Maintenance for the week of April 6:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 6
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 6
The vampire cost increase is good because....
-
Paradisius✭✭✭✭Well to close my testing (unless they do some drastic changes to vampirism as the PTS continues) Im pretty impressed by how manageable it can be should you choose to use the vampire abilities. My final test was a stage 3 vampire with full traditional mag dps setup (Front bar Sorrow, full body PFG, and Zaans) I even changed my absorb magicka enchant to a fiery weapon enchant. And found that my sustain was overall manageable, hardly ever did I dip into the red and should they change the ability cost values to lower ones I would have no sustain issues no matter the stage Im in with a full damage based equipment set.
While I do expect some changes as the PTS moves forward, as is i am fully prepared for this rework to hit live!1 -
Glurin✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭It gets trickier the higher rank you go because the ability cost will start to bite chunks out of your regular rotations. But that's obviously intended, since higher rank vampires are meant to be more concentrated on Vampirism. So I really don't understand what people's beef is with these changes. They can just stay rank 1 if they want to make liberal use of their other abilities. Problem solved and they still get access to better moves. Sounds like a win/win to me.
That's akin to telling werewolf players to "just slot the ultimate and never use it".
When you stay rank one, you get nothing from the passives. No, that's not quite right. What you get is a 5% increase in your ability costs, 5% more flame damage and 10% reduced health regen. But hey, now you can drain your magicka as a ball of mist or drain your health while simultaneously preventing healers from healing you, so it's all good, right?
I think maybe what you might be missing here is that at rank 4, those costs go up to 20% AND the flame damage goes up to 20% AND health regen goes to zero. Not percent, just a flat zero. No health regen at all. The "beef" is that all these changes put together add up to something pretty severe. Perhaps too severe, which is why it's on PTS right now. The devs want to know if that's the case.
But it's not the same as telling players to slot the werewolf ultimate and never use it. It's not even remotely the same.
You're right. Werewolves actually get more out of it.At rank 1 Vampire you have access to all its abilities
No, you don't. Several passives specifically say "when at rank x or higher". They do not activate at rank one. As for the active abilities, they are, for the most part, of questionable and/or niche value.
I said at rank 1 Vampire you have access to all its abilities (meaning skills). I was obviously not referring to the passives. But maybe I should say stage 1 Vampire instead. I think that's where we might be talking past each other.
And just what does a player get from slotting the werewolf ultimate and then never using it?
15% stamina recovery, which is a lot better than increased costs, increased damage from fire and lower health regen.
And no, we are not talking past each other over "rank" v.s. "stage". I know what you meant, and you know what I meant. Those passives are only active at higher stages of vampirism. Stay stage one and they do nothing for you. Nor does that address the at present questionable value of using vampire skills over other abilities at that stage.Edited by Glurin on April 25, 2020 6:17AM"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster...when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you..."6 -
Jeremy✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭It gets trickier the higher rank you go because the ability cost will start to bite chunks out of your regular rotations. But that's obviously intended, since higher rank vampires are meant to be more concentrated on Vampirism. So I really don't understand what people's beef is with these changes. They can just stay rank 1 if they want to make liberal use of their other abilities. Problem solved and they still get access to better moves. Sounds like a win/win to me.
That's akin to telling werewolf players to "just slot the ultimate and never use it".
When you stay rank one, you get nothing from the passives. No, that's not quite right. What you get is a 5% increase in your ability costs, 5% more flame damage and 10% reduced health regen. But hey, now you can drain your magicka as a ball of mist or drain your health while simultaneously preventing healers from healing you, so it's all good, right?
I think maybe what you might be missing here is that at rank 4, those costs go up to 20% AND the flame damage goes up to 20% AND health regen goes to zero. Not percent, just a flat zero. No health regen at all. The "beef" is that all these changes put together add up to something pretty severe. Perhaps too severe, which is why it's on PTS right now. The devs want to know if that's the case.
But it's not the same as telling players to slot the werewolf ultimate and never use it. It's not even remotely the same.
You're right. Werewolves actually get more out of it.At rank 1 Vampire you have access to all its abilities
No, you don't. Several passives specifically say "when at rank x or higher". They do not activate at rank one. As for the active abilities, they are, for the most part, of questionable and/or niche value.
I said at rank 1 Vampire you have access to all its abilities (meaning skills). I was obviously not referring to the passives. But maybe I should say stage 1 Vampire instead. I think that's where we might be talking past each other.
And just what does a player get from slotting the werewolf ultimate and then never using it?
15% stamina recovery, which is a lot better than increased costs, increased damage from fire and lower health regen.
And no, we are not talking past each other over "rank" v.s. "stage". I know what you meant, and you know what I meant. Those passives are only active at higher stages of vampirism. Stay stage one and they do nothing for you. Nor does that address the questionable value of using vampire skills over other abilities at that stage.
If you knew what I meant then why did you act like I was talking about passives instead of active skills? And why do you keep talking about passives even now as if it that is supposedly what I meant? That's not what I was talking about. I was talking about Stage One Vampire giving you access to all of their active abilities - not those stage passives you for some reason seem to think are all so important to have (they aren't).
Stage One Vampire gives you access to a great damage buff (Blood Frenzy) which is ideal for defensive characters who are soloing or want to boost their offense.
Stage One Vampire gives you access to a great heal (Drain).
Stage One Vampire gives you access to a good AoE CC move (Mesmerize).
Stage One Vampire gives you access to Mist Form, which is one of the best escape moves in the game, making you immune to CC, breaking snares, and reducing your damage by 75%.
Stage One Vampire gives you access to a nice ultimate (Swarming Scion) which works great for clearing groups.
Stage One Vampire gives you access to Blood for Blood (a respectable "spammable").
Stage One Vampire also gives you access to the passive Dark Stalker - which completely ignores the movement penalty from sneak. So it does give you some good "passives" too, since you seemed to focus so much on those.
And yes, Stage One Vampire also reduces your health recovery by 10%, increases your flame damage taken by 5%, and increases the cost of your regular abilities by 5% (while reducing the cost of vampire abilities by 10%).
And you think + 15% stamina regen is better than all that?
haha Ok Glurin, if you say so. We'll have to agree to disagree on this as I much prefer the benefits of a Stage 1 Vampire to a 15% stamina regen increase.
Look: the bottom line here is if you don't use Vampire abilities then of course you're not going to like the new Vampire (that is common sense). But for those of us who actually do use Vampire Skills and built their character with using them in mind - Greymoor is a very nice buff to those characters. If you were someone who just used Vampires for a +15% buff to regen, then yeah... you're probably not going to care. But that was the whole point of these changes. They wanted to make Vampire an actual skill line that players used, not just something everyone grabbed for a passive +15%. And they succeeded.
Now if players choose to further corrupt their Vampires to stage 4 for no logical reason (and there isn't one if you plan on using your regular abilities liberally) that's not ZoS's fault. That's just poor decision making on the part of the player.
Edited by Jeremy on April 25, 2020 6:56AM2 -
Neoealth✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭xxthir13enxx wrote: »Only ESO can release new vampire content that leads to vast amount of players hitting the Undo button on vampirism they’ve had for years...
I know right..
I've been out of the loop with the latest eso info regarding the new stuff recently. So I've been withholding my opinion. But after reading here it seems I may have to cure my main character's vampirism because he is a pet sorc who uses no vamp skills. I just wanted the passives for my build and for role play purposes with the improved sneak. The huge skill increase cost would see me out of resources after a few rotations I would imagine.
So for my personal situation as a player who was excited for a revamp of the vamps and bought the expansion specifically for that, it's going to force me to cure myself and not be a vampire on my main like I've always been.
