I will say if fire is lacking with this then simply hand it back some of it's bonus status effect damage on top of how it is now. Then we can all be happy because both fire and lightning will be well rounded and what not

Morimizo wrote: »

Anyone else a little annoyed that they're over-explaining the nature of fire and shock damage, almost ten years into the lifecycle of the game, like none of us really understood how it works, and that their pool of vast wisdom just leaked this epiphany for the benefit of all? Seems a neat and tidy alternative to not actually, you know, add new elemental staff types, or Auriel forbid, another weapon altogether.

But then people start complaining that "the change makes no sense", so can you really blame ZOS for trying to cover their bases and explain the logic behind changes?

People are always asking for more communication and explanations on changes, but now you're saying you don't want more communication?

This really shouldn't be a "you're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't" situation.

until i start seeing people posting data and showing that inferno is way behind i'm for going with their plan.

tldr; got parse?

Jazraena wrote: »

There's a few scattered about (https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/639309/lightining-staff-is-too-strong-now/p1 <-- here for example) and I've done a handful by myself yesterday. On a trial dummy the arcanist pulls roughly equal. I imagine so might a Magplar.

For other classes or outside a group that boosts your fire damage... Well.

I haven't tested bows myself, but going by what I've seen from others, they still eclipse both.

yeah, bows are great now, and you get stamina skill options which can really help out mag spec builds. I did a bunch of testing on that in PTS week 1. They are probably still the best ranged build choice regardless unless you really want a destro skill on the front bar.

I find it interesting that inferno and lightning staff are about equal on an arcanist. I would have expected it to pull harder one way or the other.

i main sorc and i know lightning will be the stronger option there. they have almost no dots and lots of direct damage. i'll parse both anyway, and probably frost just to work out a base line...

I'd be more interested to see how dot heavy builds like DK or necro can do with an inferno staff. Anyone know if it buffs the rele proc?

obviously wardens are going to run ice staffs if they are going destro, sorcs and nightblades on lightning, templar and dk could go either way i think? depends on the build probably.

Jazraena wrote: »

Fatecarver and the Templar Execute are channeled DoTs; hence it being so close. Still, without the fire boost it'd be lightning pulling ahead.

DKs still have their spammable as largest damage source so I don't see Inferno pulling ahead, though it's probably closer than on others.

largest damage source doesn't matter as much if they are still getting enough of their % from dots. especially in content where dots keep ticking or can affect multiple targets. i havent done the math, but pretty sure if you're slotting thaum then inferno should do ok

that's why sorc kicks arse on the dummy but not so much at the top end content. all the damage vanishes if you stop spamming

Tannus15 wrote: »

well, this is intersting

lightning staff


inferno staff


build

some better rng on the inferno parse, but still, didn't expect it to come out ahead...

looks like inferno does buff rele too which is interesting.

I assumed it would buff damage over time set procs the same way the Necro's Rapid Rot passive does - part of why I was a bit puzzled by the immediate negative reactions from people, given sets like Rele, Nirn et al are already top tier for DPS.

Looking at the parses the build sources over 35% of overall dps from DoTs on the lightning parse, which increase to over 40% on the inferno one. If we equalise the rng, the dps between the two parses would probably be very similar - perhaps the lightning staff might creep ahead a touch (but not by a distinct margin).

I think in encounters with add phases it's going to be quite tough to choose between lightning and inferno, as one or the other is likely to pull ahead relative to the number and frequency of adds involved.

Lalothen wrote: »

Tannus15 wrote: »

well, this is intersting

lightning staff


inferno staff


build

some better rng on the inferno parse, but still, didn't expect it to come out ahead...

looks like inferno does buff rele too which is interesting.

I assumed it would buff damage over time set procs the same way the Necro's Rapid Rot passive does - part of why I was a bit puzzled by the immediate negative reactions from people, given sets like Rele, Nirn et al are already top tier for DPS.

Looking at the parses the build sources over 35% of overall dps from DoTs on the lightning parse, which increase to over 40% on the inferno one. If we equalise the rng, the dps between the two parses would probably be very similar - perhaps the lightning staff might creep ahead a touch (but not by a distinct margin).

