Hi ZOS, Might You Consider Permanent Buffs Specific to Tank/Healer/Damage Roles?

GrumpyDuckling · July 2020

Perhaps permanent buffs tied to the role we choose to fulfill could make character builds more interesting? It's a rough outline, but something like this:

Tank= Major Resolve + Major Vitality
Damage = Major Brutality/Sorcery + Major Savagery/Prophecy
Healer = Major Mending + Major Savagery/Prophecy

This would allow role-selection to matter a bit more in the character-building process, and we could see an uptick in usage of class skills that do cool things and provide identity/flavor outside of buffs. Thanks for considering.

Larcomar · July 2020

The problem with the idea of "permanent" buffs is that a lot of us do all three roles on the same toons. It's really not hard when you have 800cp, 300 skill points and capacity to carry half a dozen different sets. It would also unfairly restrict tanks /healers from switching gear and skills to do solo / content. What you're proposing would mean that people were pigeonholed in pretty restrictive roles.

GrumpyDuckling · July 2020

Larcomar wrote: »

It would also unfairly restrict tanks /healers from switching gear and skills to do solo / content. What you're proposing would mean that people were pigeonholed in pretty restrictive roles.

No, these buffs would be correlated with the role that you have highlighted/selected for your character. Go into social/group and scroll to the top to see what I am talking about. Switch the role you have highlighted/selected to get the desired buffs you want in solo content.

Also, nothing is being taken away, so what you are saying about being pigeonholed into restrictive roles doesn't make sense. You could be a tank who can still get Major Brutality/Sorcery, you'd just have to use a skill or potion to get it. What is proposed is to add flavor/more purpose to selecting roles, and allow us more freedom to slot non-buff identity skills.

Larcomar · July 2020

Err... OK. You might want to edit your OP. I think what you're proposing is a buff tied to the group role rather than a "permanent buff" - and not quite sure why you say "This would allow role-selection to matter a bit more in the character-building process. " I swap group role multiple times a day depending on what I'm doing and sometimes mid dungeon if only because if someone drops its much easier to step in as tank/healer and recruit a new dd than tank/healer.

As to having a tank / dps /heal buff tied to the group panel, I suppose it could work. It would save a skill slot and tackle the issue of classes that don't have inate ability to get that buff. But I wonder if this might make roles feel more meaningful at the price of making classes feel even less distinct (see posts here on giving all classes major sorcery for eg). A more minor pt is that it wd be odd (and potentially confusing for new players) to be changing something in group panel for solo purposes.

zvavi · July 2020

Those buffs r too ez to get as they are, and if you take away how ez it is it would be horrid in PvP.

You could give like this:
Dd - 400 spell/weapon dmg (depends on higher resource) & 4k penetrations.
Heal - 400 mag regen & 10% healing done.
Tank 400 regens (all 3) & 1k of each resource.

It will help reaching max penetrations and give proper regen without stressing out the dungeon group (pen is a bit lower than alkosh + minor fracture/breach, regen will help too cause let's face it, healers in dungeons don't do their jobs usually, sd/wd bonus comparable to minor courage + minor sorcery/brutality that u might not get in group).

Obviously buffs take place when you enter the dungeon. Arenas won't get it.

GrumpyDuckling · July 2020

Larcomar wrote: »

Error... OK. You might want to edit youre OP. I think what you're proposing is a buff tied to the group role rather than a "permanent buff" - and not quite sure why you say "This would allow role-selection to matter a bit more in the character-building process. " I swap group role multiple times a day depending on what I'm doing and sometimes mid dungeon if only because if someone drops its much easier to step in as tank/healer and recruit a new dd than tank/healer.

As to having a tank / dps /heal buff tied to the group panel, I suppose it could work. It would save a skill slot and tackle the issue of classes that don't have inate ability to get that buff. But I wonder if this might make roles feel more meaningful at the price of making classes feel even less distinct (see posts here on giving all classes major sorcery for eg). A more minor pt is that it wd be odd (and potentially confusing for new players) to be changing something in group panel for solo purposes.

No, nothing needs to be edited. The very first line of the post says, "...permanent buffs tied to the role we choose to fulfill..." There is only one way to choose the tanking/healing/damage roles in this game, and the sentence is clear that the permanent buffs would be "tied to the role."

