Masel wrote: »

All parses and math I have seen show that these races are all within a margin that can be put down to human error and chance at this point

That is a trivially easy thing to accomplish when the bonuses are so small anyway. Testing with no racial passives gets you close to the same numbers and racials add marginal bumps here and there. It's not difficult to "balance" something that has been made borderline inconsequential by design. So, no, not impressed.

Anyway, this isn't about parses. It's about the fact that ZOS changed the racial identities of the most popular races, trying to manufacture consumer dissatisfaction for profit. They've given the most popular PvE Magicka DPS race a trash PvP "utility" passive, taken away Bosmer stealth, practically deleted Argonian tanks from the game, and overshadowed Redguard with OP Orc. These changes are disrespectful of player choices. People chose their races specifically because the passives of the race fit the niche that player wanted to play. Now all of the most popular races people were choosing were intentionally attacked by devs, changing their niche, to dissatisfy the customers who made those choices and to compel race change token purchases. It's 100% transparent, morally disgusting behavior.

Seraphayel wrote: »

Redguard is still an excellent pick for Stamina, Altmer is still an excellent pick for Magicka.

"Excellent" =/= optimized. You're not even discussing the same subject.

Seraphayel wrote: »

SidewalkChalk5 wrote: »

Anyway, this isn't about parses. It's about the fact that ZOS changed the racial identities of the most popular races, trying to manufacture consumer dissatisfaction for profit.

Of one race. Bosmer. And even then only the Stealth part is they are still an excellent choice for Stamina.

All the others are the same. Redguard is still an excellent pick for Stamina, Altmer is still an excellent pick for Magicka.

Argonians might struggle a bit but that can be blamed on their PvP potential.

Besides that... nothing changed.

Sorry but having potential in one aspect doesn't give them the right to make us sub par in the biggest portion of the game. That's a load of bs and you know it.

Sorry but having potential in one aspect doesn't give them the right to make us sub par in the biggest portion of the game. That's a load of bs and you know it.

You are not sub-par because the racials merely affect gameplay. I am crying about the lost time and effort.... dev ressources could have been used at construction sites that are so much more urgent.

SidewalkChalk5 wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

SidewalkChalk5 wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

Redguard is still an excellent pick for Stamina, Altmer is still an excellent pick for Magicka.

"Excellent" =/= optimized. You're not even discussing the same subject.

"Optimized"? What do you even mean? DPS differences between Magicka/Stamina races are so tiny that it doesn't matter. Magicka races are even closer together than Stamina with their only outlier Orc being maybe a bit too strong - but even a difference of 1% as it might be for Stamina DPS doesn't mean anything.

Optimized means you pick a Stamina race when you want to play Stamina and you pick a Magicka race when you want to play Magicka. Which race you choose out of the Magicka/Stamina pool doesn't matter because they're all "optimized" for that role.

Again, it's not about DPS differences. Stop parroting the same irrelevant points and making unfounded assumptions about other people's positions.

Optimized means all passives effectively function toward the race's primary role. Altmer's IDENTITY was PvE Magicka DPS. Now they have a wasted passive and they are optimized for PvP Magplar/Magsorc. That's good for me personally, but its crap for Altmer as a whole. Breton is now the superior, optimized PvE Magicka DPS. It's easier to play, with no resource strain and greater survivability - and essentially the same DPS. Altmer identity has been usurped.

This was never a stated goal and is made up in your head. Optimized means favouring a specific role due to racials which is still the case for each of the 10 races.

Altmer identity was Magicka (DPS) and it's still Magicka (DPS). Altmer identity didn't change in any way.

Seraphayel wrote: »

Altmer identity was Magicka (DPS) and it's still Magicka (DPS). Altmer identity didn't change in any way.

If you want to make your decisions based on such a simplistic comprehension of the game, that explains a lot. What it doesn't explain is why you're obsessively contradicting and fighting with people who are discussing the issue at a higher level of nuance than you're interested in. You seem to only be here to deny the importance of things that are important to other people for their characters. As the Rock would say, "It doesn't matter what you think." Did you really ask other people if they're satisfied solely to nitpick whether or not their satisfaction is based on your criteria rather than their own?

SidewalkChalk5 wrote: »

Masel wrote: »

All parses and math I have seen show that these races are all within a margin that can be put down to human error and chance at this point

That is a trivially easy thing to accomplish when the bonuses are so small anyway. Testing with no racial passives gets you close to the same numbers and racials add marginal bumps here and there. It's not difficult to "balance" something that has been made borderline inconsequential by design. So, no, not impressed.

Anyway, this isn't about parses. It's about the fact that ZOS changed the racial identities of the most popular races, trying to manufacture consumer dissatisfaction for profit. They've given the most popular PvE Magicka DPS race a trash PvP "utility" passive, taken away Bosmer stealth, practically deleted Argonian tanks from the game, and overshadowed Redguard with OP Orc. These changes are disrespectful of player choices. People chose their races specifically because the passives of the race fit the niche that player wanted to play. Now all of the most popular races people were choosing were intentionally attacked by devs, changing their niche, to dissatisfy the customers who made those choices and to compel race change token purchases. It's 100% transparent, morally disgusting behavior.

I'm having a difficult time seeing any other reasoning. I don't want to believe this is true but some of the changes are laughable and just so happened to coincide with a Race Change Token sale. Ideally and according to the goals posted and statements about avoiding sweeping changes and Nerfs, balance could have been achieved or at least made closer with adjustments and maybe added flavor to under performing races. But despite those statements free race change tokens were given out anyway which says to me that the devs knew their changes would warrant them in contrast to the goals they laid out.

