No balancing outside of vengeance?

Zallion · January 30

Zero changes?

While I’m happy they’re looking into doing something with cyro and trying things out, our entire Q1 balancing is being invested into a one week test they may or may not implement?

To me this signals they’re going to fire away on these changes regardless of feedback because of the time invested, and having not invested in addressing current balance on live for the first quarter when there’s glaring problems is a sort of eggs in one basket approach.

Just want to make sure I’m not misinterpreting.

LPapirius · January 30

I do not think you are misinterpreting this situation. It seems pretty transparent to me and most others as well.

Lalothen · January 30

They've taken this approach for years, so there's no reason to think it would be any different this time.

MJallday · January 30

Zallion wrote: »

Zero changes?

While I’m happy they’re looking into doing something with cyro and trying things out, our entire Q1 balancing is being invested into a one week test they may or may not implement?

To me this signals they’re going to fire away on these changes regardless of feedback because of the time invested, and having not invested in addressing current balance on live for the first quarter when there’s glaring problems is a sort of eggs in one basket approach.

Just want to make sure I’m not misinterpreting.

i think you possibly have misinterpretted it

the vengance campaign is about "load testing" in a controlled scenario (by limiting the skills available through templating). ie where you dont have ball groups vs ball groups or zergs spamming heals and kicking anyone off as a result.

this isnt about balancing, its about stress testing and seeing what is causing that stress

the balancing is a consequential effect IF they see that this experiment works.

sans-culottes · January 30

MJallday wrote: »

Zallion wrote: »

Zero changes?

While I’m happy they’re looking into doing something with cyro and trying things out, our entire Q1 balancing is being invested into a one week test they may or may not implement?

To me this signals they’re going to fire away on these changes regardless of feedback because of the time invested, and having not invested in addressing current balance on live for the first quarter when there’s glaring problems is a sort of eggs in one basket approach.

Just want to make sure I’m not misinterpreting.

i think you possibly have misinterpretted it

the vengance campaign is about "load testing" in a controlled scenario (by limiting the skills available through templating). ie where you dont have ball groups vs ball groups or zergs spamming heals and kicking anyone off as a result.

this isnt about balancing, its about stress testing and seeing what is causing that stress

the balancing is a consequential effect IF they see that this experiment works.

Right? People keep making these posts, but it’s clear they’ve not bothered to follow the developers’ posts about their intentions.

MincMincMinc · January 30

sans-culottes wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

Zallion wrote: »

Zero changes?

While I’m happy they’re looking into doing something with cyro and trying things out, our entire Q1 balancing is being invested into a one week test they may or may not implement?

To me this signals they’re going to fire away on these changes regardless of feedback because of the time invested, and having not invested in addressing current balance on live for the first quarter when there’s glaring problems is a sort of eggs in one basket approach.

Just want to make sure I’m not misinterpreting.

i think you possibly have misinterpretted it

the vengance campaign is about "load testing" in a controlled scenario (by limiting the skills available through templating). ie where you dont have ball groups vs ball groups or zergs spamming heals and kicking anyone off as a result.

this isnt about balancing, its about stress testing and seeing what is causing that stress

the balancing is a consequential effect IF they see that this experiment works.

Right? People keep making these posts, but it’s clear they’ve not bothered to follow the developers’ posts about their intentions.

Yeah, been trying to explain this to people that actively dont want to understand it.

Zallion wrote: »

Zero changes?

While I’m happy they’re looking into doing something with cyro and trying things out, our entire Q1 balancing is being invested into a one week test they may or may not implement?

To me this signals they’re going to fire away on these changes regardless of feedback because of the time invested, and having not invested in addressing current balance on live for the first quarter when there’s glaring problems is a sort of eggs in one basket approach.

Just want to make sure I’m not misinterpreting.

Does it make sense to make balance changes before a test that will determine whether massive changes happen to the whole system? Not really, buy i understand the notion where it could take 5s to tweak down a value to make people happy.

zammo · January 30

sans-culottes wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

Zallion wrote: »

Zero changes?

While I’m happy they’re looking into doing something with cyro and trying things out, our entire Q1 balancing is being invested into a one week test they may or may not implement?

To me this signals they’re going to fire away on these changes regardless of feedback because of the time invested, and having not invested in addressing current balance on live for the first quarter when there’s glaring problems is a sort of eggs in one basket approach.

Just want to make sure I’m not misinterpreting.

i think you possibly have misinterpretted it

the vengance campaign is about "load testing" in a controlled scenario (by limiting the skills available through templating). ie where you dont have ball groups vs ball groups or zergs spamming heals and kicking anyone off as a result.

this isnt about balancing, its about stress testing and seeing what is causing that stress

the balancing is a consequential effect IF they see that this experiment works.

Right? People keep making these posts, but it’s clear they’ve not bothered to follow the developers’ posts about their intentions.

Apologies, (and I see this is drifting off the topic of the thread), but I must have missed it in the developers post, what exactly are their intended actions once the results of stress testing experiment are in? What happens when they find that yes, item sets that we toiled in dungeons and arenas for were adding undue load, and overloaded skills that we had to buy a chapter for were bogging the server down?

The fact is, if these things were not in the firing line, then they wouldn't be excluded from the baseline.

They've said repeatedly they don't have a magic bullet. If anything actually comes of this test, and changes are made, we'll be losing stuff, and there's a very good chance the action orientated gameplay will look a good bit different (for the better and worse).

Soraka · January 30

They're still working on a write up and did a small clarification during their live stream. It seems like part of why they're being vague about what happens moving forward after the test is solid plans are up in the air until they analyze the data they get from the test. The impression I get is that templated stuff is not off the table, but not fully on it either, as they're aware most players want customization. And they're going to build up on the system regardless if they move that direction. Just my interpretation, though.

Thumbless_Bot · January 30

Zallion wrote: »

Zero changes?

While I’m happy they’re looking into doing something with cyro and trying things out, our entire Q1 balancing is being invested into a one week test they may or may not implement?

To me this signals they’re going to fire away on these changes regardless of feedback because of the time invested, and having not invested in addressing current balance on live for the first quarter when there’s glaring problems is a sort of eggs in one basket approach.

Just want to make sure I’m not misinterpreting.

Took this long for someone to call this out...

When... not if, but when... this goes live, all balance concerns in player versus player content will be directed to the vengeance campaign, or all, ALL, pvp content outside of duels will get the vengeance treatment.

So, if you think necro is underwhelming, or another class is stupid broken in IC or BGs, zos will direct you to Vengeance... either that or vengeance treatment will go everywhere...