Add this to the vma grind they expect us to do and I'm really not feeling too happy or enthusiastic about the new expansion.8 -
Glurin✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭It gets trickier the higher rank you go because the ability cost will start to bite chunks out of your regular rotations. But that's obviously intended, since higher rank vampires are meant to be more concentrated on Vampirism. So I really don't understand what people's beef is with these changes. They can just stay rank 1 if they want to make liberal use of their other abilities. Problem solved and they still get access to better moves. Sounds like a win/win to me.
That's akin to telling werewolf players to "just slot the ultimate and never use it".
When you stay rank one, you get nothing from the passives. No, that's not quite right. What you get is a 5% increase in your ability costs, 5% more flame damage and 10% reduced health regen. But hey, now you can drain your magicka as a ball of mist or drain your health while simultaneously preventing healers from healing you, so it's all good, right?
I think maybe what you might be missing here is that at rank 4, those costs go up to 20% AND the flame damage goes up to 20% AND health regen goes to zero. Not percent, just a flat zero. No health regen at all. The "beef" is that all these changes put together add up to something pretty severe. Perhaps too severe, which is why it's on PTS right now. The devs want to know if that's the case.
But it's not the same as telling players to slot the werewolf ultimate and never use it. It's not even remotely the same.
You're right. Werewolves actually get more out of it.At rank 1 Vampire you have access to all its abilities
No, you don't. Several passives specifically say "when at rank x or higher". They do not activate at rank one. As for the active abilities, they are, for the most part, of questionable and/or niche value.
I said at rank 1 Vampire you have access to all its abilities (meaning skills). I was obviously not referring to the passives. But maybe I should say stage 1 Vampire instead. I think that's where we might be talking past each other.
And just what does a player get from slotting the werewolf ultimate and then never using it?
15% stamina recovery, which is a lot better than increased costs, increased damage from fire and lower health regen.
And no, we are not talking past each other over "rank" v.s. "stage". I know what you meant, and you know what I meant. Those passives are only active at higher stages of vampirism. Stay stage one and they do nothing for you. Nor does that address the questionable value of using vampire skills over other abilities at that stage.
If you knew what I meant then why did you act like I was talking about passives instead of active skills? And why do you keep talking about passives even now as if it that is supposedly what I meant?
Because you can't just ignore them. Not only is there an ever present cost to being a vampire, but those passives define the vampire as such.
Plus you're being rather flippant about it when you tell people to just stay at stage one. It's on PTS right now because the devs want feedback on, among other things, whether or not the cost is too severe."He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster...when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you..."8 -
Jeremy✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭It gets trickier the higher rank you go because the ability cost will start to bite chunks out of your regular rotations. But that's obviously intended, since higher rank vampires are meant to be more concentrated on Vampirism. So I really don't understand what people's beef is with these changes. They can just stay rank 1 if they want to make liberal use of their other abilities. Problem solved and they still get access to better moves. Sounds like a win/win to me.
That's akin to telling werewolf players to "just slot the ultimate and never use it".
When you stay rank one, you get nothing from the passives. No, that's not quite right. What you get is a 5% increase in your ability costs, 5% more flame damage and 10% reduced health regen. But hey, now you can drain your magicka as a ball of mist or drain your health while simultaneously preventing healers from healing you, so it's all good, right?
I think maybe what you might be missing here is that at rank 4, those costs go up to 20% AND the flame damage goes up to 20% AND health regen goes to zero. Not percent, just a flat zero. No health regen at all. The "beef" is that all these changes put together add up to something pretty severe. Perhaps too severe, which is why it's on PTS right now. The devs want to know if that's the case.
But it's not the same as telling players to slot the werewolf ultimate and never use it. It's not even remotely the same.
You're right. Werewolves actually get more out of it.At rank 1 Vampire you have access to all its abilities
No, you don't. Several passives specifically say "when at rank x or higher". They do not activate at rank one. As for the active abilities, they are, for the most part, of questionable and/or niche value.
I said at rank 1 Vampire you have access to all its abilities (meaning skills). I was obviously not referring to the passives. But maybe I should say stage 1 Vampire instead. I think that's where we might be talking past each other.
And just what does a player get from slotting the werewolf ultimate and then never using it?
15% stamina recovery, which is a lot better than increased costs, increased damage from fire and lower health regen.
And no, we are not talking past each other over "rank" v.s. "stage". I know what you meant, and you know what I meant. Those passives are only active at higher stages of vampirism. Stay stage one and they do nothing for you. Nor does that address the questionable value of using vampire skills over other abilities at that stage.
If you knew what I meant then why did you act like I was talking about passives instead of active skills? And why do you keep talking about passives even now as if it that is supposedly what I meant?
Because you can't just ignore them. Not only is there an ever present cost to being a vampire, but those passives define the vampire as such.
Plus you're being rather flippant about it when you tell people to just stay at stage one. It's on PTS right now because the devs want feedback on, among other things, whether or not the cost is too severe.
You can just ignore them. Not everyone has to be a stage four Vampire to get all the passives. Players can choose which stage is best for them. And this idea you have that 3 passives define the Vampire sounds kind of silly to me. I would suggest that if anything "defines" the Vampire, it is their active skills.
There is also nothing disrespectful about me suggesting players remain at stage 1 if they plan on making liberal use of their regular abilities. That's called good advice. Stage 4 Vampires are meant to be wholly corrupted and no longer human, so their entire fighting style changes from their previous form. That's what it looks like to me that the developers are aiming for. They don't want a Stage 4 Vampire fighting the same way a Stage 1 Vampire does (who is only slightly corrupted). It's an interesting concept. Nor does me suggesting players stay at Stage 1 if they want to retain much of their regular fighting style prevent anyone from giving feed back. So I don't know what that particular criticism is suppose to mean.
My intention is to counter this false argument that says the new Vampire sucks (no pun intended) because at stage 4 the cost increase is too high for them to use their regular abilities. Because there is a perfectly viable option for them to create a hybrid Vampire/Class build. And that option is called Stage 1. So try it before you knock it. You may be surprised at how little you need those three passives to make good use of the new Vampire abilities.Edited by Jeremy on April 25, 2020 8:37AM1 -
Jeremy✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭xxthir13enxx wrote: »Only ESO can release new vampire content that leads to vast amount of players hitting the Undo button on vampirism they’ve had for years...
I know right..
I've been out of the loop with the latest eso info regarding the new stuff recently. So I've been withholding my opinion. But after reading here it seems I may have to cure my main character's vampirism because he is a pet sorc who uses no vamp skills. I just wanted the passives for my build and for role play purposes with the improved sneak. The huge skill increase cost would see me out of resources after a few rotations I would imagine.
So for my personal situation as a player who was excited for a revamp of the vamps and bought the expansion specifically for that, it's going to force me to cure myself and not be a vampire on my main like I've always been.
Add this to the vma grind they expect us to do and I'm really not feeling too happy or enthusiastic about the new expansion.
I wouldn't worry about it.
If you only chose Vampire for the improved sneak you can still get that at a very modest ability cost of +5%. It's not a big deal and won't have much impact on your rotations. You'll also take a lot less fire damage than you did previously if all you want is Dark Stalker.Edited by Jeremy on April 25, 2020 8:57AM1 -
Raudgrani✭✭✭✭✭
✭Nemesis7884 wrote: »(to normal skills on stage 4) it forces people to either dedicate themselves to being a vampire or not - same as with werewolves... no just slapping on some passive benefits without truly being living as a vampire and also dedicating a character / rping to it and that is GOOD
less non lore friendly shallow min maxing and more dedication to a theme that comes with benefits and drawbacks
Out of what? A roleplaying perspective? You know, I was pretty good with being a vampire for recovery mainly, and the resistance as a little two faced bonus. I know many others do, and that the 10% recovery bonus is the little thing that makes their build viable at all, with that gone - they will need to go less damage, and do something about the recovery. I guess this is part of the idea. Bit why do you find it "good"? I fail to see.
