Best Of
Re: Vengeance has officially ended the THREE BANNERS WAR
It has multiple reasons. The first Vengeance Test people were happy, finally something was done for PvP, it was something new, many participated and rightfully gave the feedback it runs great. Yet even in the first Vengeance there was a huge divide between PvP Opinion and PvE Opinion, PvE people think its great, because its so easy to get in and they won't get nuked by skilled people.
The second Test added Weapon lines, huge change and had a golden Pursuit, yet it was already evident after just a few days how the population got lower. It was not new anymore, not exciting it simply had no long term value playing after finishing the Golden Pursuit.
The third test now happens parallel to the biggest PvE Event without a golden pursuit. You could argue thats a reason people don't play it, but there is the point, PvE people do not play it because their event is more important to them, PvP people do not play it, because its just way to dumbed down. If Vengeance had any chance of longterm success people would still play it. PvP people often do not care for the Undaunted Event yet they are also not there. I think that shows very clearly that Vengeances "Success" Story is just short term, something you can do once in a while but not permanently. Those who play PvP regulary leave it be, those who don't leave after a few days, in the end thats just a downward spiral until no one plays PvP anymore.
So pve people like it because otherwise they are killed by...skilled people in a normal mode. But pvp people don't like it because it's dumbed down and now everyone is on even playing field? Is that how I see this argument? So where was that skill coming from? Dare I say...sets and overtuned skills were carrying people?
Re: “Joining Encounter in Progress” should have a confirmation check
Vonnegut2506 wrote: »Just so I understand the mental gymnastics you are going through to condone speed running: You are claiming an event where the sole purpose is to run group dungeons is the "absolute worst time" to do the quick quest in that group dungeon?
Not to condone speed running, but to say that there will be a lot of speed running while the event is running, and to expect otherwise is incredibly naive. As another poster said, it's like deciding to putter around and do quests in IC when Mayhem is running and not expecting to get killed over and over again. No mental gymnastics required. Just common sense.
AzuraFan
3
Re: "Small Refine Method" AKA Time Wasting Pseudo Science Scam
twisttop138 wrote: »I had a raid lead who very much believed deep down in her soul that while in a dungeon or a trial, if you were to force the lock on a chest instead of picking it, that it would lower the amount and quality of items in the chest for everyone.
I always force locks on dungeon chests and get weapons/jewelry out of the non-simple ones quite often, so that's not true, but I can understand why someone would have that superstition.
My opinion tends to be that anything that has RNG (crates, leads, plans, mats, motif, gear...) should have a pity system. Such bad RNG shouldn't happen IMO, because it pushes away players.
Absolutely. In the past, when there was still lots left for me to do, the only time I thought of quitting the game was when I'd tried for a lead for the umpteenth time and didn't get it. It's unreasonable to have such pathetically low drop rates when leads are at the end of long dungeons. Just disrespectful of players' time. Then there was the 10th anniversary fiasco when some players got the shinies almost instantly, and others tried thousands of times with no luck. Something that was supposed to be a happy celebration turned into a horrible experience for too many.
It's not fun, and while I know there have to be hamster wheels in MMOs, other games handle this much better than ESO ever has. They definitely need a pity system, or they need to increase the currently ultra-low probabilities of success. ZOS has never walked the grind vs. fun balance very well, something they should revisit if they're interested in maintaining a healthy population.
AzuraFan
3
Re: Gatekeeping and the Beam Meta
It is frustrating that ZOS has taken the stance that more variety is good and everything's possible except they won't actually buff underperforming options to make it feel possible. Sure, it's possible to do vMoL HM with builds from 2018. What is not possible is finding 11 other people, 2 of which are tanks, 2 of which are healers, and at least one to lead... who will let you do vMoL HM with builds from 2018. I straight-up quit trials because I'm over trudging through groups where I feel like a terrible player for not playing exactly how other people want me to (if I had a nickel for every time I was belittled for something small that genuinely made 0 difference to the run...) and I'm not going to fight the uphill battle of not subclassing.
No one wants to do vMoL HM without a 3 pad burn, myself included. That basically required me to run my arcanist. I basically only do trials when I need a lead or there is a endeavor or event going on now though. Basic veteran trials are boring at this point, and the gap to hardmode is night and day, some fights are totally different than vet. But that is kind of the way normals are compared to vet, you don't even have to do mechs in normals usually or actually need a tank sometimes.
Re: Vengeance Server
Since the U48 preview stream, it became pretty obvious that it was never about testing performance.you cant test performance limits on an empty server no one plays!!!!!
This Vengeance stuff is just a long step by step tutorial of what the future Cyrodiil will be. The effort that was put into the upcoming passive buff UI for Vengeance 4 made that clear.
We were just fooled about „This is just a test to learn where performance issues come from to make Cyrodiil lag-free again“.
