Sorry at the beginning - 1) for derailing and 2) I'm not an english native speaker - I hope you can understand my points.It's not even a measure of what classes are people playing the most since it's limited to 100 people per alliance. Only information it provides is what classes are people playing the most among top 100 AP gains among all allliances for people who have said campaign marked as home one. Pretty unreliable data source to make any statements serving more as a confirmation bias rather than any data to work with.
1) It's not "limited to 100 people per alliance" - It's limited to 100 ppl per campaign
I did this for Top100 per alliance before and the results were so close, that I desided not to do this extra effort any longer.
With the Top100 per alliance you get in some campaigns, sometimes some players with less then 50K and I don't want these ppl count as "regulars". I try to see what class the ppl play, which spent a lot of time in cyro and not the Tier1-3 or a bit more ppl.
2) There is a lot of variance in the monthly results and sure there are a lot of factors which could change the results a bit.
But your example "no home campaign" should not have any significant change of the counts, because
a) I believe there are not many "regular" players playing so much outside of their home campaign to reach the Top100 if they were counted.
So the numbers are small compared to the ppl which play a lot and play in their home campaign.
b) Even if there would be a lot playing in the "not my home" campaign - I have no reasons to belive that their distribution would differ compared to the distributation I count. For example: Why should more sorcs play outside of their home campaign then DKs?
3) "confirmation bias"
I have a clear rule, which ppl I count.
I have no reason to believe, that the distribution shouldn't be even (and it was much more even in the past) - except warden/necro ofc.
I see no reason to believe, that there is one class in favour to reach the top100 more then the others. (maybe it would so, if one had better passives at siege play or something like that) Do you see any reason?
From my point of view, it is a fair sample from the population of the regular cyro players.
And over 5 month the samplesize is now big enough. There was no month where the order was not DK/NB > Temp/Sorc, but you can easily find one campaign for one month where the order is not like that.
So the samplesize was very important - otherwise you could make biased pictures
And as already said - I don't see good reasons why other taken samples (however they would be defined) should differ much.
I cannot say anything about class performance - maybe NB is just more fun to play?
I cannot say anything about a special campaign because I don't count all players.
I cannot say anything about consoles.
I can't say anything about duel/bg because I don't get any data. Maybe the samples from these groups would differ strongly to the Cyro distribution - that is quite possible.
I can only say something about "people which played a lot in PC CP-Cyro in the last 5 month"
But sure you can still think it's not an accurate measure and the data are unreliable, but it's the best I could find and I see no better way to get information about which class is played by "regulars" the most.
If you know something better - please let me know.
2018, people. 2018. 5 years later, same discussion.
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/437928/looking-for-table-that-shows-all-major-minor-buffs-each-class-has-access-toOreyn_Bearclaw wrote: »Just in case anyone needed a reference that demonstrates why NBs are on top and sorcs are simply an outdated class in the current meta...
Turtle_Bot wrote: »2018, people. 2018. 5 years later, same discussion.
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/437928/looking-for-table-that-shows-all-major-minor-buffs-each-class-has-access-toOreyn_Bearclaw wrote: »Just in case anyone needed a reference that demonstrates why NBs are on top and sorcs are simply an outdated class in the current meta...
Very telling, that's insane that it's been 5 years of power creep and reworks to the entire game and sorcerer still can't catch a break and get an update.
for reference, here's the table from that 2018 thread
Regarding Sorcerers and their lack of unique buff/debuffs, this is intentional and there are no current plans to change this. Sorcerers do have some unique abilities in their kit, like silences. However, not locking Sorcerer into having unique buffs/debuff allows for more class diversity in group environments.
2018, people. 2018. 5 years later, same discussion.
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/437928/looking-for-table-that-shows-all-major-minor-buffs-each-class-has-access-toOreyn_Bearclaw wrote: »Just in case anyone needed a reference that demonstrates why NBs are on top and sorcs are simply an outdated class in the current meta...Turtle_Bot wrote: »2018, people. 2018. 5 years later, same discussion.
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/437928/looking-for-table-that-shows-all-major-minor-buffs-each-class-has-access-toOreyn_Bearclaw wrote: »Just in case anyone needed a reference that demonstrates why NBs are on top and sorcs are simply an outdated class in the current meta...
