🚨Werewolf NERFS Incoming on PTS Week 3🚨

xylena · April 26

Wuuffyy wrote: »

Asking in a modest way to keep that conversation where it belongs ^_^

Relax, WW is still gonna be strong.

Ataskir · April 26

xylena wrote: »

Relax, WW is still gonna be strong.

As long as I can still apply my 18 seconds of major brittle in beastform, I’ll be happy. Other than having a movement speed cap increase and a snare immunity, the WW update has been everything I’ve wanted.

Oh, I also want a scribing ability but that’ll be at a later time I hope!

dark_hunterxmg · April 27

Ataskir wrote: »

xylena wrote: »

Relax, WW is still gonna be strong.

As long as I can still apply my 18 seconds of major brittle in beastform, I’ll be happy. Other than having a movement speed cap increase and a snare immunity, the WW update has been everything I’ve wanted.

Oh, I also want a scribing ability but that’ll be at a later time I hope!

Some good things for sure. I'm waiting for the changes that I know it still needs.

hoangdz · April 27

This is possibly one of the rare cases where not all opinions are valid. If you know you know

Wuuffyy · April 27

hoangdz wrote: »

This is possibly one of the rare cases where not all opinions are valid. If you know you know

I absolutely agree on the matter! That and more can once again be discussed in the thread mentioned over and over and over (info below however). You can also read what is quoted under the spoiler if you need it before you head over (inside is the tag to ~the discussion~)

Wuuffyy wrote: »

Overbowed wrote: »

Please post the CMX's, videos, and math you are using to come to this conclusion.

I have- check here

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/691083/u50-feedback-thread-for-combat-refresh-werewolf

and here

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/691541/ww-is-too-op-debate-from-ww-feedback-thread.

I’m constantly and consistently providing proof throughout those posts. I actually went back to check through my own posts and I my requests indeed remain the same through and through (and have yet to be met). I even made an attempt at providing genuine feedback for class mastery in relation to werewolf (going on good faith and assuming there is/was any validity in the ‘nerf werewolf’ claim) after seeing sorc-with-masteries parsing a whopping ~220k on the atro dummy.

Someone said it best in that the 1 video supplied shows nothing but a hodgepodge of Riften duels with players of various skill levels (some literally die after 10 seconds using 2 skills or less) providing no info on opponent gear or even the challenger’s gear/abilities (skills lines,etc.). Add to this the CMXs were parsing with Relequen, Huntsman (super damage 1 v 1 mythic), and the ilk (once again CMX being incapable of relaying opponent info or ‘challenger’ gear/abilities).

I use parses (which show possible maximums and are replica-table) to ‘prove’ my numbers and reasoning in discussion. I also draw from tooltips and provide evidence of gear, etc. when I post my own personal info.

Overbowed wrote: »

Wuuffy it's pretty clear you aren't acting in good faith, but I will engage once, and only once.

(how dare thee misspell my name, jk)

I actually do believe it’s incredibly disingenuous to ‘enter’ a conversation by name dropping, accusing someone of acting in bad faith, while providing no substantive evidence of any kind from ‘your side’. This in and of itself is about as disingenuous as saying ‘nerf x’ because ‘I ran Relequen and Hunstman in a 1v1’ and ‘here’s what I pulled’… all while providing literally no information or proof of your opponent gear/ abilities for protection values, etc.

But HEY, that’s just a fil—- I meant if you wish to discuss more please enter the second thread listed above and I’d be happy to go at the roundabout should you choose (I request substantive proof, you provide none as described very clearly in threads+above, rinse-repeat).

hoangdz · April 27

VinnyGambini wrote: »

dark_hunterxmg wrote: »

Wup_sa wrote: »

Wuuffyy wrote: »

Wup_sa wrote: »

You are honestly so biased. WW is currently doing more imbalance to pvp than subclassing ever did. You simply can't accept the fact that WW should be on par with others, not 10x above them.

Enough context was even given on how op it is, you just refuse to accept it. Your argument to someone who understand something from pvp sounds like 2+2=5.

The build was even given in the cmx, it literally shows rele stacks with tfs stacks, yet you refused to accept that too.

Going to keep my response in a similar format to yours.

