ZOS wants easy numbers changes for U51, here they are.

Turtle_Bot · August 12

@ZOS_Kevin @ZOS_NickG @ZOS_BrianWheeler

You asked for "easy numbers changes that could be realistically implemented within the current PTS cycle" to address current balance issues.
There's only 2 caveats for these changes:
1. they would apply while under the effects of battle spirit as to not affect PvE
2. they would be reverted in the future as refreshes are rolled out or more appropriate non-numerical changes are made

Well, here they are:

Halve the sustain (mag/stam restore) of Core of Flame (and morphs) from the current 15% to 7%.
Halve/cap block mitigation (this is one of the biggest reasons players are currently far too tanky despite having low armor values).
Halve the number values on Resolute Defense DK mastery.
Halve the healing done by the Sorcerer Conservation of energy mastery.*
Reduce the tooltip of the Flame Lash bonus damage it gains after hitting an off-balance target.
Increase Nightblades Above and Beyond mastery from 5% to 10%.
Increase Nightblades Siphoning Attacks (Siphoning Strikes morph) mag/stam restore when dealing damage, or reduce the health cost of the active component.
Give back the base 3/6% weapon/spell damage on Templars Balanced Warrior passive and keep the weapon damage gain based on armor.
Increase Arcanist Runeblades base damage by 5 to 10%.
Increase Wardens Wild Adaptation mastery to grant more weapon damage per status (same cap, but easier to reach it)

*This specific change would ideally be fixed in other ways, instead of simple numbers changes, but that is not what was asked for by ZOS, so I would expect it to be on the table for U52 and a numbers adjustment made for U51 instead. The ideal change for Sorcerers Conservation of Energy mastery, would be to make it not work with core combat (block, roll, bash, etc.), health cost abilities (like vampires blood for blood) or Werewolf form, but these changes to this mastery are not "simple numbers adjustments" so I would expect them to be done in U52 and numbers changes made for the sake of balance this patch to then be reverted when this more appropriate fix to this mastery is made.

There you go ZOS, DK is temporarily brought closer back into line and the other classes are brought closer together while we wait for the other class refreshes or mastery changes in U52 and beyond.

Luneca · August 12

Arcanist rune blades doesn't just need a damage increase , it needs to be fixed to work properly against targets on the Z plane (height). It's a completely unreliable skill when a target is at different height and works or may not work. That's unacceptable and part of why you do not see anyone slot it in PvP.

Turtle_Bot · August 12

Luneca wrote: »

Arcanist rune blades doesn't just need a damage increase , it needs to be fixed to work properly against targets on the Z plane (height). It's a completely unreliable skill when a target is at different height and works or may not work. That's unacceptable and part of why you do not see anyone slot it in PvP.

Agreed, but like I mentioned for Conservation of Energy, this is a simple numbers change that ZOS asked for, that they could implement this PTS to help. It's like Dive, Skulls and many other skills that also need complete overhauls to their functionality, where it won't fix the issue the skills have, but it is at least something that would hopefully get some eyes on underperforming abilities for U52 and further.

Think of this type of adjustment like what ZOS did for Hardened Ward in U41. They buffed the tooltip where everyone was using it despite no real changes to the underlying mechanics of damage shields. It's a (very) temporary "fix" for the short term that ZOS can do now, while they take feedback for proper fixes for the longer term.

SonOfAsura · August 12

This sounds like suggestions made carelessly by a PvP player without considering the consequences of their actions in PvE.

madmufffin · August 12

SonOfAsura wrote: »

This sounds like suggestions made carelessly by a PvP player without considering the consequences of their actions in PvE.

Not of these would negatively impact PVE at all. In fact, the only one that even affects PVE is giving plar more damage.

Wuuffyy · August 12

Block in PvP is absolutely what you said it was. I haven’t ran around asking for nerfs or anything (mostly as I see many are likely opposed to any PvP-oriented block changes) but the sheer amount of mitigation that is received for almost no investment in blocking is truly astounding.

The fact there is no real counter, as an AoE stun such as fear on a nightblade for example takes a GCD which means that your opponent can break free and be right back to blocking before you can every truly think about landing a single ability successfully.

All this while your character is blocking 360 degrees for no other reason than ‘just because’.

Firstmep · August 12

Wuuffyy wrote: »

Block in PvP is absolutely what you said it was. I haven’t ran around asking for nerfs or anything (mostly as I see many are likely opposed to any PvP-oriented block changes) but the sheer amount of mitigation that is received for almost no investment in blocking is truly astounding.