Haven't played vengeance so not sure if this is good or bad, but..........

xylena_lazarow · January 30

They usually address a couple feedback points during the PTS.

Nothing stopping them from making Rushing Agony a "monsters only" set. Most agreed post on the PTS.

MincMincMinc · January 30

zammo wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

Zallion wrote: »

Zero changes?

While I’m happy they’re looking into doing something with cyro and trying things out, our entire Q1 balancing is being invested into a one week test they may or may not implement?

To me this signals they’re going to fire away on these changes regardless of feedback because of the time invested, and having not invested in addressing current balance on live for the first quarter when there’s glaring problems is a sort of eggs in one basket approach.

Just want to make sure I’m not misinterpreting.

i think you possibly have misinterpretted it

the vengance campaign is about "load testing" in a controlled scenario (by limiting the skills available through templating). ie where you dont have ball groups vs ball groups or zergs spamming heals and kicking anyone off as a result.

this isnt about balancing, its about stress testing and seeing what is causing that stress

the balancing is a consequential effect IF they see that this experiment works.

Right? People keep making these posts, but it’s clear they’ve not bothered to follow the developers’ posts about their intentions.

Apologies, (and I see this is drifting off the topic of the thread), but I must have missed it in the developers post, what exactly are their intended actions once the results of stress testing experiment are in? What happens when they find that yes, item sets that we toiled in dungeons and arenas for were adding undue load, and overloaded skills that we had to buy a chapter for were bogging the server down?

The fact is, if these things were not in the firing line, then they wouldn't be excluded from the baseline.

They've said repeatedly they don't have a magic bullet. If anything actually comes of this test, and changes are made, we'll be losing stuff, and there's a very good chance the action orientated gameplay will look a good bit different (for the better and worse).

The devs havent released a speculation of changes to expect after the test. This could cause uproar worse than we are already seeing before the test. You would release this type of statement once you have results. We can speculate though.

What does vengeance actually test?

Is this a server hardware or software issue? Going to a baseline core mechanics of the game and finding the pop cap where lag occurs will tell you what the servers can handle.
Can a system where pvp has its own copy and pasted versions of skills work?
Can battlespirit as an unnecessary layer be removed if skills are balanced separately?
Can skills function the same with the fat trimmed off. Example being vengeance streak is atleast half the code of live streak, yet functions nearly identical.

What are the outcomes?

The server still lags with Live's population count......Well zos upgraded the servers 2.5 years ago which should last another 7-10 years. Do not expect server upgrades.
The server can handle 1.5x the players............ ok, is this enough for zos higher ups to greenlight the project? Probably not since the previous testing had improvements, but never got greenlit by higherups to be significant enough.
The server can handle 3x the players............ Based on the livestreams it sounds like this would be enough. "we want to achieve early day cyrodil player caps"

Lets just assume the test allows for 100x the playerbase and is guaranteed to be greenlit.

PvP specific skills may see fat trimmed to be performantive like in vengeance where a damage skill has a larger tooltip instead of 5-10 complicated passives and effects tied to it.
PvP may see rule changes many point out like hots, dots, procs not stacking. Or aoe caps. Or cross healing. Or cost ramps on aoes/dots/hots
Perhaps set wise more tests are done, we could only hope that proc damage sets like tarnished would be removed to keep pvp competitive, but I am doubtful as zos has made the same mistake in this regard since viper tremorscale days.
The campaigns may be condensed into a single campaign with one server. Perhaps we will see new players joining since the lowbie campaign has been dead due to low pop cyrodil issues.
We can only dream that cyrodil map changes and refreshes may be on the table considering zos is going through the base game zones as well. The skybox change in vengeance may be another indicator this is on the table.
Perhaps cyrodil rule changes are on the table. Like combat stat bonuses for losing factions instead of the winning faction. Campaign reward bonus updates. AP gear vendor updates, maybe dungeon gear vendors? Maybe keep and outpost layout changes like the outer keeps brindle, carmala, and towns get moved closer so they are used more and spread out players. Maybe new goatpaths like through the ash mountain open up.

MJallday · January 30

i think theyve been very clear

1) give users a standard set of skills
2) throw users at the server
3) see what breaks first. the user cap, or skills

as to what comes next, thats a crystal ball question.

personally i think theyll go right ahead with it and make cookie cutter builds for everyone to play with - so it will be true skill based pvp

im actually ok with that.. problem is ZOS does not have a great balancing track record, and by trying to fix it , makes it 10x worse.. which is exactly how weve ended up in the siutaiton we have right now.

MincMincMinc · January 30

MJallday wrote: »

i think theyve been very clear

1) give users a standard set of skills
2) throw users at the server
3) see what breaks first. the user cap, or skills

as to what comes next, thats a crystal ball question.

personally i think theyll go right ahead with it and make cookie cutter builds for everyone to play with - so it will be true skill based pvp

im actually ok with that.. problem is ZOS does not have a great balancing track record, and by trying to fix it , makes it 10x worse.. which is exactly how weve ended up in the siutaiton we have right now.

Well they already said that set choice would never be removed.... nor does it make sense to do so. How are they going to market dlc set releases to pvp players?

xylena_lazarow · January 30

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Well they already said that set choice would never be removed.... nor does it make sense to do so. How are they going to market dlc set releases to pvp players?

Imagine going up against Rushing Agony and Mech Acuity when everything else you do is nerfed...

DeadlySerious · January 30

sans-culottes wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

Zallion wrote: »

Zero changes?

While I’m happy they’re looking into doing something with cyro and trying things out, our entire Q1 balancing is being invested into a one week test they may or may not implement?

To me this signals they’re going to fire away on these changes regardless of feedback because of the time invested, and having not invested in addressing current balance on live for the first quarter when there’s glaring problems is a sort of eggs in one basket approach.

Just want to make sure I’m not misinterpreting.

i think you possibly have misinterpretted it

the vengance campaign is about "load testing" in a controlled scenario (by limiting the skills available through templating). ie where you dont have ball groups vs ball groups or zergs spamming heals and kicking anyone off as a result.

this isnt about balancing, its about stress testing and seeing what is causing that stress

the balancing is a consequential effect IF they see that this experiment works.

Right? People keep making these posts, but it’s clear they’ve not bothered to follow the developers’ posts about their intentions.

That's because people who have been around for any amount of time have learned not to listen to what they say but rather watch what they do. <snip> I wonder if the cheerleaders are going to come to the forum and admit their mistake a year from now.

