code65536 wrote: »

What proportion of the tanks who have cleared DSR HM or RG HM was not a DK+Necro pair?

U35



U36

Arthtur wrote: »

Its wierd to read about "Active Combat" after what was done to DoTs in U35.
Because of long DoTs we have situations where we use spammable 10, 15+ times in a row which results in... boring combat. Well maybe some players like it but for me it was the biggest problem with U35. And lets not forget about fights where sticky DoTs become usless because Boss will remove them before they do any damage...

Honestly. I am trying to decide where the DoT timer change in U35 fits into the core strategy. I have tentatively placed it under "Mastery" in the "game is too hard to master" category.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

You say that valuing mastery is a core goal, and I agree with that. But, the degree to which it is valued ensures a pretty unhealthy level of players in endgame. It makes the ability to participate at all, just because some people left in a bad patch, dire. Take U35, lots of people left. But, with what a million or so added accounts you claimed this year, you'd think at least some of those people would be replaced by other skilled players who just needed training. And yet, Craglorn just got emptier. Queue times got longer. Etc.

I assume that you guys recognized this, because ostensibly you wanted to lower the ceiling. But, these changes also seem to be hard focused on nerfing the various ways players who can't or won't put together those highly specific builds play. The mid tier builds. In fact, almost everytime you guys announce you're lowering the ceiling, it seems the gap between mid-tier players and endgame players grows even wider.

So, when do you feel that "play as you want" wears out it's welcome?

Huh. Actually you made me realize that update 35 was a complete success. They succeeded in lowering the ceiling by removing players from the ceiling and replacing them with new players! Jokes aside, I am very concerned about that line where they said "as our community evolved, so did our values", which could be interpreted as it being acceptable to neglect certain areas of the game because "the community simply evolved".

This whole post was super vague and not really what players wanted for a Q/A. There are some interesting things, but mostly I find it to be devoid of substance or just generally containing obvious statements.

Here are some SPECIFIC questions that players would like to see answered!
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/622021/community-questions-concerning-eso

*excuse me as I cut out the filler while quoting below*

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

In a nutshell, we want combat to feel fun and rewarding to all players... we recognize that what feels “fun and rewarding” is a little different for everyone... not hard rules or a definition... we strive to meet when considering adjustments to combat in ESO

IMO, this is an entirely empty statement. You plan on prioritizing fun? Ok. But also acknowledge that "fun" is subjective and that you will make changes and adjustments in the future in the name of "fun"? Ok... this whole paragraph is left totally vague so that any future changes that players don't like can be explained away with "But GUYS! We support fun! And this change will lead to more fun. We know what's best. Promise!".

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Play The Way You Want
We strive to provide freedom and flexibility ... We value diversity of choice and playstyle with abilities, weapons, and armor. ... every character should have the capacity to protect their group, mend allies, or devastate foes.
...

The list is pointless, so I'm ignoring it. Yes, you support wearing any kind of armor or slotting skills. Obviously.

"every character should have the capacity to protect their group, mend allies, or devastate foes". That statement reads to me as "we want every class to be as good as every other class in doing everything". That seems to follow all the other statements made, but again, it's super vague and only seems as a defense for inevitable class changes.

Could you instead talk about how you test and arrive at decision to make said in-game changes? It seems like flavor of the month changes or some dev had a bad experience in PvP during a twitch stream. Or a dev woke up one morning and said "You know what? I don't like NightBlades today! I think they are OP so I'm going to make arbitrary changes to nerf them!".

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Mastery
Our combat is designed to challenge you along two primary paths: character builds and skillful execution.... your character build should test your ability to refine a large number of choices... fast-paced, active combat.

How does development plan on handling the META? I think many players would argue there AREN'T "a large number of choices", because 80% of sets aren't viable. Some are on the cusp perhaps, but again, I stand behind ~80% of sets are garbage.
Obviously, some sets are designed for different play levels (like Overland sets being rightfully positioned more for new players). But the more you shorten the runway for players from start -> endgame, the more players just skip over those sets and ignore them! Leading to set bloat.

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Mastery

• Optimizing ability rotations and timing

So, making FUNCTIONAL changes to things like Jabs for GC

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Mastery

• Light attack weaving

0_0 Nice to hear official support for LA weaving. I'm sure it's been stated in other places. To what degree does the combat team want LA weaving to play a part in combat tho? Changes to Empower seem to imply not that much... leaving this statement to be kinda empty

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

we've used ... feedback from the community and hard data metrics. Outside of some outstanding combat bugs, we believe taking all these into account has now gotten combat in a better place, where ESO is more enjoyable for a variety of playstyles. Much of the work we’ve done over the past few years – such as updating the Champion Point system and the hybridization work – has vastly improved build options, gameplay variety and build equality, which supports several of our values. We know it hasn't always been easy and we sincerely appreciate everyone giving their feedback and spending their time in Tamriel over the years.