Aylish
6
Re: Gatekeeping and the Beam Meta
In a PUG anything goes as long as you can reasonably fulfill your role and complete the task, and when I run with a random group, I usually do it with my most well-geared characters, so that it doesn't really matter what the other group members have: if there's a fake tank I can slot a taunt so that people don't kite stuff around, if there are slow DDs, I can make up for the damage, and so on. If someone is an experienced player it shows through no matter their specifics, for example, I always know it when someone who is low level/CP is leveling an alt character or a new account, and they are not actually a new player, from the way they cast skills and position themselves. Regarding gatekeeping, I don't really think there's true gatekeeping in the game, at least the way people mean it; if an organized group needs DDs to have a specific set-up, that's not gatekeeping, that's how that group runs things, and players who don't agree can make their own groups instead, so no one is barred from content. I personally dislike the new dps meta that revolve around the arcanist beam a lot, but if we need to do X amount of damage for, say, a specific speed run, then I will bring my arcanist, because that's what the group needs--if I insisted on a build that knowingly underperformed, then I would be the selfish one, because we wouldn't be able to reach our objective. Having said that, if only a HA build is available to a person, that's perfectly fine if they can play it well, because it can still do high numbers, while having sustain and mitigation built in, and it's a smart idea for safer strategies as well. A lot of groups are opting for only HA builds for certain fights, it's also good for PvP, and it's well established in the game by now, so people who are miffed by it, probably have their own issues. You can find good and bad players within any given playstyle pool, but I have noticed this happening a lot: because heavy attacking is a ranged playstyle, and because wearing Oakensoul is very forgiving, I've seen the majority of players standing in AoEs, or in front of the boss, or being really far away from group, maybe because they don't need the buffs and because the incoming damage is not dangerous, but this means that they don't get into the habit of good positioning, which becomes important in later endgame, and for me this is the only downside to the playstyle.
Jaimeh
3
Re: The Official Vengeance Test Campaign Feedback Thread (Test 3)
Were you able to successfully get into large-scale battles?
Yep! There were always big fights to participate in and there were some battles with all 3 factions at the same keep. While other keeps were also being attacked!
Did large-scale battles feel better latency-wise and how combat feels (responsive or not, fun or not, etc.)?
As a dedicated healer & support build, the heals/buffs/purge being limited to 3 people is very draining of magicka. They should have a reduction in mana cost (15% maybe?) so I can be of more use to a group for longer.
Templar's Cleansing Ritual spell is useless for anything bigger than a 1vx fight. Make it like the Support's Purge skill that it cleanses 3 nearby but costs stamina & has a higher cost?
What you think of the simplified abilities?
Healers are basic but still very fun. I prefer having burst heals rather than casting many heals over time spells. But the restoration staff AoE heal is underpowered when it can't be cast multiple times & everyone has much higher health. Give it a shorter duration but more healing to compensate?
Did any of your characters become ‘corrupted’ if they leave Cyrodiil mid battle, lost connection, got booted, hit lag, etc? If you encounter character corruption, please provide the following feedback when using /bug in-game.
account name
character name
What happened to trigger the corruption (leave Cyrodiil mid battle, lost connection, got booted, etc)?
Time of day this occurred
screenshots and video
No.
What are your initial thoughts on Vengeance Test?
Having a pop cap of 300 per faction is awesome, and everyone being able to get stuck into it means the barrier of entry is much smaller. The skills are still very limited and we need more skill lines. As a healer, the Psijic skill Mend Wounds is very missed. It would be good to have that as a toggle rather than taking up a skill slot for healers, as healers in vengeance are already making big trade offs.
Do you have any general feedback?
See how high we can push the pop caps until problems happen
Yep! There were always big fights to participate in and there were some battles with all 3 factions at the same keep. While other keeps were also being attacked!
Did large-scale battles feel better latency-wise and how combat feels (responsive or not, fun or not, etc.)?
As a dedicated healer & support build, the heals/buffs/purge being limited to 3 people is very draining of magicka. They should have a reduction in mana cost (15% maybe?) so I can be of more use to a group for longer.
Templar's Cleansing Ritual spell is useless for anything bigger than a 1vx fight. Make it like the Support's Purge skill that it cleanses 3 nearby but costs stamina & has a higher cost?
What you think of the simplified abilities?
Healers are basic but still very fun. I prefer having burst heals rather than casting many heals over time spells. But the restoration staff AoE heal is underpowered when it can't be cast multiple times & everyone has much higher health. Give it a shorter duration but more healing to compensate?
Did any of your characters become ‘corrupted’ if they leave Cyrodiil mid battle, lost connection, got booted, hit lag, etc? If you encounter character corruption, please provide the following feedback when using /bug in-game.
account name
character name
What happened to trigger the corruption (leave Cyrodiil mid battle, lost connection, got booted, etc)?
Time of day this occurred
screenshots and video
No.
What are your initial thoughts on Vengeance Test?
Having a pop cap of 300 per faction is awesome, and everyone being able to get stuck into it means the barrier of entry is much smaller. The skills are still very limited and we need more skill lines. As a healer, the Psijic skill Mend Wounds is very missed. It would be good to have that as a toggle rather than taking up a skill slot for healers, as healers in vengeance are already making big trade offs.