<snipped for Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation>

DeadlySerious · January 30

MincMincMinc wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

i think theyve been very clear

1) give users a standard set of skills
2) throw users at the server
3) see what breaks first. the user cap, or skills

as to what comes next, thats a crystal ball question.

personally i think theyll go right ahead with it and make cookie cutter builds for everyone to play with - so it will be true skill based pvp

im actually ok with that.. problem is ZOS does not have a great balancing track record, and by trying to fix it , makes it 10x worse.. which is exactly how weve ended up in the siutaiton we have right now.

Well they already said that set choice would never be removed.... nor does it make sense to do so. How are they going to market dlc set releases to pvp players?

They say a lot of things, don't they. It's what they do that matters.

sans-culottes · January 30

DeadlySerious wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

Zallion wrote: »

Zero changes?

While I’m happy they’re looking into doing something with cyro and trying things out, our entire Q1 balancing is being invested into a one week test they may or may not implement?

To me this signals they’re going to fire away on these changes regardless of feedback because of the time invested, and having not invested in addressing current balance on live for the first quarter when there’s glaring problems is a sort of eggs in one basket approach.

Just want to make sure I’m not misinterpreting.

i think you possibly have misinterpretted it

the vengance campaign is about "load testing" in a controlled scenario (by limiting the skills available through templating). ie where you dont have ball groups vs ball groups or zergs spamming heals and kicking anyone off as a result.

this isnt about balancing, its about stress testing and seeing what is causing that stress

the balancing is a consequential effect IF they see that this experiment works.

Right? People keep making these posts, but it’s clear they’ve not bothered to follow the developers’ posts about their intentions.

That's because people who have been around for any amount of time have learned not to listen to what they say but rather watch what they do. <snip> I wonder if the cheerleaders are going to come to the forum and admit their mistake a year from now.

It’s hardly cheerleading to say “you’re putting the cart before the horse.” Because you are. That’s just doomsaying. Thankfully, the sky hasn’t fallen yet—this despite more than ten years of people claiming otherwise.

MJallday · January 30

MincMincMinc wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

i think theyve been very clear

1) give users a standard set of skills
2) throw users at the server
3) see what breaks first. the user cap, or skills

as to what comes next, thats a crystal ball question.

personally i think theyll go right ahead with it and make cookie cutter builds for everyone to play with - so it will be true skill based pvp

im actually ok with that.. problem is ZOS does not have a great balancing track record, and by trying to fix it , makes it 10x worse.. which is exactly how weve ended up in the siutaiton we have right now.

Well they already said that set choice would never be removed.... nor does it make sense to do so. How are they going to market dlc set releases to pvp players?

im not sure how thats going to help, given that its the sets proccing that causes the actual problems.

MincMincMinc · January 30

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Well they already said that set choice would never be removed.... nor does it make sense to do so. How are they going to market dlc set releases to pvp players?

Imagine going up against Rushing Agony and Mech Acuity when everything else you do is nerfed...

MJallday wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

i think theyve been very clear

1) give users a standard set of skills
2) throw users at the server
3) see what breaks first. the user cap, or skills

as to what comes next, thats a crystal ball question.

personally i think theyll go right ahead with it and make cookie cutter builds for everyone to play with - so it will be true skill based pvp

im actually ok with that.. problem is ZOS does not have a great balancing track record, and by trying to fix it , makes it 10x worse.. which is exactly how weve ended up in the siutaiton we have right now.

Well they already said that set choice would never be removed.... nor does it make sense to do so. How are they going to market dlc set releases to pvp players?

im not sure how thats going to help, given that its the sets proccing that causes the actual problems.

could go both ways, what if skills did 2x damage compared to proc sets now....suddenly we dont need to worry about tarnished type sets. Rush may get easier considering vengeance makes it easier to see telegraphs. (it should still have proper cc and telegraphs) Acuity depends on user input, without additional effects and potential ticks critting for free it may also be harder to use. Northern storm balance is more of a question.

DeadlySerious wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

i think theyve been very clear

1) give users a standard set of skills
2) throw users at the server
3) see what breaks first. the user cap, or skills

as to what comes next, thats a crystal ball question.

personally i think theyll go right ahead with it and make cookie cutter builds for everyone to play with - so it will be true skill based pvp

im actually ok with that.. problem is ZOS does not have a great balancing track record, and by trying to fix it , makes it 10x worse.. which is exactly how weve ended up in the siutaiton we have right now.

Well they already said that set choice would never be removed.... nor does it make sense to do so. How are they going to market dlc set releases to pvp players?

They say a lot of things, don't they. It's what they do that matters.

All we can do is try to make the best assumption possible based on what is released to the public. Its basically like playing the stock market. I can assume with 99% certainty that they wont remove item sets from pvp. They stated so multiple times, and it makes no monetary sense to do so. Unless you have other evidence or theory to suggest otherwise? Not worth wasting time having nightmares about something that would never happen.

DeadlySerious · January 30

MincMincMinc wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Well they already said that set choice would never be removed.... nor does it make sense to do so. How are they going to market dlc set releases to pvp players?

Imagine going up against Rushing Agony and Mech Acuity when everything else you do is nerfed...

MJallday wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

i think theyve been very clear

1) give users a standard set of skills
2) throw users at the server
3) see what breaks first. the user cap, or skills

as to what comes next, thats a crystal ball question.

personally i think theyll go right ahead with it and make cookie cutter builds for everyone to play with - so it will be true skill based pvp

im actually ok with that.. problem is ZOS does not have a great balancing track record, and by trying to fix it , makes it 10x worse.. which is exactly how weve ended up in the siutaiton we have right now.

Well they already said that set choice would never be removed.... nor does it make sense to do so. How are they going to market dlc set releases to pvp players?

im not sure how thats going to help, given that its the sets proccing that causes the actual problems.

could go both ways, what if skills did 2x damage compared to proc sets now....suddenly we dont need to worry about tarnished type sets.

DeadlySerious wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

i think theyve been very clear

1) give users a standard set of skills
2) throw users at the server
3) see what breaks first. the user cap, or skills

as to what comes next, thats a crystal ball question.

personally i think theyll go right ahead with it and make cookie cutter builds for everyone to play with - so it will be true skill based pvp

im actually ok with that.. problem is ZOS does not have a great balancing track record, and by trying to fix it , makes it 10x worse.. which is exactly how weve ended up in the siutaiton we have right now.

Well they already said that set choice would never be removed.... nor does it make sense to do so. How are they going to market dlc set releases to pvp players?

They say a lot of things, don't they. It's what they do that matters.

