Best Of
Re: Vengeance 4 loadouts and perks
Looking at those loadouts, it seems ZOS may have begun to recognise that having WD/SD both affect healing and damage output simultaneously was a bad idea.
I personally would support a complete change to those stats, and have it as offensive power (damage) and defensive power (affecting shields and healing) and split the stats.
I personally would support a complete change to those stats, and have it as offensive power (damage) and defensive power (affecting shields and healing) and split the stats.
Re: You can rollback a feature of the game. You choose:
I'm mostly ok with hybridization, but the glory days of ESO were when we had none of the listed things in game. I'd be OK with account wide titles, but the way they implemented account wide achievements was a fail. It removed the need for alt toons almost entirely.
reazea
4
Re: You can rollback a feature of the game. You choose:
Subclassing has, predictably, made an over-arching meta while turning power creep into a firehose. But this has its roots in hybridization. Once that domino fell, this was the expected outcome. Next stop, massive nerfs to all of the "overperforming" skill lines. 
Re: You can rollback a feature of the game. You choose:
I can choose to not engage in sub-classing. I had no choice with AwA.
AlnilamE
9
Re: No base game update in 48?
katanagirl1 wrote: »I still think the seasons model of not knowing for what you are paying for is a bad practice. If you want to break up the content in pieces then let us pay for it piecemeal.
Yeah. They announced their seasons model to the playerbase with the idea that development projects would be able to release as they're ready instead of having to adhere to a set release schedule. And their pitch made it sound like feature/project releases wouldn't have to wait on cyclical updates to land in the players hands and would be awesome. However the reality is that it's more that they're no longer beholden to a release schedule anymore, and under less pressure to get them out in a timely manner.
Re: You can rollback a feature of the game. You choose:
I'd rather see new things added to, rather than taken away from, ESO.
Subclassing is great. I can min/max the passives I get to use while in Werewolf form, creating even more builds I couldn't make before.
Hybridization is convenient. It opens up new options for Werewolf builds, as wasted stat lines like "spell penetration" now count toward the penetration of the martial damaging abilities.
Account Wide Achievements are a plus for me because I want to earn everything I can on my main character. I don't want to start the game over again several times.
The new BGs are fun in their own way — things like the new Chaos Ball transformations make them exciting to play. And since we know we'll get to return to 3-team BGs eventually, I don't mind keeping 2-team BGs in the game. Hopefully we can get both 2-team and 3-team BGs available at the same time.
As for other things people have mentioned — Tales of Tribute, Companions, Scribing, Antiquities, etc — I like that all of those features exist. ToT is fun once you learn how to play it. Mythics and Scribing skills are fun to build around. Companions are interesting both as original characters and as something you can theorycraft combat builds for.
Again, I'd rather see new features added to the game. Of course I'd like to see new ToT decks, Companions, Mythics, Grimoires, etc — but also I want to see what else ZOS has in store for this game.
Subclassing is great. I can min/max the passives I get to use while in Werewolf form, creating even more builds I couldn't make before.
Hybridization is convenient. It opens up new options for Werewolf builds, as wasted stat lines like "spell penetration" now count toward the penetration of the martial damaging abilities.
Account Wide Achievements are a plus for me because I want to earn everything I can on my main character. I don't want to start the game over again several times.
The new BGs are fun in their own way — things like the new Chaos Ball transformations make them exciting to play. And since we know we'll get to return to 3-team BGs eventually, I don't mind keeping 2-team BGs in the game. Hopefully we can get both 2-team and 3-team BGs available at the same time.
As for other things people have mentioned — Tales of Tribute, Companions, Scribing, Antiquities, etc — I like that all of those features exist. ToT is fun once you learn how to play it. Mythics and Scribing skills are fun to build around. Companions are interesting both as original characters and as something you can theorycraft combat builds for.
Again, I'd rather see new features added to the game. Of course I'd like to see new ToT decks, Companions, Mythics, Grimoires, etc — but also I want to see what else ZOS has in store for this game.
Drop chances for crafting surveys reduced?
Since the update last week where surveys were adjusted to stackable unidentified, I’m barely getting any.
I allow my surveys to build up and then tackle them all on Sundays, I do writs on all my characters and I usually get a good supply by the end of the week to comfortably sustain my crafting for the subsequent week. This week I didn’t get a single clothing survey
Is this simply RNG and I’m unlucky or have the drop chances been changed?
I allow my surveys to build up and then tackle them all on Sundays, I do writs on all my characters and I usually get a good supply by the end of the week to comfortably sustain my crafting for the subsequent week. This week I didn’t get a single clothing survey
Is this simply RNG and I’m unlucky or have the drop chances been changed?
Poss
1
Re: [REQUEST] Permanent Vengeance Test Campaign
Joy_Division wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »Joy_Division wrote: »JustLovely wrote: »No thanks. We don't need or want vengeance. Most of us PvP mains absolutely despise vengeance and ZOS' apparent intent to have vengeance replace the PvP we already have instead of fixing it.
The OP's suggestion had nothing to do with replacing GH. They specifically said "alongside Grey Host." GH would still be there for you and Vengeance's critics. That you still object speaks volumes. You're just going to come onto these forums update after update after update always complaining about how much you hate Vengeance and will accept nothing else, even when your precious GH is still there for you to play. Vengeance's critics whine about being forced to played Vengeance, but they have no problem forcing the rest of us to stay in broken GH.
How long from the time that they add a permanent vengeance campaign until they shut down the normal live cyrodiil do you think?