'relequen'. Give evidence of what the opponent was running, no cuts- right now (I know you can't )

Relequeen, twice-fanged serpent and huntsmans mythic. That was the build, which is what the cmx clearly even tells you.

It's not just the sets. It's the Sorcerer class masteries that are enabling this. Greater sustain from Conservation of Energy means greater damage output, plus the damage from Static Reverberation is compounding.

This is not a Werewolf problem. It's a class mastery problem.

Werewolf still has no single skill that can even come close to the damage that a whip or a crystal frag can do.

THIS. Fully agree, sorc class masteries are beyond OP. Right now in riften you can see exclusively sorceres (WW and not WW) testing out how OP sorcerer is.

Personally I'm very happy that WW nerfs are incoming, and sorc passives should be nerfed as well.

DK is literally more broken than Sorc lol.

hoangdz · April 27

Wuuffyy wrote: »

hoangdz wrote: »

This is possibly one of the rare cases where not all opinions are valid. If you know you know

I absolutely agree on the matter! That and more can once again be discussed in the thread mentioned over and over and over (info below however). You can also read what is quoted under the spoiler if you need it before you head over (inside is the tag to ~the discussion~)

Wuuffyy wrote: »

Overbowed wrote: »

Please post the CMX's, videos, and math you are using to come to this conclusion.

I have- check here

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/691083/u50-feedback-thread-for-combat-refresh-werewolf

and here

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/691541/ww-is-too-op-debate-from-ww-feedback-thread.

I’m constantly and consistently providing proof throughout those posts. I actually went back to check through my own posts and I my requests indeed remain the same through and through (and have yet to be met). I even made an attempt at providing genuine feedback for class mastery in relation to werewolf (going on good faith and assuming there is/was any validity in the ‘nerf werewolf’ claim) after seeing sorc-with-masteries parsing a whopping ~220k on the atro dummy.

Someone said it best in that the 1 video supplied shows nothing but a hodgepodge of Riften duels with players of various skill levels (some literally die after 10 seconds using 2 skills or less) providing no info on opponent gear or even the challenger’s gear/abilities (skills lines,etc.). Add to this the CMXs were parsing with Relequen, Huntsman (super damage 1 v 1 mythic), and the ilk (once again CMX being incapable of relaying opponent info or ‘challenger’ gear/abilities).

I use parses (which show possible maximums and are replica-table) to ‘prove’ my numbers and reasoning in discussion. I also draw from tooltips and provide evidence of gear, etc. when I post my own personal info.

Overbowed wrote: »

Wuuffy it's pretty clear you aren't acting in good faith, but I will engage once, and only once.

(how dare thee misspell my name, jk)

I actually do believe it’s incredibly disingenuous to ‘enter’ a conversation by name dropping, accusing someone of acting in bad faith, while providing no substantive evidence of any kind from ‘your side’. This in and of itself is about as disingenuous as saying ‘nerf x’ because ‘I ran Relequen and Hunstman in a 1v1’ and ‘here’s what I pulled’… all while providing literally no information or proof of your opponent gear/ abilities for protection values, etc.

But HEY, that’s just a fil—- I meant if you wish to discuss more please enter the second thread listed above and I’d be happy to go at the roundabout should you choose (I request substantive proof, you provide none as described very clearly in threads+above, rinse-repeat).

Buddy, I can't tell if you're a master ragebaiter or you are genuinely serious in your conviction. Regardless, I cannot be bothered going through another 5+ pages of arguing in circles with the WW community, so I'll just state these 3 facts (yes, they are facts, not opinions):

1) WW is currently overperforming on PTS, with or without class masteries. This has been repeatedly demonstrated multiple times by good players utilizing a PROPER build against good opponents. If, for whatever reason, you doubt the competency of those opponents, I STRONGLY suggest you prove it by taking their place instead.

2) WW is currently performing best with proc sets. Nobody here can claim that slapping them on WW falsifies data when it has already happened on the live server (i.e Pyrebrand/Relequen/Vateshran DK, Relequen Bowsorc, Null Arca builds, Gorethief builds, etc.). All of these iterations exist on the live server and are still popular in all facets of PvP. People aren't wearing those sets to "win duels and skew data". They're wearing them because their specs have the best synergy with those sets.

