Maintenance for the week of November 25:
• [COMPLETE] Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
They shadow nerfed sorc.
talfx5
✭✭✭
They edited everything.
Basically my point was that they're doing the least amount possible (minor berserk) so that they will not HAVE to provide actual fixes for sorc. Giving themselves room to do nothing else and therefore shadow nerfing sorc. Have a good day.
Edited by talfx5 on April 20, 2023 8:10PM Basically my point was that they're doing the least amount possible (minor berserk) so that they will not HAVE to provide actual fixes for sorc. Giving themselves room to do nothing else and therefore shadow nerfing sorc. Have a good day.
1
-
universal_wrath✭✭✭✭✭TheForFeeF wrote: »Can you provide deeper insight with examples please?
I kind of understand his point. Since zos provided a buff to sorc, they won't be bother to fix the class fir a while because they already "buffed" it and they won't buff it again, maybe rework or nerf but no future buffs.
I could be wrong though as they did revert changes in the past and made things worse.2 -
Trejgon✭✭✭✭universal_wrath wrote: »TheForFeeF wrote: »Can you provide deeper insight with examples please?
I kind of understand his point. Since zos provided a buff to sorc, they won't be bother to fix the class fir a while because they already "buffed" it and they won't buff it again, maybe rework or nerf but no future buffs.
I could be wrong though as they did revert changes in the past and made things worse.
there is a big chunk of difference between providing bandaid that will be used as excuse to not fix issues, and flat out "shadow nerfing" -> the other implies undocumented change that actually diminish current state.
of which, the OP provided no examples outside of "they edited everything" claim.6 -
talfx5✭✭✭universal_wrath wrote: »TheForFeeF wrote: »Can you provide deeper insight with examples please?
I kind of understand his point. Since zos provided a buff to sorc, they won't be bother to fix the class fir a while because they already "buffed" it and they won't buff it again, maybe rework or nerf but no future buffs.
I could be wrong though as they did revert changes in the past and made things worse.
there is a big chunk of difference between providing bandaid that will be used as excuse to not fix issues, and flat out "shadow nerfing" -> the other implies undocumented change that actually diminish current state.
of which, the OP provided no examples outside of "they edited everything" claim.
It is a shadow nerf in every since of the word. The guy above you understands my point. A lot of devs do that, i just shed a light on it.
About a full page worth of explaining got removed.2 -
luen79rwb17_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭IIRC patch notes states that this is a buff to address current status of the class but ZOS is well aware of feedback and overall situation they just don't want to focus on balance on a big patch like this.PC/DC/NAserver
V16 sorc - V16 temp - V16 dk - V1 nb - V1 temp - V1 dk0 -
WuffyCerulei✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭luen79rwb17_ESO wrote: »IIRC patch notes states that this is a buff to address current status of the class but ZOS is well aware of feedback and overall situation they just don't want to focus on balance on a big patch like this.
Don't forget the whole class they're rolling out in this upcoming patch as well. They gotta make sure it's working and not overpowered.For the love of Kyne, buff sorc. PC NACP 2100+Star-Sïnger - Khajiit Magicka Sorc - EP Grand Overlord - Flawless Conqueror vMA/vBRP/vDSA no death/vHel Ra HM/vAA HM/vSO HM/vMoL HM/vHoF HM/vAS +2/vCR+3/vSS HMs/vKA HMs/vVH/vRG Oax HM/vDSR0 -
talfx5✭✭✭luen79rwb17_ESO wrote: »IIRC patch notes states that this is a buff to address current status of the class but ZOS is well aware of feedback and overall situation they just don't want to focus on balance on a big patch like this.
True. But more things could have been done, and everyone will agree they need to be done. 6 months untill an actuall fix? But what about then? They will have an important class to balance right? Its insane that they try to keep people on the hook like that. My point is that at this point in time this is a shadow nerf and the final nail in the coffin for a long while for sorc. They got rid of "sorc need buff" as of current patch, to "sorc got a buff we good" while it isnt really the case. There will always be other things for them to work on. But fixing sorc is easy, they just do not want to do it.Edited by talfx5 on April 21, 2023 12:58PM0 -
Trejgon✭✭✭✭universal_wrath wrote: »TheForFeeF wrote: »Can you provide deeper insight with examples please?
I kind of understand his point. Since zos provided a buff to sorc, they won't be bother to fix the class fir a while because they already "buffed" it and they won't buff it again, maybe rework or nerf but no future buffs.
I could be wrong though as they did revert changes in the past and made things worse.
there is a big chunk of difference between providing bandaid that will be used as excuse to not fix issues, and flat out "shadow nerfing" -> the other implies undocumented change that actually diminish current state.
of which, the OP provided no examples outside of "they edited everything" claim.
It is a shadow nerf in every since of the word. The guy above you understands my point. A lot of devs do that, i just shed a light on it.
