Best Of
Re: Where are the Actual Patch Notes?
madmufffin wrote: »silky_soft wrote: »I don't get it either. Surely in their spreadsheets they can see what skills have been selected and what hasn't.
Just reduce cost of unused skills by 10% or bump their damage 10% or their stats 10% or their duration by a couple of seconds.
They could even do the same for unused sets.
There's literally charts made by people for PVE that very clearly show the discrepency of usage based on logs. It's sickening and they did literally nothing to raise the floor for viability. If it were for just dps, I'm sure the pick rate would be even more sickeningly unbalanced. I'm sure PVP has similar data as well even if it's harder to come by.
The most interesting thing about this chart is that if we use half the usage rate of the top-ranked line as the qualifying criterion, that is, 4399 ÷ 2, then all skill lines except the second-ranked one will be eliminated.
If we use half the usage rate of the third-ranked line (since players must have three class skill lines), that is, 1778 ÷ 2, then Sorc and Warden will be the only two eliminated, as the usage rates of their three lines are less than half of the third-ranked one.
Hopefully, Sorc and Warden will receive more attention in U48, as the current log shows that these two classes are the weakest and least popular in PvE.
Re: ZOS, What's Your Viewpoint on Subclassing in PvP? Addressing the Unbalanced Meta and Low Midyear May
Cyro performance right now is hands down the worst I've had in years. This isn't server lag... this is something different.
LadyGP
3
Killing Questers - I think I owe someone and apology
This Mayhem I've spend a decent amount of time protecting questers in IC as well as a bit in Cyro. Not as much as I usually do, because life's been lifeing on me. Needless to say, I'm team don't kill questers. I have in the past admonished other pvpers for killing questers.
To those PvPers I say: I'm sorry. You have a right to play your way.
This Mayhem I've accidentally killed two questers. Both of which responded by verbally abusing me. The first, we sorted it out. The second, just got uglier and uglier until I just ignored.
My ever-so-patient partner said: I think... you might have learned that not all questers are worthy of your protection. And they are right.
Will I still protect questers? Yes, I will. But the next one that lambastes me will simply get the following response: No crying in PvP.
And I have left this Mayhem with a greater understand of the complaints of PvPers that I didn't understand before.
To those PvPers I say: I'm sorry. You have a right to play your way.
This Mayhem I've accidentally killed two questers. Both of which responded by verbally abusing me. The first, we sorted it out. The second, just got uglier and uglier until I just ignored.
My ever-so-patient partner said: I think... you might have learned that not all questers are worthy of your protection. And they are right.
Will I still protect questers? Yes, I will. But the next one that lambastes me will simply get the following response: No crying in PvP.
And I have left this Mayhem with a greater understand of the complaints of PvPers that I didn't understand before.
minnowfaun
18
Re: Where are the Actual Patch Notes?
silky_soft wrote: »I don't get it either. Surely in their spreadsheets they can see what skills have been selected and what hasn't.
Just reduce cost of unused skills by 10% or bump their damage 10% or their stats 10% or their duration by a couple of seconds.
They could even do the same for unused sets.
There's literally charts made by people for PVE that very clearly show the discrepency of usage based on logs. It's sickening and they did literally nothing to raise the floor for viability. If it were for just dps, I'm sure the pick rate would be even more sickeningly unbalanced. I'm sure PVP has similar data as well even if it's harder to come by.
Re: Should there be a PvE only instance of Imperial City?
valenwood_vegan wrote: »No, not anymore than there should be pvp instances of every other zone in the game. With a game this big, every aspect of the game does not have to be catered to every player. There's not even much pve stuff to do in IC. I got the quest there done at a quiet time and never encountered another player. IC itself could use some work as it's not a popular zone, but that's a different issue than making a special safe pve version of one of the only pvp activities the game even has.
On the other hand... I think they might benefit from reusing the map and assets to create a new pve zone, unrelated to the current pvp zone. Perhaps an "after the war" type thing with a new questline. Since their development resources seem more limited, reusing a map, especially one so nostalgic and loved by TES fans, could be a good way to give us new content without stretching resources.