3) Whether you like it or not, 1v1 is one of the best methods to gauge PvP balance. It's not 100% accurate, but it's currently the best way to provide balance feedback because it’s easy to pull off (no need to simulate BG/Cyrodiil conditions) and everything is controlled (no Cyro lag, random healing from teammates, random damage taken from other opponents). Not only that, but it’s been historically proven that what is broken in a 1v1 tends to also apply to other PvP environments. Meta subclassed builds like Animal/Assassination/Storm or Restoring Light, triple proc set builds, Jeralls, etc. are all pretty potent and overperforming in duels. Guess what? They are also used by groups lol. There are only a few exceptions where that isn’t the case, such as Vicious Death being a bomb set only, but that line too has faded in U49 when you consider reworked DKs wearing Vicious Death and STILL having the potential to nuke a good player in a 1v1.

Wuuffyy · April 27

hoangdz wrote: »

Wuuffyy wrote: »

hoangdz wrote: »

This is possibly one of the rare cases where not all opinions are valid. If you know you know

I absolutely agree on the matter! That and more can once again be discussed in the thread mentioned over and over and over (info below however). You can also read what is quoted under the spoiler if you need it before you head over (inside is the tag to ~the discussion~)

Wuuffyy wrote: »

Overbowed wrote: »

Please post the CMX's, videos, and math you are using to come to this conclusion.

I have- check here

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/691083/u50-feedback-thread-for-combat-refresh-werewolf

and here

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/691541/ww-is-too-op-debate-from-ww-feedback-thread.

I’m constantly and consistently providing proof throughout those posts. I actually went back to check through my own posts and I my requests indeed remain the same through and through (and have yet to be met). I even made an attempt at providing genuine feedback for class mastery in relation to werewolf (going on good faith and assuming there is/was any validity in the ‘nerf werewolf’ claim) after seeing sorc-with-masteries parsing a whopping ~220k on the atro dummy.

Someone said it best in that the 1 video supplied shows nothing but a hodgepodge of Riften duels with players of various skill levels (some literally die after 10 seconds using 2 skills or less) providing no info on opponent gear or even the challenger’s gear/abilities (skills lines,etc.). Add to this the CMXs were parsing with Relequen, Huntsman (super damage 1 v 1 mythic), and the ilk (once again CMX being incapable of relaying opponent info or ‘challenger’ gear/abilities).

I use parses (which show possible maximums and are replica-table) to ‘prove’ my numbers and reasoning in discussion. I also draw from tooltips and provide evidence of gear, etc. when I post my own personal info.

Overbowed wrote: »

Wuuffy it's pretty clear you aren't acting in good faith, but I will engage once, and only once.

(how dare thee misspell my name, jk)

I actually do believe it’s incredibly disingenuous to ‘enter’ a conversation by name dropping, accusing someone of acting in bad faith, while providing no substantive evidence of any kind from ‘your side’. This in and of itself is about as disingenuous as saying ‘nerf x’ because ‘I ran Relequen and Hunstman in a 1v1’ and ‘here’s what I pulled’… all while providing literally no information or proof of your opponent gear/ abilities for protection values, etc.

But HEY, that’s just a fil—- I meant if you wish to discuss more please enter the second thread listed above and I’d be happy to go at the roundabout should you choose (I request substantive proof, you provide none as described very clearly in threads+above, rinse-repeat).

Buddy, I can't tell if you're a master ragebaiter or you are genuinely serious in your conviction. Regardless, I cannot be bothered going through another 5+ pages of arguing in circles with the WW community, so I'll just state these 3 facts (yes, they are facts, not opinions):

1) WW is currently overperforming on PTS, with or without class masteries. This has been repeatedly demonstrated multiple times by good players utilizing a PROPER build against good opponents. If, for whatever reason, you doubt the competency of those opponents, I STRONGLY suggest you prove it by taking their place instead.

2) WW is currently performing best with proc sets. Nobody here can claim that slapping them on WW falsifies data when it has already happened on the live server (i.e Pyrebrand/Relequen/Vateshran DK, Relequen Bowsorc, Null Arca builds, Gorethief builds, etc.). All of these iterations exist on the live server and are still popular in all facets of PvP. People aren't wearing those sets to "win duels and skew data". They're wearing them because their specs have the best synergy with those sets.

