The Gold Road Chapter – which includes the Scribing system – and Update 42 is now available to test on the PTS! You can read the latest patch notes here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/656454/
Maintenance for the week of April 29:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 29
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 29
Enchanting: "Okoma" after Greymoor - Oblivion damage or health cost reduction?
Ratzkifal
✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
We have Denima, Makkoma and Okoma turning into stamina, magicka and health recovery glyphs respectively when used with an additive potency rune.
But when you use a subtractive potency rune Denima and Makkoma turn into cost reducing glyphs while Okoma turns into an Oblivion damage glyph.
In Greymoor the new Indeko rune introduces tri-stat recovery and tri-stat cost reduction, establishing health cost reduction as an effect.
With this in mind, should Okoma be brought in line with Makkoma and Denima for the sake of consistency? Or should Okoma remain the way it is and a new rune gets used for single-stat health cost reduction glyphs?
But when you use a subtractive potency rune Denima and Makkoma turn into cost reducing glyphs while Okoma turns into an Oblivion damage glyph.
In Greymoor the new Indeko rune introduces tri-stat recovery and tri-stat cost reduction, establishing health cost reduction as an effect.
With this in mind, should Okoma be brought in line with Makkoma and Denima for the sake of consistency? Or should Okoma remain the way it is and a new rune gets used for single-stat health cost reduction glyphs?
This Bosmer was tortured to death. There is nothing left to be done.
Enchanting: "Okoma" after Greymoor - Oblivion damage or health cost reduction? 21 votes
Okoma should be used to make health cost reduction glyphs instead and a new rune shall be used for Oblivion damage glyphs.
33%
7 votes
Okoma should continue to be used for Oblivion damage glyphs and a new rune shall be used for health cost reduction glyphs.
38%
8 votes
Health cost reduction glyphs should not be a thing because...
28%
6 votes
0
-
SeaGtGruff✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Health cost reduction glyphs should not be a thing because...... because I don't understand what that even means.
Stamina abilities use Stamina, so an enchantment that reduces the Stamina cost of Stamina abilities makes sense.
Magicka abilities use Magicka, so an enchantment that reduces the Magicka cost of Magicka abilities makes sense.
Health abilities use... Wait a minute, are there abilities that use Health? I mean, besides those abominations that let you spend a chunk of your Health to restore some Stamina or Magicka, or whatever it is those abilities do. I don't think I've ever spent Skill Points on those abominations, and I call them abominations because the very thought of deliberately sacrificing a chunk of my health to regain some Stamina or Magicka goes against my nature. If I'm in the middle of a battle and suddenly find myself short of Stamina or Magicka, chances are I'm also short of Health. I want to get a bit of healing, not give up some of my health on purpose.
Besides, it seems like a bad idea to change the basic meaning (effect) of an existing rune. Adding new runes is okay, and tweaking the strength of a rune's effect is okay, but changing the basic effect to something completely different seems like it would add needless confusion.I've fought mudcrabs more fearsome than me!1 -
SeaGtGruff✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Health cost reduction glyphs should not be a thing because...Okay, I had a look at the class skills on UESP to refresh my memory.
Nightblade has one skill where the cost is Health rather than Magicka or Stamina-- Malevolent Offering.
Necromancer has one skill where the cost is Health rather than Magicka or Stamina-- Expunge.
Have I missed any others?
So you want to fundamentally change the well-established meaning of an existing rune just for the sake of two skills, which aren't even available unless you're a Nightblade or a Necromancer, and even then only one of them is available to you since you can't be two different classes at the same time?I've fought mudcrabs more fearsome than me!2 -
karekiz✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Okoma should continue to be used for Oblivion damage glyphs and a new rune shall be used for health cost reduction glyphs.Hes probably thinking about the new vamp stuff. The spammable requires health, and the conversion to spell damage/weapon damage requires Health per second.
Also tanks sac HP for Mana all the time <still wouldn't use the enchant>. HP is a dime a dozen with a healer. Resources? Those are a bit harder.Edited by karekiz on April 29, 2020 8:37PM1 -
Ratzkifal✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭SeaGtGruff wrote: »Okay, I had a look at the class skills on UESP to refresh my memory.