Those of us who regard "roleplaying" as a less important part of the game are just gonna agree, because it's like "lore friendly"?2 -
Raudgrani✭✭✭✭✭
✭xxthir13enxx wrote: »Only ESO can release new vampire content that leads to vast amount of players hitting the Undo button on vampirism they’ve had for years...
New, exciting vampire content, and +90% of the community will remove vampirism from all or most of their characters. The rest will be roleplaying vampires in Solitude and Riften and decorate their +12k Crown vampire palace; or they will become vampire boosted gankers, bringing back a little of all that Nightblades have lost over the years.3 -
Thannazzar✭✭✭✭✭
✭robertthebard wrote: »
They should very definitely be defined by abilities, abilities are why players chose vampirism, otherwise, there wouldn't be any vampires, if they're not going to gain anything from it.
I strongly disagree with this centiment, for it was never the Vampires abilities that defined the vampire in prior Elder Scrolls games.
I'll sound like a broken record, but they're a state of being, not a sub-class. Passive strengths and weakness defines the vampires more than any abilities ever have in the Elder Scrolls.
So if being a vampire in eso only had the appearance change cosmetics, flame vulnerability and feed mechanic with no active or passive abilities you believe people would still take the option.Edited by Thannazzar on April 25, 2020 8:48AM0 -
Jeremy✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭xxthir13enxx wrote: »Only ESO can release new vampire content that leads to vast amount of players hitting the Undo button on vampirism they’ve had for years...
New, exciting vampire content, and +90% of the community will remove vampirism from all or most of their characters. The rest will be roleplaying vampires in Solitude and Riften and decorate their +12k Crown vampire palace; or they will become vampire boosted gankers, bringing back a little of all that Nightblades have lost over the years.
Then those players had no real interest in being a Vampire anyway. Because Vampires are more powerful in Greymoor (not less). So there is no reason why someone who was actually interested in playing as a Vampire would undo it.
3 -
Paradisius✭✭✭✭Out of what? A roleplaying perspective? You know, I was pretty good with being a vampire for recovery mainly, and the resistance as a little two faced bonus. I know many others do, and that the 10% recovery bonus is the little thing that makes their build viable at all, with that gone - they will need to go less damage, and do something about the recovery. I guess this is part of the idea. Bit why do you find it "good"? I fail to see.
Those of us who regard "roleplaying" as a less important part of the game are just gonna agree, because it's like "lore friendly"?
Well, for the general public its not "good" its a really bad change. But for what the devs wanted to do with the vampire, its "good" in the sense that they achieved such goal. In their reveal live stream and in the patch notes they said they want to force the idea of a more active playstyle of the vampire, at a cost. They acknowledged that most of the player base that were vampires did so for the reasons you stated, the 10% recovery and the damage mitigation. This new update on the vampire is done with the intent to change it to a more active gameplay, where if you pick vampire it is assumed you will use some vampire abilities. Is the current detriment too high at stage 4? perhaps so, but on the flip side if they make the detriment to small then youll see plenty of vampires running invisible and dishing out insane damage with blood frenzy, mainly because the detriments could be ignored. But this is PTS, and I am sure changes will be made, something like them changing progression to 0/5/10/15 would be seen as entirely possible.3 -
Jeremy✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Paradisius wrote: »Out of what? A roleplaying perspective? You know, I was pretty good with being a vampire for recovery mainly, and the resistance as a little two faced bonus. I know many others do, and that the 10% recovery bonus is the little thing that makes their build viable at all, with that gone - they will need to go less damage, and do something about the recovery. I guess this is part of the idea. Bit why do you find it "good"? I fail to see.
Those of us who regard "roleplaying" as a less important part of the game are just gonna agree, because it's like "lore friendly"?
Well, for the general public its not "good" its a really bad change. But for what the devs wanted to do with the vampire, its "good" in the sense that they achieved such goal. In their reveal live stream and in the patch notes they said they want to force the idea of a more active playstyle of the vampire, at a cost. They acknowledged that most of the player base that were vampires did so for the reasons you stated, the 10% recovery and the damage mitigation. This new update on the vampire is done with the intent to change it to a more active gameplay, where if you pick vampire it is assumed you will use some vampire abilities. Is the current detriment too high at stage 4? perhaps so, but on the flip side if they make the detriment to small then youll see plenty of vampires running invisible and dishing out insane damage with blood frenzy, mainly because the detriments could be ignored. But this is PTS, and I am sure changes will be made, something like them changing progression to 0/5/10/15 would be seen as entirely possible.
It seems to me ZoS can't win. I read constant complaints on this forum from players who are upset at feeling pressured to be an ugly Vampire just for the regen. ZoS changes it to where being a Vampire is more aimed at players who actually want to to play as a Vampire and use Vampire abilities. Now they are pissed they are going to have to cure it because it no longer gives them regen so they are no longer pressured to be something they never wanted to be in the first place. lol
Edited by Jeremy on April 25, 2020 9:16AM4 -
Glurin✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭It gets trickier the higher rank you go because the ability cost will start to bite chunks out of your regular rotations. But that's obviously intended, since higher rank vampires are meant to be more concentrated on Vampirism. So I really don't understand what people's beef is with these changes. They can just stay rank 1 if they want to make liberal use of their other abilities. Problem solved and they still get access to better moves. Sounds like a win/win to me.
That's akin to telling werewolf players to "just slot the ultimate and never use it".
When you stay rank one, you get nothing from the passives. No, that's not quite right. What you get is a 5% increase in your ability costs, 5% more flame damage and 10% reduced health regen. But hey, now you can drain your magicka as a ball of mist or drain your health while simultaneously preventing healers from healing you, so it's all good, right?
I think maybe what you might be missing here is that at rank 4, those costs go up to 20% AND the flame damage goes up to 20% AND health regen goes to zero. Not percent, just a flat zero. No health regen at all. The "beef" is that all these changes put together add up to something pretty severe. Perhaps too severe, which is why it's on PTS right now. The devs want to know if that's the case.
But it's not the same as telling players to slot the werewolf ultimate and never use it. It's not even remotely the same.
You're right. Werewolves actually get more out of it.At rank 1 Vampire you have access to all its abilities
No, you don't. Several passives specifically say "when at rank x or higher". They do not activate at rank one. As for the active abilities, they are, for the most part, of questionable and/or niche value.
I said at rank 1 Vampire you have access to all its abilities (meaning skills). I was obviously not referring to the passives. But maybe I should say stage 1 Vampire instead. I think that's where we might be talking past each other.
And just what does a player get from slotting the werewolf ultimate and then never using it?
15% stamina recovery, which is a lot better than increased costs, increased damage from fire and lower health regen.
And no, we are not talking past each other over "rank" v.s. "stage". I know what you meant, and you know what I meant. Those passives are only active at higher stages of vampirism. Stay stage one and they do nothing for you. Nor does that address the questionable value of using vampire skills over other abilities at that stage.
If you knew what I meant then why did you act like I was talking about passives instead of active skills? And why do you keep talking about passives even now as if it that is supposedly what I meant?
Because you can't just ignore them. Not only is there an ever present cost to being a vampire, but those passives define the vampire as such.
Plus you're being rather flippant about it when you tell people to just stay at stage one. It's on PTS right now because the devs want feedback on, among other things, whether or not the cost is too severe.
You can just ignore them.
Even if that were true, then you're left with the exact same problem we have now. Except instead of taking it for magicka regen, they take it for the not-a-necromancer ult. Hardly a step up.