3) Whether you like it or not, 1v1 is one of the best methods to gauge PvP balance. It's not 100% accurate, but it's currently the best way to give balance feedback because everything is controlled.

You’re welcome to have this opinion (yes, opinion). The thread being linked is not my/ “the werewolf community’s” thread nor is it over 3 pages (I believe). You can take your opinion and either see my own points above as I did touch on this or you can visit the thread I mentioned as it’s the perfect place to continue debating ~that~.

I will not continue this further here but advise that you’ll need to understand what the terms ‘burden of proof’ and ‘controlled test’ (can use Gemini if you need a quick breakdown) mean to grasp what is being discussed before you visit.

As I said before ^-^ https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/691541/ww-is-too-op-debate-from-ww-feedback-thread

Wuuffyy wrote: »

This will lead to a non-constructive "he said/she said" conversation just as how the initial feedback thread devolved into.

hoangdz · April 27

Wuuffyy wrote: »

I will not discuss this further here but you’ll need to understand what the terms ‘burden of proof’ and ‘controlled test’ (can use Gemini if you need a quick breakdown) mean to truly understand what is being discussed before you visit.

1) The burden of proof requires a competent 3rd party acting as judge. In the context of ESO, ZOS is the 3rd party. I have provided my own evidence, as did others with close to 50+ hours of PTS 1v1 tests simulating real fights. It is now upto ZOS to examine this data and make the necessary adjustments.

2) This isn't a courtroom. ZOS released a series of combat balance changes and welcomed everyone to test and provide feedback. I and others tested these changes and voiced our opinion on them, backed with proof. You must also do the same thing in return. You simply cannot assume that these WW buffs are inherently balanced and leave the burden of proof on us while doing nothing in return. That's very disingenuous.

Wuuffyy · April 27

hoangdz wrote: »

Wuuffyy wrote: »

I will not discuss this further here but you’ll need to understand what the terms ‘burden of proof’ and ‘controlled test’ (can use Gemini if you need a quick breakdown) mean to truly understand what is being discussed before you visit.

1) The burden of proof requires a competent 3rd party acting as judge. In the context of ESO, ZOS is the 3rd party. I have provided my own evidence, as did others with close to 50+ hours of PTS 1v1 tests simulating real fights. It is now upto ZOS to examine this data and make the necessary adjustments.

2) This isn't a courtroom. ZOS released a series of combat balance changes and welcomed everyone to test and provide feedback. I and others tested these changes and voiced our opinion on them, backed with proof. You must also do the same thing in return. You simply cannot assume that these WW buffs are inherently balanced and leave the burden of proof on us while doing nothing in return. That's very disingenuous.

~thread~ my wonderful friend. I and many others provided parses (controlled tests) that demonstrate that it isn’t egregiously overhead from other damage specs on the top end (remember, the argument is that it does ‘this much sustained damage in a duel’ and it doesn’t have an actual burst move so we aren’t debating that 0.o).

If ZOS decides to balance off your 1 v 1 duels then they are welcome to do that as it is their game after all. You don’t appear to be comprehending what is being relayed or at least do not consider other insight on the matter beyond yours/those who ‘agree’ roughly with your viewpoint>

Hence why I keep saying ~the thread~ (~please~ migrate there to continue and I will happily meet you over there tomorrow). I want to keep this thread as constructive as I feel it can be and I, personally, don’t believe you/‘your party’ are willing the have a constructive conversation on the matter regarding what is logically-deemed, proper demonstration.

Extraordinary statement being ‘I did -x- amount in a duel’ (against who/why/how/what/etc.???; please don’t have me do this for ‘controlled test’ as well and why that is important for providing metric-based feedback).

hoangdz · April 27

Wuuffyy wrote: »

hoangdz wrote: »

Wuuffyy wrote: »

I will not discuss this further here but you’ll need to understand what the terms ‘burden of proof’ and ‘controlled test’ (can use Gemini if you need a quick breakdown) mean to truly understand what is being discussed before you visit.