If we look at Cyrodiil's decade+ long history, its quite clear ZOS only shuts down campaigns that hardly anyone plays. And by hardly anyone, I mean hardly anyone. IC has been dead for years and years and ZOS went out of their way to offer a no CP version of it. 5 of the 6 PvP campaigns are strictly niche and have been for quite a long time and are still there. There isn't any real reason to shut these down because they can just leave them up, unsupported and on autopilot, knowing that the few remaining PvP oriented players are so attached to the game, they'll just continue to log onto those campaigns.
Even when the default ESO went to the champion point system, ZOS still went out of its way to offer a PvP campaign with no CP. In fact, the default Battleground setting is no CP. So ZOS has a decade long history of catering to niche audience to maintain PvP systems that are completely different to how the default game works.
This could be interpreted both ways. 1. Vengeance is the niche/different PvP system ZOS would accommodate. 2. Vengeance is the new default PvP system, and GH would become the niche/different offering. Either way, ZOS's history would suggest support for both at the same time.
I did hear during the Livestream that even though ZOS was thinking of making Battlegrounds like Vengeance, they also said that IC would continue to be what it is now, i,e, non-Vengeance. That is the horse's mouth saying that ZOS is still planning to support ESO PvP as it currently is. If there are these masses of hardcore ESO PvP players out in the woodworks and in your discords who absolutely can't stand Vengeance and would populate GH, then it's clear from the evidence and history we have available, GH would remain an option. Which again, is what the OP said.No. ZOS isn't going to support two different versions of cyodiil long term. They're just not going to. Sooner or later it will be one or the other, and vengeance isn't going to fly with the current PvP players, and the PvE players won't play vengeance either. They don't like PvP or they'd already be playing it.
Why is this so hard to understand for the vengeance supporters? This is why vengeance has to be opposed in every possible way at every opportunity.
ZOS has supported different versions of PvP.
Even if what you said was true, it's one way or the other, you are basically telling the Vengeance supporters, "Too bad. There can only be one version of PvP. Even though the current version has a tiny player base, that is the one that you will play." Like, OK, why are we having this discussion? You don't care what others want. You aren't even willing to give people the choice of what to play. It's awfully rich to hear Vengeance haters constantly come onto these forums and whine that they are being forced for a week to test Vengeance when your perspective is to permanently force everyone to play ESO's PvP as it is now, without even giving them the option of something else.
I can only speak for myself, but I have never said that GH or ZOS's current version of PvP should be shut down and people forced to play Vengeance. The most common thing I have heard is that Vengeance should replace the under 50 campaign as the new introductory way for people to learn or become more experienced in PvP. If anything, I would think the GH diehards would want that arrangement because the current barrier to entry to be a decent GH PvPer is so high and intimidating that the number of replacement players they get is so small. It would a quick, easy, low stress, low pressure environment to get more of ESO's population playing PvP
This is a misrepresentation of what has happened in the past. And you've been around long enough to know first hand that most of what ZOS has said they'd do to fix issues with live PvP they haven't followed through on. So why do you take their word for it now? We have to look at what they do to know what's going on, not what they say. What they say may or may not pan out in the future if they continue to behave as they have in the past.
A person who thinks ZOS will support current live cyrodiil alongside a totally different version of cyrodiil at the same time is delusional. (no cp is not a totally different, templated system as vengeance is) It won't happen. It would be an increase in ZOS' expensenses to make it happen. (that's why it will never happen). Vengeance is ZOS trying to cut down on their dev and server investment while at the same time trying to say they haven't changed what the game offers even though it will have changed very significantly if vengeance is implemented.
Re: [REQUEST] Permanent Vengeance Test Campaign
Could keeping Vengeance 4 on live be viable?
Let's say, once V4 is on live in December, it remains accessible until after the V5 PTS testing. Then, if necessary, it goes down for a week or two to allow for adding new features.
Would it lead to an avalanche of support tickets about corrupted characters and items missing from inventories?
Would it make players complain about new features because they got used to a certain ruleset?
Would it trigger even more complaints about unbalanced classes and skills?
No. ZOS isn't going to support two different versions of cyodiil long term. They're just not going to. Sooner or later it will be one or the other, and vengeance isn't going to fly with the current PvP players, and the PvE players won't play vengeance either. They don't like PvP or they'd already be playing it.
Why is this so hard to understand for the vengeance supporters? This is why vengeance has to be opposed in every possible way at every opportunity.
Re: Update 48 Combat/Balancing Changes
tomofhyrule wrote: »We now know from the Reddit AUA that in 2026 we'll likely see Overland Difficulty implemented - why balance now?
Few months from now everything will need to be looked at anyway.
Let them work on what they think is the priority right now... We'll have needed balances down the road; game isn't in an unplayable state right now, we can wait a bit IMO.
Let's not pretend balance is anywhere near a good state right now.
I'm not going to go too crazy until we see the patch notes, but I'm really disappointed that it seems like they're still on the "we need to wait and see" phase for how Subclassing affected balance. Spoiler alert: it affected balance exactly as the players from the U46 PTS warned them about.
We should not have to go through 9+ months of balance being in shambles before they deign to address it. After all, look at the "how did you enjoy Subclassing and U46?" thread in General - it's not universally positive, and the longer they don't address it, the more of a chance that those players who are frustrated are going to find a new home... if they haven't already.
If I were Game Director, I would have made Post-Subclassing Balance be an all-hands-on-deck thing as soon as I saw the frustration when U46's PTS was going... and I'd also be trying to rush a really nice (paid!) feature like a new Class for U50 to get people back and spending money.
Me, I found a new home in GW2 until the devs of ESO decide to balance their stuff here.
I am not gonna invest in what resources I have to keep working on builds only for them to be destroyed whenever the devs finally decide to bring out the nerf hammer and destroy the china shop, because that's the only way they know how to balance.
I've done it for 7,000+ hours and I'm sick of it.
coop500
3