Do you have any general feedback?
See how high we can push the pop caps until problems happen
Re: Vengeance Server
Well you should at least be accurate in your comparison. Vengeance pop lock is 4x the population. So vengeance at 1-2 bar is going to be pop lock on greyhost. If anything there is the same amount of people playing, however it should be noted that a good portion of pvp players are boycotting the test because they are worried zos is going to replace live pvp with vengeance as it is. So even if the population was about even with live pvp most of the people playing are probably newer players who normally wouldn't have played cyrodil. (kind of a good thing knowing there is an untapped market of new pvp players waiting for pvp to be playable)
Who knows if zos planned this or not. They didnt add much this test, so maybe they are using the undaunted event as a way to gauge how much of the vengeance population was PVE specific players.
Test 4 is going to have a week of overlap too where greyhost is available. So then they would be able to gauge how much of the population would be pvp specific players. During that test we would see how many people solely like vengeance on its own.
It would be better to just replace u50 and nocp with a permanent vengeance campaign. Its good to combine the dead servers so new players have a more populated campaign to learn in. At the same time zos could keep adding to vengeance and do simple one or two day incentivized test events instead of full weeks.
Who knows if zos planned this or not. They didnt add much this test, so maybe they are using the undaunted event as a way to gauge how much of the vengeance population was PVE specific players.
Test 4 is going to have a week of overlap too where greyhost is available. So then they would be able to gauge how much of the population would be pvp specific players. During that test we would see how many people solely like vengeance on its own.
It would be better to just replace u50 and nocp with a permanent vengeance campaign. Its good to combine the dead servers so new players have a more populated campaign to learn in. At the same time zos could keep adding to vengeance and do simple one or two day incentivized test events instead of full weeks.
Re: Feedback On Console Environmental Sustainability Features
This should never have been introduced without an option to turn it off. Your job as a business is to improve the player experience and do so profitably. Nothing more.
And test features do not belong on a live version of the game.
And test features do not belong on a live version of the game.
Re: Gatekeeping and the Beam Meta
Hey everyone,
I’ve been playing ESO since beta, and one of the things I’ve always loved is how diverse the community can be - different builds, different playstyles, different people all coming together.
But lately, I feel like discrimination and gatekeeping are at an all-time high.
Instead of helping or supporting each other, people are being excluded or mocked for their playstyle, identity, or simply not matching someone else’s “meta.”
Here’s an example that happened today, in vet pledge, so fairly medium LVL content, we're not talking about trifecta or else huh:
Meanwhile, this main arcanist :
- Left after 1 wipe
- Didn't focus adds and that's what wiped the group
- Had like 20k hp (no food buff?) and DIED FIRST
This is what happens when design forces everyone into a single box. People don’t want to carry anyone who doesn’t fit the exact mold, and players who experiment or just want to enjoy a different style get punished for it. I keep seeing people point fingers at the ESO community for being “toxic” or “gatekeeping,” but honestly? The root of the problem is ZOS.
ZOS keeps pushing heavy attack sets, but they’re some of the weakest and most frustrating designs I’ve ever seen. At the same time, everything is being funneled into the beam meta. The end result? Players are stuck in a corner: either you run the one style that ZOS clearly wants, or you get insulted, excluded, and told you’re “unviable.”
It’s not just about players being mean, it’s about how the game is designed. If sets and builds were actually balanced, if multiple playstyles were equally viable, there wouldn’t be this endless discrimination against anyone who isn’t running the current meta.
And here’s the real kicker: ZOS keeps advertising ESO with the slogan “Play how you want.” But the reality is the opposite, set design and balancing push everyone into the same narrow beam meta. If you actually try to “play how you want,” you’re punished for it even in basic content, whether through weak sets, bad scaling, or being excluded from groups. The marketing and the gameplay direction just don’t line up.
Sorry, your topic is "Discrimination and Gatekeeping".
Correct me if I'm wrong. You had a random group, and one dd left the group motivating it with others' play style.
Who was gatekept in this situation? If the player left the group, they did their choice, the rest of the group is free to keep playing. The player that left mocked themself, whatever they said. Because you keep running the dungeon and that player doesn't.
The group didn't exclude you for your playstyle and didn't require you to play another way. Did I miss something?
The other side of the situation is: what do you offer the player that doesn't like the group for some reason? Stay and struggle?
Nobody called to kick others or change their playstyle. No. The player just left.
Leaving the group you don't like is a fair part of "Play how you want". You pay the price like 15m of queuing timeout, but God save any game from prohibiting the option to leave the group.
So what do you offer? Stay in group and love whatever the group do?
This weekend I offered the lvl 48 fake tank in dlc dungeon, that he shouldn't hesitate to pull the stack.
Probably I discriminated against him for playing how he wanted. Way more than in your situation, because I offered to change his playstyle. What do you think?