I say "This would allow role-selection to matter a bit more in the character-building process" because it would. You gain the permanent buffs of a selected role, so you can build your character knowing what buffs you will gain from your role. If you switch roles in the middle of a dungeon, then you can change your character build by swapping skills now that you have different buffs.

I'm not concerned about this with new players -- there are far more confusing and unexplained complexities within this game than pressing social/group to change buffs.

Edit: Typo

GrumpyDuckling · July 2020

zvavi wrote: »

Those buffs r too ez to get as they are, and if you take away how ez it is it would be horrid in PvP.

I had to stop at this first sentence because I don't understand what you are saying. "Those buffs r too ez to get as they are, and if you take away how ez it is..."

What do you think is being taken away?

zvavi · July 2020

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

zvavi wrote: »

Those buffs r too ez to get as they are, and if you take away how ez it is it would be horrid in PvP.

I had to stop at this first sentence because I don't understand what you are saying. "Those buffs r too ez to get as they are, and if you take away how ez it is..."

What do you think is being taken away?

I don't... But if that's the buffs provided then the "role buffs" are useless (because are too ez to get). To make these "role buffs" useful, you will either need to take away how accessible those buffs are (which is a bad idea and I just mentioned it) or swap the buffs so they will fit well into dungeon groups, which is what my post was about.

Apologies if it was too messy.

GrumpyDuckling · July 2020

zvavi wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

zvavi wrote: »

Those buffs r too ez to get as they are, and if you take away how ez it is it would be horrid in PvP.

I had to stop at this first sentence because I don't understand what you are saying. "Those buffs r too ez to get as they are, and if you take away how ez it is..."

What do you think is being taken away?

I don't... But if that's the buffs provided then the "role buffs" are useless (because are too ez to get). To make these "role buffs" useful, you will either need to take away how accessible those buffs are (which is a bad idea and I just mentioned it) or swap the buffs so they will fit well into dungeon groups, which is what my post was about.

Apologies if it was too messy.

The role buffs aren't "useless." They open the door to fill previous buff spaces with a wider variety of skills, potions, and gear.

idk · July 2020

This is not needed at all. The design is so that we make a choice in what buffs we have active and how we obtain them. There is always a cost in that choice. Using the DPS as an example, every build has access to all the buffs suggested through more than one means. They may choose to use potions to obtain those buffs or a set bonus. With each choice, there is something else that they cannot have via the same means.

One significant problem is tank builds in PvP. With the idea suggested tank builds get more resistance which is the last thing that is needed in PvP. Considering Zos is insistent that everything works the same in PvP vs PvE sans reduction of damage and healing this would not be something that only worked in one area.

The idea also sets out to homogenize the game by making everything the same. This is probably the biggest issue as it does take away some of the uniqueness some classes have.

GrumpyDuckling · July 2020

idk wrote: »

This is not needed at all. The design is so that we make a choice in what buffs we have active and how we obtain them. There is always a cost in that choice. Using the DPS as an example, every build has access to all the buffs suggested through more than one means. They may choose to use potions to obtain those buffs or a set bonus. With each choice, there is something else that they cannot have via the same means.

One significant problem is tank builds in PvP. With the idea suggested tank builds get more resistance which is the last thing that is needed in PvP. Considering Zos is insistent that everything works the same in PvP vs PvE sans reduction of damage and healing this would not be something that only worked in one area.

The idea also sets out to homogenize the game by making everything the same. This is probably the biggest issue as it does take away some of the uniqueness some classes have.

I don't think you understand what you are writing. You just made these two contradictory statements in the same post:

1) "...every build has access to all the buffs suggested through more than one means."
2) "The idea also sets out to homogenize the game by making everything the same. This is probably the biggest issue as it does take away some of the uniqueness some classes have."

The problem with these two statements that you made is that if every class has access to all the buffs suggested though "more than one means," then, regarding these buffs, there isn't any class uniqueness for you to try to defend because every class has easy access to them...

[snip]

[Edited for Baiting]

zvavi · July 2020

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

The role buffs aren't "useless." They open the door to fill previous buff spaces with a wider variety of skills, potions, and gear.