The fact there is no real counter, as an AoE stun such as fear on a nightblade for example takes a GCD which means that your opponent can break free and be right back to blocking before you can every truly think about landing a single ability successfully.

All this while your character is blocking 360 degrees for no other reason than ‘just because’.

Block mitigation needs thr good ole dodge/streak treatment. There's nothing skillful about taping down right click, actually timing block to some extent should feel rewarding.

acanca · August 12

Did they really ask for "easy numbers changes that could be realistically implemented within the current PTS cycle" (cause if they did literally just nerf core of flame and coe with battle spirit active by half and then call it a day. Thats literally all they have to do)

Also seconding half the sustain on core of flame, reducing the heal (and also the sustain) on Coe and buffing nightblades for pvp.

I disagree that block mitigation needs changes, yes its incredibly strong but blocking is a problem because of heart of flame. Without it a dk would go out of stam in a few seconds if they try to block the way they do now.

I also disagree that flame lash needs further nerfs but might be a good idea to keep an eye on the skill when core of flame gets nerfed. At the moment its incredibly easy to stonewall flame lash by just blocking whenever its up but when perma blocking isnt an option, that skill will probably shoot up in viability. And i understand its already a pretty strong skill in places like cyro

rlindsey912nub18_ESO · August 12

Blocking 100% needs the roll dodge treatment and dks are not the only ones permiblocking plars and warden are also doing this

Jabbs_Giggity · August 12

Firstmep wrote: »

Wuuffyy wrote: »

Block in PvP is absolutely what you said it was. I haven’t ran around asking for nerfs or anything (mostly as I see many are likely opposed to any PvP-oriented block changes) but the sheer amount of mitigation that is received for almost no investment in blocking is truly astounding.

The fact there is no real counter, as an AoE stun such as fear on a nightblade for example takes a GCD which means that your opponent can break free and be right back to blocking before you can every truly think about landing a single ability successfully.

All this while your character is blocking 360 degrees for no other reason than ‘just because’.

Block mitigation needs thr good ole dodge/streak treatment. There's nothing skillful about taping down right click, actually timing block to some extent should feel rewarding.

This is especially relevant on DK, as most skills are block casted.

ItsNotLiving · August 12

I really wish Wild Adaptation and Green Keepers Hide were only 3 status effects so I could drop disdain but I’m sure nothing will change.

Turtle_Bot · August 12

SonOfAsura wrote: »

This sounds like suggestions made carelessly by a PvP player without considering the consequences of their actions in PvE.

sounds like the comment made by a PvE player...

I specifically said that these changes would only apply WHILE BATTLE SPIRIT IS ACTIVE, so IN PVP ZONES ONLY. Next time read.

madmufffin · August 12

Turtle_Bot wrote: »

SonOfAsura wrote: »

This sounds like suggestions made carelessly by a PvP player without considering the consequences of their actions in PvE.

sounds like the comment made by a PvE player...

I specifically said that these changes would only apply WHILE BATTLE SPIRIT IS ACTIVE, so IN PVP ZONES ONLY. Next time read.

The warden, arc, and plar buffs should be normal in both modes tbh

Turtle_Bot · August 12

acanca wrote: »

Did they really ask for "easy numbers changes that could be realistically implemented within the current PTS cycle" (cause if they did literally just nerf core of flame and coe with battle spirit active by half and then call it a day. Thats literally all they have to do)

Also seconding half the sustain on core of flame, reducing the heal (and also the sustain) on Coe and buffing nightblades for pvp.

I disagree that block mitigation needs changes, yes its incredibly strong but blocking is a problem because of heart of flame. Without it a dk would go out of stam in a few seconds if they try to block the way they do now.

I also disagree that flame lash needs further nerfs but might be a good idea to keep an eye on the skill when core of flame gets nerfed. At the moment its incredibly easy to stonewall flame lash by just blocking whenever its up but when perma blocking isnt an option, that skill will probably shoot up in viability. And i understand its already a pretty strong skill in places like cyro

yes they did indeed ask for that (I'm assuming because of the layoffs).

I disagree about block, I was running a 20k resistance DK (5 light armor) that only had the class mastery and sword and board equipped as the "investments" into block and was face tanking zergs (including sieges) just by holding block and tapping inhale. Running Sorc with that kind of build with CoE and shields I couldn't even attempt that kind of face-tanking, that's how much mitigation block gives, it is completely over the top in PvP and has needed addressing for a long time now.

I'm on the fence with whip, I'm only really suggesting it as a temporary thing anyway so it would be 1 patch while the next refresh is done then reverted since there will be another refreshed class (and assuming better masteries).

