Best Of
Re: April 20th Vengeance Only..
Hi ZOS,
Stop doing this, the majority of your PvP base does not want this washed game mode. We don’t want to contribute anything to your “testing” because we are against it. Frankly, it’s a waste of time. With all the good that’s being done recently in the studio this is the remaining outlier of a team clinging to one last bad decision. It feels like we’re just being reminded to stay skeptical of the PvP dev team’s vacuum decision making philosophy.
*edit*
Can we test PvE Vengeance on April 20th too?
Basically, your best option is to participate as early as it goes live, and spam dmg aoes en masse.
If all PvPers and their grannies show up and help testing whether the cap of 6 will or will not melt down the servers, we might be done with that test in a couple of days.
Boycotts are pointless now, Vengeance will go live, so if you want to have GH back faster then help test this change.
Not to mention that this test is perhaps the most important - in a megazerg environment such as Vengeance we need bombing more than ever, and a cap of 3 on dmg aoe is ridiculous beyond belief.
Ah yes, that’s right…. Hancho always has a reason or incentive for us to play Vengeance, in this case it’s so we can get GH back faster lol. What a joke. No thanks, hope they limit your AoEs to one person and yall can enjoy those Megabanger battles you mentioned at 61fps.
You can show your bad faith all you want, but the point stands: whining about a one-week test is pathetic when there is a practical solution to shorten its duration.
Re: Possible bug in Direfrost Keep and Fungal Grotto I conqueror achievements
it's likely people skipping and not doing the bosses that are required for conqueror. also happes in wayrest sewers with the rat meister that people don't usually do.
Re: April 20th Vengeance Only..
Don’t be sad. U can zerg down everything in Vegeance like u do it in GH. No chances for u except your Shielders are away and u get zerged too.
Jaavaa
2
Re: April 20th Vengeance Only..
.
if greyhost is the pot, ironically vengeance is a very small kettle. A minority, of a minority trying to attract a majority (PvE) that despises competitive play in the first place.
Whoever thought it a good idea to attempt to make pvp more competitive and balanced by stripping everything the game's been known for, to appease people who hate everything about competitive play... really needs to be studied. Especially since all they actually did was make it a numbers game zerg fest even more than Greyhost ever was.
The only people who will stay in vengeance long term are the same ones who occupy the now dead ravenwatch, BR and below 50 campaigns. Jaded bitter pvpers that just wanna zerg, and pvers that just want their tier 3 rewards.
Maximus_Mordred wrote: »ToddIngram wrote: »No amount of hyping by the vocal minority will change that.
Pot, meet kettle.
if greyhost is the pot, ironically vengeance is a very small kettle. A minority, of a minority trying to attract a majority (PvE) that despises competitive play in the first place.
Whoever thought it a good idea to attempt to make pvp more competitive and balanced by stripping everything the game's been known for, to appease people who hate everything about competitive play... really needs to be studied. Especially since all they actually did was make it a numbers game zerg fest even more than Greyhost ever was.
The only people who will stay in vengeance long term are the same ones who occupy the now dead ravenwatch, BR and below 50 campaigns. Jaded bitter pvpers that just wanna zerg, and pvers that just want their tier 3 rewards.
Re: April 20th Vengeance Only..
The current state of PvP is due to constant nerfs, ruining sets, ruining/nerfing our characters, Subclassing and placing what's left of what was once a fun and vibrant PvP comunity above the rest of the entire Eso population. We all talk about how it used to be. Most of the people who do have quit PvP. Some of the new players look at us like we are telling a fairytale when we speak of it. Its been going on for ten years. We need change. Vengeance is a part of this and there are many looking forward to it.
Re: Why do pants exist in this game when the jacket always covers it anyway?
Now that looks more like an kilt or short skirt over pants to me. who has the downside that the flaps clips into it. who they mostly do with skirts.
Note the back flap is hidden on khajiit and argonians as they it will clip horrible with tails.
But this indicate an hide flap function exist but it might only be for the rear flap.
However many npc has outfit options players can not use.
Like the khajiit fence in the Belkart outlaw refuge
https://images.uesp.net/6/69/ON-npc-J'zuraar.jpg
But he still has the flaps.
Note the back flap is hidden on khajiit and argonians as they it will clip horrible with tails.
But this indicate an hide flap function exist but it might only be for the rear flap.
However many npc has outfit options players can not use.
Like the khajiit fence in the Belkart outlaw refuge
https://images.uesp.net/6/69/ON-npc-J'zuraar.jpg
But he still has the flaps.
zaria
1
Re: Cannot buy the premium+bonus tome?
UPDATE for Steam users:
Success!
However, I had to circumvent actually using Steam, heh. Rather, I launched the game directly from eso64.exe rather than opening it like normal through Steam. It will bring up the login splash screen but you must supply your own login credentials manually.
The path on Windows is: C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Zenimax Online\The Elder Scrolls Online\game\client
From there, the Tome UI Upgrade button worked responsively and did the deed.
This is what I would consider to be a WORKAROUND, however. And the process should 100% be cleaned-up so that you can buy it from Steam directly like Crowns and the old Chapters, etc..
Success!
However, I had to circumvent actually using Steam, heh. Rather, I launched the game directly from eso64.exe rather than opening it like normal through Steam. It will bring up the login splash screen but you must supply your own login credentials manually.
The path on Windows is: C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Zenimax Online\The Elder Scrolls Online\game\client
From there, the Tome UI Upgrade button worked responsively and did the deed.