All we can do is try to make the best assumption possible based on what is released to the public. Its basically like playing the stock market. I can assume with 99% certainty that they wont remove item sets from pvp. They stated so multiple times, and it makes no monetary sense to do so. Unless you have other evidence or theory to suggest otherwise? Not worth wasting time having nightmares about something that would never happen.

Some of us learn from history. Some of us do not. This is how it's always been.

sans-culottes · January 30

DeadlySerious wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Well they already said that set choice would never be removed.... nor does it make sense to do so. How are they going to market dlc set releases to pvp players?

Imagine going up against Rushing Agony and Mech Acuity when everything else you do is nerfed...

MJallday wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

i think theyve been very clear

1) give users a standard set of skills
2) throw users at the server
3) see what breaks first. the user cap, or skills

as to what comes next, thats a crystal ball question.

personally i think theyll go right ahead with it and make cookie cutter builds for everyone to play with - so it will be true skill based pvp

im actually ok with that.. problem is ZOS does not have a great balancing track record, and by trying to fix it , makes it 10x worse.. which is exactly how weve ended up in the siutaiton we have right now.

Well they already said that set choice would never be removed.... nor does it make sense to do so. How are they going to market dlc set releases to pvp players?

im not sure how thats going to help, given that its the sets proccing that causes the actual problems.

could go both ways, what if skills did 2x damage compared to proc sets now....suddenly we dont need to worry about tarnished type sets.

DeadlySerious wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

i think theyve been very clear

1) give users a standard set of skills
2) throw users at the server
3) see what breaks first. the user cap, or skills

as to what comes next, thats a crystal ball question.

personally i think theyll go right ahead with it and make cookie cutter builds for everyone to play with - so it will be true skill based pvp

im actually ok with that.. problem is ZOS does not have a great balancing track record, and by trying to fix it , makes it 10x worse.. which is exactly how weve ended up in the siutaiton we have right now.

Well they already said that set choice would never be removed.... nor does it make sense to do so. How are they going to market dlc set releases to pvp players?

They say a lot of things, don't they. It's what they do that matters.

All we can do is try to make the best assumption possible based on what is released to the public. Its basically like playing the stock market. I can assume with 99% certainty that they wont remove item sets from pvp. They stated so multiple times, and it makes no monetary sense to do so. Unless you have other evidence or theory to suggest otherwise? Not worth wasting time having nightmares about something that would never happen.

Some of us learn from history. Some of us do not. This is how it's always been.

It sounds like you’ve got some wisdom to impart. What insights do you have that somehow other longtime players do not?

zammo wrote: »

action orientated gameplay will look a good bit different (for the better and worse).

“Action-oriented combat” and “action combat” are just marketing fluff. ESO’s competitors require player input in combat, but they also don’t seem to be suffering from the same growing pains. If they need to backtrack on, say, never having cooldowns, then this won’t suddenly turn things into a passive experience.

MincMincMinc · January 30

sans-culottes wrote: »

DeadlySerious wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Well they already said that set choice would never be removed.... nor does it make sense to do so. How are they going to market dlc set releases to pvp players?

Imagine going up against Rushing Agony and Mech Acuity when everything else you do is nerfed...

MJallday wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

i think theyve been very clear

1) give users a standard set of skills
2) throw users at the server
3) see what breaks first. the user cap, or skills

as to what comes next, thats a crystal ball question.

personally i think theyll go right ahead with it and make cookie cutter builds for everyone to play with - so it will be true skill based pvp

im actually ok with that.. problem is ZOS does not have a great balancing track record, and by trying to fix it , makes it 10x worse.. which is exactly how weve ended up in the siutaiton we have right now.

Well they already said that set choice would never be removed.... nor does it make sense to do so. How are they going to market dlc set releases to pvp players?

im not sure how thats going to help, given that its the sets proccing that causes the actual problems.

could go both ways, what if skills did 2x damage compared to proc sets now....suddenly we dont need to worry about tarnished type sets.

DeadlySerious wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

i think theyve been very clear

1) give users a standard set of skills
2) throw users at the server
3) see what breaks first. the user cap, or skills

as to what comes next, thats a crystal ball question.

personally i think theyll go right ahead with it and make cookie cutter builds for everyone to play with - so it will be true skill based pvp

im actually ok with that.. problem is ZOS does not have a great balancing track record, and by trying to fix it , makes it 10x worse.. which is exactly how weve ended up in the siutaiton we have right now.

Well they already said that set choice would never be removed.... nor does it make sense to do so. How are they going to market dlc set releases to pvp players?

They say a lot of things, don't they. It's what they do that matters.

All we can do is try to make the best assumption possible based on what is released to the public. Its basically like playing the stock market. I can assume with 99% certainty that they wont remove item sets from pvp. They stated so multiple times, and it makes no monetary sense to do so. Unless you have other evidence or theory to suggest otherwise? Not worth wasting time having nightmares about something that would never happen.

Some of us learn from history. Some of us do not. This is how it's always been.

It sounds like you’ve got some wisdom to impart. What insights do you have that somehow other longtime players do not?

zammo wrote: »

action orientated gameplay will look a good bit different (for the better and worse).

“Action-oriented combat” and “action combat” are just marketing fluff. ESO’s competitors require player input in combat, but they also don’t seem to be suffering from the same growing pains. If they need to backtrack on, say, never having cooldowns, then this won’t suddenly turn things into a passive experience.

I think the proc sets are more of an issue to the integrity of combat than anything else. Been how many years since the viper tremorscale meta? Many of my friends still have character's specced to that era because they had left the game due to procs being stronger than skills.

Any time you have a competitive scene, if you introduce an easier way to win, players will abuse those ways. Look at oakensoul for example. The set was the embodiment of "Accessibility" where players who can't handle two bars could compete with everyone else. Well suddenly everyone that patch swapped to one bar builds..... Sounds great in practice, but ruins the integrity of the combat.

sans-culottes · January 30

MincMincMinc wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

DeadlySerious wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Well they already said that set choice would never be removed.... nor does it make sense to do so. How are they going to market dlc set releases to pvp players?

Imagine going up against Rushing Agony and Mech Acuity when everything else you do is nerfed...

MJallday wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

i think theyve been very clear

1) give users a standard set of skills
2) throw users at the server
3) see what breaks first. the user cap, or skills

as to what comes next, thats a crystal ball question.

personally i think theyll go right ahead with it and make cookie cutter builds for everyone to play with - so it will be true skill based pvp

im actually ok with that.. problem is ZOS does not have a great balancing track record, and by trying to fix it , makes it 10x worse.. which is exactly how weve ended up in the siutaiton we have right now.