I know this thread got quite long, but my response early on the first page was this opinion and I think people are misunderstanding. They should definitely not take away IC and have a pve only instance where you can do the quests. That's pointless. What they should do is have a DLC of liberated IC after the 3 banners war. So nothing changes for pvp folks. As you said, with the new focus on reused assets, especially with oblivion remastered so popular, this could be a hit with fans. Such an iconic location as the imperial city and cyrodil stuck as a place where not many people go is a waste. The hint for the next season is dark brotherhood. Imagine that set in the rebuilding of the imperial city, corrupt officials, political infighting, murder for hire. Killing your target and popping down into the sewers. Could be fun, but in no way does that take away from the pvp experience.
Re: Please fix the Warden's Charm.
JustLovely wrote: »El_Borracho wrote: »It is by far the most annoying skill in PVP. When you stop and think about all of the skills and sets they have nerfed or wrecked over the years because they were "overperforming," only to give us the combo of ROA and Charm, its infuriating.
RoA is worse. At least charm doesn't violate ZOS' own rule sets.
He's referring to the combo of RoA after Ulfsid's with the Charm Script, and how ludicrously effective it is on borking CC immunity and leaving you in a horrible position for a long stretch.
Warden Charm is definitely a problem right now, and it is absolutely being used heavily by small sweat groups because it's just that good.
Re: Truly wretched set of Daily Endeavors for August 4
theskymoves wrote: »MreeBiPolar wrote: »
5 water/alchemy is ~2 min tops, 2 first Archive bosses is maybe 5 min, and firing s few shots from a siege weapon at a bridge/milegate in some of the many empty Cyr campaigns if you want to avoid any actual combat (even with mobs) in Cyr/IC is... Also maybe 5 minutes.
I just tried attacking a milegate with a siege weapon, and the damage didn't count toward the Endeavor.
It seems they changed the criteria for this daily achievement. The damage has to be done to players now.
Re: Concerned about the potential use of AI on loading screen artwork
@ZOS_Kevin You should probably look into this and then relay this to whoever is responsible.
I'm already not a fan of the Ui changes and preferred the way the old loading screens looked, so if you are feeling the need to "upscale" all the old artwork, then how about you don't use Ai and hire actual humans to create new loading screen art to match the new Ui - or you just don't mess with it in the first place.
Need I remind you of your policy that old art assets are not to be touched? We've had a whole drama about the Redguard armor style getting changed, to the point where the oldest crafting motifs in this game look very outdated now and Ancestral styles were added to resolve the issue without removing the old assets. Why does this not extend to loading screen artwork? Either someone clearly doesn't know how that "upscaling tool" works, which would be bad, or someone is trying to deceive customers by passing off Ai art as human art, which would also be bad.
Also consider that the EU has just passed another Ai act that requires transparency when it comes to Ai.
So unless you want to be held liable in the EU in the future, you better get your act together now and put in some effort, or at least be honest whenever you are taking shortcuts and we (the customers) will be the judge of it.
Thanks for relaying this.
I'm already not a fan of the Ui changes and preferred the way the old loading screens looked, so if you are feeling the need to "upscale" all the old artwork, then how about you don't use Ai and hire actual humans to create new loading screen art to match the new Ui - or you just don't mess with it in the first place.
Need I remind you of your policy that old art assets are not to be touched? We've had a whole drama about the Redguard armor style getting changed, to the point where the oldest crafting motifs in this game look very outdated now and Ancestral styles were added to resolve the issue without removing the old assets. Why does this not extend to loading screen artwork? Either someone clearly doesn't know how that "upscaling tool" works, which would be bad, or someone is trying to deceive customers by passing off Ai art as human art, which would also be bad.
Also consider that the EU has just passed another Ai act that requires transparency when it comes to Ai.
Source
So unless you want to be held liable in the EU in the future, you better get your act together now and put in some effort, or at least be honest whenever you are taking shortcuts and we (the customers) will be the judge of it.
Thanks for relaying this.
Re: The Truest Solution to ESO Server Performance
I felt this as a pit in my gut when Stadia shut down. I felt like "We destroyed our game's server performance for a short-term fad that no longer exists".Alinhbo_Tyaka wrote: »I think Stadia support was more the driver of moving client functions to the server than anti-cheat needs. The performance problems started cropping up as Stadia functions started finding their way into the game and it has been downhill ever since.
