Best Of
Re: Official Discussion Thread for "Creating The Character - Razum-dar"
I love Raz! He made the AD storyline for me!
Re: leads
I don’t think I have heard anywhere that running any dungeon on vet gives a better chance at a lead. I just run them on normal.
Re: Can we spin our mounts during midair jumps like when they fall off heights?
silky_soft wrote: »You've always been able on pc, use W A S D when you go over.
Right, I'm asking for when mid-air after initiating a jump (using the jump key), instead of only when going over a ledge with no input.
(At least for me whenever I use the Jump key I can't turn my mount mid-air for some reason, only when I'm in mid-air when not using the jump key prior)
Can we spin our mounts during midair jumps like when they fall off heights?
Since mounts seem to be getting looked into I'd ask if we can turn our mounts mid-air jumping like when falling off of heights too, for some fun 360 guar-tricks.
Re: Overland Content Feedback Thread
@AlexanderDeLarge, the game not teaching well and low overland difficulty are by far two of the biggest issues and have been for a long time I made a thread about it a very long time ago relating my experiences. I agree with you completely.
It doesn't teach the mechanics and require them slowly to help people play as intended. It just throws them into the deep end after a mind numbing leveling process.
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/194333/on-the-storyline-pvp-leveling-forced-veteran-questing-and-the-game-teaching-people-how-to-play
It doesn't teach the mechanics and require them slowly to help people play as intended. It just throws them into the deep end after a mind numbing leveling process.
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/194333/on-the-storyline-pvp-leveling-forced-veteran-questing-and-the-game-teaching-people-how-to-play
Re: Main BG pain points
MincMincMinc wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »Ok so you do believe it's possible. I wish I did too.MincMincMinc wrote: »90% of people in queue are low MMR only there for rewards.MincMincMinc wrote: »Ok I'll just keep it in the other thread. Not trying to convince anyone of anything, just honestly looking for some answers.MincMincMinc wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »Once you understand all the four reasons you might change your mind about this. For all intents and purposes, 90% of ppl in BGs are only there for rewards. This is where we are right now. This is where we've always been. Talking about ''better MMR'' is all well and good, but it's been happening from the start, and it led absolutely nowhere. It's not impossible to put the 5000+ hours pvpers and newcomers in the same matches, because even if a few of them think they want to go 40/0/15 and then complain, there are pvpers who only want to kill each other by any means necessary, and maybe win the match while they're at it.MincMincMinc wrote: »ESO is not a competitive game by any means, so you first need to make a simple functional MMR system that is actually implementable before talking about the combat aspects. Because there shouldn't be 8v8 or 4v4 or 4v4v4 games where new pvp players ever fight someone with 5000+ hours of pvp.
Can you please explain how your MMR system would help with this problem , which is specific to 8v8?
The rest of the post explained it. By separating the leaderboard/rewards system from the MMR system you could then just have mmr based on simple concepts like KDA. Accounts would then just climb or lower on the ladder as such separating the new pvp and higher tier pvp players. Its not really specific to 8v8 or 4v4 or 4v4v4, the simplified system would work for all.
4v4v4 was not the silver bullet people remember. There were plenty of games that boiled down to spawn camping or pug stomping all the time. Sometimes it was even easier to go 40/0 because you had less allies stealing kills since it was 4v8 instead of 8v8.
Did you click the explanation in the spoiler? The one about Magic Matchmaking?
Yeah I don't understand your point there. It relies on a poor MMR distribution of KDA on a team.....Fix the mmr system and you would see a more even distribution of KDA on each team regardless of team size.(except for healer players)
''It's not impossible to put the 5000+ hours pvpers and newcomers in the same matches, because even if a few of them think they want to go 40/0/15 and then complain, there are pvpers who only want to kill each other by any means necessary, and maybe win the match while they're at it.''
Regarding your KDA based MMR system, wouldn't the complaining pvper that targets newcomers have a much higher MMR than the pvper that only wants to kill him?
That complaining pvper being qued against new players would increase in mmr until they weren't qued against new players?
Eventually the pugstomper would only be matched up with high mmr players and will find their place in the ladder.
10% are BG regulars from various skill levels.
Not only you want to keep the 90% separated, it seems you want to split the remaining 10% into multiple tiers.
Population barely supports placing high and low MMR players together to make a team average, and here you are honestly thinking this is possible?
And you got these statistics from where?
And you assume the population of the game will forever be the same?
If you dont base the matchmaking on previous data, there is no way you would avoid pugstomping.....like how live is run right now. The matchmaking is not based on the most important data.
I think I still don't quite understand your proposed mmr system. Let's go back to the previous example: We have two equally skilled pvpers. One is a pugstomper that avoids pvpers, the other is a Chad that only cares about going after other pvpers. They start at zero MMR. The pugstomper consistently has a much higher KDA than Chad, because they're basically playing different games. How does Chad ever catch up to pugstomper while remaining true to himself?