Well they already said that set choice would never be removed.... nor does it make sense to do so. How are they going to market dlc set releases to pvp players?

im not sure how thats going to help, given that its the sets proccing that causes the actual problems.

could go both ways, what if skills did 2x damage compared to proc sets now....suddenly we dont need to worry about tarnished type sets.

DeadlySerious wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

i think theyve been very clear

1) give users a standard set of skills
2) throw users at the server
3) see what breaks first. the user cap, or skills

as to what comes next, thats a crystal ball question.

personally i think theyll go right ahead with it and make cookie cutter builds for everyone to play with - so it will be true skill based pvp

im actually ok with that.. problem is ZOS does not have a great balancing track record, and by trying to fix it , makes it 10x worse.. which is exactly how weve ended up in the siutaiton we have right now.

Well they already said that set choice would never be removed.... nor does it make sense to do so. How are they going to market dlc set releases to pvp players?

They say a lot of things, don't they. It's what they do that matters.

All we can do is try to make the best assumption possible based on what is released to the public. Its basically like playing the stock market. I can assume with 99% certainty that they wont remove item sets from pvp. They stated so multiple times, and it makes no monetary sense to do so. Unless you have other evidence or theory to suggest otherwise? Not worth wasting time having nightmares about something that would never happen.

Some of us learn from history. Some of us do not. This is how it's always been.

It sounds like you’ve got some wisdom to impart. What insights do you have that somehow other longtime players do not?

zammo wrote: »

action orientated gameplay will look a good bit different (for the better and worse).

“Action-oriented combat” and “action combat” are just marketing fluff. ESO’s competitors require player input in combat, but they also don’t seem to be suffering from the same growing pains. If they need to backtrack on, say, never having cooldowns, then this won’t suddenly turn things into a passive experience.

I think the proc sets are more of an issue to the integrity of combat than anything else. Been how many years since the viper tremorscale meta? Many of my friends still have character's specced to that era because they had left the game due to procs being stronger than skills.

Any time you have a competitive scene, if you introduce an easier way to win, players will abuse those ways. Look at oakensoul for example. The set was the embodiment of "Accessibility" where players who can't handle two bars could compete with everyone else. Well suddenly everyone that patch swapped to one bar builds..... Sounds great in practice, but ruins the integrity of the combat.

Making combat less of a mess is, in my book, a net boon. While folks on the forums often seem to consider this the platonic ideal of combat in MMORPGs, I am not one of them. If anything, then the introduction of a new mythic that then introduces a bandaid fix to bigger problems is itself indicative of one or more bigger issues.

To put it another way, things like Oakensoul and Velothi are symptoms of bigger problems. That perceived gaps in the combat mechanics/accessibility thereof are handled via mythic items is one way to do things—just not what I’d do.

PS. Not sure how this ruins the integrity of combat. For example, the light attack weaving required via animation canceling is notoriously bad on one’s joints—particularly for those on consoles or for whom using a controller is somehow preferable.

MincMincMinc · January 30

sans-culottes wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

DeadlySerious wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Well they already said that set choice would never be removed.... nor does it make sense to do so. How are they going to market dlc set releases to pvp players?

Imagine going up against Rushing Agony and Mech Acuity when everything else you do is nerfed...

MJallday wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

i think theyve been very clear

1) give users a standard set of skills
2) throw users at the server
3) see what breaks first. the user cap, or skills

as to what comes next, thats a crystal ball question.

personally i think theyll go right ahead with it and make cookie cutter builds for everyone to play with - so it will be true skill based pvp

im actually ok with that.. problem is ZOS does not have a great balancing track record, and by trying to fix it , makes it 10x worse.. which is exactly how weve ended up in the siutaiton we have right now.

Well they already said that set choice would never be removed.... nor does it make sense to do so. How are they going to market dlc set releases to pvp players?

im not sure how thats going to help, given that its the sets proccing that causes the actual problems.

could go both ways, what if skills did 2x damage compared to proc sets now....suddenly we dont need to worry about tarnished type sets.

DeadlySerious wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

i think theyve been very clear

1) give users a standard set of skills
2) throw users at the server
3) see what breaks first. the user cap, or skills

as to what comes next, thats a crystal ball question.

personally i think theyll go right ahead with it and make cookie cutter builds for everyone to play with - so it will be true skill based pvp

im actually ok with that.. problem is ZOS does not have a great balancing track record, and by trying to fix it , makes it 10x worse.. which is exactly how weve ended up in the siutaiton we have right now.

Well they already said that set choice would never be removed.... nor does it make sense to do so. How are they going to market dlc set releases to pvp players?

They say a lot of things, don't they. It's what they do that matters.

All we can do is try to make the best assumption possible based on what is released to the public. Its basically like playing the stock market. I can assume with 99% certainty that they wont remove item sets from pvp. They stated so multiple times, and it makes no monetary sense to do so. Unless you have other evidence or theory to suggest otherwise? Not worth wasting time having nightmares about something that would never happen.

Some of us learn from history. Some of us do not. This is how it's always been.

It sounds like you’ve got some wisdom to impart. What insights do you have that somehow other longtime players do not?

zammo wrote: »

action orientated gameplay will look a good bit different (for the better and worse).

“Action-oriented combat” and “action combat” are just marketing fluff. ESO’s competitors require player input in combat, but they also don’t seem to be suffering from the same growing pains. If they need to backtrack on, say, never having cooldowns, then this won’t suddenly turn things into a passive experience.

I think the proc sets are more of an issue to the integrity of combat than anything else. Been how many years since the viper tremorscale meta? Many of my friends still have character's specced to that era because they had left the game due to procs being stronger than skills.

Any time you have a competitive scene, if you introduce an easier way to win, players will abuse those ways. Look at oakensoul for example. The set was the embodiment of "Accessibility" where players who can't handle two bars could compete with everyone else. Well suddenly everyone that patch swapped to one bar builds..... Sounds great in practice, but ruins the integrity of the combat.

Making combat less of a mess is, in my book, a net boon. While folks on the forums often seem to consider this the platonic ideal of combat in MMORPGs, I am not one of them. If anything, that it’s just items that the introduced as bandaids that’s indicative of the bigger issues.

To put it another way, things like Oakensoul and Velothi are symptoms of bigger problems. That perceived gaps in the combat mechanics/accessibility thereof are handled via mythic items is one way to do things—just not what I’d do.