I think in encounters with add phases it's going to be quite tough to choose between lightning and inferno, as one or the other is likely to pull ahead relative to the number and frequency of adds involved.

i tried double inferno staff and double shock staff on magicka warden with a slightly adjusted build from the standard frostden ones. both are worse, but the double inferno was about 2k ahead of the shock one. the biggest gain was shock staff frontbar and inferno backbar but that was still worse than double ice.

I would choose to leave it as is.
However, regarding your suggestion I would diversify the staves even more.

Fire for single target DoT’s as most Fire DoTs are single target and perhaps enchantments (this might be a tricky balance).

Lightning staff for direct AoE and Channeled abilities as this would directly buff the heavy attack as well as buff underused skills such as vamp drain and soul assault.

Frost for AoE DoT damage and defence as it fits most frost skills and most frost sets.


Personally I do not believe any staff should buff single target direct damage as that is where most of our damage comes from and why Inferno Staves have been top tier choice out of the three outside of Heavy Attack builds.

Also I would buff the percentages to help them compete with dual wield and two handed. Maybe 12%.

From a purely selfish point of view; considering only my pvp petless magsorc, I mostly like the latest change. Ideally I would rather not have to switch from fire staff to shock staff, given that my muscle memory for fire staff use is about 9 years old, but the latest change seems to mean I'll be getting a 2% damage buff, which I can't argue with. Plus I will now have an undogeable heavy attack. This, combined with the bound aegis change, makes me feel like my build is getting a slight buff, rather than a substantial nerf. I will miss the fire staff though, I liked everything about it

I like the direction, but numbers don't make sense. It's common knowledge that direct damage is more common and influential than dots, hell we just spent 9 years using Fire staves over Shock/Frost because it gave single target DMG.. aka your light attacks, spammable, execute, and enchants. All that applies to direct DMG so the pendulum is just swinging the other direction.

They also spent years making dots worse, requiring 10-30s to be worth more than one spammable so why cast them at all unless they buff your direct DMG in some way (backbar dots for enchants).

1. They need to update their direct damage to dot ratio. It's not 1:1, the abundance and importance of direct damage is much more likely for most builds. We see this with CP nodes. What's more likely to kill you in pvp for example? Five 20s dots or a Wrecking Blow, Dawnbreaker, and Executioner to the face? The ratio should be 1:1.6 aka a 60% buff for dot bonus multipliers. CP would be 10% for dot vs 6% direct. Staves would be 20% vs 12%.

2. Much simpler option, although they should still reconsider the scaling ratio.. just add +200 DMG to status effects first tick like week 1. It's interesting and fits the idea they're going with for staves. Building for status effects is fun, but not all status effects are dots, so this small buff helps the 5 status effects that are direct DMG... AND makes them potentially stronger than the 12% a lighting staff gives.

3. I've seen suggestions for adding cast time to it, problem is that buffs a bunch of random ults that have cast times when like I said.. it feels random. Skills like Dawnbreaker have a cast time, but Meteor doesn't. It's all over the place.

Get outta here.
Making flame stuff buff dots is the opposite of the apparent intent to increase front bar use of the inferno staff. Talk about pigeon holing. Why would a sorc or blade run run inferno staff now.
Of course lightning staff is stronger now that it buffs direct damage and channelled damage but again, achingly limiting.
Compare to previous versions, which buffed single damage and aoe damage. Simple and promotes diverse usage. You currently see them used everywhere. The dev comments are nonsense.

It's not about stronger or weaker, it's about wasting energy tinkering with passives in a way that doesn't make sense.

Direct, channeled, and DoT are all mutually-exclusive and all-encompassing.

I.e., every damage is one and exactly of those three.

For example, someone earlier in the thread said that inferno should be DoT plus single target. So what about single-target DoTs, would that get the bonus twice?

Lightning basically buffs things in the "spammables" category. Templar jabs is a channeled spammable, DK whip is a direct damage spammable. And fire buffs non-spammables.

I think it's a reasonable way to split the damage types between the two staves. The current split on Live of single-vs-AoE is frankly not a great split because lightning sees very little use outside of empowered tri-focus (e.g., Oakensorc), and the new split has the potential for a better balance between the two. On Live, it's "daggers or fire or else". Now on PTS, lightning might pull out a little ahead or is at least closer than it used to be.