There is no catching up, you are not understanding. In this scenario they both get higher KDA compared to the pugs and will both move up. Inevitably fighting each other. You are correct in that the pug stomper would get to higher mmr faster, but once at higher mmr they taper off in kills, so their mmr climb rate balances out in the end.
Chad is so obsessed with going after pvpers (pugstompers and other Chads alike) that the pugs in his team get better KDA than him. All his damage goes to pvpers and pvpers alone. What then?
He would still climb compared to the pugs? after however many games they literally never interact with pugs again.
The problem is you are taking a 16 player population and assuming these same 16 people are only going to be fighting the same 16 people......they wont and thats the point. The pug stompers quickly get forced to max mmr and only get into games against other 16 players at the same skill level.
It seems to me that it's entirely possible that Chad might get stuck fighting other Chads in lower or mid MMR. Don't you think we should just make Chad's life easier and give him everything he wants so he can go after pugstomper and put the disgusting rat in the ground where it belongs?
That's only possible if you assume everyone is perfectly equivalent and there are never group fights or objective fights ever. Basically hyper unrealistic. There is enough chaos that by the first day or two everyone would have already moved in a direction away from each other mmr wise.
Why not just make the mmr based on damage done or healing done, whichever is higher? And find away to fit shielders in there somehow.
Damage done and healing done only rewards aoe dot and aoe hot builds. If I run a direct damage only dizzy onslaught build I may get 20 kills in a match but have sub 500k damage. Where the next guy only closes out 10 kills with 2m damage.
Kills and Assists directly show your involvement in output. Did you actually close out kills, or just be supplemental in pressure?
Like I explained in the mmr post(now on post 1) zos can then check how many heals+shields you applied in a match to determine if you were a healer and can change the mmr to favor assists more since healers wont be closing out as many kills.
Rewarded with what? Inflated MMR, longer queue times and more difficult matches? And it would only affect a couple of playstyles. Seems worth it to me, since it's a lot simpler and wouldn't make Chad's life harder.
Why would that be a good thing to base the MMR system off of something not representative of player skill? What you are suggesting is that dot/hot builds should be high mmr and direct damage builds should be low mmr.
Another solution, which is very similar to yours could be how most online games do it. No option for solo que, all are group que. Kills, wins, deaths all impact your MMR in different weights. Maybe winning is the highest metric, with kills next deaths, medal score last. Use those metrics to ensure that an endgame player doesn't end up fighting the new guy that just hit lv 50. As you get better and more experienced, you eventually fight better plays and can gradually improve at the game. Maybe even make MMR account wide versus character based so that you don't have Smurfs.
Re: Future of Battlegrounds
MincMincMinc wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »MincMincMinc wrote: »i11ionward wrote: »By the way, I also want to point out the issue with spawn camping and how poorly the maps are actually designed. More than once in 8v8 deathmatch, I’ve noticed situations where at the start of the match, the teams can be roughly even, around 100-100. Then, one team manages to break through the other, and after that, one team just traps the other at their spawn, ending the match with a score like 100-500. This is yet another example of how poorly the maps and spawn points are designed.
Even though 4v4v4 maps don’t fully solve the spawn camping problem, in 4v4v4 it’s not as oppressive. Sooner or later, the third team rushes in, and the team being farmed at the spawn has to respond, which gives the first team a chance to regroup safely.
So yes, ZOS, bring back our 4v4v4 deathmatch!
What can we expect when they make spawns designed to disadvantage the already losing team
- The losing team is always up on the wall, so they know they didnt win the first engagement
- Then there is a good chance they are down a player because one of their guys escaped and is running around so they are maybe 6-7 vs 8.
- Then they have to make the commitment to jump down and nobody wants to be the first penguin off the iceberg
- Then as they are falling one by one they have to endure 2-3s of enemy attacks before they can even land and cast
- Then they all have to spend 10s or more going defensive to recover and regroup.....maybe setting them back minutes at a time because they are forced to use their ults defensively
- Then they can finally try fighting the 6 or 7v8 against enemies that already beat them in an 8v8
Spawns on the maps should be at level with the ground which would entice hesitant group members to stay balled up with their team as they leave. Then zos just needs to make a one way wall so enemies cant go hard into the spawn. Zos could go a step further and have a two tiered system where there is the one way wall hard safe spawn that forces players out after a 10s timer(enough time to buff up while safe) Then you get pushed out into a soft spawn area where enemies would take a dot damage like slaughterfish if they entered.
Honestly I think having more of a timed spawn regroup mechanic would help the newer players too, to atleast force them to respawn together and have a better chance of staying grouped up
100%, this.