My main problem is that ESO was always setup to play like a over the shoulder fighting game and not like a traditional point and click mmo. This combat scheme really needs clarity to work and feel responsive. Which is why we see issues with rush or other cc issues where the telegraphs are not clear. At the same time other animations that have gotten more flamboyant over the years are hiding more important animations. Examples being how Valkyn now has the same animation as meteor....why does an inconsequential proc set have the same animation as a nuke ultimate with a detrimental cc?

This is why many of the early game buffs were near invisible or transparent. It simply made it easier to see the more important effects about to hit you.

sans-culottes · January 30

MincMincMinc wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

DeadlySerious wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Well they already said that set choice would never be removed.... nor does it make sense to do so. How are they going to market dlc set releases to pvp players?

Imagine going up against Rushing Agony and Mech Acuity when everything else you do is nerfed...

MJallday wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

i think theyve been very clear

1) give users a standard set of skills
2) throw users at the server
3) see what breaks first. the user cap, or skills

as to what comes next, thats a crystal ball question.

personally i think theyll go right ahead with it and make cookie cutter builds for everyone to play with - so it will be true skill based pvp

im actually ok with that.. problem is ZOS does not have a great balancing track record, and by trying to fix it , makes it 10x worse.. which is exactly how weve ended up in the siutaiton we have right now.

Well they already said that set choice would never be removed.... nor does it make sense to do so. How are they going to market dlc set releases to pvp players?

im not sure how thats going to help, given that its the sets proccing that causes the actual problems.

could go both ways, what if skills did 2x damage compared to proc sets now....suddenly we dont need to worry about tarnished type sets.

DeadlySerious wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

i think theyve been very clear

1) give users a standard set of skills
2) throw users at the server
3) see what breaks first. the user cap, or skills

as to what comes next, thats a crystal ball question.

personally i think theyll go right ahead with it and make cookie cutter builds for everyone to play with - so it will be true skill based pvp

im actually ok with that.. problem is ZOS does not have a great balancing track record, and by trying to fix it , makes it 10x worse.. which is exactly how weve ended up in the siutaiton we have right now.

Well they already said that set choice would never be removed.... nor does it make sense to do so. How are they going to market dlc set releases to pvp players?

They say a lot of things, don't they. It's what they do that matters.

All we can do is try to make the best assumption possible based on what is released to the public. Its basically like playing the stock market. I can assume with 99% certainty that they wont remove item sets from pvp. They stated so multiple times, and it makes no monetary sense to do so. Unless you have other evidence or theory to suggest otherwise? Not worth wasting time having nightmares about something that would never happen.

Some of us learn from history. Some of us do not. This is how it's always been.

It sounds like you’ve got some wisdom to impart. What insights do you have that somehow other longtime players do not?

zammo wrote: »

action orientated gameplay will look a good bit different (for the better and worse).

“Action-oriented combat” and “action combat” are just marketing fluff. ESO’s competitors require player input in combat, but they also don’t seem to be suffering from the same growing pains. If they need to backtrack on, say, never having cooldowns, then this won’t suddenly turn things into a passive experience.

I think the proc sets are more of an issue to the integrity of combat than anything else. Been how many years since the viper tremorscale meta? Many of my friends still have character's specced to that era because they had left the game due to procs being stronger than skills.

Any time you have a competitive scene, if you introduce an easier way to win, players will abuse those ways. Look at oakensoul for example. The set was the embodiment of "Accessibility" where players who can't handle two bars could compete with everyone else. Well suddenly everyone that patch swapped to one bar builds..... Sounds great in practice, but ruins the integrity of the combat.

Making combat less of a mess is, in my book, a net boon. While folks on the forums often seem to consider this the platonic ideal of combat in MMORPGs, I am not one of them. If anything, that it’s just items that the introduced as bandaids that’s indicative of the bigger issues.

To put it another way, things like Oakensoul and Velothi are symptoms of bigger problems. That perceived gaps in the combat mechanics/accessibility thereof are handled via mythic items is one way to do things—just not what I’d do.

My main problem is that ESO was always setup to play like a over the shoulder fighting game and not like a traditional point and click mmo. This combat scheme really needs clarity to work and feel responsive. Which is why we see issues with rush or other cc issues where the telegraphs are not clear. At the same time other animations that have gotten more flamboyant over the years are hiding more important animations. Examples being how Valkyn now has the same animation as meteor....why does an inconsequential proc set have the same animation as a nuke ultimate with a detrimental cc?

This is why many of the early game buffs were near invisible or transparent. It simply made it easier to see the more important effects about to hit you.

Good post! Not sure I need to add anything—just wanted to give you kudos for a well-reasoned, thoughtful response.

Zallion · January 31

MJallday wrote: »

Zallion wrote: »

Zero changes?

While I’m happy they’re looking into doing something with cyro and trying things out, our entire Q1 balancing is being invested into a one week test they may or may not implement?

To me this signals they’re going to fire away on these changes regardless of feedback because of the time invested, and having not invested in addressing current balance on live for the first quarter when there’s glaring problems is a sort of eggs in one basket approach.

Just want to make sure I’m not misinterpreting.

i think you possibly have misinterpretted it

the vengance campaign is about "load testing" in a controlled scenario (by limiting the skills available through templating). ie where you dont have ball groups vs ball groups or zergs spamming heals and kicking anyone off as a result.

this isnt about balancing, its about stress testing and seeing what is causing that stress

the balancing is a consequential effect IF they see that this experiment works.

Right but doesn’t this signal this is the way forward full stop if they aren’t making any changes outside of vengeance?

What I mean is, this test could be a potential flop, and they’ll have given us nothing in the way of addressing current balance concerns on the live version of the game. And we would be waiting another quarter or more for any changes to be addressed if at all, because all of their resources were pooled into a week long test. I know vengeance balance is not in its final state and it’s about testing simplified skill calcs and load capacity etc. But we get it for a week, that’s it. I’m saying we’re sort of being robbed of balance changes due to this. Vengeance being THE way forward would be a way to justify that but that would require one very important thing: disregarding player feedback, since the test hasn’t happened yet. To me it’s red flags.

And to be clear, I’m rooting for ZOS on this and for it to be successful. ESO has probably the best combat system out there. But this is a pivotable moment for the game. They should not steam roll out ideas, they need a strong pulse on the community, which they don’t have the greatest track record of. Trying to look at this objectively, lack of other balance changes = making way for vengeance as the future and allocating any resources to those changes or developing a new combat system, that’s all I’m getting at.

I hope they knock it out of park, but cooldowns ain’t it js.

sans-culottes · January 31

Zallion wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

Zallion wrote: »

Zero changes?

While I’m happy they’re looking into doing something with cyro and trying things out, our entire Q1 balancing is being invested into a one week test they may or may not implement?