Nightblade has one skill where the cost is Health rather than Magicka or Stamina-- Malevolent Offering.
Necromancer has one skill where the cost is Health rather than Magicka or Stamina-- Expunge.
Have I missed any others?
So you want to fundamentally change the well-established meaning of an existing rune just for the sake of two skills, which aren't even available unless you're a Nightblade or a Necromancer, and even then only one of them is available to you since you can't be two different classes at the same time?
Overflowing Altar from Undaunted, one of the most commonly used skills by tanks and healers alike in trials since it's strong, provides a synergy and everyone has access to it regardless of class.
Two of the new vampire abilities cost health as well.
Health has been considered a resource for quite a while now. The question is, should Okoma now follow Denima and Makkoma or should a different rune take this job?This Bosmer was tortured to death. There is nothing left to be done.0 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Okoma should continue to be used for Oblivion damage glyphs and a new rune shall be used for health cost reduction glyphs.Okoma should stay the way it is because people shouldn't need to relearn something they have been doing that way for years just for a semantics difference.1 -
Ratzkifal✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »Okoma should stay the way it is because people shouldn't need to relearn something they have been doing that way for years just for a semantics difference.
It's a fair point, but it begs the question what the other effect from a health cost decrease rune would be? Perhaps healing absorption?
I'm not sure which option I prefer out of the first two because the same question appears in regards to the new supposed Oblivion damage rune. There is no resistance against Oblivion damage by design, so what would that be? Max health % increase because it's the opposite? That sounds a bit strong...This Bosmer was tortured to death. There is nothing left to be done.0 -
Ghnami✭✭✭Health cost reduction glyphs should not be a thing because...reducing health costs is a good way to exploit over-statted skills like the NB heal, balance/spell sym, and the new vamp skills. The issue is if you could reduce their costs, you essentially are removing the risk. Also seems extremely bad in general, since spell damage/mag/stam/wep damage would increase your healing, which is likely better in almost every situation UNLESS you're exploiting it somehow.
So you either have something worthless or something to exploit. No thanks.0 -
Ratzkifal✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭reducing health costs is a good way to exploit over-statted skills like the NB heal, balance/spell sym, and the new vamp skills. The issue is if you could reduce their costs, you essentially are removing the risk. Also seems extremely bad in general, since spell damage/mag/stam/wep damage would increase your healing, which is likely better in almost every situation UNLESS you're exploiting it somehow.
So you either have something worthless or something to exploit. No thanks.
I disagree. You are indeed reducing risk but by deciding against a damage glyph you are also reducing reward, which is a fair trade. I can see health cost reduction glyphs being useful in some PvP builds but not gamebreakingly useful in any.
For example while it would allow Necromancers to cleanse a bit more and NBs to heal more, it also makes them deal quite a bit less damage. A dedicated NB healer might want to pick those glyphs up and it would not make him any stronger than a dedicated healer of any other class using a different glyph.
We are already getting health cost reduction in the form of Indeko, but with the way percent-based cost reductions interact with flat cost reductions, the tri-recovery will be more useful than the tri-cost reduction in all situations. But there are not a whole lot of percentage based health cost reducing effects around. Imperials, Templars and the Mage's guild passive are all there is, so a pure Health cost reduction would still be a desireable effect.This Bosmer was tortured to death. There is nothing left to be done.0 -
SeaGtGruff✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Health cost reduction glyphs should not be a thing because...Thanks, everyone, for the explanations. I guess, then, change my vote to "add a new rune for that but keep the old rune as is."I've fought mudcrabs more fearsome than me!0 -
Ghnami✭✭✭Health cost reduction glyphs should not be a thing because...reducing health costs is a good way to exploit over-statted skills like the NB heal, balance/spell sym, and the new vamp skills. The issue is if you could reduce their costs, you essentially are removing the risk. Also seems extremely bad in general, since spell damage/mag/stam/wep damage would increase your healing, which is likely better in almost every situation UNLESS you're exploiting it somehow.
So you either have something worthless or something to exploit. No thanks.