Your original post said that those "buffs" would

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

This would allow role-selection to matter a bit more in the character-building process, and we could see an uptick in usage of class skills that do cool things and provide identity/flavor outside of buffs.

by your suggestion my dds will benefit most from fake tanking, my tanks would benefit most from fake healing, and my healers will obviously benefit most from fake dding. That's bad design.
This makes your suggestion useless in making role selection matter in character building. And was my main drive in my counter suggestion, that tried to provide buffs that will actually allow role selection to matter.

Now for your second "vision" for the buffs:

It might free up exactly 1 skill slot in most builds (out of 10!!!) While others will just keep using the same skills (rendering the buffs useless). 1 skill out of 12 (ultimate included) doesn't make a build have more flavour(especially when it needs to be cast once per over 20 seconds).
This makes your suggestion useless in giving classes more flavour for skills, gear and potions. Especially since you could just not get those buffs. And complete the dungeons just fine without that 10% crit.

GrumpyDuckling · July 2020

zvavi wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

The role buffs aren't "useless." They open the door to fill previous buff spaces with a wider variety of skills, potions, and gear.

Your original post said that those "buffs" would

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

This would allow role-selection to matter a bit more in the character-building process, and we could see an uptick in usage of class skills that do cool things and provide identity/flavor outside of buffs.

by your suggestion my dds will benefit most from fake tanking, my tanks would benefit most from fake healing, and my healers will obviously benefit most from fake dding. That's bad design.
This makes your suggestion useless in making role selection matter in character building. And was my main drive in my counter suggestion, that tried to provide buffs that will actually allow role selection to matter.

Now for your second "vision" for the buffs:

It might free up exactly 1 skill slot in most builds (out of 10!!!) While others will just keep using the same skills (rendering the buffs useless). 1 skill out of 12 (ultimate included) doesn't make a build have more flavour(especially when it needs to be cast once per over 20 seconds).
This makes your suggestion useless in giving classes more flavour for skills, gear and potions. Especially since you could just not get those buffs. And complete the dungeons just fine without that 10% crit.

I have no idea what you mean when you say "your original post said that those 'buffs' would."

Fake tanking isn't going to help your group unless it's a dungeon where you don't need a tank. So, go for it and either complete the easy dungeon or get the boot -- doesn't change how any faking works now.
Fake healing isn't going to help your group unless it's a dungeon where you don't need a healer. So, go for it and either complete the easy dungeon or get the boot -- doesn't change how any faking works now.
Fake damage dealing isn't going to help your group unless you just want the dungeon to take longer. So, go for it and either take longer or get the boot -- doesn't change how any faking works now.

My math could be terribly wrong, but sometimes it takes 2 skills to get 2 different buffs, so, in theory, and I know this is going to sound crazy, but you might actually free up, depending on your build, gasp, 2 slots! Again, my math could be way off, but I don't know many players who would balk at having 2 free slots to make decisions with (or even 1 for that matter) -- but feel free to call it useless all you want, but I think you're just plain wrong about that.

zvavi · July 2020

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Fake tanking isn't going to help your group unless it's a dungeon where you don't need a tank. So, go for it and either complete the easy dungeon or get the boot -- doesn't change how any faking works now.
Fake healing isn't going to help your group unless it's a dungeon where you don't need a healer. So, go for it and either complete the easy dungeon or get the boot -- doesn't change how any faking works now.
Fake damage dealing isn't going to help your group unless you just want the dungeon to take longer. So, go for it and either take longer or get the boot -- doesn't change how any faking works now.

You completely missed the point. The point was that roles will benefit most from buffs of other roles, making it bad design. And not going in line with your vision of "This would allow role-selection to matter a bit more in the character-building process"

My math could be terribly wrong, but sometimes it takes 2 skills to get 2 different buffs, so, in theory, and I know this is going to sound crazy, but you might actually free up, depending on your build, gasp, 2 slots! Again, my math could be way off, but I don't know many players who would balk at having 2 free slots to make decisions with (or even 1 for that matter) -- but feel free to call it useless all you want, but I think you're just plain wrong about that.