The Devs could fix this by creating respawn attribute points at random spaces all over the map.
When a player revives the game will revive them in any one of the established random respawn pads.
There’s a handful of different logics they could use to help determine which one(s); but other games have had similar mechanics.
It would break up spawn camping because an entire squad couldn’t sit on singular, known, spawn and camp the other team.
This is ESPECIALLY bobbins now with subclassing and MRR where we way too often see one side with healers and the other side without; setting up the spawn camp before the match even starts.
Well for 10-20-maybe even 30 years of gaming these game modes have been developed. There is the Call of duty approach where respawn points bias away from the enemy team. Spawn camping involves holding more choke points on the map.
Then there are the Moba style games like LoL or Dota where you have the directional maps which have more simple spawns that try to group teams up for more team oriented combat. IMO the eso combat system or BG layout would fit more into this aspect instead of the random spawn method.
For the healing balance all you need to do is save the last match's variable on each character for their healing score. Then every new bg match just tries to pair up and balance out the values.
Exactly! Holding an objective point takes some coordination and that’s supposed to be a factor in PvP.
Muti-point spawns would provide the opposing team an opportunity to turn the tide of combat through regrouping and proper cooperative strategy; which should be the point. But that can’t happen with the structure they have now.
Eh, the healing is the lipstick on the pig here.
One of my concerns is that if they don’t address the self healing aspect we could potentially see fewer and fewer healing builds in PvP.
My thought has always been some form of “competitive indexing”, whereby the game assigns a numerical score (index) which goes up or down based on the choices a player makes in their build.
You could simply use the index to better match make .. OR .. you could take it a step further to balance performance by adjusting ability values based on choices in the build. … so for example if a build is super tanky or has multiple above average heal abilities slotted then damage tooltip output is reduced as a balance. … the player would have the durability they wanted but they’re going to have to work harder and smarter on the damage end. Conversely a player that’s built with crazy high damage output could see healing abilities or resistances adjusted downward to balance; creating a counterplay aspect to every build.
I just go off the notion that zos needs a simple and functional system. You can spend months developing a complex system and have it just not work or go obsolete. For instance what is a healer choice? Oh they slotted 4 heal skills and maybe only one damage skill so they must be a healer......except my stamsorc literally only has one damage skill but has 3 or 4 healing abilities. There are too many possible niches. We already have a healing value that represents a healers output, just use that.
Its far easier to make complex systems ontop of simple systems. Like look at how much overwatch can complicate their system. It is because they have flat values expected per character(build) where that dynamic doesn't exist in eso.
There’s already baseline logics for something like this; ZoS wouldn’t need to reinvent the wheel to do this.
To your example, let’s say you do have a Stam Sorc that has 4 heal abilities slotted and one damage ability. The system wouldn’t need to label you as a “healer” but it would prioritize your healing & utility aspects because you chose to make those the majority of your build so they would be untouched, hence a reduced damage output would be the counter play in this point. The amount of the adjustment to damage would be based on the heals you slotted; if you had 4 mid heals then it wouldn’t adjust much at all but 4 S-tier heals then it would adjust more. This makes sense because a Stam Sorc with 4 S-tier heals slotted wouldn’t be a primary damage focus anyway, and that’s the point.
The idea is that every build should have a play and counter play element but subclassing has reduced that. An indexing system is just one suggestion; one other is simply adjusting self healing & a block cost cap as these tend to be the two most broad mechanics used to avoid proper counter play.
It’s not simply in “what ability is what” or how much in numbers a tool tip has, it’s also about the mechanics of how these attributes all go together.
Subclassing allows players to pair mechanics that, previously, were unavailable because of the lack of proper counter play.
An index would still leave each unique build to feel unique due to the mechanics of how they operate and would require each player to more strategically slot and use their build rather than leaning on the clutch spams that we’re seeing now.
Because you still want to keep diversity among builds you don’t want to kill the underlying mechanics themselves so an index adjustment to values makes sense. This way, builds don’t all become “the same but just reskinned”, rather it’s more about executing the mechanics with balanced values that determines the combat.
Currently we just have spamming mechanics with incredibly imbalanced values. When it comes to mechanics healing and block cost are the two most broad, non specific, mechanics you can look at to produce a better sense of balance without killing diversity in builds.
Wait what are we talking about now? You want to implement some sort of extra battlespirit for some reason? We should stick to talking about BGs and the mmr system. This system makes no sense and is pointless. The game already has build mechanics which accomplish this. Even with my stamsorc example I hardly do 1/10 the healing that actual heal builds can accomplish.
Again you are thinking of a far to complicated system on a system that will just add another layer onto an already complicated system. These rules are already baked into the choices available in the game, you dont need blanket debuffs put in place, they are pointless.