What "a guy above me" to whom I was responding stated is by no mean "shadow nerf" by any reasonable stretch of the definition. If you go on, and look on official forums of any game and look for the instanced of the term "shadow nerf" it always related to situations, where after a patch, certain abilities or characters perform worse, while the patch notes did not indicate their should shift in functionality. "Shadow" - for being undocumented in the patch notes, hidden from players, "nerf" - because it's literal reduction in ability.
Documented improving of ability that you do not deem substantial and later using that as an excuse to not doing any further improvements, is neither undocumented, nor reuce the capability. Opposite is factually true - it is documented, and it improves the performance of builds utilising said ability.About a full page worth of explaining got removed.
oh so you mean that original state of your post contained content that was violating forum rules as an "explanation" of how exactly did ZoS "nerf" sorcs on PTS, and that forum moderator has removed that content which caused you to edit the OP once again, to replace a clearly visible and understandable moderator edit with a statement that achieves nothing but obscure what you are even trying to talk about?3 -
EramTheLiar✭✭✭✭The idea that devs don't like the sorcerer class ignores about 90% of the history of ESO. Sorcerers have been at the absolute top of the pile, historically speaking, more often than not. When ESO first started it certainly wasn't -- people would actually be mocked for playing the class -- but when that first started to change it kept changing, consistently for the better, for a long time. Adding a buff may be a bandaid patch for a problem with the class in the game's current state, and it may legitimately be that this is something the devs are adding now so they can push addressing other problems down the road a bit, but "changing something I didn't want changed and ignoring the thing I want changed" isn't the same thing as "nerfing a class and not telling anyone about it."1
-
talfx5✭✭✭universal_wrath wrote: »TheForFeeF wrote: »Can you provide deeper insight with examples please?
I kind of understand his point. Since zos provided a buff to sorc, they won't be bother to fix the class fir a while because they already "buffed" it and they won't buff it again, maybe rework or nerf but no future buffs.
I could be wrong though as they did revert changes in the past and made things worse.
there is a big chunk of difference between providing bandaid that will be used as excuse to not fix issues, and flat out "shadow nerfing" -> the other implies undocumented change that actually diminish current state.
of which, the OP provided no examples outside of "they edited everything" claim.
It is a shadow nerf in every since of the word. The guy above you understands my point. A lot of devs do that, i just shed a light on it.
What "a guy above me" to whom I was responding stated is by no mean "shadow nerf" by any reasonable stretch of the definition. If you go on, and look on official forums of any game and look for the instanced of the term "shadow nerf" it always related to situations, where after a patch, certain abilities or characters perform worse, while the patch notes did not indicate their should shift in functionality. "Shadow" - for being undocumented in the patch notes, hidden from players, "nerf" - because it's literal reduction in ability.
Documented improving of ability that you do not deem substantial and later using that as an excuse to not doing any further improvements, is neither undocumented, nor reuce the capability. Opposite is factually true - it is documented, and it improves the performance of builds utilising said ability.About a full page worth of explaining got removed.
oh so you mean that original state of your post contained content that was violating forum rules as an "explanation" of how exactly did ZoS "nerf" sorcs on PTS, and that forum moderator has removed that content which caused you to edit the OP once again, to replace a clearly visible and understandable moderator edit with a statement that achieves nothing but obscure what you are even trying to talk about?
Simple. In this pts sorc get a buff. This takes away the need to buff sorc as the need for buff dimished. Therefore the situation now is worse than before and tgat conversation proves the point more than anything. God damn do I have to spell everyting out?0 -
talfx5✭✭✭EramTheLiar wrote: »The idea that devs don't like the sorcerer class ignores about 90% of the history of ESO. Sorcerers have been at the absolute top of the pile, historically speaking, more often than not. When ESO first started it certainly wasn't -- people would actually be mocked for playing the class -- but when that first started to change it kept changing, consistently for the better, for a long time. Adding a buff may be a bandaid patch for a problem with the class in the game's current state, and it may legitimately be that this is something the devs are adding now so they can push addressing other problems down the road a bit, but "changing something I didn't want changed and ignoring the thing I want changed" isn't the same thing as "nerfing a class and not telling anyone about it."
They dont want to buff it. Keeping people on the hook for years is insane. And what they did now is a shadow nerf.
And its.not even a buff that people want and sorc needs. They need to make it skill based again for people with fingers. By very simple changes that are actually very simple to implement.Edited by talfx5 on April 21, 2023 3:34PM0 -
Tessitura✭✭✭✭✭universal_wrath wrote: »TheForFeeF wrote: »Can you provide deeper insight with examples please?
I kind of understand his point. Since zos provided a buff to sorc, they won't be bother to fix the class fir a while because they already "buffed" it and they won't buff it again, maybe rework or nerf but no future buffs.
I could be wrong though as they did revert changes in the past and made things worse.
there is a big chunk of difference between providing bandaid that will be used as excuse to not fix issues, and flat out "shadow nerfing" -> the other implies undocumented change that actually diminish current state.
of which, the OP provided no examples outside of "they edited everything" claim.