Re: Herald of the Tome - Remove Fatecarver
So I did a little bit of math about skills because I was just interested in looking into the numbers. On the UESP they have all damage values based on characters with the same stats, so skills can be compared to each other fairly directly. Normal single target 'spammables' do a consistent amount of damage around 5717, so I use that as the base value.
Fatecarver does 42% of that damage per tick, 3 times a second, giving it, unbuffed by crux, a damage of 126% per second, meaning that Fatecarver without crux does more damage than some of the single target spammables like Cutting Dive and Flame Skull. Snipe on its own without the status effect does 118% damage, meaning that if you have one character just hard casting Fatecarver without crux, and an archer spamming Snipe without Hawk Eye stacks, the Fatecarver would do better in single target. Once you introduce crux or additional targets, Fatecarver just wins, hands down. There is downtime between beams, but since Flail does 93% damage it isn't nearly that much of a loss.
AOE spammables, skills like Impulse and Carve do 83% damage per cast, well under what Fatecarver does, costing more resources, and not having nearly as much reach. Now, I love Elemental Explosion, it does a sizable amount of damage per cast, but it only does 169% damage, so you spend two seconds casting a skill to do a little under 2 spammables worth of damage to enemies in an area, though that damage is still decent, being what you'd expect of the up front damage of Meteor.
Another skill I looked at was Scorch, specifically the stamina morph that makes both hits do the same 'lower' damage, but doing it more rapidly, and each hit does only 124% damage, meaning that technically an unbuffed Fatecarver does more damage dry cast than the shalk explosion, and yes I know you'd be mixing other skills in to make up the damage, since Fatecarver prevents the use of other skills, but that being said. Sub-Assault is essentially 1s of crux empowered Fatecarver damage, at roughly the same cost (a little over), and spread out over 6s.
I say this because I run dungeons with friends on the weekend, it's the only way I still reliably engage with ESO, and every day I think to myself "I want to bring something other than my arcanist", but I don't want to waste my friends time by causing unnecessary friction. The defensive morph of Fatecarver so strongly outpaces so many other damage options that I'd be a fool not to run them outside of trying some sort of precise trial build, but just derping around with the beam makes everything else look, honestly, like a joke.
I'd love to bring my magicka sorc and zap my enemies, but Fatecarver out damages it so easily. I'd love to bring my stam sorc, using a bow with whatever fun skills I could mix in with storm calling, but even against single targets Fatecarver just wins. I'd love to bring my elementalist warden, but for all the extra skills I'm throwing out I would still be accomplishing less. I don't want to waste my friends time, so I settle with beaming, but it'd be nice if there were other options in the same zip code as Fatecarver.
Fun bit of extra trivia. Grim Focus and Relentless Focus do pretty much exactly 200% damage in this frame of reference.
Well the issue here is Light Attack weaving. I think its always been inferred that the damage from fatecarver sits above the "base damage" of other skills due to it being a channel and the "missed" dps from missing 4 LAs over the duration. A fairer assessment when comparing the damage to other skills would be to include the LA attack damage in the equation for the skills that allow to fire off a LA every second.
Light attacks are awkward. On the UESP for the base values for the default template characters, a light attack is 48% damage on that scale, so still, empowered fatecarver pulling up 250% damage, other abilities need to pull the bulk of the rest of that damage to close the gap. And, light attacks are single target, and capped so they can't pull higher numbers as you make for a better build, meaning that the stronger the build, the more skills will outshine light attacks.
For more information, Focused Aim, the morph of snipe I use on my sorc, always applies sundered, which is 8% damage per proc. Meaning that at maximum hawk eye stats, giving bow light attacks and snipe a buff of 25% damage, we have:
Focused Aim: 118% buffed to 147.5 by hawk eye
Light attack: 48% buffed to 60% by hawk eye
Sundered: 8%
For a total of 215.5% single target. Fatecarver is pulling 252% against upwards of 6 targets with the slight downtime of generating 2 crux with flail, which is an above average aoe spammable, and at a much more managable cost. If ZOS hadn't nerfed banner to prevent full crux regeneration during the beam, this would be even more out of line, and is where my issue is. If a fairly strong single target skill can't out damage an aoe beast, why bother using it?
CP5
2