Do you acknowledge that "hybridization" is incomplete? What are your thoughts on the concept that it's impossible to balance everything in the game to be viable? Doesn't this entire post just summarize as "players can expect to see more of the same changes we have been making"? Do you think players are tired of the game pounding whatever nail is standing out this week?

We want you to play however you want, until that stops working and you have to play the only way that really works. Don't worry, we'll continue to change the only way that really works because that is "mastery".

As corporate management for decades before retirement I can appreciate the time it took to compose and write this as it's a lot of words but doesn't address anything specific, like why were templars smashed so hard? Fast paced combat? What will that entail for dot builds? The boost to sorcerer pets due to "adjustments" that went too far? You said the most common question of "why" could be best explained by your core values(which you state have ALWAYS been the same yet result in yo-yo nerfs and buffs every few months for YEARS) but failed to answer a single "why" a sorcerer is more than pets, a warden is more than an ice staff, and a dk is more than one ultimate. I have watched templars lose their "house"(remember that "goal") and gain damage back and forth to varying degrees to losing both house and damage. That's just just ONE class that you've 180'd so often no one knows what's what. It really seems like zos has done nothing but KILL diversity much less encourage play how you want. You said Why was the most common theme, yet failed to answer a single "why"

Play the way you want, but if you wanna make high dps on Warden you should use Ice Staff - a weapon that has passives related to tanking.
I still can't believe that this was your solution to the issue called "we want Warden to be a frost mage". On DK you feel either fire or poison without forcing the class to use any specific weapon.
I also can't believe that for most people that was good enough and they are happy about it. Madness.

Ok just my two cents:

1. vDSR I hate as a tank. There is too much going on at once. Either dogs spawning, having to swap targets, ground aoes that i have to get out of, position, etc. I personally hate the 1st boss fight in vDSR. I feel like I have to do that fight perfectly or it's a wipe and it's my fault. There needs to be room to learn and breathe and that fight does neither. Too much going off at the same time, with too many things I have to do, that after a month, I swapped to dps and let someone else do the tanking. I can solo tank the WHOLE trial on normal, but I will not tank it on vet. Vet feels like VHM. As such I do not enjoy the, throw as much as we can at you while you have to do this perfectly style of combat. Its the thing that turned me away from certain mmo games.

2. Vet trial is basically the same setup: dragon knight, necro tanks, and you rarely get to see any other class as a tank: templar (what i main), nightblade, sorc, etc. Healers are always templar, necro, or warden. DPS tends to be a mix and they feel fine. I really would like to see a shift to the non-meta setups for tanks and healers and improvement in those areas so that any tank and any healer is viable in vet, vet-hm, tri-runs. A great example of this is the dragon knight healer. I really enjoy the hell out of it, but it's not viable for endgame. why? DK scales it's abilites based off health, as a healer you scale based off mag. You can't split the two, or both sides suffer, you scale mag so your healing is where it needs to be, but then since your not scaling your health, you DK abilities suffer (like shields). Play the way you want, play what you want, is all great whenever all classes in all roles is balanced and able to do the things the "meta" is able to do and I do not feel like that is the case. I personally would love the shift from combat balancing and changes to focus on this area of it, so that ppl can ACTUALLY play what they want and the way they want.

3. Light weaving, heavy attacking. Please keep! I can't keep doing light weaving. I have had to switch to heavy attacking and I really enjoy it, after weeks of pain all the way up to my arm from trying to do light weaving. I like that there are two completely different playstyles. the only change that I would like to see is empower being able to benefit both combat style instead of just one. You gutted builds from switching to heavy attack only. Why?! let it offer a smaller boost to light attacks, and the full benefit to heavy. hell, let it be scaleable, and let medium-weaving be a thing. It will be another playstyle, another way to play the game, and players can truely play the way they want. All three would be viable and it be up to the player which one they wish to play and master.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

You say that valuing mastery is a core goal, and I agree with that. But, the degree to which it is valued ensures a pretty unhealthy level of players in endgame. It makes the ability to participate at all, just because some people left in a bad patch, dire. Take U35, lots of people left. But, with what a million or so added accounts you claimed this year, you'd think at least some of those people would be replaced by other skilled players who just needed training. And yet, Craglorn just got emptier. Queue times got longer. Etc.