To me this signals they’re going to fire away on these changes regardless of feedback because of the time invested, and having not invested in addressing current balance on live for the first quarter when there’s glaring problems is a sort of eggs in one basket approach.

Just want to make sure I’m not misinterpreting.

i think you possibly have misinterpretted it

the vengance campaign is about "load testing" in a controlled scenario (by limiting the skills available through templating). ie where you dont have ball groups vs ball groups or zergs spamming heals and kicking anyone off as a result.

this isnt about balancing, its about stress testing and seeing what is causing that stress

the balancing is a consequential effect IF they see that this experiment works.

Right but doesn’t this signal this is the way forward full stop if they aren’t making any changes outside of vengeance?

What I mean is, this test could be a potential flop, and they’ll have given us nothing in the way of addressing current balance concerns on the live version of the game. And we would be waiting another quarter or more for any changes to be addressed if at all, because all of their resources were pooled into a week long test. I know vengeance balance is not in its final state and it’s about testing simplified skill calcs and load capacity etc. But we get it for a week, that’s it. I’m saying we’re sort of being robbed of balance changes due to this. Vengeance being THE way forward would be a way to justify that but that would require one very important thing: disregarding player feedback, since the test hasn’t happened yet. To me it’s red flags.

And to be clear, I’m rooting for ZOS on this and for it to be successful. ESO has probably the best combat system out there. But this is a pivotable moment for the game. They should not steam roll out ideas, they need a strong pulse on the community, which they don’t have the greatest track record of. Trying to look at this objectively, lack of other balance changes = making way for vengeance as the future and allocating any resources to those changes or developing a new combat system, that’s all I’m getting at.

I hope they knock it out of park, but cooldowns ain’t it js.

Why are cooldowns a bridge too far?

PS. Some of you keep claiming this is actually a secret test for the new PVP model. Given that they’ve repeatedly said this is not the case, I’d stop fretting.

PPS. I’m glad you like this game’s combat system. Gonna have to disagree that this is the platonic ideal for MMORPGs, RPGs, and so on.

Zallion · January 31

sans-culottes wrote: »

Zallion wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

Zallion wrote: »

Zero changes?

While I’m happy they’re looking into doing something with cyro and trying things out, our entire Q1 balancing is being invested into a one week test they may or may not implement?

To me this signals they’re going to fire away on these changes regardless of feedback because of the time invested, and having not invested in addressing current balance on live for the first quarter when there’s glaring problems is a sort of eggs in one basket approach.

Just want to make sure I’m not misinterpreting.

i think you possibly have misinterpretted it

the vengance campaign is about "load testing" in a controlled scenario (by limiting the skills available through templating). ie where you dont have ball groups vs ball groups or zergs spamming heals and kicking anyone off as a result.

this isnt about balancing, its about stress testing and seeing what is causing that stress

the balancing is a consequential effect IF they see that this experiment works.

Right but doesn’t this signal this is the way forward full stop if they aren’t making any changes outside of vengeance?

What I mean is, this test could be a potential flop, and they’ll have given us nothing in the way of addressing current balance concerns on the live version of the game. And we would be waiting another quarter or more for any changes to be addressed if at all, because all of their resources were pooled into a week long test. I know vengeance balance is not in its final state and it’s about testing simplified skill calcs and load capacity etc. But we get it for a week, that’s it. I’m saying we’re sort of being robbed of balance changes due to this. Vengeance being THE way forward would be a way to justify that but that would require one very important thing: disregarding player feedback, since the test hasn’t happened yet. To me it’s red flags.

And to be clear, I’m rooting for ZOS on this and for it to be successful. ESO has probably the best combat system out there. But this is a pivotable moment for the game. They should not steam roll out ideas, they need a strong pulse on the community, which they don’t have the greatest track record of. Trying to look at this objectively, lack of other balance changes = making way for vengeance as the future and allocating any resources to those changes or developing a new combat system, that’s all I’m getting at.

I hope they knock it out of park, but cooldowns ain’t it js.

Why are cooldowns a bridge too far?

PS. Some of you keep claiming this is actually a secret test for the new PVP model. Given that they’ve repeatedly said this is not the case, I’d stop fretting.

PPS. I’m glad you like this game’s combat system. Gonna have to disagree that this is the platonic ideal for MMORPGs, RPGs, and so on.

They’re a bridge too far because for the past decade this game didn’t have cooldowns on the vast majority of its abilities outside of the 1 sec gcd. It changes the feel of combat pretty drastically by contrast. No cooldowns was and has been sort of the entire appeal of esos combat system.

sans-culottes · January 31

Zallion wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

Zallion wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

Zallion wrote: »

Zero changes?

While I’m happy they’re looking into doing something with cyro and trying things out, our entire Q1 balancing is being invested into a one week test they may or may not implement?

To me this signals they’re going to fire away on these changes regardless of feedback because of the time invested, and having not invested in addressing current balance on live for the first quarter when there’s glaring problems is a sort of eggs in one basket approach.

Just want to make sure I’m not misinterpreting.

i think you possibly have misinterpretted it

the vengance campaign is about "load testing" in a controlled scenario (by limiting the skills available through templating). ie where you dont have ball groups vs ball groups or zergs spamming heals and kicking anyone off as a result.

this isnt about balancing, its about stress testing and seeing what is causing that stress

the balancing is a consequential effect IF they see that this experiment works.

Right but doesn’t this signal this is the way forward full stop if they aren’t making any changes outside of vengeance?

What I mean is, this test could be a potential flop, and they’ll have given us nothing in the way of addressing current balance concerns on the live version of the game. And we would be waiting another quarter or more for any changes to be addressed if at all, because all of their resources were pooled into a week long test. I know vengeance balance is not in its final state and it’s about testing simplified skill calcs and load capacity etc. But we get it for a week, that’s it. I’m saying we’re sort of being robbed of balance changes due to this. Vengeance being THE way forward would be a way to justify that but that would require one very important thing: disregarding player feedback, since the test hasn’t happened yet. To me it’s red flags.

And to be clear, I’m rooting for ZOS on this and for it to be successful. ESO has probably the best combat system out there. But this is a pivotable moment for the game. They should not steam roll out ideas, they need a strong pulse on the community, which they don’t have the greatest track record of. Trying to look at this objectively, lack of other balance changes = making way for vengeance as the future and allocating any resources to those changes or developing a new combat system, that’s all I’m getting at.

I hope they knock it out of park, but cooldowns ain’t it js.

Why are cooldowns a bridge too far?