It is a shadow nerf in every since of the word. The guy above you understands my point. A lot of devs do that, i just shed a light on it.
What "a guy above me" to whom I was responding stated is by no mean "shadow nerf" by any reasonable stretch of the definition. If you go on, and look on official forums of any game and look for the instanced of the term "shadow nerf" it always related to situations, where after a patch, certain abilities or characters perform worse, while the patch notes did not indicate their should shift in functionality. "Shadow" - for being undocumented in the patch notes, hidden from players, "nerf" - because it's literal reduction in ability.
Documented improving of ability that you do not deem substantial and later using that as an excuse to not doing any further improvements, is neither undocumented, nor reuce the capability. Opposite is factually true - it is documented, and it improves the performance of builds utilising said ability.About a full page worth of explaining got removed.
oh so you mean that original state of your post contained content that was violating forum rules as an "explanation" of how exactly did ZoS "nerf" sorcs on PTS, and that forum moderator has removed that content which caused you to edit the OP once again, to replace a clearly visible and understandable moderator edit with a statement that achieves nothing but obscure what you are even trying to talk about?
Simple. In this pts sorc get a buff. This takes away the need to buff sorc as the need for buff dimished. Therefore the situation now is worse than before and tgat conversation proves the point more than anything. God damn do I have to spell everyting out?
They understand what you are saying, they are just saying you are wrong and using the wrong term. It's not a nerf because nothing was nerfed. You are engaged in a argument of semantics. Calling it a shadow nerf is incorrect, calling it a dismissal would be more accurate to your claim.Edited by Tessitura on April 21, 2023 3:45PM1 -
talfx5✭✭✭universal_wrath wrote: »TheForFeeF wrote: »Can you provide deeper insight with examples please?
I kind of understand his point. Since zos provided a buff to sorc, they won't be bother to fix the class fir a while because they already "buffed" it and they won't buff it again, maybe rework or nerf but no future buffs.
I could be wrong though as they did revert changes in the past and made things worse.
there is a big chunk of difference between providing bandaid that will be used as excuse to not fix issues, and flat out "shadow nerfing" -> the other implies undocumented change that actually diminish current state.
of which, the OP provided no examples outside of "they edited everything" claim.
It is a shadow nerf in every since of the word. The guy above you understands my point. A lot of devs do that, i just shed a light on it.
What "a guy above me" to whom I was responding stated is by no mean "shadow nerf" by any reasonable stretch of the definition. If you go on, and look on official forums of any game and look for the instanced of the term "shadow nerf" it always related to situations, where after a patch, certain abilities or characters perform worse, while the patch notes did not indicate their should shift in functionality. "Shadow" - for being undocumented in the patch notes, hidden from players, "nerf" - because it's literal reduction in ability.
Documented improving of ability that you do not deem substantial and later using that as an excuse to not doing any further improvements, is neither undocumented, nor reuce the capability. Opposite is factually true - it is documented, and it improves the performance of builds utilising said ability.About a full page worth of explaining got removed.
oh so you mean that original state of your post contained content that was violating forum rules as an "explanation" of how exactly did ZoS "nerf" sorcs on PTS, and that forum moderator has removed that content which caused you to edit the OP once again, to replace a clearly visible and understandable moderator edit with a statement that achieves nothing but obscure what you are even trying to talk about?
Simple. In this pts sorc get a buff. This takes away the need to buff sorc as the need for buff dimished. Therefore the situation now is worse than before and tgat conversation proves the point more than anything. God damn do I have to spell everyting out?
They understand what you are saying, they are just saying you are wrong and using the wrong term. It's not a nerf because nothing was nerfed. You are engaged in a argument of semantics. Calling it a shadow nerf is incorrect, calling it a dismissal would be more accurate to your claim.
But its still called a shadownerf, because sorc is worse then last patch and its undisclosed. Now sorc is in a state where it needs less adjustments right?
But who cares what its called, focous on the point and donlt let it go live.0 -
acastanza_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Yeah, shadow nerf is definitely not the right term here (although considering the disproportionate amount of Sorcs that run HA builds, there might be an argument from that side), but as to what OP is referring to - using an inconsequential buff as a band-aid and smoke screen to take pressure off addressing actual issues that we've repeatedly raised - strong agree.
Minor Berserk doesn't help anyone at all - everyone always has it from Combat Prayer or Camo Hunter anyway. DK's got Major Berserk, and Nightblades got an Unnamed 10% buff that Stacks with Major Berserk. They could have at least given Sorc equitable treatment instead of continuing to blatantly favor DK and NB.
I understand that ZOS still wants Sorc to be a primarily glass-cannon class with minimal survivability outside running away, I don't necessarily like it and I definitely think defensive buffs are more important than offensive ones, but if they are going to double down on offense-only, they could at least give actually useful ones like Major Breserk as well, or ones that we've been begging for, like Major Breach.1