Also, that still does not address the real question presented to us at this time. Is the penalty for being a vampire too harsh? Vampires aren't supposed to work like werewolves. Its not a transformation into a specific animal. Their concept and abilities, both passive and active, are by design meant to be infused into the existing character as a whole. Trying to ignore it like you have been by telling people to just stay stage one isn't going to make that go away."He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster...when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you..."2 -
Jeremy✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭It gets trickier the higher rank you go because the ability cost will start to bite chunks out of your regular rotations. But that's obviously intended, since higher rank vampires are meant to be more concentrated on Vampirism. So I really don't understand what people's beef is with these changes. They can just stay rank 1 if they want to make liberal use of their other abilities. Problem solved and they still get access to better moves. Sounds like a win/win to me.
That's akin to telling werewolf players to "just slot the ultimate and never use it".
When you stay rank one, you get nothing from the passives. No, that's not quite right. What you get is a 5% increase in your ability costs, 5% more flame damage and 10% reduced health regen. But hey, now you can drain your magicka as a ball of mist or drain your health while simultaneously preventing healers from healing you, so it's all good, right?
I think maybe what you might be missing here is that at rank 4, those costs go up to 20% AND the flame damage goes up to 20% AND health regen goes to zero. Not percent, just a flat zero. No health regen at all. The "beef" is that all these changes put together add up to something pretty severe. Perhaps too severe, which is why it's on PTS right now. The devs want to know if that's the case.
But it's not the same as telling players to slot the werewolf ultimate and never use it. It's not even remotely the same.
You're right. Werewolves actually get more out of it.At rank 1 Vampire you have access to all its abilities
No, you don't. Several passives specifically say "when at rank x or higher". They do not activate at rank one. As for the active abilities, they are, for the most part, of questionable and/or niche value.
I said at rank 1 Vampire you have access to all its abilities (meaning skills). I was obviously not referring to the passives. But maybe I should say stage 1 Vampire instead. I think that's where we might be talking past each other.
And just what does a player get from slotting the werewolf ultimate and then never using it?
15% stamina recovery, which is a lot better than increased costs, increased damage from fire and lower health regen.
And no, we are not talking past each other over "rank" v.s. "stage". I know what you meant, and you know what I meant. Those passives are only active at higher stages of vampirism. Stay stage one and they do nothing for you. Nor does that address the questionable value of using vampire skills over other abilities at that stage.
If you knew what I meant then why did you act like I was talking about passives instead of active skills? And why do you keep talking about passives even now as if it that is supposedly what I meant?
Because you can't just ignore them. Not only is there an ever present cost to being a vampire, but those passives define the vampire as such.
Plus you're being rather flippant about it when you tell people to just stay at stage one. It's on PTS right now because the devs want feedback on, among other things, whether or not the cost is too severe.
You can just ignore them.
Even if that were true, then you're left with the exact same problem we have now. Except instead of taking it for magicka regen, they take it for the not-a-necromancer ult. Hardly a step up.
Also, that still does not address the real question presented to us at this time. Is the penalty for being a vampire too harsh? Vampires aren't supposed to work like werewolves. Its not a transformation into a specific animal. Their concept and abilities, both passive and active, are by design meant to be infused into the existing character as a whole. Trying to ignore it like you have been by telling people to just stay stage one isn't going to make that go away.
It is true, Glurin. No one takes every passive in the game. You pick and choose which ones you want to go for. That's how character building works. Some passives you ignore. Other passives you take. It's the same ____ here.
As to your second point, I don't agree with your premise because I believe there are a lot of good reasons to take Vampire beside the ultimate. As I've pointed out to you previously, I believe the active skill line is good. And that active skill line is available to every Vampire at every Stage. You're also misrepresenting my argument. I did not tell people to just stay stage one. I told people who want to continue using their regular abilities liberally to stay stage 1. Players who want to focus more on just using vampire abilities should definitely go for the higher stages.
It's a choice - and I'm generally of the belief the more choices players are given the more interesting the game. And these Vampire changes are a hell of a lot more interesting than everyone and their mother just picking it for the regen passive and then complaining about having to look like a vampire. I don't miss that crap for a second and this was a very positive change for the game.Edited by Jeremy on April 25, 2020 9:33AM1 -
Glurin✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Thannazzar wrote: »robertthebard wrote: »
They should very definitely be defined by abilities, abilities are why players chose vampirism, otherwise, there wouldn't be any vampires, if they're not going to gain anything from it.
I strongly disagree with this centiment, for it was never the Vampires abilities that defined the vampire in prior Elder Scrolls games.
I'll sound like a broken record, but they're a state of being, not a sub-class. Passive strengths and weakness defines the vampires more than any abilities ever have in the Elder Scrolls.
So if being a vampire in eso only had the appearance change cosmetics, flame vulnerability and feed mechanic with no active or passive abilities you believe people would still take the option.
Some would. Most wouldn't because you've not listed any advantages whatsoever. Not even some kind of stealth bonus or an extra inventory slot or something. You may as well be asking if people would be willing to cut off a few toes for nothing in return."He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster...when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you..."2 -
Raudgrani✭✭✭✭✭
✭xxthir13enxx wrote: »Only ESO can release new vampire content that leads to vast amount of players hitting the Undo button on vampirism they’ve had for years...
New, exciting vampire content, and +90% of the community will remove vampirism from all or most of their characters. The rest will be roleplaying vampires in Solitude and Riften and decorate their +12k Crown vampire palace; or they will become vampire boosted gankers, bringing back a little of all that Nightblades have lost over the years.
Then those players had no real interest in being a Vampire anyway. Because Vampires are more powerful in Greymoor (not less). So there is no reason why someone who was actually interested in playing as a Vampire would undo it.
But 9,9 out of 10 current vampires became vampires for recovery and mitigation, not to roleplay. Is it really reasonable and fair to satisfy 0,1 or all players (many who have actually paid in real world currency for vampirism), because ZOS (and 0,1 of all vamps, like yourself) thinks it's a good idea?
If being a "normal" vampire was a prerequisite to pick a quest or whatever, to become these "super vampires" - it would be all good. A little like in Skyrim. This is just another of these huge changes, that affects a lot of people in an almost exclusively negative way, in true old ZOS fashion. A few always applaud these changes, but most don't.2 -
Glurin✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭It gets trickier the higher rank you go because the ability cost will start to bite chunks out of your regular rotations. But that's obviously intended, since higher rank vampires are meant to be more concentrated on Vampirism. So I really don't understand what people's beef is with these changes. They can just stay rank 1 if they want to make liberal use of their other abilities. Problem solved and they still get access to better moves. Sounds like a win/win to me.
That's akin to telling werewolf players to "just slot the ultimate and never use it".
When you stay rank one, you get nothing from the passives. No, that's not quite right. What you get is a 5% increase in your ability costs, 5% more flame damage and 10% reduced health regen. But hey, now you can drain your magicka as a ball of mist or drain your health while simultaneously preventing healers from healing you, so it's all good, right?
I think maybe what you might be missing here is that at rank 4, those costs go up to 20% AND the flame damage goes up to 20% AND health regen goes to zero. Not percent, just a flat zero. No health regen at all. The "beef" is that all these changes put together add up to something pretty severe. Perhaps too severe, which is why it's on PTS right now. The devs want to know if that's the case.
But it's not the same as telling players to slot the werewolf ultimate and never use it. It's not even remotely the same.
You're right. Werewolves actually get more out of it.At rank 1 Vampire you have access to all its abilities
No, you don't. Several passives specifically say "when at rank x or higher". They do not activate at rank one. As for the active abilities, they are, for the most part, of questionable and/or niche value.
I said at rank 1 Vampire you have access to all its abilities (meaning skills). I was obviously not referring to the passives. But maybe I should say stage 1 Vampire instead. I think that's where we might be talking past each other.
And just what does a player get from slotting the werewolf ultimate and then never using it?
15% stamina recovery, which is a lot better than increased costs, increased damage from fire and lower health regen.