Turtle_Bot · August 12

ItsNotLiving wrote: »

I really wish Wild Adaptation and Green Keepers Hide were only 3 status effects so I could drop disdain but I’m sure nothing will change.

This would help a lot for warden, giving easier uptime on these masteries without actually increasing the numbers by crazy amounts.

Turtle_Bot · August 12

madmufffin wrote: »

The warden, arc, and plar buffs should be normal in both modes tbh

They probably could do these buffs for PvE as well, although from what I am hearing NB is one of the top (if not the top) single target DPS in PvE (just what I have heard, if someone can confirm this or not).

madmufffin · August 12

Turtle_Bot wrote: »

madmufffin wrote: »

The warden, arc, and plar buffs should be normal in both modes tbh

They probably could do these buffs for PvE as well, although from what I am hearing NB is one of the top (if not the top) single target DPS in PvE (just what I have heard, if someone can confirm this or not).

Well the NB changes you suggested are because of the reduction to the mastery in PVP. It wouldn't really impact anything in PVE aside from a bit more sustain from Siphoning, which does nothing for PVE. NB is absurdly cracked in PVE right now.

Radiate77 · August 12

Why reduce block mitigation when the real problem is block-casting.

This idea that you can go offense while also blocking just doesn’t lend well to cohesive gameplay.

acanca · August 12

Turtle_Bot wrote: »

acanca wrote: »

Did they really ask for "easy numbers changes that could be realistically implemented within the current PTS cycle" (cause if they did literally just nerf core of flame and coe with battle spirit active by half and then call it a day. Thats literally all they have to do)

Also seconding half the sustain on core of flame, reducing the heal (and also the sustain) on Coe and buffing nightblades for pvp.

I disagree that block mitigation needs changes, yes its incredibly strong but blocking is a problem because of heart of flame. Without it a dk would go out of stam in a few seconds if they try to block the way they do now.

I also disagree that flame lash needs further nerfs but might be a good idea to keep an eye on the skill when core of flame gets nerfed. At the moment its incredibly easy to stonewall flame lash by just blocking whenever its up but when perma blocking isnt an option, that skill will probably shoot up in viability. And i understand its already a pretty strong skill in places like cyro

yes they did indeed ask for that (I'm assuming because of the layoffs).

I disagree about block, I was running a 20k resistance DK (5 light armor) that only had the class mastery and sword and board equipped as the "investments" into block and was face tanking zergs (including sieges) just by holding block and tapping inhale. Running Sorc with that kind of build with CoE and shields I couldn't even attempt that kind of face-tanking, that's how much mitigation block gives, it is completely over the top in PvP and has needed addressing for a long time now.

I'm on the fence with whip, I'm only really suggesting it as a temporary thing anyway so it would be 1 patch while the next refresh is done then reverted since there will be another refreshed class (and assuming better masteries).

Well if you tried that without core of flame you would go out of stamina in around 3 seconds. The issue isnt blocking, its core of flame. Or at least thats how i see it. But im also of the opinion that assault skill line needs a 'kick' or parry break skill where if you land it when some one is blocking it forbids blocking for 5-7 seconds. That imo should be a thing

madmufffin · August 12

Radiate77 wrote: »

Why reduce block mitigation when the real problem is block-casting.

This idea that you can go offense while also blocking just doesn’t lend well to cohesive gameplay.

Block casting in of itself is fine because it comes with the opportunity cost of light attacks and ulti gen. Making skills cost 25% if cast while blocking could be an adjustment they could make (since things are harder to do while holding up a shield or something like that), but block casting in of itself is thematically sensible and does have a trade-off.

madmufffin · August 12

Idk why I can't edit messages anymore, but seeing that I used "in of itself" twice in that message irks me greatly...

acanca · August 12

ItsNotLiving wrote: »

I really wish Wild Adaptation and Green Keepers Hide were only 3 status effects so I could drop disdain but I’m sure nothing will change.

drop disdain and reequip signet, it keeps up 2 status effects by itself, you can keep up the other needed 3 relatively easily. You dont get any extra damage on status effects but you also arent punished for using ult and you only need to reach back up 133 ult for the proc part to kick in again.

You can also use bear again since it doesnt reduce your status effects damage.

for pure wardens signet is basically 666 weapon damage, 6% mitigation, your light attacks apply a status effect once every 2 seconds if you have more than 133 ultimate.

madmufffin · August 12

acanca wrote: »

ItsNotLiving wrote: »

I really wish Wild Adaptation and Green Keepers Hide were only 3 status effects so I could drop disdain but I’m sure nothing will change.

drop disdain and reequip signet, it keeps up 2 status effects by itself, you can keep up the other needed 3 relatively easily. You dont get any extra damage on status effects but you also arent punished for using ult and you only need to reach back up 133 ult for the proc part to kick in again.

