understand their impact.

1. Right now there are a lack of effective options in picking your race/class combination.
   • This is mainly due to the fact that many of the racial bonuses are percent increases of stats, rather than flat ones. This means races that provided a bonus to a stat that you didn’t focus into gave very little tangible impact.
2. Many racial bonuses do not have universal applicability.
   • Many bonuses provided from races had narrow application or requirements, such as specific damage types or proc conditions. For example, Orc’s have a damage bonus that only applied to melee attacks, instead of all physical attacks.
3. Not every race provides a completely unique gameplay element.
   • Some races currently provide smaller unique bonuses such as immunity to specific status effects, or sneaking; but not every race has something of this manner. On top of this, some of the larger, more defining passives were not comparable in terms of impact. For instance, compare the Argonian Resourceful passive to Imperial’s Red Diamond.
4. Some races provided far more mathematical combat power than others.
   • The delta between some races is noticeably high, leaving some races feeling left behind while others feel too good to pass up from a combat perspective.

To summarize, we decided to focus more on racial balance this update because racial choice was one of the larger outliers to our core mantra of the game - freedom. We wanted to expand the horizon for choice and present players with a self-reflecting question of “What is my playstyle or ideal build?”, providing options to help reach that individual answer. Now, instead of having a single race that focuses almost exclusively on a specific playstyle, you can pick based on a personal level. ...

Dracane wrote: »

Moonsorrow wrote: »

Dracane wrote: »

Moonsorrow wrote: »

@Masel

Masel wrote: »

Just a quick statement on the people focusing on % vs. flat value shere.

I think it is quite dangerous how much unreflected feedback we get from people who say they got nerfed hard. The only race that got nerfed overall is argonian, and there is a reason for that. the rest do benefit from the changes, so even if you keep the race you had before, you do NOT lose anything at all when you take all the passives into account.

If that only was true. Your examples are for generic pve builds so the flat bonus numbers are like counted from pretty much base and for pve dps point of view.

So.. when one goes to pvp builds, and have been using the % bonus strengths to each race to build high on them to make setup based on that, then adding other things according to it. There are BIG nerfs and you should not try to deny them, or have you all forgot pvp builds completely? Not everyone plays with generic youtube shackle/seventh/Blood Spawn builds at pvp. There are big nerfs and way less versatility now with the new flat number approach, since there are not many % based bonuses on sets.

Example: Nord, No-CP (Battlegrounds/Sotha Sil) : it had % based damage reduction, for pvp that actually did mitigate against bleeds, it had % Healthy Recovery. You could make big hp regen with that +20%. With the changes like these now on this preview. Nerfed in both cases.

Example: Khajiit. No-CP (Battlegrounds/Sotha Sil) : Health regen flat number +100 vs old +20% hp recovery. Now a simple question: Is old +20% hp recovery more with Troll King monster set, than the new +100? +20% wins by a large margin. Most of those type builds have more flat recovery bonuses on top of Troll King, so its even more.

I rest my case.

So what is "quite dangerous"? To let people know the truth that their pvp builds ARE getting nerfed and the flat values were clearly made for PVE base values in mind with low to average numbers in certain areas. Things will be nerfed hard on pvp builds. It is a fact.

That is my impression as well. I really mean no harm to anyone. Accusing someone is the last thing I want to do. But I can't help thinking that Masel tries to lie to us. All those calculations are not based on reality and are purely theoretical, hence not representative of the real results.

I think, they try to sell us nerfs as buffs.

It is because some of their numbers come close to the current ones, especially in CP environment on an average build that is focused on spell/weapon damage. So for PVE they are close with the values if thinking around the meta builds there. But functional pvp builds can be extremes often that benefit more from % than from (too) small flat values.

But sadly, NO-CP pvp is (and can, luckily more freedom at pvp side of things) clearly forgotten in their mathematical approach to these values. They are putting CP buffs in, CP % values to maximum in their calculations and then showing us the results.

Battlegrounds is no-cp and i tend to think Battlegrounds as the pride and joy, the good child, the working mode of pvp in this game, that ZOS can show at meetings and happenings to everyone, since Cyrodiil can be a laggy mess often with zergs pvdooring keeps and running after 1 player.. so would think they want to keep thinking about No-CP values also and us who have fun yet very functional builds with high extreme numbers on something.

Well. I could talk about how I loose over 2k Magicka in content where my max magicka is higher. But is 44k really considered stacking ? That is a rather normal number to me and even here, the changes will not be a delight.