Very telling, that's insane that it's been 5 years of power creep and reworks to the entire game and sorcerer still can't catch a break and get an update.
for reference, here's the table from that 2018 thread
It's intentional design. Quote from few days ago:Regarding Sorcerers and their lack of unique buff/debuffs, this is intentional and there are no current plans to change this. Sorcerers do have some unique abilities in their kit, like silences. However, not locking Sorcerer into having unique buffs/debuff allows for more class diversity in group environments.
Turtle_Bot wrote: »Turtle_Bot wrote: »acastanza_ESO wrote: »Aces-High-82 wrote: »At least for pvp, you are handicapping yourself playing anything other than NB or DK.
To back up this statement a bit with numbers:
I've been evaluating the top 100 from the CP 30-day campaigns on EU and NA for the last 5 months.
NB 457
DK 406
Templar 347
Sorc 327
Warden 283 (still not free to play)
Necro 180
(4 campaigns per month * 5 months * 100 = 2000)
?? Can't take earned AP as a measure of class performance.
I agree, this is a pretty poor measure of class performance, but what it is, is a measure of what classes people are playing on the most. Which is clearly NB and DK by a significant margin. That is an indication that those classes might be overperforming in that play mode, and that is, in fact, the case. DK and NB, are overperforming by a large margin. But what this doesn't capture is the overperformance of Warden in PVP because it is paywalled, and because it is paywalled, fewer people overall play it.
It's not even a measure of what classes are people playing the most since it's limited to 100 people per alliance. Only information it provides is what classes are people playing the most among top 100 AP gains among all allliances for people who have said campaign marked as home one. Pretty unreliable data source to make any statements serving more as a confirmation bias rather than any data to work with.
It's about as reliable of information as basing all balancing on the results of single target trial dummy parses and spreadsheets, in fact its even more reliable than that because it takes into account actual content being played under actual in game conditions.
Any reliable data source saying that dummy parses are base for balance changes?
Zos claims that sorcerer is fine and not in need of any buffs/fixes. The only place a sorcerer performs even remotely close to the other classes is when parsing on a single trial dummy.
Not that hard to put 2 and 2 together and see that this is very likely how the testing for balancing is being done.
Unless there is hard evidence to prove otherwise, this is the only logical conclusion for their responses regarding the sorcerer class and where they think the class is at.
Also note that parsing on a trial dummy doesn't require any sustain or defensive options (see heals/mitigation), so once again, sorcerer seems plenty fine when balancing the class based on single target trial dummy parses since it doesn't have to use its healing and it doesn't need to cleave down multiple targets at the same time (required for most end game content) and as such it looks perfectly balanced in that 1 niche scenario.
The problem I do not like is the fact if your playing in an environment in which no one is providing these other buffs to Sorcerers we are immediately at a disadvantage in comparison to other classes. If your playing solo in PvP or in a group and no one else is providing these buffs, your immediately just straight up weaker due to them wanting other classes to provide the buffs for you.
Turtle_Bot wrote: »Turtle_Bot wrote: »acastanza_ESO wrote: »Aces-High-82 wrote: »At least for pvp, you are handicapping yourself playing anything other than NB or DK.
To back up this statement a bit with numbers:
I've been evaluating the top 100 from the CP 30-day campaigns on EU and NA for the last 5 months.
NB 457
DK 406
Templar 347
Sorc 327
Warden 283 (still not free to play)
Necro 180
(4 campaigns per month * 5 months * 100 = 2000)
?? Can't take earned AP as a measure of class performance.
I agree, this is a pretty poor measure of class performance, but what it is, is a measure of what classes people are playing on the most. Which is clearly NB and DK by a significant margin. That is an indication that those classes might be overperforming in that play mode, and that is, in fact, the case. DK and NB, are overperforming by a large margin. But what this doesn't capture is the overperformance of Warden in PVP because it is paywalled, and because it is paywalled, fewer people overall play it.
It's not even a measure of what classes are people playing the most since it's limited to 100 people per alliance. Only information it provides is what classes are people playing the most among top 100 AP gains among all allliances for people who have said campaign marked as home one. Pretty unreliable data source to make any statements serving more as a confirmation bias rather than any data to work with.
It's about as reliable of information as basing all balancing on the results of single target trial dummy parses and spreadsheets, in fact its even more reliable than that because it takes into account actual content being played under actual in game conditions.