1) The burden of proof requires a competent 3rd party acting as judge. In the context of ESO, ZOS is the 3rd party. I have provided my own evidence, as did others with close to 50+ hours of PTS 1v1 tests simulating real fights. It is now upto ZOS to examine this data and make the necessary adjustments.

2) This isn't a courtroom. ZOS released a series of combat balance changes and welcomed everyone to test and provide feedback. I and others tested these changes and voiced our opinion on them, backed with proof. You must also do the same thing in return. You simply cannot assume that these WW buffs are inherently balanced and leave the burden of proof on us while doing nothing in return. That's very disingenuous.

~thread~ my wonderful friend. I and many others provided parses (controlled tests) that demonstrate that it isn’t egregiously overhead from other damage specs on the top end (remember, the argument is that it does ‘this much sustained damage in a duel’ and it doesn’t have an actual burst move so we aren’t debating that 0.o).

If ZOS decides to balance off your 1 v 1 duels then they are welcome to do that as it is their game after all. You don’t appear to be comprehending what is being relayed or at least do not consider other insight on the matter beyond yours/those who ‘agree’ roughly with your viewpoint>

Hence why I keep saying ~the thread~ (~please~ migrate there to continue and I will happily meet you over there tomorrow). I want to keep this thread as constructive as I feel it can be and I, personally, don’t believe you/‘your party’ are willing the have a constructive conversation on the matter regarding what is logically-deemed, proper demonstration.

Extraordinary statement being ‘I did -x- amount in a duel’ (against who/why/how/what/etc.???; please don’t have me do this for ‘controlled test’ as well and why that is important for providing metric-based feedback).

hoangdz · April 27

Wuuffyy wrote: »

hoangdz wrote: »

Wuuffyy wrote: »

I will not discuss this further here but you’ll need to understand what the terms ‘burden of proof’ and ‘controlled test’ (can use Gemini if you need a quick breakdown) mean to truly understand what is being discussed before you visit.

1) The burden of proof requires a competent 3rd party acting as judge. In the context of ESO, ZOS is the 3rd party. I have provided my own evidence, as did others with close to 50+ hours of PTS 1v1 tests simulating real fights. It is now upto ZOS to examine this data and make the necessary adjustments.

2) This isn't a courtroom. ZOS released a series of combat balance changes and welcomed everyone to test and provide feedback. I and others tested these changes and voiced our opinion on them, backed with proof. You must also do the same thing in return. You simply cannot assume that these WW buffs are inherently balanced and leave the burden of proof on us while doing nothing in return. That's very disingenuous.

~thread~ my wonderful friend. I and many others provided parses (controlled tests) that demonstrate that it isn’t egregiously overhead from other damage specs on the top end (remember, the argument is that it does ‘this much sustained damage in a duel’ and it doesn’t have an actual burst move so we aren’t debating that 0.o).

If ZOS decides to balance off your 1 v 1 duels then they are welcome to do that as it is their game after all. You don’t appear to be comprehending what is being relayed or at least do not consider other insight on the matter beyond yours/those who ‘agree’ roughly with your viewpoint>

Hence why I keep saying ~the thread~ (~please~ migrate there to continue and I will happily meet you over there tomorrow). I want to keep this thread as constructive as I feel it can be and I, personally, don’t believe you/‘your party’ are willing the have a constructive conversation on the matter regarding what is logically-deemed, proper demonstration.

Extraordinary statement being ‘I did -x- amount in a duel’ (against who/why/how/what/etc.???; please don’t have me do this for ‘controlled test’ as well and why that is important for providing metric-based feedback).

As I and many people have already said, if you want the WW changes to roll through because you're tired of seeing the class dead for so long, just state so. We can understand the sentiment. However, you should neither pretend that the status quo is somehow established already, especially when the PTS testing phase is still ongoing, nor argue in the name of balance but provide no proof in return.

hoangdz · April 27

Wuuffyy wrote: »

I will not continue this further here but advise that you’ll need to understand what the terms ‘burden of proof’ and ‘controlled test’ (can use Gemini if you need a quick breakdown) mean to grasp what is being discussed before you visit.

Funny how Gemini is now disagreeing with you HUH

JimT722 · April 27

Hopefully, they will find a way to reduce dps in pvp situations without reducing pve dps which i haven't seen anyone post anything crazy in that department. let's see the changes before getting our pitchforks out. they have done amazing with the rework so far. werewolf in pve has never been more fun.