I disagree. You are indeed reducing risk but by deciding against a damage glyph you are also reducing reward, which is a fair trade. I can see health cost reduction glyphs being useful in some PvP builds but not gamebreakingly useful in any.
For example while it would allow Necromancers to cleanse a bit more and NBs to heal more, it also makes them deal quite a bit less damage. A dedicated NB healer might want to pick those glyphs up and it would not make him any stronger than a dedicated healer of any other class using a different glyph.
We are already getting health cost reduction in the form of Indeko, but with the way percent-based cost reductions interact with flat cost reductions, the tri-recovery will be more useful than the tri-cost reduction in all situations. But there are not a whole lot of percentage based health cost reducing effects around. Imperials, Templars and the Mage's guild passive are all there is, so a pure Health cost reduction would still be a desireable effect.
Do you not see them nerfing healing? Why would they support one specific class's burst heal and pretty much nothing else in the game, ONLY for pvp because in pve you'll be laughed off your raid for wearing hp cost reduction. This is a bad idea and you need to think a lot more about what is in the game before asking for something like this. It is either useless, like in pve cuz healers use hots, and it doesnt matter if you pay 5k hp or 4k hp, or potentially so annoying and broken no one would want to play against it, like if a night blade could spam an extremely strong burst heal for basically nothing. Templars and sorcs pay hefty mag fees for their heals, not even triple reduce cost makes them as spammable as the NB's could be since you can just stack them up and rapid regen all the damage0 -
Ratzkifal✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭reducing health costs is a good way to exploit over-statted skills like the NB heal, balance/spell sym, and the new vamp skills. The issue is if you could reduce their costs, you essentially are removing the risk. Also seems extremely bad in general, since spell damage/mag/stam/wep damage would increase your healing, which is likely better in almost every situation UNLESS you're exploiting it somehow.
So you either have something worthless or something to exploit. No thanks.
I disagree. You are indeed reducing risk but by deciding against a damage glyph you are also reducing reward, which is a fair trade. I can see health cost reduction glyphs being useful in some PvP builds but not gamebreakingly useful in any.
For example while it would allow Necromancers to cleanse a bit more and NBs to heal more, it also makes them deal quite a bit less damage. A dedicated NB healer might want to pick those glyphs up and it would not make him any stronger than a dedicated healer of any other class using a different glyph.
We are already getting health cost reduction in the form of Indeko, but with the way percent-based cost reductions interact with flat cost reductions, the tri-recovery will be more useful than the tri-cost reduction in all situations. But there are not a whole lot of percentage based health cost reducing effects around. Imperials, Templars and the Mage's guild passive are all there is, so a pure Health cost reduction would still be a desireable effect.
Do you not see them nerfing healing? Why would they support one specific class's burst heal and pretty much nothing else in the game, ONLY for pvp because in pve you'll be laughed off your raid for wearing hp cost reduction. This is a bad idea and you need to think a lot more about what is in the game before asking for something like this. It is either useless, like in pve cuz healers use hots, and it doesnt matter if you pay 5k hp or 4k hp, or potentially so annoying and broken no one would want to play against it, like if a night blade could spam an extremely strong burst heal for basically nothing. Templars and sorcs pay hefty mag fees for their heals, not even triple reduce cost makes them as spammable as the NB's could be since you can just stack them up and rapid regen all the damage
Sorry, I just don't see the issue. If you want to be a dedicated healer on a NB in PvP, this would be a nice enchantment. But it's not going to make you more powerful than a Templar healer who can get either magicka regen enchants to spam their class heal just the same or spell damage to make the heal even stronger but also make them hit harder.
I am not asking ZOS to introduce health cost reduction, they are already doing that. I just find it strange to have that Denima, Makkoma and Indeko all work the same but Okoma doesn't. You can decrease your health costs already by 600 using Indeko. The difference between a 1100 health cost malevolent offering and a 800 health cost malevolent offering using a pure health cost enchant instead of Indeko is not too big. Aside from that, it also drains your health over 8 seconds after that, which will not be reduced by the health cost enchant at all, since it's damage and not a health cost. So they still can't spam it like you might think.Edited by Ratzkifal on May 1, 2020 7:38PMThis Bosmer was tortured to death. There is nothing left to be done.0