That's because most people do not care. You assume everyone shares your worry about the fidelity to previous E.S. game lore, but that's your own personal hang-up; most people just want a functional, cohesive, unique, and cool experience. ZOS has even provided in-game lore for why Lamae Bal's children are different from other vampire spawn, you've just chosen to reject it, which is again a personal hang-up. Mind you, the reason we have the current feeding mechanics is because players complained about the previous iteration, and now different players are complaining, which goes to show that trying to cater to forum sentiment is a futile exercise.
The problem is that words and concepts do mean things. When we are talking about a "vampire" that has no actual need to drink blood, and who actually gets significantly weaker when they do drink blood, there is huge disconnect between the concept of a vampire and what was delivered. Much like people protested about vampires that sparkle in the sunlight, there are equally valid protests about "vampires" that don't need to drink blood.
Even the dialog Lamae uses indicates that her scions are supposed to get stronger by feeding, but the in game play experience is precisely the opposite of the in game lore. I understand that some people simply don't care about such things, but I believe a fair amount of people do.
When your stated design goal is to promote the behavior of a vampire regularly feeding, and then you release a skill line that punishes players for regularly feeding, there is a problem.
Vayln_Ninetails wrote: »Exactly. One thing I see very rarely acknowledged by people who like the current iteration of vampire is how absolutely lore breaking the play style currently is.
That's because most people do not care. You assume everyone shares your worry about the fidelity to previous E.S. game lore, but that's your own personal hang-up; most people just want a functional, cohesive, unique, and cool experience. ZOS has even provided in-game lore for why Lamae Bal's children are different from other vampire spawn, you've just chosen to reject it, which is again a personal hang-up. Mind you, the reason we have the current feeding mechanics is because players complained about the previous iteration, and now different players are complaining, which goes to show that trying to cater to forum sentiment is a futile exercise.
On themes, you say you'd like Vampires to have more, "bats, life-steal, mobility, blood magic, long-range spell casting, AoE damage..." I'd say the skill line already has most of those themes. But I'm curious, how many more of the 5 vampire abilities do you think should be devoted to bats? To fully incorporate all the themes you'd like, ZOS would likely need to add more abilities, which probably isn't going to happen.
I feel that a lot of the discussion around Vampires has devolved into people venting about Vampire not adhering to their own personal aesthetic rather than if the skill line actually works as is. IMO, Vampire does work, just not as well as it should, which unsurprisingly is because of player feedback; Vampire worked much better with the 40% ability cost decrease, but players complained.
My hope is ZOS takes the Vampire line and refines it so it's functional foremost, everything else should be secondary.
That's because most people do not care. You assume everyone shares your worry about the fidelity to previous E.S. game lore, but that's your own personal hang-up; most people just want a functional, cohesive, unique, and cool experience. ZOS has even provided in-game lore for why Lamae Bal's children are different from other vampire spawn, you've just chosen to reject it, which is again a personal hang-up. Mind you, the reason we have the current feeding mechanics is because players complained about the previous iteration, and now different players are complaining, which goes to show that trying to cater to forum sentiment is a futile exercise.
The problem is that words and concepts do mean things. When we are talking about a "vampire" that has no actual need to drink blood, and who actually gets significantly weaker when they do drink blood, there is huge disconnect between the concept of a vampire and what was delivered. Much like people protested about vampires that sparkle in the sunlight, there are equally valid protests about "vampires" that don't need to drink blood.
Even the dialog Lamae uses indicates that her scions are supposed to get stronger by feeding, but the in game play experience is precisely the opposite of the in game lore. I understand that some people simply don't care about such things, but I believe a fair amount of people do.
When your stated design goal is to promote the behavior of a vampire regularly feeding, and then you release a skill line that punishes players for regularly feeding, there is a problem.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by Vampires gets weaker by feeding? Currently, when Vampires feed they progress in stages, which grant them access to Vampires' increasingly powerful passives. And Vampire passives are perhaps the strongest, most transformative in the game. How is that getting weaker?
Vayln_Ninetails wrote: »Might I point you to the boat load of weaknesses that gets increased each time they feed? And also the vampire passives are good, but they aren't exactly anything to write home about lol. And they certainly do not outweigh the negatives.
cloaking uptimes rivaling that of Nightblade on ANY class
Vayln_Ninetails wrote: »Surely he must be looking at some other statistic to get this idea than the forums because on the forums a very good portion (maybe not majority, but not in insignificant number) care about vampire. It isn't something everyone cares about, but the majority of people who do care about vampire agree something is messed up with it.