And no, we are not talking past each other over "rank" v.s. "stage". I know what you meant, and you know what I meant. Those passives are only active at higher stages of vampirism. Stay stage one and they do nothing for you. Nor does that address the questionable value of using vampire skills over other abilities at that stage.
If you knew what I meant then why did you act like I was talking about passives instead of active skills? And why do you keep talking about passives even now as if it that is supposedly what I meant?
Because you can't just ignore them. Not only is there an ever present cost to being a vampire, but those passives define the vampire as such.
Plus you're being rather flippant about it when you tell people to just stay at stage one. It's on PTS right now because the devs want feedback on, among other things, whether or not the cost is too severe.
You can just ignore them.
Even if that were true, then you're left with the exact same problem we have now. Except instead of taking it for magicka regen, they take it for the not-a-necromancer ult. Hardly a step up.
Also, that still does not address the real question presented to us at this time. Is the penalty for being a vampire too harsh? Vampires aren't supposed to work like werewolves. Its not a transformation into a specific animal. Their concept and abilities, both passive and active, are by design meant to be infused into the existing character as a whole. Trying to ignore it like you have been by telling people to just stay stage one isn't going to make that go away.
It is true, Glurin. No one takes every passive in the game. You pick and choose which ones you want to go for. That's how character building works. Some passives you ignore. Other passives you take. It's the same ____ here.
As to your second point, I don't agree with your premise because I believe there are a lot of good reasons to take Vampire beside the ultimate. As I've pointed out to you previously, I believe the skill line is good. And that skill line is available to every Vampire at every Stage. You're also misrepresenting my argument. I did not tell people to just stay stage one. I told people who want to continue using their regular abilities liberally to stay stage 1. Players who want to focus more on using vampire abilities just shouldn't definitely go for the higher stages. It's a choice - and I'm generally of the belief the more choices players are given the more interesting the game. And these Vampire changes are a hell of a lot more interesting then everyone and their mother just picking it for the regen passive and then complaining about it.
You're still ignoring the fact that the passives are what make it a vampire. Without them, the rest of it is little more than variations on existing skills. Being shoehorned into using vampire skills exclusively is not what the whole concept is about. If it were, they could just abandon all of it right now and just do a copy/paste of werewolves with magicka and bats instead of stamina and wolves.
Furthermore, you are still refusing to address the real question. No, "stay at stage one" is NOT a viable answer at this time.Edited by Glurin on April 25, 2020 9:43AM"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster...when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you..."2 -
Jeremy✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭xxthir13enxx wrote: »Only ESO can release new vampire content that leads to vast amount of players hitting the Undo button on vampirism they’ve had for years...
New, exciting vampire content, and +90% of the community will remove vampirism from all or most of their characters. The rest will be roleplaying vampires in Solitude and Riften and decorate their +12k Crown vampire palace; or they will become vampire boosted gankers, bringing back a little of all that Nightblades have lost over the years.
Then those players had no real interest in being a Vampire anyway. Because Vampires are more powerful in Greymoor (not less). So there is no reason why someone who was actually interested in playing as a Vampire would undo it.
But 9,9 out of 10 current vampires became vampires for recovery and mitigation, not to roleplay. Is it really reasonable and fair to satisfy 0,1 or all players (many who have actually paid in real world currency for vampirism), because ZOS (and 0,1 of all vamps, like yourself) thinks it's a good idea?
If being a "normal" vampire was a prerequisite to pick a quest or whatever, to become these "super vampires" - it would be all good. A little like in Skyrim. This is just another of these huge changes, that affects a lot of people in an almost exclusively negative way, in true old ZOS fashion. A few always applaud these changes, but most don't.
It's not just for "roleplay" Raudrani. The new vampire skills are effective and have real game play applications.
Anyway; I don't see the problem here. Players who only chose Vampire for the regen and mitigation (the mitigation part I don't get, because the increased fire damage taken was more potent than undeath ever was) can go cure their Vamprism and no longer have to worry about being so ugly.
I also predict there are going to be a lot more than 0,1 players who are going to like these changes. In fact, I would be willing to bet you are going to see plenty of Vampires come Greymoor.Edited by Jeremy on April 25, 2020 9:48AM1 -
Jeremy✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭It gets trickier the higher rank you go because the ability cost will start to bite chunks out of your regular rotations. But that's obviously intended, since higher rank vampires are meant to be more concentrated on Vampirism. So I really don't understand what people's beef is with these changes. They can just stay rank 1 if they want to make liberal use of their other abilities. Problem solved and they still get access to better moves. Sounds like a win/win to me.
That's akin to telling werewolf players to "just slot the ultimate and never use it".
When you stay rank one, you get nothing from the passives. No, that's not quite right. What you get is a 5% increase in your ability costs, 5% more flame damage and 10% reduced health regen. But hey, now you can drain your magicka as a ball of mist or drain your health while simultaneously preventing healers from healing you, so it's all good, right?
I think maybe what you might be missing here is that at rank 4, those costs go up to 20% AND the flame damage goes up to 20% AND health regen goes to zero. Not percent, just a flat zero. No health regen at all. The "beef" is that all these changes put together add up to something pretty severe. Perhaps too severe, which is why it's on PTS right now. The devs want to know if that's the case.
But it's not the same as telling players to slot the werewolf ultimate and never use it. It's not even remotely the same.
You're right. Werewolves actually get more out of it.At rank 1 Vampire you have access to all its abilities
No, you don't. Several passives specifically say "when at rank x or higher". They do not activate at rank one. As for the active abilities, they are, for the most part, of questionable and/or niche value.
I said at rank 1 Vampire you have access to all its abilities (meaning skills). I was obviously not referring to the passives. But maybe I should say stage 1 Vampire instead. I think that's where we might be talking past each other.
And just what does a player get from slotting the werewolf ultimate and then never using it?
15% stamina recovery, which is a lot better than increased costs, increased damage from fire and lower health regen.
And no, we are not talking past each other over "rank" v.s. "stage". I know what you meant, and you know what I meant. Those passives are only active at higher stages of vampirism. Stay stage one and they do nothing for you. Nor does that address the questionable value of using vampire skills over other abilities at that stage.
If you knew what I meant then why did you act like I was talking about passives instead of active skills? And why do you keep talking about passives even now as if it that is supposedly what I meant?
Because you can't just ignore them. Not only is there an ever present cost to being a vampire, but those passives define the vampire as such.
Plus you're being rather flippant about it when you tell people to just stay at stage one. It's on PTS right now because the devs want feedback on, among other things, whether or not the cost is too severe.
You can just ignore them.
Even if that were true, then you're left with the exact same problem we have now. Except instead of taking it for magicka regen, they take it for the not-a-necromancer ult. Hardly a step up.
Also, that still does not address the real question presented to us at this time. Is the penalty for being a vampire too harsh? Vampires aren't supposed to work like werewolves. Its not a transformation into a specific animal. Their concept and abilities, both passive and active, are by design meant to be infused into the existing character as a whole. Trying to ignore it like you have been by telling people to just stay stage one isn't going to make that go away.
It is true, Glurin. No one takes every passive in the game. You pick and choose which ones you want to go for. That's how character building works. Some passives you ignore. Other passives you take. It's the same ____ here.
As to your second point, I don't agree with your premise because I believe there are a lot of good reasons to take Vampire beside the ultimate. As I've pointed out to you previously, I believe the skill line is good. And that skill line is available to every Vampire at every Stage. You're also misrepresenting my argument. I did not tell people to just stay stage one. I told people who want to continue using their regular abilities liberally to stay stage 1. Players who want to focus more on using vampire abilities just shouldn't definitely go for the higher stages. It's a choice - and I'm generally of the belief the more choices players are given the more interesting the game. And these Vampire changes are a hell of a lot more interesting then everyone and their mother just picking it for the regen passive and then complaining about it.
