Tannus15 wrote: »

penguin_zombies wrote: »

"The effect we expect from this will be an overall buff in PVE territory as many players build for maximum efficiency regarding their stats."

" You must have 38,350 Max Magicka or Stamina to reach the original value of many sets."

Do normal PvE players have that high magicka/stamina? Cause this seems like it was toted as a buff to PvE builds, but you'd need to start hitting almost 40k stam/mag for it to at all be a buff.

Yes.

My mag sorc spell damage with BSW is avg 6.3k max 6.6k with 40k max mag (21m buffed)
PvE trial groups will be buffed as long as they are running both major and minor courage and any sort of decent warhorn uptime.

Healers still run arcane traits so they tend to be higher max mag and lower spell damage than DD.

The only people being nerfed are tanks that run damage proc sets.

OK. I did forget the Courage buff(s) when making this post. But then I'm not getting them when I play solo/duo.

I think there is still time to get them to lower the break-even spell power.
Getting what is needed for stam is good but I think it should be reduced to 4K for spell power scaling.

I think they should definitely change the proc set scaling to both damage and resources. No doubt. They've been homogenising the game pretty well, but suddenly they just make it scale with one stat. Weird stuff to say the least...

Feindrah wrote: »

With only 3.1k spell dmg, I think I'm gonna feel this kinda hard. I'm guessing i'm going to have to change from crit to spell dmg then? I can't think of any other way to get to 5.4k spell dmg.

It seem like that number is way too high. I hope it's adjusted but you know how things go..

Proc sets can't actually Critically Strike so mixing Critical Chance/Damage bonuses and proc sets is kind of an anti-synergy (unless the proc set is wildly OP like Relequen).

If you're dealing damage primarily with your abilities then focusing on stacking Critical sources is definitely the way to go but if you are relying upon proc sets as your primary source of damage then it will be much more advantageous to stack Weapon/Spell Damage.

Ultimately though, it's not hard to get to at least 4k Spell Damage on any build and race/class combination. You have ~3k from simply equipping a gold-level staff and using a potion or ability with Major Sorcery on it. From there, add three Spell Damage glyphs to your jewelry and consider using the Infused Trait on them. That alone will reach 4k Spell Damage which is 75% of scaling for your proc set as well as a very healthy boost to your ability damage and healing.

To increase it even more, use a Weapon Damage glyph on your front-bar (or back bar if you bar-swap and use a ground-based DoT like Wall of Elements). That will net you another ~500 Spell Damage when it is activated.

EDIT: I forgot to mention the Spell Damage Mundus Stone and using all Divines traits on your armor. That will net you another ~500 Spell Damage and bring you, if combined with the above methods, very close to 5500.

Contrary to what I carelessly assumed, Maelstrom destro staffs are NOT proc sets for the purpose of this change. (So probably they don't count as proc sets at all. Can the Maelstrom staff bonus to light attack damage crit?)

@FrancisCrawford The Maelstrom Staff bonus totally can Critically Strike. You won't notice it individually broken out but the value will get added to your overall Light Attack damage.

Starlock wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

Ultimately though, it's not hard to get to at least 4k Spell Damage on any build and race/class combination. You have ~3k from simply equipping a gold-level staff and using a potion or ability with Major Sorcery on it. From there, add three Spell Damage glyphs to your jewelry and consider using the Infused Trait on them. That alone will reach 4k Spell Damage which is 75% of scaling for your proc set as well as a very healthy boost to your ability damage and healing.

Take a step back for a moment - none of this is easy or accessible for a significant chunk of the player base (hi, by the way). Anything that requires this level of min/maxing and micromanagement is neither easy nor accessible.

Unfortunately, I think that's the point. They believe (not incorrectly, to be fair) that forcing players to min/max to use proc sets, is forcing them to make choices. However, players already are making choices. And many players make choices in character design that aren't about min/maxing. That this isn't recognized or accounted for is beyond tone deaf - it's alarming. Anyone who doesn't min/max around these sets - and especially players who play solo - are just taking a gut punch.

Nah, the choice players like me have to make is more like "do I stay authentic to who I am and just take this gut punch?" or "do I just uninstall this game until they come to their senses?" I mean, the way this game has been going, another six months and they'll realize this was a stupid way to do this.

I think that your point about the game not even making the attempt to explain the fundamentals of the combat system and of effective build concepts is a completely valid problem that ZOS should have addressed aeons ago. It trickles down into many facets of the game and often results in acrimonious interactions (especially in the Group Finder) when players of mixed knowledge are forced to coexist. One player claims that the other is elitist and the other is frustrated by the inability of their group mates to efficiently fill their designated role. And both are right in their own way.

The inescapable problem though is that, as I've said in a prior post, a game contains rules and there will always be a most and a least efficient way to succeed within those rules. A min/maxer follows one extreme while the roleplayer (or the uninformed player) often follows the other. It is an unfortunate reality that you cannot ever balance to equally accommodate both of these extremes - forcing the developers to choose between them.