Vayln_Ninetails wrote: »And you still seem to miss the lore breaking I am referring to just as predicted. Vampires, even ones made by Lamae, go to Molag Bal when they die. Why would they want to use skills that kill themselves with this thought in mind? None of her dialogue explains that. In fact her dialogue and even the tutorial quest largely ignore blood frenzy's existence. Despite it being "the prime example of vampires in ES"
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by Vampires gets weaker by feeding? Currently, when Vampires feed they progress in stages, which grant them access to Vampires' increasingly powerful passives. And Vampire passives are perhaps the strongest, most transformative in the game. How is that getting weaker?
Vayln_Ninetails wrote: »Surely he must be looking at some other statistic to get this idea than the forums because on the forums a very good portion (maybe not majority, but not in insignificant number) care about vampire. It isn't something everyone cares about, but the majority of people who do care about vampire agree something is messed up with it.
Does everyone care about how many bat-flavored abilities there are or is that just you? While there may exist an idea that Vampire needs changes (I agree), as I said earlier there isn't nearly the consensus about what needs to be changed that you think there is. You know what you want, I know what I want, and we know what a fraction of the entire ESO community wants because most players don't even use the forums.Vayln_Ninetails wrote: »And you still seem to miss the lore breaking I am referring to just as predicted. Vampires, even ones made by Lamae, go to Molag Bal when they die. Why would they want to use skills that kill themselves with this thought in mind? None of her dialogue explains that. In fact her dialogue and even the tutorial quest largely ignore blood frenzy's existence. Despite it being "the prime example of vampires in ES"
I hesitate to say it because I don't want to sound overly rude but who cares about these extremely esoteric pieces of lore buried twenty branches deep into a dialogue tree except you? And how does it affect how Vampire functions gameplay-wise? Truthfully, neither of us should be making claims about what the majority wants but I'm 99.99% certain the majority of players are more interested in how Vampire plays and not strict lore adherence.
Should vampires also get sun weakness because it is lore consistent to previous E.S. games or do we acknowledge that Lamae Bal's strain of vampirism works differently than other vampires? And if we acknowledge that Lamae's strain works differently, then reverse-feeding, Blood Scions, Blood Frenzy, ect. should all be allowable and not conflicting with E.S. lore.
In the end, though, it's all academic because game lore is retconned all the time. And MMO's are rarely faithful to their solo counterparts. It's almost not worth arguing about.
Vayln_Ninetails wrote: »Exactly. One thing I see very rarely acknowledged by people who like the current iteration of vampire is how absolutely lore breaking the play style currently is.
That's because most people do not care. You assume everyone shares your worry about the fidelity to previous E.S. game lore, but that's your own personal hang-up; most people just want a functional, cohesive, unique, and cool experience. ZOS has even provided in-game lore for why Lamae Bal's children are different from other vampire spawn, you've just chosen to reject it, which is again a personal hang-up. Mind you, the reason we have the current feeding mechanics is because players complained about the previous iteration, and now different players are complaining, which goes to show that trying to cater to forum sentiment is a futile exercise.
On themes, you say you'd like Vampires to have more, "bats, life-steal, mobility, blood magic, long-range spell casting, AoE damage..." I'd say the skill line already has most of those themes. But I'm curious, how many more of the 5 vampire abilities do you think should be devoted to bats? To fully incorporate all the themes you'd like, ZOS would likely need to add more abilities, which probably isn't going to happen.
I feel that a lot of the discussion around Vampires has devolved into people venting about Vampire not adhering to their own personal aesthetic rather than if the skill line actually works as is. IMO, Vampire does work, just not as well as it should, which unsurprisingly is because of player feedback; Vampire worked much better with the 40% ability cost decrease, but players complained.
My hope is ZOS takes the Vampire line and refines it so it's functional foremost, everything else should be secondary.
Vayln_Ninetails wrote: »Might I point you to the boat load of weaknesses that gets increased each time they feed? And also the vampire passives are good, but they aren't exactly anything to write home about lol. And they certainly do not outweigh the negatives.
Perspective. You've chosen to focus on the negatives instead of the positives.
Vampires lose health regeneration, gain weakness to fire and an increase to non-vampire skill cost in exchange for an even greater decrease in Vampire skill cost, 30% stackable damage mitigation, no movement penalty on Sneak and a decrease in time to enter Sneak, and cloaking uptimes rivaling that of Nightblade on ANY class, with a spell/weapon damage buff on leaving cloak and a decrease to sprint cost.
The benefits far outweigh the negatives and it's ridiculous to claim otherwise. The Dark Stalker passive alone requires an entire armor set to get by non-Vampire means. Vampire passives are ridiculously strong.
Vayln_Ninetails wrote: »Exactly. One thing I see very rarely acknowledged by people who like the current iteration of vampire is how absolutely lore breaking the play style currently is.