Good luck finding skills that give major vitality/mending (for more than 2 seconds, to give it enough viability for a skill bar slot to begin with).
And the buffs of major sorcery/prophecy/brutality/savagery looks like not wanting to change your build when you are cheap on potions, not making builds more "unique".

So ye. Let's agree to disagree.

lolo_01b16_ESO · July 2020

You should keep in mind that classes are balanced around the buffs they have.
Currently DK healers are kind of unique since they are the only class with easy access to major mending. However they are not stronger than others since they miss other healing related buffs. E.g. NBs have minor mending, higher max magicka and get more healing done for every siphoning skill they slot. Templars also have minor mending and a passive to do more healing on low hp targets.
Now if everyone would permanently get major mending, DKs would stay almost the same (they just could replace casting their shield with another skill) and other classes would get a massive buff.

Additionally in my opinion, heals are very strong already. So I don't think they need any buff.

DarkLordLegion · July 2020

How is this a character build? Because base on the math of X% out of 100 is just a number. All, it would do is slightly increase. Unless, you are wanting these buffs to double the amount. I agree these options are easy to get, by slotted them in the bar slot. Also, I am going to point to this out. Whatever the buff is in the group, everyone is able to get them. In the group, there is no way to tell if there's a tank character or a healer or a damage dealer in the group.

For this to actual work, is for the group leader has to have matching role, for an example: A healer. or a Group Leader assigns his or her party members to exact role. That would required lot of work to get a party set up. You got to think that most players wants to be able to finish a task as soon as he or she joins the group.

I would say Hell No to this idea.

Danksta · July 2020

I'd just select tank as my role as a dps since I'm getting the dps buffs from pots. All this would do is add to power creep.

Taleof2Cities · July 2020

I think the idea needs more thought, @GrumpyDuckling

It waters down theorycrafting into a character ... by letting players happily ignore major buffs in their skill and gear consideration.

Especially when you can change the "permanent" buff by simply clicking a different role in the dungeon finder.

GrumpyDuckling · July 2020

Danksta wrote: »

I'd just select tank as my role as a dps since I'm getting the dps buffs from pots. All this would do is add to power creep.

Why would you lie about your role when you could get the same exact benefits by not lying about your role?

Damage role gives Major Brutality/Sorcery and Major Savagery/Prophecy, and that would free up your potion slot for Major Vitality/Major Resolve if you really wanted the tank role buffs.

GrumpyDuckling · July 2020

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

I think the idea needs more thought, @GrumpyDuckling

It waters down theorycrafting into a character ... by letting players happily ignore major buffs in their skill and gear consideration.

Especially when you can change the "permanent" buff by simply clicking a different role in the dungeon finder.

@Taleof2Cities I think it's opposite of what you claim.

What is watered down now is that most players use the same major buff skills and major buff potions, effectively locking their builds into certain skills/potions. Tie these major buffs to roles, and you unlock access to a wider variety of skills/potions.

Eclipze · July 2020

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Perhaps permanent buffs tied to the role we choose to fulfill could make character builds more interesting? It's a rough outline, but something like this:

Tank= Major Resolve + Major Vitality
Damage = Major Brutality/Sorcery + Major Savagery/Prophecy
Healer = Major Mending + Major Savagery/Prophecy

This would allow role-selection to matter a bit more in the character-building process, and we could see an uptick in usage of class skills that do cool things and provide identity/flavor outside of buffs. Thanks for considering.

I disagree with this post. If you wanted any buffs for damage dealers or tanks / healers you can just craft the potions u need for the buffs or better yet buy them in the pvp vendor in cyrodiil if u dont want to spend any gold. The only "Permanent Buffs" that damage dealers and support roles get is minor aegis and minor slayer which requires you to run a set piece for dungeons and trials. now im all in favor of adding another minor buff such as Minor Magi that could be something along the lines of increase Max Mag or increase healing done by 5% while in dungeons and trials for healers i think that would be pretty cool since healers always get minor aegis in there set bonuses which is usually what the tanks should be wearing instead since they're the ones that are supposed to be taking all the damage.

DarkLordLegion · July 2020

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

What is watered down now is that most players use the same major buff skills and major buff potions, effectively locking their builds into certain skills/potions. Tie these major buffs to roles, and you unlock access to a wider variety of skills/potions.