Any reliable data source saying that dummy parses are base for balance changes?
Zos claims that sorcerer is fine and not in need of any buffs/fixes. The only place a sorcerer performs even remotely close to the other classes is when parsing on a single trial dummy.
Not that hard to put 2 and 2 together and see that this is very likely how the testing for balancing is being done.
Unless there is hard evidence to prove otherwise, this is the only logical conclusion for their responses regarding the sorcerer class and where they think the class is at.
Also note that parsing on a trial dummy doesn't require any sustain or defensive options (see heals/mitigation), so once again, sorcerer seems plenty fine when balancing the class based on single target trial dummy parses since it doesn't have to use its healing and it doesn't need to cleave down multiple targets at the same time (required for most end game content) and as such it looks perfectly balanced in that 1 niche scenario.
Dummy parsing was also directly mentioned last year by Devs when discussing the light attack and dot damage changes and their impact.
imo, they need to remove active damage shields as a playstyle, and make them passive secondary effects on primary skills (more like DK); ZOS has a seems to think damage shields are more powerful than they are, and it ends up punishing the class in every other area.Turtle_Bot wrote: »Turtle_Bot wrote: »acastanza_ESO wrote: »Aces-High-82 wrote: »At least for pvp, you are handicapping yourself playing anything other than NB or DK.
To back up this statement a bit with numbers:
I've been evaluating the top 100 from the CP 30-day campaigns on EU and NA for the last 5 months.
NB 457
DK 406
Templar 347
Sorc 327
Warden 283 (still not free to play)
Necro 180
(4 campaigns per month * 5 months * 100 = 2000)
?? Can't take earned AP as a measure of class performance.
I agree, this is a pretty poor measure of class performance, but what it is, is a measure of what classes people are playing on the most. Which is clearly NB and DK by a significant margin. That is an indication that those classes might be overperforming in that play mode, and that is, in fact, the case. DK and NB, are overperforming by a large margin. But what this doesn't capture is the overperformance of Warden in PVP because it is paywalled, and because it is paywalled, fewer people overall play it.
It's not even a measure of what classes are people playing the most since it's limited to 100 people per alliance. Only information it provides is what classes are people playing the most among top 100 AP gains among all allliances for people who have said campaign marked as home one. Pretty unreliable data source to make any statements serving more as a confirmation bias rather than any data to work with.
It's about as reliable of information as basing all balancing on the results of single target trial dummy parses and spreadsheets, in fact its even more reliable than that because it takes into account actual content being played under actual in game conditions.
Any reliable data source saying that dummy parses are base for balance changes?
Zos claims that sorcerer is fine and not in need of any buffs/fixes. The only place a sorcerer performs even remotely close to the other classes is when parsing on a single trial dummy.
Not that hard to put 2 and 2 together and see that this is very likely how the testing for balancing is being done.
Unless there is hard evidence to prove otherwise, this is the only logical conclusion for their responses regarding the sorcerer class and where they think the class is at.
Also note that parsing on a trial dummy doesn't require any sustain or defensive options (see heals/mitigation), so once again, sorcerer seems plenty fine when balancing the class based on single target trial dummy parses since it doesn't have to use its healing and it doesn't need to cleave down multiple targets at the same time (required for most end game content) and as such it looks perfectly balanced in that 1 niche scenario.
Dummy parsing was also directly mentioned last year by Devs when discussing the light attack and dot damage changes and their impact.
Turtle_Bot wrote: »2018, people. 2018. 5 years later, same discussion.
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/437928/looking-for-table-that-shows-all-major-minor-buffs-each-class-has-access-toOreyn_Bearclaw wrote: »Just in case anyone needed a reference that demonstrates why NBs are on top and sorcs are simply an outdated class in the current meta...
Very telling, that's insane that it's been 5 years of power creep and reworks to the entire game and sorcerer still can't catch a break and get an update.
for reference, here's the table from that 2018 thread
Turtle_Bot wrote: »2018, people. 2018. 5 years later, same discussion.
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/437928/looking-for-table-that-shows-all-major-minor-buffs-each-class-has-access-toOreyn_Bearclaw wrote: »Just in case anyone needed a reference that demonstrates why NBs are on top and sorcs are simply an outdated class in the current meta...Turtle_Bot wrote: »2018, people. 2018. 5 years later, same discussion.