Here's an even simpler system:
Each player marked by a white star can act as a core for a team of up to 3 newcomers in a 3-teams BG. @MincMincMinc do you see any problem with this matchmaking? It could function even with a small population.
Just to be honest, you need to really iron out whatever your idea is and do a write up in a concise way if you want people to understand. Trying to be genuinely helpful here, but you obviously have an idea of a system in your head. Your posts keep hinting at how something might connect and make sense......but nobody else but you knows the made up system in your head. In all seriousness maybe try putting your idea through chatgpt to help summarize and think it through to be easier to explain. A lot of people have this issue on the forums and their ideas make sense in their mind, but in reality for other people they just see one off statements spread out across 30x posts.
Like with my KDA and healing system you seem to have understood it and you starred the 3 players that should move up in MMR.
Also, sure other game modes like 4v4v4 or 3v3 or 2v2 and 1v1 could be introduced at some point once you iron out a functional mmr system. 1v1 and 2v2 que would be a simple mmr leaderboard system though.
Re: New Furnishing plans 1in 5 drop rate
Which means it will get nerfed before going live on console.
cozmic72
2
Re: Amnesty for the players!
darkriketz wrote: »Even the most terrible, greedy, and bloody dictators eventually granted amnesties.
No they didn't.Since I am a candidate for the title of the most banned player in TESO (this is my 4th or 5th account), and these bans were not always justified, but often were a form of PvP revenge. Despite this, I remain a dedicated TESO player. I would like to propose an amnesty for players who have been banned for violating the PvP code of conduct. (I'm not suggesting that bans should be lifted for players who violated the monetization rules, used cheats, or violated the rules of conduct outside of PvP zones)
Fourth or fifth ?!?
I mean, I can understand that ZoS can ban you a bit quickly once, but FOUR TIMES ?!? You really must have done something repeatedly so they "make the same mistake" over and over.
My position about your problem is exactly the same as my position about players who think they can reinvent the wheel and reshape a game that developpers have worked years on to create working systems and lasting balance : you only see your own point of view and you carefully don't explain why you have been banned in the first place. Rules exist for a reason, sometimes they're seem to be harsh, but it doesn't mean they're not legitimate.
For example some of my messages on the forum and even a thread I had created were edited because they didn't follow the rules, even if I felt, when posting them, that I was rightfully defending the game and the workers who allow us to enjoy it through their efforts. The rules were right, I was harsh and even disrespectful, even if I don't feel much of the players I have criticized and despite the fact that I disagree with basically everything they say, it doesn't allow me to express my disapproval, let's say... kindly.
Rules are meant for systems to work as fairly as possible for everyone, and I'm pretty sure that if people in charge decide to ban 3 or 4 accounts, they must have good reasons, especially concerning TESO PvP since many involved players often complain on the forum (not always for legitimate reasons if you listen to me). It doesn't seem to be the most chill and enjoyable part of the game and I get that players can quickly be angry and off-limits.
You can't make me pick out specific examples of dictators granting amnesties. Please read for yourself.
As for my bans. I reacted extremely harshly to the ban of the first account, which had cost me several thousand dollars. My appeals were not considered for any of the other accounts, and two of them were banned due to PvP revenge and abuse of the punishment system. One of the accounts was banned after a complaint from BG about my nickname (I didn't realize it needed to be changed until I saw the email), even though four neural networks had concluded that the nickname was not offensive. However, my appeal was not considered.
As I said, there's no semblance of a judicial system, no consideration of context, and no way to defend yourself properly. It's difficult to do this within the framework of an MMO, and amnesties every few years would be a good solution. (It's easy to link my accounts together, as I have no intention of giving up my fully equipped necromancer's themed house.)
Re: Naj-Caldeesh its youre joke ZOS?
Ladies and gentlemen... I present Direfrost Keep and Imperial City Prison.
Which are disparaged for precisely the same reason: group-forcing by cheesy mechanics, "2 people have to stand on platforms" or "2 people have to pull levers", despite being otherwise relatively easy.
Let me remind the devs that this approach failed - F.A.I.L.E.D. - outright in Craglorn: nobody wanted to play the forced-grouping areas. Eventually they were re-jigged so that at least the actual zone quest story can be done solo. (I am thinking in particular of opening up the entrance to Reinholds Retreat.)
Which are disparaged for precisely the same reason: group-forcing by cheesy mechanics, "2 people have to stand on platforms" or "2 people have to pull levers", despite being otherwise relatively easy.
Let me remind the devs that this approach failed - F.A.I.L.E.D. - outright in Craglorn: nobody wanted to play the forced-grouping areas. Eventually they were re-jigged so that at least the actual zone quest story can be done solo. (I am thinking in particular of opening up the entrance to Reinholds Retreat.)
jle30303
6