Players should and be allow to play ESO in their own comfort fashion. That's mean using the same major buff skulls and major buff potions. From what has been written, you don't like the idea of players using potions, you rather have it all be nothing but powerful skills. You believe that using potions would slow down the rate of battle across the trials, Group Dungeon and such.

Like what Tale had said "theorycrafting" The ability to craft your style and use what's best for yourself not someone else. Sorry, if you think that this idea would somewhat limited of creativity. Creativity means the freedom to choice of what resources and designs and so forth to be used.

Danksta · July 2020

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Danksta wrote: »

I'd just select tank as my role as a dps since I'm getting the dps buffs from pots. All this would do is add to power creep.

Why would you lie about your role when you could get the same exact benefits by not lying about your role?

Damage role gives Major Brutality/Sorcery and Major Savagery/Prophecy, and that would free up your potion slot for Major Vitality/Major Resolve if you really wanted the tank role buffs.

Because major vitality wouldn't have 100% uptime with potions.

idk · July 2020

.

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

I think the idea needs more thought, @GrumpyDuckling

It waters down theorycrafting into a character ... by letting players happily ignore major buffs in their skill and gear consideration.

Especially when you can change the "permanent" buff by simply clicking a different role in the dungeon finder.

I agree and is essentially part of one of the points I was making. Much of ESO is about choice. If we are just giving out the buffs then that is one less choice we have to make. It also makes certain buffs pointless, imo. If all dps and healers have ajor Savagery/Prophecy then why have it at all.

It works well with the current design, that everyone has access to those buffs but has to choose if they will use them and if so how they will obtain them. This entire game is about choice. Removing those choices takes away much of what makes ESO stand above other MMORPGs.

Vaoh · July 2020

Something like if you queue as:
• Tank: Bosses always target you unless someone else applies a taunt. Also 10% reduced damage taken.
• Healer: 25% more healing done toward allies.
• DPS: 15% more damage done

Dungeons aren’t for leaderboards. This would at least help people choose the correct role and incentivize groups to kick fakers, since they’d be wasting the buffs.

Eclipze · July 2020

Vaoh wrote: »

Something like if you queue as:
• Tank: Bosses always target you unless someone else applies a taunt. Also 10% reduced damage taken.
• Healer: 25% more healing done toward allies.
• DPS: 15% more damage done

Dungeons aren’t for leaderboards. This would at least help people choose the correct role and incentivize groups to kick fakers, since they’d be wasting the buffs.

I see what you're saying but honestly there is nothing wrong with fake queing in eso. The problem with eso is that alot of people dont make tank or healers in the game and always want to go for damage dealing and because of that people will fake que as a tank or healer to get in the dungeon. The reason is because almost all non-dlc dungeons in eso can be completed without a tank or a healer and only need 1-2 good dps to complete them. Theres nothing wrong with fake queing so long as the run gets completed. And in some cases, its actually faster to do a dungeon run with 4 dps than have a tank and a healer.

Paramedicus · July 2020

There should be just one unique DEBUFF to fix team play in dungeons: strong healing debuff for anyone who isnt healer (added after entering instance, like in Cyrodil).

Healing buffs arent needed because heals are too strong already.
Dmg buffs arent needed because there is too much dmg already.
Tank buffs arent needed because tanks are too tanky (auto-taunt buff would be even worse idea). This whole buffing idea would either make game too easy or wouldnt make any difference (if buffs were weak).

Healing debuff for tanks and DDs would reduce possibility for 3DD runs or fake tanks, because it would be harder too pull this off. Ofc there stiill would be 3DD runs and 'fake' tanks, but much less because it would require better teams than now.

Maybe there also should be added dmg debuff for tanks and healers.

Just sayin'. dont make this idea overcomplicated with random buffs.

idk · July 2020

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

idk wrote: »

This is not needed at all. The design is so that we make a choice in what buffs we have active and how we obtain them. There is always a cost in that choice. Using the DPS as an example, every build has access to all the buffs suggested through more than one means. They may choose to use potions to obtain those buffs or a set bonus. With each choice, there is something else that they cannot have via the same means.