PS. Some of you keep claiming this is actually a secret test for the new PVP model. Given that they’ve repeatedly said this is not the case, I’d stop fretting.

PPS. I’m glad you like this game’s combat system. Gonna have to disagree that this is the platonic ideal for MMORPGs, RPGs, and so on.

They’re a bridge too far because for the past decade this game didn’t have cooldowns on the vast majority of its abilities outside of the 1 sec gcd. It changes the feel of combat pretty drastically by contrast. No cooldowns was and has been sort of the entire appeal of esos combat system.

That’s funny, I’ve played this game for a decade on PC and consoles and never once said “man, the spammy gameplay and animation canceling is what keeps me coming back.” If you enjoy it, then that’s great. I tend to think it holds back better gameplay mechanics.

MincMincMinc · January 31

sans-culottes wrote: »

Zallion wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

Zallion wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

Zallion wrote: »

Zero changes?

While I’m happy they’re looking into doing something with cyro and trying things out, our entire Q1 balancing is being invested into a one week test they may or may not implement?

To me this signals they’re going to fire away on these changes regardless of feedback because of the time invested, and having not invested in addressing current balance on live for the first quarter when there’s glaring problems is a sort of eggs in one basket approach.

Just want to make sure I’m not misinterpreting.

i think you possibly have misinterpretted it

the vengance campaign is about "load testing" in a controlled scenario (by limiting the skills available through templating). ie where you dont have ball groups vs ball groups or zergs spamming heals and kicking anyone off as a result.

this isnt about balancing, its about stress testing and seeing what is causing that stress

the balancing is a consequential effect IF they see that this experiment works.

Right but doesn’t this signal this is the way forward full stop if they aren’t making any changes outside of vengeance?

What I mean is, this test could be a potential flop, and they’ll have given us nothing in the way of addressing current balance concerns on the live version of the game. And we would be waiting another quarter or more for any changes to be addressed if at all, because all of their resources were pooled into a week long test. I know vengeance balance is not in its final state and it’s about testing simplified skill calcs and load capacity etc. But we get it for a week, that’s it. I’m saying we’re sort of being robbed of balance changes due to this. Vengeance being THE way forward would be a way to justify that but that would require one very important thing: disregarding player feedback, since the test hasn’t happened yet. To me it’s red flags.

And to be clear, I’m rooting for ZOS on this and for it to be successful. ESO has probably the best combat system out there. But this is a pivotable moment for the game. They should not steam roll out ideas, they need a strong pulse on the community, which they don’t have the greatest track record of. Trying to look at this objectively, lack of other balance changes = making way for vengeance as the future and allocating any resources to those changes or developing a new combat system, that’s all I’m getting at.

I hope they knock it out of park, but cooldowns ain’t it js.

Why are cooldowns a bridge too far?

PS. Some of you keep claiming this is actually a secret test for the new PVP model. Given that they’ve repeatedly said this is not the case, I’d stop fretting.

PPS. I’m glad you like this game’s combat system. Gonna have to disagree that this is the platonic ideal for MMORPGs, RPGs, and so on.

They’re a bridge too far because for the past decade this game didn’t have cooldowns on the vast majority of its abilities outside of the 1 sec gcd. It changes the feel of combat pretty drastically by contrast. No cooldowns was and has been sort of the entire appeal of esos combat system.

That’s funny, I’ve played this game for a decade on PC and consoles and never once said “man, the spammy gameplay and animation canceling is what keeps me coming back.” If you enjoy it, then that’s great. I tend to think it holds back better gameplay mechanics.

Yeah make room for better mechanics like rush of agony and tarnished.

sans-culottes · January 31

MincMincMinc wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

Zallion wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

Zallion wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

Zallion wrote: »

Zero changes?

While I’m happy they’re looking into doing something with cyro and trying things out, our entire Q1 balancing is being invested into a one week test they may or may not implement?

To me this signals they’re going to fire away on these changes regardless of feedback because of the time invested, and having not invested in addressing current balance on live for the first quarter when there’s glaring problems is a sort of eggs in one basket approach.

Just want to make sure I’m not misinterpreting.

i think you possibly have misinterpretted it

the vengance campaign is about "load testing" in a controlled scenario (by limiting the skills available through templating). ie where you dont have ball groups vs ball groups or zergs spamming heals and kicking anyone off as a result.

this isnt about balancing, its about stress testing and seeing what is causing that stress

the balancing is a consequential effect IF they see that this experiment works.

Right but doesn’t this signal this is the way forward full stop if they aren’t making any changes outside of vengeance?

What I mean is, this test could be a potential flop, and they’ll have given us nothing in the way of addressing current balance concerns on the live version of the game. And we would be waiting another quarter or more for any changes to be addressed if at all, because all of their resources were pooled into a week long test. I know vengeance balance is not in its final state and it’s about testing simplified skill calcs and load capacity etc. But we get it for a week, that’s it. I’m saying we’re sort of being robbed of balance changes due to this. Vengeance being THE way forward would be a way to justify that but that would require one very important thing: disregarding player feedback, since the test hasn’t happened yet. To me it’s red flags.

And to be clear, I’m rooting for ZOS on this and for it to be successful. ESO has probably the best combat system out there. But this is a pivotable moment for the game. They should not steam roll out ideas, they need a strong pulse on the community, which they don’t have the greatest track record of. Trying to look at this objectively, lack of other balance changes = making way for vengeance as the future and allocating any resources to those changes or developing a new combat system, that’s all I’m getting at.

I hope they knock it out of park, but cooldowns ain’t it js.

Why are cooldowns a bridge too far?

PS. Some of you keep claiming this is actually a secret test for the new PVP model. Given that they’ve repeatedly said this is not the case, I’d stop fretting.

PPS. I’m glad you like this game’s combat system. Gonna have to disagree that this is the platonic ideal for MMORPGs, RPGs, and so on.

They’re a bridge too far because for the past decade this game didn’t have cooldowns on the vast majority of its abilities outside of the 1 sec gcd. It changes the feel of combat pretty drastically by contrast. No cooldowns was and has been sort of the entire appeal of esos combat system.

That’s funny, I’ve played this game for a decade on PC and consoles and never once said “man, the spammy gameplay and animation canceling is what keeps me coming back.” If you enjoy it, then that’s great. I tend to think it holds back better gameplay mechanics.

Yeah make room for better mechanics like rush of agony and tarnished.

If that’s your idea of better mechanics, then cool. I tend to think they could think outside the very restrictive boxes of sorcerers and nightblades.

For instance, there’s plenty they could “learn” from FromSoftware without turning ESO into Elden Ring.