I assume that you guys recognized this, because ostensibly you wanted to lower the ceiling. But, these changes also seem to be hard focused on nerfing the various ways players who can't or won't put together those highly specific builds play. The mid tier builds. In fact, almost everytime you guys announce you're lowering the ceiling, it seems the gap between mid-tier players and endgame players grows even wider.

Well, Craglorn is empty because there is no need to be in Craglorn.

This goes back to the changes for 2023 where they are dialing back new questing content. There is so much questing content to do that these new players never need to set foot in end game. They can spend hours and hours in overland content doing quests, delves, world events, world bosses, and all that sort of thing. I think someone at ZOS has finally raised their hand and announced to the class that the amount of questing content exceeds the average time a player spends in the game before moving on.

I think that part of this is the ongoing drought of rewards. When the Crown Store and Crown Crates are the rewards for participation that people aspire to, then there is no reason to play the game at higher levels. Yes, there are content driven rewards that can drive people in that direction, but the Crown rewards dilute that pretty effectively.

Even though it is cosmetics, the Crown Store has a central position in the purpose of the game. I think that is causing problems when people only stick around long enough to realize this before leaving.

Ghost of Elsonso of New Life Past wrote:

My concern is that when the GAME is what is paying the bills, management needs to be doing things that will make people pay for the game. This is increasingly not the situation with ESO. With ESO, the financial purpose of the game is becoming more and more to bring players to the Crown Store.

It is not necessary to make the best game possible when this is what the purpose of the game is. New content only needs to be just average enough to not drive players away.

No one needs to be in Craglorn.

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Just to make sure we're all on the same page, these values have been our guiding principles for years and are the things we will continue to be our goals moving forward. Nothing here is technically new, outside of simply sharing it with everyone.

Thanks for sharing.

Can I ask why after the retrospective of feedback from the community including your stream team have you not considered reviewing and re-establishing your values and principles and more importantly the goals which relate to combat.

The statement is that nothing has changed and that the intention is just to continue down the same path with the same combat goals is very concerning particularly with feedback given to date.

Feels like we’ve been given a mission and values statement on combat which doesn’t truely reflect where combat or where the game is at presently. Reacts post addresses some of these gaps, and a few others already posted here however the Q&A thread also addresses these also.

That being said I recognise that it is difficult to balance community feedback and internal agenda. There’s been a lot delivered to the game based on community feedback (this was a thread on its own) however when it comes to implementing the idea proposed by the community versus what comes to fruition by the combat team vastly differ. This is the same as combat notes which quite often can be vague and not truly understood until it goes live. Those that do go on pts it’s observed that the feedback cycle between pts and implementation is seems to not adequately allow enough time to consider code adjustments to code or QA check timelines. That being said hopefully the adjustment to the yearly Qtr release allow better seen improvements here.

Until there is stabilisation and understanding some of these major bugs (block) I would not advocate delivering any changes to combat just yet.

Beyond any of these statements a streamlined method of communication is what everyone is asking for where there is a structure for open dialogue.

If what's in this "deep dive" has been the "guiding principles for years" as claimed, then it doesn't help explain all the massive changes combat constantly sees. If the values remained the same over time, more consistency should be possible.

Change fatigue is very real. Every patch almost all the "end game" (let's say trifecta level and above) players I know, along with many lower level players in my social guild, seem to be dreading combat changes, and never excited by them anymore. Can we please ease up on the constant big changes?

This may be a different perspective for this thread, but from someone who is not an endgame player and doesn't fully understand the nuances of combat, I appreciate this post. I think it's good to state your guiding values outright, and I hope there will be other posts to follow which will delve into more specifics and meet the community's expectations of the promised Q&A.

I have always loved the "play any way you want" idea. I definitely see it in questing and overland content. I play multiple characters and usually build them around a theme, not a meta, and I have always been able to play the content I most enjoy using all sorts of unique builds.

I think the harder content in the game is where "active combat" and especially "mastery" should shine. I honestly can't say much about this because I don't typically play this content. I know there are a lot of people who are frustrated with the current iteration of combat in some way, and yet people are also frustrated with constant changes to combat. (It's going to have to change again if you want it to get better, people.) I hope you find a way to get more the community on board and fix some of the issues for these endgame and pvp players.

Continued communication, and more specific addressing of questions will help. You mentioned looking at player feedback and data metrics. If the metrics are driving things that contradict feedback, share that information!