Wuuffyy · April 27

hoangdz wrote: »

Wuuffyy wrote: »

I will not continue this further here but advise that you’ll need to understand what the terms ‘burden of proof’ and ‘controlled test’ (can use Gemini if you need a quick breakdown) mean to grasp what is being discussed before you visit.

Funny how Gemini is now disagreeing with you HUH

Worked fine for me but you’re clearly not willing to engage in meaningful discussion despite all evidence provided to you. You’re simply ‘strawman-ing’ the convo my friend. You can see the time on my screenshot so have an amazing and wonderful rest of your night (say whatever you need to while I sleppp).

Anyways since it also seems merited,

‘Controlled test’ depends on application and I’m neither typing out ‘for ESO’ info, info, info so you can completely and disingenuously disregard it so take the good ol’ ‘in gaming’ and go crazy with the ‘straw man’ here too.

hoangdz · April 27

Wuuffyy wrote: »

hoangdz wrote: »

Wuuffyy wrote: »

I will not continue this further here but advise that you’ll need to understand what the terms ‘burden of proof’ and ‘controlled test’ (can use Gemini if you need a quick breakdown) mean to grasp what is being discussed before you visit.

Funny how Gemini is now disagreeing with you HUH

Worked fine for me but you’re clearly not willing to engage in meaningful discussion despite all evidence provided to you. You’re simply ‘strawman-ing’ the convo my friend. You can see the time on my screenshot so have an amazing and wonderful rest of your night (say whatever you need to while I sleppp).

Anyways since it also seems merited,

‘Controlled test’ depends on application and I’m neither typing out ‘for ESO’ info, info, info so you can completely and disingenuously disregard it so take the good ol’ ‘in gaming’ and go crazy with the ‘straw man’ here too.

hoangdz · April 27

We did what WW players asked and removed the class mastery passives, and still achieved 6k-7k DPS on the new WW, while having 6k+ HPS and 40k+ HP. We compared those values to the current best class on the live server (DK), and determined that PTS WW is indeed overperforming (live server DK does not have all 3. They can have 7k DPS with 6k HPS, but not 40k HP, or 6k HPS and 40k HP, but not 7k DPS.).

This is as much objective evidence as it can get. It is now YOUR responsibility to refute our claim with YOUR evidence. Replicate the same data we had, first by fighting the same players, then by fighting us. Then we can come to the actual conclusion whether it's a WW issue or a skill issue.

hoangdz · April 27

Sorc is my main class, and I have played it through patches where it was completely dogwater (patches where the only Sorcs you could find were diehard mains while everyone else was on another meta class). Yet, whenever it does get buffed, I am not hesitant to call out on any overperforming changes, such as when Hardened Ward received a massive buff. As of right now, I have also stated that one of the Sorc class masteries is overperforming:

Why would I go out of my way to nerf my own class if it were not for balance lol? Seeing your own class being 1-2 tiers above everyone else is fun at first, but it gets stale super fast when everyone else hops on your class. Not only that, ZOS's track record has shown that they tend to overnerf things, so I would rather them slightly nerf the values now on PTS than let it all out on the live server and severely nerf them later on. Even then, I cannot be so sure that they won't completely screw this over (like how they removed Minor Force from Dark Deal, essentially make that morph weaker than Dark Conversion, and overall nerfing stamsorc's burst ceiling).

hoangdz · April 27

Any response to this since you told me to use Gemini to understand "burden of proof" and "controlled test"?

Dracane · April 27

hoangdz wrote: »

Sorc is my main class, and I have played it through patches where it was completely dogwater (patches where the only Sorcs you could find were diehard mains while everyone else was on another meta class). Yet, whenever it does get buffed, I am not hesitant to call out on any overperforming changes, such as when Hardened Ward received a massive buff. As of right now, I have also stated that one of the Sorc class masteries is overperforming:

Why would I go out of my way to nerf my own class if it were not for balance lol? Seeing your own class being 1-2 tiers above everyone else is fun at first, but it gets stale super fast when everyone else hops on your class. Not only that, ZOS's track record has shown that they tend to overnerf things, so I would rather them slightly nerf the values now on PTS than let it all out on the live server and severely nerf them later on. Even then, I cannot be so sure that they won't completely screw this over (like how they removed Minor Force from Dark Deal, essentially make that morph weaker than Dark Conversion, and overall nerfing stamsorc's burst ceiling).