You're still ignoring the fact that the passives are what make it a vampire. Without them, the rest of it is little more than variations on existing skills. Being shoehorned into using vampire skills exclusively is not what the whole concept is about. If it were, they could just abandon all of it right now and just do a copy/paste of werewolves with magicka and bats instead of stamina and wolves.
No, you're ignoring the fact that 3 passives from stage 2~4 are not the only things that make it a vampire.
Pick the parts of the Vampire you want - or don't pick it at all. It's that simple. Hell, the stage 4 passive didn't even exist until Greymoor... so I guess according to your logic the Vampire didn't even exist before now?
If anything, Vampires are more defined now - as they have a more robust tool kit with a more realized fighting style. How much of that you want to incorporate into your build is entirely up to you (as it should be).Edited by Jeremy on April 25, 2020 10:00AM2 -
Paradisius✭✭✭✭Furthermore, you are still refusing to address the real question. No, "stay at stage one" is NOT a viable answer at this time.
I agree with this part, I do believe a fine middle ground would be to change the ability cost increase to 0/5/10/15, this way people who dont want to advance their stages dont feel like their gimped by just existing, while still providing some hefty detriments to those at higher stages.
4 -
Jeremy✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Paradisius wrote: »Furthermore, you are still refusing to address the real question. No, "stay at stage one" is NOT a viable answer at this time.
I agree with this part, I do believe a fine middle ground would be to change the ability cost increase to 0/5/10/15, this way people who dont want to advance their stages dont feel like their gimped by just existing, while still providing some hefty detriments to those at higher stages.
But I never said that.
What I said was that players who want to continue using their regular abilities liberally should stay at stage one. And they should, because that is the stage best suited for a Vampire who still wants to mostly use his or her regular abilities. That is by design.
What is even the point of having different Vampire stages if everyone who picks one is suppose to go straight to stage 4 because that's supposedly what makes it a vampire? It's a silly argument if you ask me. So I sided with the developers. It's more interesting for people to have to strategically choose which Vampire Stage best suits them. I like that approach. And that's what I was really saying. I was never trying to suggest everyone should just go to stage one and stay there.Edited by Jeremy on April 25, 2020 10:12AM1 -
Glurin✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭It gets trickier the higher rank you go because the ability cost will start to bite chunks out of your regular rotations. But that's obviously intended, since higher rank vampires are meant to be more concentrated on Vampirism. So I really don't understand what people's beef is with these changes. They can just stay rank 1 if they want to make liberal use of their other abilities. Problem solved and they still get access to better moves. Sounds like a win/win to me.
That's akin to telling werewolf players to "just slot the ultimate and never use it".
When you stay rank one, you get nothing from the passives. No, that's not quite right. What you get is a 5% increase in your ability costs, 5% more flame damage and 10% reduced health regen. But hey, now you can drain your magicka as a ball of mist or drain your health while simultaneously preventing healers from healing you, so it's all good, right?
I think maybe what you might be missing here is that at rank 4, those costs go up to 20% AND the flame damage goes up to 20% AND health regen goes to zero. Not percent, just a flat zero. No health regen at all. The "beef" is that all these changes put together add up to something pretty severe. Perhaps too severe, which is why it's on PTS right now. The devs want to know if that's the case.
But it's not the same as telling players to slot the werewolf ultimate and never use it. It's not even remotely the same.
You're right. Werewolves actually get more out of it.At rank 1 Vampire you have access to all its abilities
No, you don't. Several passives specifically say "when at rank x or higher". They do not activate at rank one. As for the active abilities, they are, for the most part, of questionable and/or niche value.
I said at rank 1 Vampire you have access to all its abilities (meaning skills). I was obviously not referring to the passives. But maybe I should say stage 1 Vampire instead. I think that's where we might be talking past each other.
And just what does a player get from slotting the werewolf ultimate and then never using it?
15% stamina recovery, which is a lot better than increased costs, increased damage from fire and lower health regen.
And no, we are not talking past each other over "rank" v.s. "stage". I know what you meant, and you know what I meant. Those passives are only active at higher stages of vampirism. Stay stage one and they do nothing for you. Nor does that address the questionable value of using vampire skills over other abilities at that stage.
If you knew what I meant then why did you act like I was talking about passives instead of active skills? And why do you keep talking about passives even now as if it that is supposedly what I meant?
Because you can't just ignore them. Not only is there an ever present cost to being a vampire, but those passives define the vampire as such.
Plus you're being rather flippant about it when you tell people to just stay at stage one. It's on PTS right now because the devs want feedback on, among other things, whether or not the cost is too severe.
You can just ignore them.
Even if that were true, then you're left with the exact same problem we have now. Except instead of taking it for magicka regen, they take it for the not-a-necromancer ult. Hardly a step up.
Also, that still does not address the real question presented to us at this time. Is the penalty for being a vampire too harsh? Vampires aren't supposed to work like werewolves. Its not a transformation into a specific animal. Their concept and abilities, both passive and active, are by design meant to be infused into the existing character as a whole. Trying to ignore it like you have been by telling people to just stay stage one isn't going to make that go away.
It is true, Glurin. No one takes every passive in the game. You pick and choose which ones you want to go for. That's how character building works. Some passives you ignore. Other passives you take. It's the same ____ here.
As to your second point, I don't agree with your premise because I believe there are a lot of good reasons to take Vampire beside the ultimate. As I've pointed out to you previously, I believe the skill line is good. And that skill line is available to every Vampire at every Stage. You're also misrepresenting my argument. I did not tell people to just stay stage one. I told people who want to continue using their regular abilities liberally to stay stage 1. Players who want to focus more on using vampire abilities just shouldn't definitely go for the higher stages. It's a choice - and I'm generally of the belief the more choices players are given the more interesting the game. And these Vampire changes are a hell of a lot more interesting then everyone and their mother just picking it for the regen passive and then complaining about it.
You're still ignoring the fact that the passives are what make it a vampire. Without them, the rest of it is little more than variations on existing skills. Being shoehorned into using vampire skills exclusively is not what the whole concept is about. If it were, they could just abandon all of it right now and just do a copy/paste of werewolves with magicka and bats instead of stamina and wolves.
No, you're ignoring the fact that 3 passives from stage 2~4 do not make it a vampire.
Pick the parts of the Vampire you want - or don't pick it at all. It's that simple. Hell, the stage 4 passive didn't even exist until Greymoor... so I guess according to your logic the Vampire didn't even exist before now.
If anything, Vampires are more defined now - as they have a more robust tool kit with a more realized fight style.
I don't believe you actually comprehend the problem.
it seems that, to you, it's just another skill line to cherry pick from. The idea behind it is meaningless. It could be called "Mustard Farmer" for all it matters to you, as long as it's got some nice weapon damage buffs or a handy escape skill. Doesn't matter if half of it didn't work or it limits gameplay or what the concept as a whole looks like or functions as.
Well when I, and others, said the passives define the vampire, we are referring to the entire concept which is the foundation of the play style. Vampires are not like werewolves. You are supposed to integrate them into your character at every stage, not just stage one. And when I say character, I am again referring to the entire entity that is your avatar. Not just replacing your skill bar with vampire abilities. That raises the question of whether or not the current PTS implementation is too punishing. That is why "stay stage one" is not a viable answer. It dodges the question."He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster...when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you..."2 -
Glurin✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Paradisius wrote: »Furthermore, you are still refusing to address the real question. No, "stay at stage one" is NOT a viable answer at this time.
I agree with this part, I do believe a fine middle ground would be to change the ability cost increase to 0/5/10/15, this way people who dont want to advance their stages dont feel like their gimped by just existing, while still providing some hefty detriments to those at higher stages.
But I never said that.
What I said was that players who want to continue using their regular abilities liberally should stay at stage one. And they should, because that is the stage best suited for a Vampire who still wants to mostly use his or her regular abilities. That is by design.