You can also use bear again since it doesnt reduce your status effects damage.

for pure wardens signet is basically 666 weapon damage, 6% mitigation, your light attacks apply a status effect once every 2 seconds if you have more than 133 ultimate.

They also need revert the nuclear bombing of signet... they could've just reduced the status amount under Battle Spirit instead of removing it entirely

Radiate77 · August 12

50% mitigation vs -2000 Light Attacks
That opportunity cost argument just doesn’t work.

Enchantments are proccing off of Weapon Skills so no need for LAs either.

This is all to assume the people you’re fighting aren’t block-weaving all of their abilities hitting their Light Attacks anyway.

There truly is no trade off. lol

Blockcasting is heavily overperforming, it has since launch, and the only way through it is to create sustain problems, yet all of the tools at our disposal to do so, pale in comparison to skills like Core of Flame or that Sorcerer Mastery.

Turtle_Bot · August 12

acanca wrote: »

Turtle_Bot wrote: »

acanca wrote: »

Did they really ask for "easy numbers changes that could be realistically implemented within the current PTS cycle" (cause if they did literally just nerf core of flame and coe with battle spirit active by half and then call it a day. Thats literally all they have to do)

Also seconding half the sustain on core of flame, reducing the heal (and also the sustain) on Coe and buffing nightblades for pvp.

I disagree that block mitigation needs changes, yes its incredibly strong but blocking is a problem because of heart of flame. Without it a dk would go out of stam in a few seconds if they try to block the way they do now.

I also disagree that flame lash needs further nerfs but might be a good idea to keep an eye on the skill when core of flame gets nerfed. At the moment its incredibly easy to stonewall flame lash by just blocking whenever its up but when perma blocking isnt an option, that skill will probably shoot up in viability. And i understand its already a pretty strong skill in places like cyro

yes they did indeed ask for that (I'm assuming because of the layoffs).

I disagree about block, I was running a 20k resistance DK (5 light armor) that only had the class mastery and sword and board equipped as the "investments" into block and was face tanking zergs (including sieges) just by holding block and tapping inhale. Running Sorc with that kind of build with CoE and shields I couldn't even attempt that kind of face-tanking, that's how much mitigation block gives, it is completely over the top in PvP and has needed addressing for a long time now.

I'm on the fence with whip, I'm only really suggesting it as a temporary thing anyway so it would be 1 patch while the next refresh is done then reverted since there will be another refreshed class (and assuming better masteries).

Well if you tried that without core of flame you would go out of stamina in around 3 seconds. The issue isnt blocking, its core of flame. Or at least thats how i see it. But im also of the opinion that assault skill line needs a 'kick' or parry break skill where if you land it when some one is blocking it forbids blocking for 5-7 seconds. That imo should be a thing

Something more reliable to disrupt block that would work with combos would be nice, but overall the mitigation from block is just insane. Especially since just tapping block gives the full mitigation even though it's not held down and that is what so many of the top players use to seem so tanky, they know the timings to tap block to essentially have 98% mitigation while not disrupting their regens or speed. Yes, tapping block or "parrying" attacks should be a skill thing, but not something that can be done without cooldown for every attack, there needs to be a limit to it.

Maybe in the long term block could have ramping mitigation, the longer you hold it, the more damage it can block, but also costs more to hold it like constantly rolling (or streak) has. Either way it is an issue that needs addressing, especially if ZOS is going to give out free (or near enough free) sustain to every class with the refreshes.

Radiate77 · August 12

Or they can stop all Stam return for 1 second after blocking regardless of whether you let go of the button. I like that option too.

This way people can stop cheating stam return turn-off by tapping their block instead of holding it.

On second thought, this wouldn’t work on console because of the forced keybind of Block for Roll-Dodging.

Turtle_Bot · August 12

madmufffin wrote: »

Idk why I can't edit messages anymore, but seeing that I used "in of itself" twice in that message irks me greatly...

btw, you should still be able to edit your posts (if on PC), if you hover the mouse slightly to the left and above the time stamp it should turn into a hand icon with an "options" visual. Clicking on that brings up the edit option.

It's a visual bug on the forums that's been around for a few months now and still not fixed, but the option is still there and can be interacted with, just invisible.

Wuuffyy · August 12

Radiate77 wrote: »

Or they can stop all Stam return for 1 second after blocking regardless of whether you let go of the button. I like that option too.