That's because most people do not care. You assume everyone shares your worry about the fidelity to previous E.S. game lore, but that's your own personal hang-up; most people just want a functional, cohesive, unique, and cool experience. ZOS has even provided in-game lore for why Lamae Bal's children are different from other vampire spawn, you've just chosen to reject it, which is again a personal hang-up. Mind you, the reason we have the current feeding mechanics is because players complained about the previous iteration, and now different players are complaining, which goes to show that trying to cater to forum sentiment is a futile exercise.
On themes, you say you'd like Vampires to have more, "bats, life-steal, mobility, blood magic, long-range spell casting, AoE damage..." I'd say the skill line already has most of those themes. But I'm curious, how many more of the 5 vampire abilities do you think should be devoted to bats? To fully incorporate all the themes you'd like, ZOS would likely need to add more abilities, which probably isn't going to happen.
I feel that a lot of the discussion around Vampires has devolved into people venting about Vampire not adhering to their own personal aesthetic rather than if the skill line actually works as is. IMO, Vampire does work, just not as well as it should, which unsurprisingly is because of player feedback; Vampire worked much better with the 40% ability cost decrease, but players complained.
My hope is ZOS takes the Vampire line and refines it so it's functional foremost, everything else should be secondary.
Were you even there at that pts interval?? People SCREAMED at ZOS multiple different fixes for the vamp line. One of the main complaints was the cost increase. The reason why the vamp skills cost decrease was at 40% is because the increase for non vamp skills was at 20%.
It wasn't even usable for anything but dps. The only reason we are able to even have vamp on our healers and tanks is because
WE said something.
We made multiple threads explaining exactly what was going to happen to the line if they left it like it was. We offered them multiple threads of alterations that went completely ignored. I myself literally made 3 seperate threads that predicted exactly what would happen to BfB and blood frenzy. And now they were both put into the dirt.
Most of the feedback about the line's actual future was completely ignored. Literally week one of BfB launching people called out how BiS it would be, we warned them about blood frenzy and told them to just completely change the skill because it would either be to weak, or too strong, it's way to difficult to find middle ground for something like that. We told them how stupid the cost increase was and said specifically when they adjusted them, that they also need to adjust the cost of the skills, did they do it? No. The current vamp skills cost are still balanced around 40% cost reduction cap.
We tried to get them to fix/buff drain.
We told them about the stun.
We told them about frenzy.
We told them about Bfb.
We tried to get them to buff perfect scion.
Hell we even had to tell them to fix the voice lines lol.
But, they felt like what they did was enough.
Vayln_Ninetails wrote: »Surely he must be looking at some other statistic to get this idea than the forums because on the forums a very good portion (maybe not majority, but not in insignificant number) care about vampire. It isn't something everyone cares about, but the majority of people who do care about vampire agree something is messed up with it.
Does everyone care about how many bat-flavored abilities there are or is that just you? While there may exist an idea that Vampire needs changes (I agree), as I said earlier there isn't nearly the consensus about what needs to be changed that you think there is. You know what you want, I know what I want, and we know what a fraction of the entire ESO community wants because most players don't even use the forums.Vayln_Ninetails wrote: »And you still seem to miss the lore breaking I am referring to just as predicted. Vampires, even ones made by Lamae, go to Molag Bal when they die. Why would they want to use skills that kill themselves with this thought in mind? None of her dialogue explains that. In fact her dialogue and even the tutorial quest largely ignore blood frenzy's existence. Despite it being "the prime example of vampires in ES"
I hesitate to say it because I don't want to sound overly rude but who cares about these extremely esoteric pieces of lore buried twenty branches deep into a dialogue tree except you? And how does it affect how Vampire functions gameplay-wise? Truthfully, neither of us should be making claims about what the majority wants but I'm 99.99% certain the majority of players are more interested in how Vampire plays and not strict lore adherence.
Should vampires also get sun weakness because it is lore consistent to previous E.S. games or do we acknowledge that Lamae Bal's strain of vampirism works differently than other vampires? And if we acknowledge that Lamae's strain works differently, then reverse-feeding, Blood Scions, Blood Frenzy, ect. should all be allowable and not conflicting with E.S. lore.
In the end, though, it's all academic because game lore is retconned all the time. And MMO's are rarely faithful to their solo counterparts. It's almost not worth arguing about.
I just think it's strange how people think that a vampire using it's own health, rather than the blood of the victims it consumes, is somehow lore friendly. Because it isn't. It'd be far better to use some kind of additional blood meter or something that takes your staging down and have Frenzy/Fury rely on the use of certain stages, particularly Stage 3 and 4 because those would be the hardest to get your health back (unless you're a Magblade).