What is even the point of having different Vampire stages if everyone who picks one is suppose to go straight to stage 4 because that's supposedly what makes it a vampire? It's a silly argument if you ask me. So I sided with the developers. It's more interesting for people to have to strategically choose which Vampire Stage best suits them. I like that approach. And that's what I was really saying. I was never trying to suggest everyone should just go to stage one and stay there.
Except that that is exactly what you were telling people to do. You weren't interested in what people actually thought about the implementation when if anything this is the precise moment in development where those opinions need to be heard. Instead you simply told us to stay at stage one if we didn't like it.Edited by Glurin on April 25, 2020 10:22AM"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster...when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you..."3 -
Jeremy✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭It gets trickier the higher rank you go because the ability cost will start to bite chunks out of your regular rotations. But that's obviously intended, since higher rank vampires are meant to be more concentrated on Vampirism. So I really don't understand what people's beef is with these changes. They can just stay rank 1 if they want to make liberal use of their other abilities. Problem solved and they still get access to better moves. Sounds like a win/win to me.
That's akin to telling werewolf players to "just slot the ultimate and never use it".
When you stay rank one, you get nothing from the passives. No, that's not quite right. What you get is a 5% increase in your ability costs, 5% more flame damage and 10% reduced health regen. But hey, now you can drain your magicka as a ball of mist or drain your health while simultaneously preventing healers from healing you, so it's all good, right?
I think maybe what you might be missing here is that at rank 4, those costs go up to 20% AND the flame damage goes up to 20% AND health regen goes to zero. Not percent, just a flat zero. No health regen at all. The "beef" is that all these changes put together add up to something pretty severe. Perhaps too severe, which is why it's on PTS right now. The devs want to know if that's the case.
But it's not the same as telling players to slot the werewolf ultimate and never use it. It's not even remotely the same.
You're right. Werewolves actually get more out of it.At rank 1 Vampire you have access to all its abilities
No, you don't. Several passives specifically say "when at rank x or higher". They do not activate at rank one. As for the active abilities, they are, for the most part, of questionable and/or niche value.
I said at rank 1 Vampire you have access to all its abilities (meaning skills). I was obviously not referring to the passives. But maybe I should say stage 1 Vampire instead. I think that's where we might be talking past each other.
And just what does a player get from slotting the werewolf ultimate and then never using it?
15% stamina recovery, which is a lot better than increased costs, increased damage from fire and lower health regen.
And no, we are not talking past each other over "rank" v.s. "stage". I know what you meant, and you know what I meant. Those passives are only active at higher stages of vampirism. Stay stage one and they do nothing for you. Nor does that address the questionable value of using vampire skills over other abilities at that stage.
If you knew what I meant then why did you act like I was talking about passives instead of active skills? And why do you keep talking about passives even now as if it that is supposedly what I meant?
Because you can't just ignore them. Not only is there an ever present cost to being a vampire, but those passives define the vampire as such.
Plus you're being rather flippant about it when you tell people to just stay at stage one. It's on PTS right now because the devs want feedback on, among other things, whether or not the cost is too severe.
You can just ignore them.
Even if that were true, then you're left with the exact same problem we have now. Except instead of taking it for magicka regen, they take it for the not-a-necromancer ult. Hardly a step up.
Also, that still does not address the real question presented to us at this time. Is the penalty for being a vampire too harsh? Vampires aren't supposed to work like werewolves. Its not a transformation into a specific animal. Their concept and abilities, both passive and active, are by design meant to be infused into the existing character as a whole. Trying to ignore it like you have been by telling people to just stay stage one isn't going to make that go away.
It is true, Glurin. No one takes every passive in the game. You pick and choose which ones you want to go for. That's how character building works. Some passives you ignore. Other passives you take. It's the same ____ here.
As to your second point, I don't agree with your premise because I believe there are a lot of good reasons to take Vampire beside the ultimate. As I've pointed out to you previously, I believe the skill line is good. And that skill line is available to every Vampire at every Stage. You're also misrepresenting my argument. I did not tell people to just stay stage one. I told people who want to continue using their regular abilities liberally to stay stage 1. Players who want to focus more on using vampire abilities just shouldn't definitely go for the higher stages. It's a choice - and I'm generally of the belief the more choices players are given the more interesting the game. And these Vampire changes are a hell of a lot more interesting then everyone and their mother just picking it for the regen passive and then complaining about it.
You're still ignoring the fact that the passives are what make it a vampire. Without them, the rest of it is little more than variations on existing skills. Being shoehorned into using vampire skills exclusively is not what the whole concept is about. If it were, they could just abandon all of it right now and just do a copy/paste of werewolves with magicka and bats instead of stamina and wolves.
No, you're ignoring the fact that 3 passives from stage 2~4 do not make it a vampire.
Pick the parts of the Vampire you want - or don't pick it at all. It's that simple. Hell, the stage 4 passive didn't even exist until Greymoor... so I guess according to your logic the Vampire didn't even exist before now.
If anything, Vampires are more defined now - as they have a more robust tool kit with a more realized fight style.
I don't believe you actually comprehend the problem.
it seems that, to you, it's just another skill line to cherry pick from. The idea behind it is meaningless. It could be called "Mustard Farmer" for all it matters to you, as long as it's got some nice weapon damage buffs or a handy escape skill. Doesn't matter if half of it didn't work or it limits gameplay or what the concept as a whole looks like or functions as.
Well when I, and others, said the passives define the vampire, we are referring to the entire concept which is the foundation of the play style. Vampires are not like werewolves. You are supposed to integrate them into your character at every stage, not just stage one. And when I say character, I am again referring to the entire entity that is your avatar. Not just replacing your skill bar with vampire abilities. That raises the question of whether or not the current PTS implementation is too punishing. That is why "stay stage one" is not a viable answer. It dodges the question.
As noted, the stage 4 passive did not even exist prior to Greymoor. So it's a little odd to suggest if a player doesn't pick it up it that somehow undermines it's concept and foundation.
I would also think you are suppose to integrate the Vampire Skill Line into your character how ever you choose. That is why the developers have given us the choice. It's also confusing to me why you believe it is intended for players to integrate every stage into their character. If that was the case, why did the developers do away with with the use of Vampire Abilities advancing your stage? If they truly wanted players to have to integrate every stage into their character I would have thought they would keep that mechanic in place. So it's fairly obvious to me the intent here is to give players more control over what Vampire Stage they're in.
And stay in stage one is a viable answer for Vampires who want to continue to mostly use their regular abilities. That's not dodging the question. That's solving the question by using the new system intelligently. The later stages are designed for builds that are more focused on using Vampire abilities. That is also quite obvious.
As to whether or not it is too "punishing" that's a different question and one I can't really answer, because I haven't worked on a stage 4 all (or mostly all) Vampire build yet. So I'm not sure how effective they can be.Edited by Jeremy on April 25, 2020 11:11AM1 -
Jeremy✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Paradisius wrote: »Furthermore, you are still refusing to address the real question. No, "stay at stage one" is NOT a viable answer at this time.
I agree with this part, I do believe a fine middle ground would be to change the ability cost increase to 0/5/10/15, this way people who dont want to advance their stages dont feel like their gimped by just existing, while still providing some hefty detriments to those at higher stages.
But I never said that.
What I said was that players who want to continue using their regular abilities liberally should stay at stage one. And they should, because that is the stage best suited for a Vampire who still wants to mostly use his or her regular abilities. That is by design.
What is even the point of having different Vampire stages if everyone who picks one is suppose to go straight to stage 4 because that's supposedly what makes it a vampire? It's a silly argument if you ask me. So I sided with the developers. It's more interesting for people to have to strategically choose which Vampire Stage best suits them. I like that approach. And that's what I was really saying. I was never trying to suggest everyone should just go to stage one and stay there.