I continue to view it as not much of a hardship for a player to educate themselves about the game's mechanics and to improve their build and playstyle to fit the new balance dynamics. That is what countless players do literally every single patch. I have enough characters that I both win and lose from every patch that comes out and I have to adapt the losing characters accordingly every single time. If I choose not to do so then I am fully aware of the consequences of that choice and I accept those consequences willingly. That's just the way that it is in a game with dynamic balancing.

However, I am gathering that players with only one character and/or with limited experience in games with balance changes are largely shocked at finally being included in the repercussions of a balance change. I am sympathetic... but not infinitely so.

As I've said before, a player who is unaware of game mechanics is a largely sympathetic figure. The good news for them is that they can learn about the game and the current changes and then adapt their build successfully. But a player that is intentionally making a build that flies in the face of general game mechanics knows exactly what they are doing and thus they are entirely responsible for those choices not leading to success in the game. Unfortunately, this describes many roleplaying builds that are intentionally inefficient at succeeding under the given rules of the game.

ESO isn't Skyrim (let alone an actual cRPG), a single-player game where you could largely define your own victory conditions and where various playstyles were woven into the the quests of the game. A roleplayer could choose various ways to complete a quest (such as a dialogue check rather than a fight) or they could ignore quests entirely and make their own adventure. But ESO has other players which means that balance between players must exist as well as be prioritized (no more one-shotting Alduin from stealth... because doing that means that you can do the same to another player). It also establishes killing monsters as the coin of the realm in terms of game objectives. One can be upset by that, for example, a Pacifist roleplayer cannot succeed under those rules but it is what it is and there is no possible way around it.

Which brings us back to the inescapable conclusion - that casual players must learn to engage more with the foundation of game and build mechanics than perhaps they did before but that is hardly the end of the world. A roleplayer with their heart set on avoiding Spell Damage glyphs, etc. will simply have to live with the consequences of those choices just as surely as I would have to live with my own low DPS if I intentionally choose to be a Breton with 64 points into Magicka who ate no food, used no abilities or buffs, used no Mundus Stone or armor sets, refused to improve their weapon beyond Green quality, and who relied only upon Sword and Shield bash attacks to do damage. It absolutely would not be fun to run dungeons or delves with but such are the burdens of affirmatively choosing to use an ineffective build while simultaneously ignoring most of the game's underlying mechanics.

I think some people should be made aware that even on a “min/maxed” setup, the actual damage proc sets do in PVE is low. Players who were relying on them as their major source of damage are missing out greatly on what even a basic reasonably thought out setup and rotation of skills can do.

I can see this as a hit to full on tanks who want to make running through light content quicker, since it will hit them fairly heavily. My own Azureblight tank has gone from pulling around 130k DPS solo against the first huge pull in Hel Ra to a bit below 60k, which is still incredibly high to me for a character specced all into tanking.

Starlock wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

As I've said before, a player who is unaware of game mechanics is a largely sympathetic figure. The good news for them is that they can learn about the game and the current changes and then adapt their build successfully. But a player that is intentionally making a build that flies in the face of general game mechanics knows exactly what they are doing and thus they are entirely responsible for those choices not leading to success in the game. Unfortunately, this describes many roleplaying builds that are intentionally inefficient at succeeding under the given rules of the game.

A query - when you mention characters that are "intentionally inefficient" would you say you're operating on the assumption that the only correct way to play the game is to min/max? I ask because anything short of being a min/max meta sheep is functionally being "intentionally inefficient." By extension, anyone trying to leverage the build diversity this game makes possible is also being "intentionally inefficient." Everyone should just follow the same old same old cookie cutter build some influencer posted up on the internet because that is the only correct way to play the game. Yeah?



One of the great things about this game is that it liberally allows for so-called "intentionally inefficient" character designs to work for the vast majority of content in the game. It's very much been a "play the way you like" sort of game. Contrary to misconceived stereotypes about roleplayers, we often have a deep knowledge of game mechanics that we leverage when designing our characters. I use that to strike a balance between staying true to a character design while still being able to do the types of content I like doing. Every system has limits, and I work within those limits while also being creative (aka, embracing "build diversity"). This has worked very well for me - so much so that I just laugh at the folks who claim there's no build diversity in this game. They're just wrong - this game has historically provided a lot of leeway in how you design characters while still enabling comfortable completion of content.

The recent changes to CP have started to change that, and the reduction if power in CP passives combined with the bonkers scaling of proc sets is going to shift this further. The net effect of these changes is to force players to min/max more for a particular role or specialization. Being creative while also being effective is becoming more difficult in types of content that previously had quite a bit of leeway. Why shift away from that? Isn't this flexibility part of what makes ESO more unique and fun amongst other, more rigidly constrained MMORPGs? Why chip away at build diversity like this by forcing min/maxing to make effective use of proc sets?

I'm not at all saying that you have to min/max like a end-game raider but you can't fight against the basic mechanics of the game and expect good things to happen.

I have 16 characters spanning all classes, all races, and all roles across both PvE and PvP. I would be bored to actual death if they were all the same basic Alcast copy-paste build. I have a small handful that I maintain in meta specs but the rest are either PvP characters or they're off-meta PvE builds that can still succeed in all content short of a veteran trial.