It seems to me they only think about the most optimal case: Nightblade with free 8% magicka from passives, raid warhorn etc. etc. Those numbers only take into account the top of the top and one single build, while ignoring that everyone else will be nerfed by this.

Why are we so afraid of buffing people or giving them something good ? Why must everything get worse, more streamlined and less interesting every patch ?

Moonsorrow wrote: »

Dracane wrote: »

Moonsorrow wrote: »

Dracane wrote: »

Moonsorrow wrote: »

@Masel

Masel wrote: »

Just a quick statement on the people focusing on % vs. flat value shere.

I think it is quite dangerous how much unreflected feedback we get from people who say they got nerfed hard. The only race that got nerfed overall is argonian, and there is a reason for that. the rest do benefit from the changes, so even if you keep the race you had before, you do NOT lose anything at all when you take all the passives into account.

If that only was true. Your examples are for generic pve builds so the flat bonus numbers are like counted from pretty much base and for pve dps point of view.

So.. when one goes to pvp builds, and have been using the % bonus strengths to each race to build high on them to make setup based on that, then adding other things according to it. There are BIG nerfs and you should not try to deny them, or have you all forgot pvp builds completely? Not everyone plays with generic youtube shackle/seventh/Blood Spawn builds at pvp. There are big nerfs and way less versatility now with the new flat number approach, since there are not many % based bonuses on sets.

Example: Nord, No-CP (Battlegrounds/Sotha Sil) : it had % based damage reduction, for pvp that actually did mitigate against bleeds, it had % Healthy Recovery. You could make big hp regen with that +20%. With the changes like these now on this preview. Nerfed in both cases.

Example: Khajiit. No-CP (Battlegrounds/Sotha Sil) : Health regen flat number +100 vs old +20% hp recovery. Now a simple question: Is old +20% hp recovery more with Troll King monster set, than the new +100? +20% wins by a large margin. Most of those type builds have more flat recovery bonuses on top of Troll King, so its even more.

I rest my case.

So what is "quite dangerous"? To let people know the truth that their pvp builds ARE getting nerfed and the flat values were clearly made for PVE base values in mind with low to average numbers in certain areas. Things will be nerfed hard on pvp builds. It is a fact.

That is my impression as well. I really mean no harm to anyone. Accusing someone is the last thing I want to do. But I can't help thinking that Masel tries to lie to us. All those calculations are not based on reality and are purely theoretical, hence not representative of the real results.

I think, they try to sell us nerfs as buffs.

It is because some of their numbers come close to the current ones, especially in CP environment on an average build that is focused on spell/weapon damage. So for PVE they are close with the values if thinking around the meta builds there. But functional pvp builds can be extremes often that benefit more from % than from (too) small flat values.

But sadly, NO-CP pvp is (and can, luckily more freedom at pvp side of things) clearly forgotten in their mathematical approach to these values. They are putting CP buffs in, CP % values to maximum in their calculations and then showing us the results.

Battlegrounds is no-cp and i tend to think Battlegrounds as the pride and joy, the good child, the working mode of pvp in this game, that ZOS can show at meetings and happenings to everyone, since Cyrodiil can be a laggy mess often with zergs pvdooring keeps and running after 1 player.. so would think they want to keep thinking about No-CP values also and us who have fun yet very functional builds with high extreme numbers on something.

Well. I could talk about how I loose over 2k Magicka in content where my max magicka is higher. But is 44k really considered stacking ? That is a rather normal number to me and even here, the changes will not be a delight.

It seems to me they only think about the most optimal case: Nightblade with free 8% magicka from passives, raid warhorn etc. etc. Those numbers only take into account the top of the top and one single build, while ignoring that everyone else will be nerfed by this.

Why are we so afraid of buffing people or giving them something good ? Why must everything get worse, more streamlined and less interesting every patch ?

I agree with you, as i also been enjoying making builds that have big benefit from the % racial bonus. Like a petsorc, pet damage scales from max magicka as an example. For pvp, why one would not wanna increase max magicka and pair it with balanced amount of health to play around with the new shield cap on max health %. Things like that, they seem to forget even are a possibility. I guess everyone should be using Spell Strategist and so on lol.