Except that that is exactly what you were telling people to do. You weren't interested in what people actually thought about the implementation when if anything this is the precise moment in development where those opinions need to be heard. Instead you simply told us to stay at stage one if we didn't like it.
Let me try this again:
I am telling people who want to create hybrid vampire builds that still make liberal use of their regular abilities to try them at stage 1 (not stage 4). Such builds can still be very effective with only a +5% penalty. That's far more productive than joining in on all the misleading melodrama that assumes everyone must play vampire at a 40% ability cost penalty, which is simply hogwash.
The new system is actually well implemented and gives players a lot of control over what stage they play in. Now if you want to interpret this comment as me telling you to stay in stage one if you don't like it and I don't care what you have to say or whatever... then be my guest. But that's not what I'm saying.Edited by Jeremy on April 25, 2020 11:03AM1 -
Lord-Otto✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭I can't actually remember a time in The Elder Scrolls single player games I actually cared about the vampire abilities. Sure Night Eye and Detect life all in one was a nice power in Oblivion but I never once used vampiric drain, and I had specific spells that were better than what vampire had. Even in Skyrim I found myself flinging fireballs and using restoration magic instead of the vampire abilities like the Lord form and Vampiric Drain. Sure the Bloodstone Chalice let the drain spell regenerate magicka but.... you get high enough in destruction and you deal incredible amounts of damage for almost no magicka. Also Fast Healing was superior in every way.
Vampires across pretty much every single game have been played for their passive benefits with the rare case they might have a power you could use. I don't mind a more active approach on vampires that ZOS is trying to take, but when you make the penalty for being a stage 4 vampire so high, and then make it so people have to feed to get there, nobody will ever feed. Some might say this statement is an over exaggeration but that cost increase is devastating in PVP. Moment you fight a hard to kill target you'll be starving for resources because the current vampire toolkit can't handle every single situation. You'll be using other abilities to supplement the obvious flaws in the vampire skill line and its going to cost you dearly.
The Vampire Lord's version of Vampiric Drain was actually the best AoE spell in Skyrim. Not even two Fireballs combined with the Dual Cast perk were as strong. Only exception was a target weak to fire.
The Bloodstone Chalice was exclusive to siding with Volkihar. You could still get the Lord form when siding with the Dawnguard. What it did was basically negating the cost of your Drain spell so you could spam it, even in sunlight.
Vampire Lord also gave you the ability to fling enemies off of mountains and other heights for extreme fall damage. It was THE best way to kill stuff on legendary difficulty.
You also got to summon a (or two) gargoyles, THE most powerful summon in Skyrim.
TL; DR: Vampire Lord was super overpowered in Skyrim.
Before Dawnguard, vampires were taken for the passives, full stop, period. As you already said, the active powers were a really minor thing. Only invisibility was noteworthy, and that is the biggest point of contention in ESO, funny enough. In fact, in Skyrim, vampirism was often taken for the Necromage Restoration perk that would increase ALL boni and mali for your undead character. It was the only way to get 100% spell absorption and permanent magical immunity.
What does that mean for ESO?
Well, the Scion form would have to have unique, more powerful spells than non-Scions. This is clearly not the case.
Normal vampires should get a boost to ALL their abilities, but suffer from weaknesses all the time. This used to be a thing and people lived with it. Tinkering with it does not fit lore or gameplay mechanics of the past.
ZOS are trying something new here. They are kind of creating a new "secondary class", available to everyone. It's new ground and therefore subject to ESO-specific criticism. That being that the vampire skill line just isn't as complete as a real class. Unsurprisingly, given a real class has three skill lines and two weapon lines.
It makes no sense to increase non-vamp cost so drastically. Vampires are not a full class. You NEED your primary class skills. You shouldn't get punished for ZOS' class design.1 -
Raudgrani✭✭✭✭✭
✭xxthir13enxx wrote: »Only ESO can release new vampire content that leads to vast amount of players hitting the Undo button on vampirism they’ve had for years...
New, exciting vampire content, and +90% of the community will remove vampirism from all or most of their characters. The rest will be roleplaying vampires in Solitude and Riften and decorate their +12k Crown vampire palace; or they will become vampire boosted gankers, bringing back a little of all that Nightblades have lost over the years.
Then those players had no real interest in being a Vampire anyway. Because Vampires are more powerful in Greymoor (not less). So there is no reason why someone who was actually interested in playing as a Vampire would undo it.
But 9,9 out of 10 current vampires became vampires for recovery and mitigation, not to roleplay. Is it really reasonable and fair to satisfy 0,1 or all players (many who have actually paid in real world currency for vampirism), because ZOS (and 0,1 of all vamps, like yourself) thinks it's a good idea?
If being a "normal" vampire was a prerequisite to pick a quest or whatever, to become these "super vampires" - it would be all good. A little like in Skyrim. This is just another of these huge changes, that affects a lot of people in an almost exclusively negative way, in true old ZOS fashion. A few always applaud these changes, but most don't.
It's not just for "roleplay" Raudrani. The new vampire skills are effective and have real game play applications.
Anyway; I don't see the problem here. Players who only chose Vampire for the regen and mitigation (the mitigation part I don't get, because the increased fire damage taken was more potent than undeath ever was) can go cure their Vamprism and no longer have to worry about being so ugly.
I also predict there are going to be a lot more than 0,1 players who are going to like these changes. In fact, I would be willing to bet you are going to see plenty of Vampires come Greymoor.
I fail to see how I can use any of the "benefits", if I'm not going all-in and play vampire as some sort of additional class. I mean, 20% increased cost? NO. Just give me my recovery back, that's why I got vampirisim in every single case. Not to be a roleplaying vampire kind of guy. I couldn't care less about being "ugly", if it bothers me I can hide with any of the skins I have, or simply use a headpiece that covers the face.
I call the mitigtion "two faced", because it might be good in a way, but the most common element of damage - fire - still hurts pretty bad. Health recovery penalty was kind of reasonable, but it isn't now. I think 10% extra recovery was a pretty fair deal for the fire susceptibility and health recovery penalty. Now all that was good is gone, left is something for very niche specifically vampire focused builds.
Yes, I realize you can make nasty nightblade gankbuilds, and probably use it to make magicka necromancers somewhat viable - but I feel it really doesn't make up for the enormous part of the community, that is affected by it in a negative way.
Anyone may feel what they want about this. I just wish it was a choice, a quest kind of thing you had to go through to get; that it isn't, and that even people who don't buy the DLC will get it, makes it feel pretty obvious it's not "all good" - they know many will hate it!
What I won't buy, is that I should think "it's good because the skills are op". I don't want to play as a vampire, it's really not my thing. I just see 10% recovery gone on most of my characters, with a lot of other additional negative aspects, and nothing to really gain from it. Truly annoying for those who BOUGHT vampirisim, for the recovery alone. It's like buying steroids and having birth control pills instead now.3 -
Lotus781✭✭✭✭Yep everyones gonna be a lvl 1vamp now and zos will swap the visuals around so you have to be lvl 4 to look pretty just to stick the boot in.8
-
Mayrael✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Blah blah blah... Yeah right, if some of you don't care about cloak then why go stage 4? Stay at stay stage one (which could be changed to 0% increase on nonvamp abilities, no cost reduction on vamp abilities and no hp recovery debuff, 5% more damage from fire would be ok) and use all of the active abilities as you want
but... but... no! You want free cloak without any cost. That's not going to happen. Undead, Strike from the shadows, Unnatural movement - these all are equivalents of 5pc sets each. You want those buffs at cost of just 20% additional fire damage? (Because nobody cares about hp recovery anyway)? I'm done with this game because of ZOS pushing us into Vengeance, because they don't know how to fix Cyrodiil.2