The fantastic news about recent patches is that build diversity is actually at an all-time high! Hybrid builds, for example, are more viable and effective than at any other time in recent memory. Other uncommon formats such as Stamina healing or Medium and Light Armor tanking are also viable if you know what you are doing and use the full range of tools that the game provides to you. There is absolutely no shortage of off-meta possibilities.

Which is precisely why it's so important to educate players on the game's mechanics - it empowers them to actually play the character that they want successfully within the rules of the game.

I've been playing ESO for years and have had an ESO+ subscription the entire time, even bought extra crowns some months and this change has finally got me thinking of just unsubbing and uninstalling the game. It's not just the change itself, its the fact it's even been made. I get that MMO's change and the rules are never gonna be the same but ZOS more than any other company seems so unsure of what they actually want for their game. Before this it was the HA/LA changes that were proposed and i can only imagine what idea they will have next. And the thing that really gets me with this one is the reasoning, proc sets are disrupting PvP so they decide to nerf PvE players as well. I'll with-hold final judgement until it hits live but i'm pretty sure this will the the "final straw" for me

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

You are not helpless. Equip some Spell/Weapon Damage glyphs and/or use a Mundus Stone or any of the other methods that I have outlined in this thread. You have the means to make your proc sets stronger than ever before.

The problem is that you can't get to 5500 SD just by making a couple tweaks. Outside of a large (or very organized) group, you need a rather specific build to hit 5500 SD.

To hit 5500 SD you pretty much need spell damage glyphs on your jewelry, and 4-5 of the following:
1) Infused Jewelry
2) DW or 2H weapons
3) Swords/Greatswords
4) Nirnhoned weapons
5) A race with SD
6) The Apprentice mundus stone
7) A Spell Damage enchant on an infused weapon

That's just to get back to where you are in u29, and it doesn't exactly leave a lot of room for additional build diversity.

The worst part is that because of how SD is sourced, it's not even really forcing the tradeoff people seemed to expect when they asked for proc scaling in the first place. The whole point was to prevent PvP tanks from stacking health and relying on proc damage, but SD and WD don't come from the same slots as health (or mitigation, or other set bonuses, generally speaking), so what people will actually wind up sacrificing are sustain and alternate ways to build for damage (i.e. build diversity), and it won't solve the core problem anyway (and that's not even mentioning the proc sets whose damage scales with health).

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

You are not helpless. Equip some Spell/Weapon Damage glyphs and/or use a Mundus Stone or any of the other methods that I have outlined in this thread. You have the means to make your proc sets stronger than ever before.

The problem is that you can't get to 5500 SD just by making a couple tweaks. Outside of a large (or very organized) group, you need a rather specific build to hit 5500 SD.

To hit 5500 SD you pretty much need spell damage glyphs on your jewelry, and 4-5 of the following:
1) Infused Jewelry
2) DW or 2H weapons
3) Swords/Greatswords
4) Nirnhoned weapons
5) A race with SD
6) The Apprentice mundus stone
7) A Spell Damage enchant on an infused weapon

That's just to get back to where you are in u29, and it doesn't exactly leave a lot of room for additional build diversity.

The worst part is that because of how SD is sourced, it's not even really forcing the tradeoff people seemed to expect when they asked for proc scaling in the first place. The whole point was to prevent PvP tanks from stacking health and relying on proc damage, but SD and WD don't come from the same slots as health (or mitigation, or other set bonuses, generally speaking), so what people will actually wind up sacrificing are sustain and alternate ways to build for damage (i.e. build diversity), and it won't solve the core problem anyway (and that's not even mentioning the proc sets whose damage scales with health).

Importing from the other conversation, you're completely ignoring the huge amount of extra Penetration that a Magicka PvE character is going to have over a Stamina character. The ~8% additional Penetration is roughly commensurate with the higher tooltip that a Stamina character will have on their set. Tooltips do not deal damage by themselves so taking in the holistic picture is necessary.

Also, zoom out for a second and recall what a poster above me mentioned. Proc sets do pitiful damage compared to actually using abilities. If you only manage to hit 4000 Spell Damage and thus have ~75% of your Grothdar tooltip, the tooltip damage dips from 1800 to 1350, a diminution of a measly 450 damage. A basic Wall of Elements easily covers that difference and leaves you WELL AHEAD in terms of overall damage done.

So many are getting bamboozled by their tooltips and are losing sight of the larger picture.

Alright, I get it, you think the extra penetration from light armor is way more powerful than anything medium armor has and that it justifies mag proc sets getting nerfed harder than stam proc sets. I would argue that if there's an imbalance between light armor and medium armor passives it should be addressed by adjusting those passives, not by messing with proc set scaling.

As for the argument that the proc set nerfs don't really matter in the grand scheme of overall damage:
1) I think that's only really true for people in higher DPS tiers. For scrubs and casuals (like me), procs can be a much larger portion of our overall damage, so these changes are disproportionately hurting the people who need nerfs the least.
2) It makes me wonder why proc sets are getting nerfed in the first place. If they're so weak, shouldn't they be getting buffed instead?