It's too crazy to ask for anything to get nerfed when Dragonknight is allowed to go on unscathed. That should be our Seal of Avilliva. As long as that class does not get seriously reduced in power, then neither should anything else. (And that is good)

hoangdz · April 27

Dracane wrote: »

hoangdz wrote: »

Sorc is my main class, and I have played it through patches where it was completely dogwater (patches where the only Sorcs you could find were diehard mains while everyone else was on another meta class). Yet, whenever it does get buffed, I am not hesitant to call out on any overperforming changes, such as when Hardened Ward received a massive buff. As of right now, I have also stated that one of the Sorc class masteries is overperforming:

Why would I go out of my way to nerf my own class if it were not for balance lol? Seeing your own class being 1-2 tiers above everyone else is fun at first, but it gets stale super fast when everyone else hops on your class. Not only that, ZOS's track record has shown that they tend to overnerf things, so I would rather them slightly nerf the values now on PTS than let it all out on the live server and severely nerf them later on. Even then, I cannot be so sure that they won't completely screw this over (like how they removed Minor Force from Dark Deal, essentially make that morph weaker than Dark Conversion, and overall nerfing stamsorc's burst ceiling).

It's too crazy to ask for anything to get nerfed when Dragonknight is allowed to go on unscathed. That should be our Seal of Avilliva. As long as that class does not get seriously reduced in power, then neither should anything else. (And that is good)

Everything requiring adjustments has already been voiced by me, React, and many others who participated in the testing. We do this every PTS cycle. Whether ZOS listens to us and uses our data or not, idk. We can only wait and see.

BattleAxe · April 27

Dracane wrote: »

hoangdz wrote: »

Sorc is my main class, and I have played it through patches where it was completely dogwater (patches where the only Sorcs you could find were diehard mains while everyone else was on another meta class). Yet, whenever it does get buffed, I am not hesitant to call out on any overperforming changes, such as when Hardened Ward received a massive buff. As of right now, I have also stated that one of the Sorc class masteries is overperforming:

Why would I go out of my way to nerf my own class if it were not for balance lol? Seeing your own class being 1-2 tiers above everyone else is fun at first, but it gets stale super fast when everyone else hops on your class. Not only that, ZOS's track record has shown that they tend to overnerf things, so I would rather them slightly nerf the values now on PTS than let it all out on the live server and severely nerf them later on. Even then, I cannot be so sure that they won't completely screw this over (like how they removed Minor Force from Dark Deal, essentially make that morph weaker than Dark Conversion, and overall nerfing stamsorc's burst ceiling).

It's too crazy to ask for anything to get nerfed when Dragonknight is allowed to go on unscathed. That should be our Seal of Avilliva. As long as that class does not get seriously reduced in power, then neither should anything else. (And that is good)

Why should dk be reduce in power now? Class refresh is ongoing balancing the updated classes versus the ones not updated does not help and instead will lead right back to same problem when refresh ends. Sure balance is gonna be majorly out of sorts with these reworks going on but this should result in better balance in the end. The reasoning why is simple once every class has a distinct playstyle or 2 fully fleshed out the devs can better target outlying skills and instead of massive sweeping changes they can target the outlier specifically and bring it in line. Serves the purpose of allowing devs to target specific outlying skills instead of the old massive sweeping changes each update which in turn allows the devs to focus more on making new and better content. After refresh we should no longer have 1 skill causing most of if not all skills that follow a similar rule or design being changed. Less focus on combat changes and more on content I think will better serve all players.