This way people can stop cheating stam return turn-off by tapping their block instead of holding it.

I believe any fix should be stacking costs, etc. This primarily targeting pro-longed block (think roll dodge costs, cloak cost while moving, streak stacking costs).

Tap-blocking is more akin to a skillful ‘parry’ whereas ‘holding block’ is what lacks any finesse whatsoever.

Part of what makes a NB feel as horrible as it does in this meta (for example), is high health and/or a DK (again, for example) holding block and mitigating entire bursts for free. Beyond that, attempting to disable ‘tap blocking’ would further take responsiveness and agency away from blocking whereas punishing ‘block holding’ would return responsiveness, agency, the emphasis on proper positioning, and more.

I imagine that with stacking costs, at least sitting there eating Surprise Attacks (again, example) would be harder in that scenario but nowhere near impossible (especially given that the NB as with many is very likely to be squishy and who’s damage is similar to ‘the best defense is a good offense’).

Turtle_Bot · August 12

Wuuffyy wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

Or they can stop all Stam return for 1 second after blocking regardless of whether you let go of the button. I like that option too.

This way people can stop cheating stam return turn-off by tapping their block instead of holding it.

I believe any fix should be stacking costs, etc. This primarily targeting pro-longed block (think roll dodge costs, cloak cost while moving, streak stacking costs).

Tap-blocking is more akin to a skillful ‘parry’ whereas ‘holding block’ is what lacks any finesse whatsoever.

Part of what makes a NB feel as horrible as it does in this meta (for example), is high health and/or a DK (again, for example) holding block and mitigating entire bursts for free. Beyond that, attempting to disable ‘tap blocking’ would further take responsiveness and agency away from blocking whereas punishing ‘block holding’ would return responsiveness, agency, the emphasis on proper positioning, and more.

it does need a limit though, tap blocking is currently far too strong even being a "skillful parry", especially with how constant and repeatable it is as long as you know the return timings.

Radiate77 · August 12

Turtle_Bot wrote: »

Wuuffyy wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

Or they can stop all Stam return for 1 second after blocking regardless of whether you let go of the button. I like that option too.

This way people can stop cheating stam return turn-off by tapping their block instead of holding it.

I believe any fix should be stacking costs, etc. This primarily targeting pro-longed block (think roll dodge costs, cloak cost while moving, streak stacking costs).

Tap-blocking is more akin to a skillful ‘parry’ whereas ‘holding block’ is what lacks any finesse whatsoever.

Part of what makes a NB feel as horrible as it does in this meta (for example), is high health and/or a DK (again, for example) holding block and mitigating entire bursts for free. Beyond that, attempting to disable ‘tap blocking’ would further take responsiveness and agency away from blocking whereas punishing ‘block holding’ would return responsiveness, agency, the emphasis on proper positioning, and more.

it does need a limit though, tap blocking is currently far too strong even being a "skillful parry", especially with how constant and repeatable it is as long as you know the return timings.

Tap Blocking is a huge problem, that said, we need a better solution, I went back and edited my post because unfortunately on controller your Roll Dodge is keybound to Block, so every time you’d dodge it would cut off your stam… yikes.

Wuuffyy · August 12

Turtle_Bot wrote: »

Wuuffyy wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

Or they can stop all Stam return for 1 second after blocking regardless of whether you let go of the button. I like that option too.

This way people can stop cheating stam return turn-off by tapping their block instead of holding it.

I believe any fix should be stacking costs, etc. This primarily targeting pro-longed block (think roll dodge costs, cloak cost while moving, streak stacking costs).

Tap-blocking is more akin to a skillful ‘parry’ whereas ‘holding block’ is what lacks any finesse whatsoever.

Part of what makes a NB feel as horrible as it does in this meta (for example), is high health and/or a DK (again, for example) holding block and mitigating entire bursts for free. Beyond that, attempting to disable ‘tap blocking’ would further take responsiveness and agency away from blocking whereas punishing ‘block holding’ would return responsiveness, agency, the emphasis on proper positioning, and more.

it does need a limit though, tap blocking is currently far too strong even being a "skillful parry", especially with how constant and repeatable it is as long as you know the return timings.

So you would punish a player for… blocking an ultimate (again, for example) exactly when they’re suppose to while eating a block cost tick?

It of course could be cumulative and count as ‘consecutive block’ within x amount of seconds as well but trying to individually punish the ability to immediately block versus holding block would likely have unnecessary repercussions, especially given that console cannot bind a key specifically for bash (which… hmm, ZOS give console the ability to do that : D)