One significant problem is tank builds in PvP. With the idea suggested tank builds get more resistance which is the last thing that is needed in PvP. Considering Zos is insistent that everything works the same in PvP vs PvE sans reduction of damage and healing this would not be something that only worked in one area.

The idea also sets out to homogenize the game by making everything the same. This is probably the biggest issue as it does take away some of the uniqueness some classes have.

I don't think you understand what you are writing. You just made these two contradictory statements in the same post:

1) "...every build has access to all the buffs suggested through more than one means."
2) "The idea also sets out to homogenize the game by making everything the same. This is probably the biggest issue as it does take away some of the uniqueness some classes have."

The problem with these two statements that you made is that if every class has access to all the buffs suggested though "more than one means," then, regarding these buffs, there isn't any class uniqueness for you to try to defend because every class has easy access to them...

[snip]

[Edited for Baiting]

Thank you for your concern but I very much understood what I wrote. The snippets taken from my original comments are out of context.

To the part that "every build has access to all the buffs" I go on to note that there is a choice made to how we obtain them. Of course in that choice is deciding to have those buffs or not. This game is all about choice.

Which leads to the second snippet you chose to focus on. The idea is very much homogenization since it is very much removing those choices and making it the same for all builds based on their role. That is the embodiment of homogenization.

Being we choose what buffs we want to use and how we will obtain them the current design is not homogenized at all.

zvavi · July 2020

idk wrote: »

The idea is very much homogenization since it is very much removing those choices and making it the same for all builds based on their role. That is the embodiment of homogenization.

Being we choose what buffs we want to use and how we will obtain them the current design is not homogenized at all.

I am a cheap potato fueled by trash potions

idk · July 2020

zvavi wrote: »

idk wrote: »

The idea is very much homogenization since it is very much removing those choices and making it the same for all builds based on their role. That is the embodiment of homogenization.

Being we choose what buffs we want to use and how we will obtain them the current design is not homogenized at all.

I am a cheap potato fueled by trash potions

lol

GrumpyDuckling · July 2020

idk wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

idk wrote: »

This is not needed at all. The design is so that we make a choice in what buffs we have active and how we obtain them. There is always a cost in that choice. Using the DPS as an example, every build has access to all the buffs suggested through more than one means. They may choose to use potions to obtain those buffs or a set bonus. With each choice, there is something else that they cannot have via the same means.

One significant problem is tank builds in PvP. With the idea suggested tank builds get more resistance which is the last thing that is needed in PvP. Considering Zos is insistent that everything works the same in PvP vs PvE sans reduction of damage and healing this would not be something that only worked in one area.

The idea also sets out to homogenize the game by making everything the same. This is probably the biggest issue as it does take away some of the uniqueness some classes have.

I don't think you understand what you are writing. You just made these two contradictory statements in the same post:

1) "...every build has access to all the buffs suggested through more than one means."
2) "The idea also sets out to homogenize the game by making everything the same. This is probably the biggest issue as it does take away some of the uniqueness some classes have."

The problem with these two statements that you made is that if every class has access to all the buffs suggested though "more than one means," then, regarding these buffs, there isn't any class uniqueness for you to try to defend because every class has easy access to them...

[snip]

[Edited for Baiting]

Thank you for your concern but I very much understood what I wrote. The snippets taken from my original comments are out of context.

To the part that "every build has access to all the buffs" I go on to note that there is a choice made to how we obtain them. Of course in that choice is deciding to have those buffs or not. This game is all about choice.

Which leads to the second snippet you chose to focus on. The idea is very much homogenization since it is very much removing those choices and making it the same for all builds based on their role. That is the embodiment of homogenization.

Being we choose what buffs we want to use and how we will obtain them the current design is not homogenized at all.

Nothing is taken out of context. Your first statement and second statement contradict each other. Either these buffs can be accessed by every build "through more than one means," or applying these buffs to roles reduces "uniqueness" by "making everything the same."

So, which is it? You can't claim both to cry "homogenization" about a topic (buffs) that you also claim every build already "has more than one means" to acquire.

In my first response I even linked the definition for "unique" for you so you could better understand why the words in your statement don't make sense and are contradictory. It's really hard to understand what you want when the words you use contain two opposite meanings.