Dracane · April 27

BattleAxe wrote: »

Dracane wrote: »

hoangdz wrote: »

Sorc is my main class, and I have played it through patches where it was completely dogwater (patches where the only Sorcs you could find were diehard mains while everyone else was on another meta class). Yet, whenever it does get buffed, I am not hesitant to call out on any overperforming changes, such as when Hardened Ward received a massive buff. As of right now, I have also stated that one of the Sorc class masteries is overperforming:

Why would I go out of my way to nerf my own class if it were not for balance lol? Seeing your own class being 1-2 tiers above everyone else is fun at first, but it gets stale super fast when everyone else hops on your class. Not only that, ZOS's track record has shown that they tend to overnerf things, so I would rather them slightly nerf the values now on PTS than let it all out on the live server and severely nerf them later on. Even then, I cannot be so sure that they won't completely screw this over (like how they removed Minor Force from Dark Deal, essentially make that morph weaker than Dark Conversion, and overall nerfing stamsorc's burst ceiling).

It's too crazy to ask for anything to get nerfed when Dragonknight is allowed to go on unscathed. That should be our Seal of Avilliva. As long as that class does not get seriously reduced in power, then neither should anything else. (And that is good)

Why should dk be reduce in power now? Class refresh is ongoing balancing the updated classes versus the ones not updated does not help and instead will lead right back to same problem when refresh ends. Sure balance is gonna be majorly out of sorts with these reworks going on but this should result in better balance in the end. The reasoning why is simple once every class has a distinct playstyle or 2 fully fleshed out the devs can better target outlying skills and instead of massive sweeping changes they can target the outlier specifically and bring it in line. Serves the purpose of allowing devs to target specific outlying skills instead of the old massive sweeping changes each update which in turn allows the devs to focus more on making new and better content. After refresh we should no longer have 1 skill causing most of if not all skills that follow a similar rule or design being changed. Less focus on combat changes and more on content I think will better serve all players.

It should not. Or rather I am not saying I want this. To clarify; I just meant that if DK is fine and acceptable as it currently is, and how it's going to become, then everything else is also perfectly acceptable.

If DK does not need nerfs, then nothing currently does.

dark_hunterxmg · April 27

You will see reduced DPS and HPS on the new Werewolf if they move some of the Rip and Tear healing back to Hircine's Fortitude/Rage where it should be.
Hircine's Fortitude/Rage should be a Burst + HoT + Cross Heal.
Currently Rip and Tear will heal for nearly the same amount as the burst heal, so continuing to do damage is the method of survival.

Wuuffyy · April 27

hoangdz wrote: »

Dracane wrote: »

hoangdz wrote: »

Sorc is my main class, and I have played it through patches where it was completely dogwater (patches where the only Sorcs you could find were diehard mains while everyone else was on another meta class). Yet, whenever it does get buffed, I am not hesitant to call out on any overperforming changes, such as when Hardened Ward received a massive buff. As of right now, I have also stated that one of the Sorc class masteries is overperforming:

Why would I go out of my way to nerf my own class if it were not for balance lol? Seeing your own class being 1-2 tiers above everyone else is fun at first, but it gets stale super fast when everyone else hops on your class. Not only that, ZOS's track record has shown that they tend to overnerf things, so I would rather them slightly nerf the values now on PTS than let it all out on the live server and severely nerf them later on. Even then, I cannot be so sure that they won't completely screw this over (like how they removed Minor Force from Dark Deal, essentially make that morph weaker than Dark Conversion, and overall nerfing stamsorc's burst ceiling).

It's too crazy to ask for anything to get nerfed when Dragonknight is allowed to go on unscathed. That should be our Seal of Avilliva. As long as that class does not get seriously reduced in power, then neither should anything else. (And that is good)

Everything requiring adjustments has already been voiced by me, React, and many others who participated in the testing. We do this every PTS cycle. Whether ZOS listens to us and uses our data or not, idk. We can only wait and see.

Yay, anyways, I tagged you in ‘the post’ so we can continue there. Everything really has ‘been said’ on my part that needs to be; the parses I reference are there (if you don’t know what I’m talking there about then you aren’t actually reading what I’m writing so rather pointless, i.e you’re conversing ‘in bad faith’). I won’t continue to engage in ‘this conversation’ (the one that discusses having to provide actual, factual proof) with you here any more. I’ll take any attempt to continue ‘this conversation’ here as an active and malicious attempt to derail this thread simply because I have better things to spend mental fortitude on and will not engage positively in ‘the bait’ as you say 😅.

Edit: tagged you there; see you there if you wish to continue ‘that conversation’ (proof):