Lamae's little 'experiment' was a failure and if her line is the line that's intended to fork into the different lesser vampire lines, it's probably because people down the road started experimenting on themselves to rid themselves of her and left her in the past - withered and forgotten. I'd have staked her myself.
I just think it's strange how people think that a vampire using it's own health, rather than the blood of the victims it consumes, is somehow lore friendly. Because it isn't. It'd be far better to use some kind of additional blood meter or something that takes your staging down and have Frenzy/Fury rely on the use of certain stages, particularly Stage 3 and 4 because those would be the hardest to get your health back (unless you're a Magblade).
Lamae's little 'experiment' was a failure and if her line is the line that's intended to fork into the different lesser vampire lines, it's probably because people down the road started experimenting on themselves to rid themselves of her and left her in the past - withered and forgotten. I'd have staked her myself.
Or have a blood meter alongside your stage timer. Feeding fills the bar to full and using drain restores some points every second. What the meter does is make all vampire abilities stronger, but using them consumes the blood in that meter. When the meter is at 0 the extra vampire ability strength will be at 0 so a vampire that doesn't feed or drain their victims will be weaker than one that does.
This has been a great discussion but this is where I bow out. The lore discussion is just not as interesting or worthwhile (to me) as the mechanical one; how Vampire plays.
Hopefully, ZOS can extract something from this discussion to make Vampire better. And if we get more bats out of the deal I guess that's just a bonus. Cheers
Fuzzybrick wrote: »I can agree with a lot being said, but I also disagree. My biggest gripe in this game, is it seems the loudest screamers get their way. Personally I'm enjoying my vampire right now. Though some skills could be changed in my opinion. I can push her spell power to 8k when I want, and I've learned to not expect to get everything, the class could be changed again at any moment. Honestly though... I'd prefer it better if they were a true class of their own and fleshed out a little more. Anyway, I'm having fun with her and I just don't want them to do a sweeping change to the "class" again. I'd prefer Tweeks.
But there's a lot wrong with it. The spammable isn't good in either PvP or PvE, the crowd control is absolute garbage in PvP, Blood Frenzy is really only usable when ganking, and even then doesn't often get utilized as far as I can tell. And Vampire Drain is so bad I almost forgot to even mention it.Vayln_Ninetails wrote: »I don't think the skill line needs a full blown 2nd rework. They just need to fix what is currently wrong with it.
But there's a lot wrong with it. The spammable isn't good in either PvP or PvE, the crowd control is absolute garbage in PvP, Blood Frenzy is really only usable when ganking, and even then doesn't often get utilized as far as I can tell. And Vampire Drain is so bad I almost forgot to even mention it.Vayln_Ninetails wrote: »I don't think the skill line needs a full blown 2nd rework. They just need to fix what is currently wrong with it.
The only things remotely useful for PvP in the Vampire skill line are Mist Form, which can sometimes bug out and instantly cancel itself (before completing the animation, even), and Blood Scion for some classes. If you can spam a gap closer, Blood Scion is actually kind of decent by itself...but once you account for all the associated drawbacks, I think it falls by the wayside.
As I repeatedly stated during the Vampire re-work's PTS cycle; the only classes that are capable of utilizing the Vampire's melee-based skills in PvP, won't. Magicka DKs and Templars aren't going to be running around with the Vampire spammable in place of whip or sweeps, and the other abilities and passives are by no means worth being in higher Vamp stages for. Honestly, I don't even know that Mist Form is worth it with the drawbacks of Stage-1, given how prevalent Dawnbreaker is (and has been for multiple years), but I'm still using it for now...more out of longstanding tradition than actual usefulness.
For starters, most only use one or two abilities, including the ultimate, and literally stay at Stage 1-2. Stage 3 with three or more abilities, excluding the ultimate is uncommon.
Also, I question whether undeath is actually functioning. If not doing the opposite.
Also, I question whether undeath is actually functioning. If not doing the opposite.
I've done a lot of testing and it works just fine. Problem is I don't know when its doing its damage reduction calculation so I have no idea how effective it really is. All I know is the lower my health goes the less damage I take and technically at 50% health its supposed to be 15% damage reduction. When you actually think about it 15% is a very small number which is why some people think it doesn't work.
Vayln_Ninetails wrote: »Also, I question whether undeath is actually functioning. If not doing the opposite.
I've done a lot of testing and it works just fine. Problem is I don't know when its doing its damage reduction calculation so I have no idea how effective it really is. All I know is the lower my health goes the less damage I take and technically at 50% health its supposed to be 15% damage reduction. When you actually think about it 15% is a very small number which is why some people think it doesn't work.
One thing I was hoping they'd add in with the vamp rework was a VISUAL indicator that a vampire was using undeath. And maybe the indicator changes based upon how many resistances they are getting.