As a huge fan of the Elder Scrolls series and lore, I appreciate your final core value as well. This game still feels very "Elder Scrolls" to me, even if it is an mmo.

This is a long winded non-answer to the question that this purports to answer: why?

All you've given us regurgitated buzz words that you've been harping on all year. There's no new information here, this is just (maybe) the first time it's all in one place at the same time.

The why that we are asking for is an actual explanation on how these changes help reach these stated goals. The goals seam clear and reasonable enough, but the changes (and some of the goals themselves) seem to contrary to these ends. As others have pointed "play as you want" contradicts "mastery". In order to "master" a class, role, or even specific battles you are virtually required to use very specific sets, abilities, and classes. There's a reason Trifecta prog groups utilize dressing room in trials, and why us console raiders have to practice quick gear/ability swaps in between fights.

That why? is asking for an explanation of how the numerous changes actually fit into the end goals. We want to know specifically what combat will look like when these goals are met and the onslaught of changes are finally finished. All this indicates that combat is currently in a transition state. We know what combat looked like a year ago. What we want to know is what it will look like a year from now...or two years...or three...whenever this transition is complete. We want to know that there is an actual vision of what combat will be and not some vague overview of the philosophy of combat that you've given us because it seems more and more that you're just winging it. Just throwing a bunch of stuff against the wall and seeing what sticks. We don't see how the changes that have occurred benefit anyone. They've been a thorn in the side of endgamers, whereas casual players are vaguely aware that these changes have even occurred. They might know that there's been an uproar in the end game community, but they generally don't know what the changes are and certainly don't understand how they have impacted end game. They're still using the same sets they were using 3 years ago. Still executing enemies at full health. Still doing the same over world dailies over and over again. Don't get me wrong, though, I'm not knocking that. Most of us were there at some point. They don't need to be in meta set up to fetch a sack of potatoes from a delve. They don't need to light attack weave and go full roto on a world boss with 17 other people. They can get away with playing the way they want because they don't want to run trifectas, or even vet Fungal 1. They're happy with where the game is at, they were happy a year ago. and 5 years ago. More power to them. They make up the vast majority of the player base. They're happy. And they could generally not care less about any of the combat changes that have been made.

To many of us it seems that the changes are geared toward the small minority of players between the casual players and end gamers. The players who want to clear vet HM trials but don't want to have to put in the work required to do it, or conform to the meta set ups that groups look for when looking to get hose completes. The people who, no matter how many times you try explaining to them that you need X DPS to clear Y content not because we're elitist, but because there are wipe mechanics, and mechanics in general and the less DPS you have, the longer fights take, the more mechanics you see, the more likely it is for the pull to fall apart. Over and over again, until it feels like you're hitting your head against the wall. And no matter how many times we tell them that end game requires teamwork, and being part of team is about doing what's best for the team. Meaning running the gear that the group needs to succeed. Casting the skills that need to be cast when they need to be cast. These are the people who say "but I like my bow/bow build. I like being a werewolf. I don't run to change my build. I'll just make me own group and we'll clear it with out running meta." Then six months later you run into them in a random dungeon and they ask you to join the the SS prog group they've been trying to form since the last time you talked to them.

But the thing is, the changes have NOT helped them. The skill gap has only been widened. The groups that could put up 134 in Cloudrest in U34 were still putting up 134 in U35 and are still putting up a 135 in U36. Those that are still playing, at least. The damage nerfs mean it's more important than ever for those "play how I want" players with vet HM aspirations to change things up in order to get their clears. Because of the healing changes, it means more than ever that they need mechanical awareness.

So reading through this deep dive, I'm still left with the question: why? Why do the devs think any of these changes were a good idea? Why do the keep telling us to have patience without giving us an idea of what they actually plan on having combat look like? Why don't they give us a roadmap to these broad goals? Why am I even still playing this game?

I actually know the answer to that, before anyone tells me if I don't like it, quit. The only reason I'm still playing is because I'm on 2 raid teams and I don't want to leave them a man short with a dwindling pool of players available to replace me. I want to see these teems succeed, and be with them when they do it. But my resolve to stick with it has been wavering all year and has gotten worse in recent weeks.

AinSoph wrote: »

Why is this called a deep dive? I feel like anyone who actually bothered to learn about the combat would basically know all this stuff already.

It's the forum equivalent of a filibuster; might as well have typed out some random lines of dialog from one of the NPCs. No one can say they didn't communicate, so Mission Accomplished I guess.

What a big nothingburger. Players who have kept up with the game for more than a couple of years knew all of this, with the exception of hybridization which we got this year.