This is what I would consider to be a WORKAROUND, however. And the process should 100% be cleaned-up so that you can buy it from Steam directly like Crowns and the old Chapters, etc..
Re: Daily login for Tomes should be counted automatically
SilverBride wrote: »Players shouldn't miss getting credit for something they did just because they forgot to open Tomes, go to Challenges, go to Seasonal then click on the Challenge. They did it for the daily login rewards so they should be able to do it for this, too.
You don't miss getting credit if you forget to claim it manually for a few days. I did forget to claim it on one account and then just had to click the things a few times, got credit for all days. Same with the resource gathering challenges. If you forget to claim one, it starts counting towards the next one already in the background. Now the auto claim function is of course a different matter.
Re: Crown Sale - Did you buy any?
I just no longer buy crowns. I think the crown store item pricing is too high for what is a video game, and ZOS takes advantage of people with their marketing of items.
I have no problem paying a monthly subscription, but crown store item pricing is ridiculous. (Though I did stop paying for ESO+ for about 6 months when they did armory station with the per character armory slots. That was the tipping point for me, but I am back to ESO+ for now.)
I have no problem paying a monthly subscription, but crown store item pricing is ridiculous. (Though I did stop paying for ESO+ for about 6 months when they did armory station with the per character armory slots. That was the tipping point for me, but I am back to ESO+ for now.)
Taggund
2
Re: U50 Feedback Thread for Challenge Difficulty
So, to answer some questions on Challenge Difficulty and instancing combat. This is going to be a little bit technical to hopefully explain the limitations from that perspective.
Everything in the game has a "weight" to it. This includes monsters (very weight heavy), interactable objects (these very but can be weight heavy), etc. Weight is determined by how much information is stored in a given object. I mention this because we have formulas for how much "weight" we can attribute to a given zone or instance of a zone and that is based on the intended player cap. So, for instance, Overland zones generally have no weight restrictions because we expect a lot of players in those zones so the weight attributed to the zone is justified and won't adversely affect the server. It gets much more tricky in situations where we expect reduced players in a given zone. The most restrictive are solo instances or fight spaces. We have a lot of development tools we use to make sure we do not exceed weight capacities in these spaces so it should feel seamless to players.
Each zone is controlled on the backend by something that determines which of our servers will spin up which zones when new copies are needed. In Greymoor, we saw the effects of the zones being spun up were not correctly attributing weight. Trials would spin up on weight heavy controllers which would result in adverse conditions in any zone connected to that controller. Our engineers took great pains to reorganize the code in these controllers to make sure the zones were even and weight was correctly distributed.
I bring this up to highlight the technical aspects of how the game operates from a monster and zone perspective to further illustrate that spinning up new zones based on difficulty without weight concerns and attribution would be extremely detrimental to the entire game. Needing to essentially double all of the available zones in the game without regard to population and weight would mean the entire server would have some pretty major issues regardless of where you would be playing. Even in Delves and Public Dungeons, locations that were not created with these concerns in mind, would potentially be breaking for the server.
We want Challenge Difficulty to be a fun experience for players and, while most of the feedback is regarding the desire for us not to split players from a design standpoint, the technical concerns are most likely bigger than that. This is not said to dismiss feedback but more provide context.
Please DO keep providing feedback. We have some fixes in the works coming for CD. Mainly around the calculations we are making on the backend so that player damage is more in line with expectations but that is not exhaustive and we continue to monitor things. We are taking a look at the Master difficulty in particular as thats where I think most folks will find their groove and we want to make that as smooth as possible.
Everything in the game has a "weight" to it. This includes monsters (very weight heavy), interactable objects (these very but can be weight heavy), etc. Weight is determined by how much information is stored in a given object. I mention this because we have formulas for how much "weight" we can attribute to a given zone or instance of a zone and that is based on the intended player cap. So, for instance, Overland zones generally have no weight restrictions because we expect a lot of players in those zones so the weight attributed to the zone is justified and won't adversely affect the server. It gets much more tricky in situations where we expect reduced players in a given zone. The most restrictive are solo instances or fight spaces. We have a lot of development tools we use to make sure we do not exceed weight capacities in these spaces so it should feel seamless to players.
Each zone is controlled on the backend by something that determines which of our servers will spin up which zones when new copies are needed. In Greymoor, we saw the effects of the zones being spun up were not correctly attributing weight. Trials would spin up on weight heavy controllers which would result in adverse conditions in any zone connected to that controller. Our engineers took great pains to reorganize the code in these controllers to make sure the zones were even and weight was correctly distributed.
I bring this up to highlight the technical aspects of how the game operates from a monster and zone perspective to further illustrate that spinning up new zones based on difficulty without weight concerns and attribution would be extremely detrimental to the entire game. Needing to essentially double all of the available zones in the game without regard to population and weight would mean the entire server would have some pretty major issues regardless of where you would be playing. Even in Delves and Public Dungeons, locations that were not created with these concerns in mind, would potentially be breaking for the server.
We want Challenge Difficulty to be a fun experience for players and, while most of the feedback is regarding the desire for us not to split players from a design standpoint, the technical concerns are most likely bigger than that. This is not said to dismiss feedback but more provide context.
Please DO keep providing feedback. We have some fixes in the works coming for CD. Mainly around the calculations we are making on the backend so that player damage is more in line with expectations but that is not exhaustive and we continue to monitor things. We are taking a look at the Master difficulty in particular as thats where I think most folks will find their groove and we want to make that as smooth as possible.
ZOS_Finn
20