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/437928/looking-for-table-that-shows-all-major-minor-buffs-each-class-has-access-toOreyn_Bearclaw wrote: »Just in case anyone needed a reference that demonstrates why NBs are on top and sorcs are simply an outdated class in the current meta...
Very telling, that's insane that it's been 5 years of power creep and reworks to the entire game and sorcerer still can't catch a break and get an update.
for reference, here's the table from that 2018 thread
It's intentional design. Quote from few days ago:Regarding Sorcerers and their lack of unique buff/debuffs, this is intentional and there are no current plans to change this. Sorcerers do have some unique abilities in their kit, like silences. However, not locking Sorcerer into having unique buffs/debuff allows for more class diversity in group environments.
re-read my original post, it goes over why this "intentional design" is no longer appropriate for the class. Especially when it comes to common buffs/debuffs that are supposed to be standard on every class.
Also, intentional design can (and is often) wrong in many cases and besides, everything should always be regularly reviewed and made sure that it is still appropriate for its current state. This is not just applicable to games, but all throughout business and society as well, it's just good practice and prevents things from being left in the past and becoming irrelevant.
Charts like this can be misleading though. For instance it lists Nightblades as having access to major berserk. But that comes from a skill that procs it after getting a kill, a skill that is basically never used. Just because a class has a lot of minor and major buffs doesn’t necessarily mean they actually have them if the skill they are tied to is bad. Like Ambush, this skill has always been clunky to use and very hard to fit into a build, but it provides empower, minor berserk, and minor vulnerability, which sounds great but it’s still not worth using.
At the end of the day I don’t think it’s super important that Sorcerers get a bunch of minor and major buffs, but they should have a well rounded kit that can compete.
The main issue is still that certain classes currently have no weaknesses.
Maybe the ZOS didn't make serious ups this quarter, so that in the next update they will rework the lines of dark magic? That would be cool, since at the moment we have at least 2 useless skills in this line. Oh, dreams, dreams....There are a number of abilities for sorcerer I have never really used and would probably rework lol. Most of the dark magic line actually
Turtle_Bot wrote: »
Charts like this can be misleading though. For instance it lists Nightblades as having access to major berserk. But that comes from a skill that procs it after getting a kill, a skill that is basically never used. Just because a class has a lot of minor and major buffs doesn’t necessarily mean they actually have them if the skill they are tied to is bad. Like Ambush, this skill has always been clunky to use and very hard to fit into a build, but it provides empower, minor berserk, and minor vulnerability, which sounds great but it’s still not worth using.
At the end of the day I don’t think it’s super important that Sorcerers get a bunch of minor and major buffs, but they should have a well rounded kit that can compete.
The main issue is still that certain classes currently have no weaknesses.
That's fair, but technically speaking, we could say the same about sorcerers:
- major berserk (requires an ally to activate the synergy that goes to the "closest 8 allies") so even in group settings not reliable to go to the sorc that summoned it and completely non-existent for solo play.
- major/minor expedition where sorc is forced to choose between the 2 buffs while NB gets both for free as additional utility on already very strong skills.
- major mending tied to an AoE soft CC (immobilize) that messes up tanks in pve, doesn't do any damage and doesn't do enough in pvp to warrant any use.
- silence, on a reasonably high cost ultimate that the encounters team has made sure that the important enemies you want it for in pve are immune to it and in PvP enemies just walk out of it, avoid it or use their stamina abilities that are completely unaffected by it.
I agree, I don't think the class needs much, that's why all I ask for the class is a reliable burst heal that gives an alternative to the outdated shield playstyle, access to major prophecy/savagery to help tie the class HoT to the kit better and a tidy up of the outdated/clunky passives/mechanics that haven't been looked at since before that chart was made.
ESO_Nightingale wrote: »So why do they keep buffing NB, Warden and DK ? IF templar, sorcerer and necro are what they envisaged for balance per class then why on EARTH do they keep buffing classes that are just simply better ?
Warden dps in pve is the lowest currently so that's pretty misleading. All classes need buffs and nerfs in necessary areas not just 2 or 3.
Tyrant_Tim wrote: »Our Storm Calling set literally spawns “pet” conduits, you can’t even make this stuff up.