In another thread when i made an example from one nerf these changes do, the person there said that "but if you do a build like that, you dont have any damage.." (we talked about pvp build) as his argument that it actually is a buff, i had to point out that it was for a support build to keep using Rapids. I guess all on ESO are now PVE dps and we dont need options to build high extremes on something, that is still functional and reality on a PVP build that still works at No-CP also like it has so far. People see buffs on a pve dps view, of course there a +100 flat number can be a buff lol if not even build for that resource.

I am just amazed that they keep saying things are now balanced and more freedom. Truth: less freedom, still some races are very much "meta" for both stam and mag dps.

So what was gained from these changes? Answer: Sadness for lost opportunity to make things right this time, instead of Race Change token selling wheel of fortune with small flat numbers. "Round and round the wheel goes, who gets nerfed only time will show.." (and it will, when people see their stats in pvp in reality in same builds as now, when they were said to going to get "buffed")

Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »

Dracane wrote: »

@Moonsorrow These changes were supervised by high end raidplayers. So this comes as no surprise and I wouldn't mind it, if these changes wouldn't seem so selfish. They may be favorable for 5%, but ignore the other 95%.

You are not the 95%. Your build is not average.

Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »

Show me how you are.

RPGplayer13579 wrote: »

I know this may be a hell no type of request, but can I have a free change of class token? I had my Dark Elf character as a Dragon Knight because of the Destructive Ancestry and the 7% Flame damage bonus that went with it. And since that will soon go away can I change her to either a Nightblade or maybe Necromancer.

Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »

Sibenice wrote: »

Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »

Show me how you are.

With my current set up I have 57338 magicka in my mainhand and 50773 magicka in my offhand. Removing the passive and adding 2000 flat gives me 52605 in mainhand and 46040 in my offhand. That's a difference of 4733 magicka and if you subtract 2000 you get 2733, aka nearly 2400.

It may change a bit depending on other percentage stuff, but it'll still be significant.

What sets and mundai and cp and armor and skills, etc etc. You are just giving me your end numbers. Need to peer review your calculations before I believe them.

Dracane wrote: »

Moonsorrow wrote: »

@Masel

Masel wrote: »

Just a quick statement on the people focusing on % vs. flat value shere.

I think it is quite dangerous how much unreflected feedback we get from people who say they got nerfed hard. The only race that got nerfed overall is argonian, and there is a reason for that. the rest do benefit from the changes, so even if you keep the race you had before, you do NOT lose anything at all when you take all the passives into account.

If that only was true. Your examples are for generic pve builds so the flat bonus numbers are like counted from pretty much base and for pve dps point of view.

So.. when one goes to pvp builds, and have been using the % bonus strengths to each race to build high on them to make setup based on that, then adding other things according to it. There are BIG nerfs and you should not try to deny them, or have you all forgot pvp builds completely? Not everyone plays with generic youtube shackle/seventh/Blood Spawn builds at pvp. There are big nerfs and way less versatility now with the new flat number approach, since there are not many % based bonuses on sets.

Example: Nord, No-CP (Battlegrounds/Sotha Sil) : it had % based damage reduction, for pvp that actually did mitigate against bleeds, it had % Healthy Recovery. You could make big hp regen with that +20%. With the changes like these now on this preview. Nerfed in both cases.

Example: Khajiit. No-CP (Battlegrounds/Sotha Sil) : Health regen flat number +100 vs old +20% hp recovery. Now a simple question: Is old +20% hp recovery more with Troll King monster set, than the new +100? +20% wins by a large margin. Most of those type builds have more flat recovery bonuses on top of Troll King, so its even more.

I rest my case.

So what is "quite dangerous"? To let people know the truth that their pvp builds ARE getting nerfed and the flat values were clearly made for PVE base values in mind with low to average numbers in certain areas. Things will be nerfed hard on pvp builds. It is a fact.

That is my impression as well. I really mean no harm to anyone. Accusing someone is the last thing I want to do. But I can't help thinking that Masel tries to lie to us. All those calculations are not based on reality and are purely theoretical, hence not representative of the real results.

I think, they try to sell us nerfs as buffs.

Masel wrote: »

Dracane wrote: »

@Moonsorrow These changes were supervised by high end raidplayers. So this comes as no surprise and I wouldn't mind it, if these changes wouldn't seem so selfish. They may be favorable for 5%, but ignore the other 95%.

I am baffled by your statements. You accuse all of us to be biased and only think of PvE, even though we have a few very good PvP players among the reps that actually welcome these changes. I'll let you think whatever you want... I don't have the time or nerve to try and convince people that do not want to be convinced.