If you want a good laugh
Do Redguard magicka sorc
Do alteration mastery main set
Masters destro main bar
Backbar eye of mara restro staff and jewelry
2000+ magical recovery
Insane stamina and stam recovery
And 74 ult cost restro ult
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
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.
Seraphayel wrote: »Redguard is still an excellent pick for Stamina, Altmer is still an excellent pick for Magicka.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
Seraphayel wrote: »Altmer identity was Magicka (DPS) and it's still Magicka (DPS). Altmer identity didn't change in any way.
SidewalkChalk5 wrote: »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: »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.
Kalle_Demos wrote: »SidewalkChalk5 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.
Kalle_Demos wrote: »SidewalkChalk5 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
John_Falstaff wrote: »Sure it could have gone worse. But it could have gone better, and we'll live with those racial changes for long time, so it makes sense to put some effort and work out the kinks now, because later it'll be set in stone for the foreseeable future.
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