BlueRaven wrote: »

Kalle_Demos wrote: »

SidewalkChalk5 wrote: »

Masel wrote: »

All parses and math I have seen show that these races are all within a margin that can be put down to human error and chance at this point

That is a trivially easy thing to accomplish when the bonuses are so small anyway. Testing with no racial passives gets you close to the same numbers and racials add marginal bumps here and there. It's not difficult to "balance" something that has been made borderline inconsequential by design. So, no, not impressed.

Anyway, this isn't about parses. It's about the fact that ZOS changed the racial identities of the most popular races, trying to manufacture consumer dissatisfaction for profit. They've given the most popular PvE Magicka DPS race a trash PvP "utility" passive, taken away Bosmer stealth, practically deleted Argonian tanks from the game, and overshadowed Redguard with OP Orc. These changes are disrespectful of player choices. People chose their races specifically because the passives of the race fit the niche that player wanted to play. Now all of the most popular races people were choosing were intentionally attacked by devs, changing their niche, to dissatisfy the customers who made those choices and to compel race change token purchases. It's 100% transparent, morally disgusting behavior.

I'm having a difficult time seeing any other reasoning. I don't want to believe this is true but some of the changes are laughable and just so happened to coincide with a Race Change Token sale. Ideally and according to the goals posted and statements about avoiding sweeping changes and Nerfs, balance could have been achieved or at least made closer with adjustments and maybe added flavor to under performing races. But despite those statements free race change tokens were given out anyway which says to me that the devs knew their changes would warrant them in contrast to the goals they laid out.

Agreed. And whats worse is the feeling that this was all a bit rushed. And that they did not bother listening to any feed back.

Racial balance is something that should be monitored and tweaked indefinitely, but we all know ZOS won't do that. Once a balance patch goes live, that's it until the next one, who knows how many months/years later. I'm not sure what the balance team actually does in the interim period.

Olupajmibanan wrote: »

Well, poll results show it.

There might be some changes that aren't accepted by the community, but generaly, this update seems good.

Considering their stated goals, you would expect the majority of players to be happy with the changes. But that's not the case.

Yes with some of them, I think first iteration was straight up better as an overall patch though and I could use more races without worry. A mix between the first and last would be ideal(Revert Khajiit, High Elves and Orcs is my opinion, Orcs somewhere in between probably). But just start over on Wood Elves. I don't like the damage on roll dodge, or the lack of stealth.

For Nords, though overall happy with it, I'd say make the passive have shorter cooldown but less ult regen, so it's about the same(maybe slightly buffed in ideal case, cause it'll be harder to keep up as much with shorter cd), but more brawler/melee focused, like Nords should be. No regen for archer Nord pansies. Or ones afraid to be hit. More flavor, more potential to combine with things like decisive if you want to go that route, without changing its potential.

Imperials are kinda bland, which seems perfect for how their race has always been. Maybe revert and split the stats a bit to magicka too, to make them more bland.

Surprised I don't see Redguard healers suggested more with the cost reduction on resto skills, including Light's Champion. (maybe I need an /s for this one, but seen all kinds of things on here).

Redguards could use some running instead or in addition to Orcs, but slow reductions is something within the theme.

I'm fine with Argonians but many people seem not to be. I don't know what exactly they want from them, no clue what I'd suggest there.. Personally I feel good with them.

Happy with Dark Elves more recent iteration too, though I do wish they could situationally do more damage than anyone else.

Axmouth wrote: »

For Nords, though overall happy with it, I'd say make the passive have shorter cooldown but less ult regen, so it's about the same(maybe slightly buffed in ideal case, cause it'll be harder to keep up as much with shorter cd), but more brawler/melee focused, like Nords should be. No regen for archer Nord pansies. Or ones afraid to be hit. More flavor, more potential to combine with things like decisive if you want to go that route, without changing its potential.

Yes, something like 2 ultimate every time you're hit but with a 4 second cooldown. I would add to that 500 stamina when you are hit as well so that the Stalwart passive would read like this:

Increases your Max Stamina by 1500. When you take damage, gain 2 Ultimate and 500 Stamina. This effect can occur once every 4 seconds.

Seraphayel wrote: »

John_Falstaff wrote: »

Well, poll results show that only 41% are mostly content with the changes. ^^ The rest are so-so or dislike them. Less than half of satisfied people... balancing could've gone better, frankly.

Well if we do it correctly it's 56:44 pro changes. So the majority likes them overall. Might not be an overwhelming majority but it's fair enough.

And I think most people took the dissatisfied options because of very small or negligible things that bothered them but they blow up just to have a point - well nevermind, it's their opinion and for them it's valid.

Could have gone worse than this and it was obvious that not everybody likes to lose their superiority (like Altmers or PvP Argonians). Nerfs are never universally liked.

Except it's not.

41% like the changes
30% are in the middle
26% don't like them

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

John_Falstaff wrote: »

Well, poll results show that only 41% are mostly content with the changes. ^^ The rest are so-so or dislike them. Less than half of satisfied people... balancing could've gone better, frankly.

Well if we do it correctly it's 56:44 pro changes. So the majority likes them overall. Might not be an overwhelming majority but it's fair enough.

And I think most people took the dissatisfied options because of very small or negligible things that bothered them but they blow up just to have a point - well nevermind, it's their opinion and for them it's valid.

Could have gone worse than this and it was obvious that not everybody likes to lose their superiority (like Altmers or PvP Argonians). Nerfs are never universally liked.

Except it's not.

41% like the changes
30% are in the middle
26% don't like them

and that's only out of the 449 people who have bothered to vote. currently steam says there's 25x that many folks playing, and it's not even at a peak time. so whatever the sentiment is now, the folks who -don't- participate are certainly in for a surprise next week