Best Of
Re: Official Night Market Feedback Thread
It's the opposite, actually, and multi-factionalism can turbo-charge quest sharing.The different factions mean you have people in your group that you can't share quests with, and so they want to go one way, whilst you want to go another.
So, the minor quests in the districts can never be shared, no matter what.
But having different people from different factions actually makes quest sharing easier. So let's say you have 3 people, each who can pick up a different quest from their faction leader. Let's say Alice gets the Argent quest, Bob gets the Brazen quest, and Frank gets the Fleet quest. So if all three people are in the same faction, they could do all 3 quests, but they'd have to do it one at a time, like overland world bosses. A shares her quest to everyone, they do it, turn it in, and then B picks up and shares his quest, and they all do it, and then F picks up and shares their quest. Three quests, but only one at a time. But if they all belonged to different factions, then they can all pick up their quest, and all share it, and they could have all 3 quests in their quest journals at the same time.
So faction diversity in a group actually helps makes quest sharing easier and smoother. The problem is that none of this is intuitive. You can't tell by looking at your quest journal if the Argent quest that you have was originally picked up by a Ruckus player or by an Eyes player--the quests all have the same identical quest IDs, regardless of which faction picked it up, and the faction is a property of the quest that is hidden from the user. And even if the user wanted to manually note which faction shared which quest, you can't easily see which faction someone belongs to (unless they tell you or you pay attention to where they go for quests turn-ins) so even if you know that Argent came from Alice, you don't know if that's an Argent quest sourced from Eyes or from Ruckus.
Re: Concerns About ESO’s Future Direction and Solo Player Experience
Greetings all,
After removing a handful of comments, we would like to ask that all members of the community please be sure to keep all posts stay on topic, remain civil and constructive, while also staying within the guidelines of the Community Rules.
Regards,
-Greg-
After removing a handful of comments, we would like to ask that all members of the community please be sure to keep all posts stay on topic, remain civil and constructive, while also staying within the guidelines of the Community Rules.
Regards,
-Greg-
Re: Night Market has made Group Finder come alive
Night Market also shown Group Finder is useless as players simply fake their roles. I've just started finder for skirmish requiring 2 tanks, 2 healers and 10 dd's. Ended up with 2 healers and 10 dd's.
Miracle? No, two players simply changed roles to tank, joined, and changer back to dd's.
Zenimax, why don't u make roles mean ANYTHING not only in veteran dungeons/trials? Why don't you make role a part of build, so it can't be this easy to change?
I made a gilded group requiring a tank and a healer and posted it. A few seconds later it was entirely full, and the last guy who joined said "you sure you don't want a tank?" and I was confused, because I absolutely wanted a tank. So even though I'd set required roles, and no one was marked as a tank, it allowed two damage dealers to join. He was nice and figured it was just normal ZOS coding and hopped out, but when I attempted to relist the group it would not let me. I never figured out what witchcraft needed to happen in order for me to relist the group requiring a tank. Ended up having to pass leader to one of the others in the group who made it successfully. So it seems like I was bugged after making the group and someone dropping out. Was definitely frustrating, but I'm glad other players can help compensate for the bugs, even though they shouldn't have to.
Re: Why is everyone so adverse to grouping for NM?
The game always had group content, we have dungeons, trials and group arenas, it can't morph into something it already is.thedocbwarren wrote: »No story content is my reason and it's not the same gameplay as the story-line. I can imagine some people came to ESO, like I did, looking for a new elder scrolls game like the single-player games. Seeing the game morph to group tasks and non-story-like play is shocking and disappointing. Just my point of view.
The person you quoted mentioned the lack of story when it comes to the Night Market. And I agree. Dungeons and trials have a story (even if it might not be super complex sometimes), and most of all a logical story progression. The Night Market on the other hand shows us 3 factions that have some kind of identity label slapped to them, but it never plays any real role when it comes to the actuals tasks the player needs to do. It's basically always just running around killing everything, and playing some arcade-like games - not sure how that benefits a faction that's allegedly about knowledge or about wealth.
And then, the explanation for the whole Market existing is nothing beyond "Woah! Mysterious daedric realm!" - and that's it. This is what I'd rather find a little concerning - the writing quality basically, how story and quests do not fit together at all, but it all just feels like some random facade slapped upon random tasks.
(Which also slowly begins to bore me personally as a lore- and story-focused player; I've been playing with random group finder groups for a week now, exploration was fun for the first days, but now I'm slowly getting bored because there's no progressing story, but it's all just random - which can't really keep my interest for a longer time. Though I'm aware of course that that's an entirely personal and subjective thing, and other people might not mind that at all. And that's okay - everyone likes different things, and there should be content for different tastes and playstyles. So I have no problem with the Night Market existing, or being hard, or being group content, at all. The only thing I find weird is the disconnect between gameplay and the alleged background story/lore, where really nothing fits together.)
Though I'm not sure if this entirely fits this thread, because it's not about solo or group content, but about how this content was designed and written.
Thank you for the follow up, it articulates my concern I was trying to express. I do like the market look and "lobby" scene but the playstyle isn't what I hoped we would get. Whatever is planned for the new "content" on its way later I am questioning if it's story content with lore, etc. I really hope this game doesn't transition to task-like, mobile game-like, and minimal story/lore investment. I understand the calls "this is an mmo" and maybe it is, but the original content in this game feels very much like an Elder Scrolls game up to a point as of recent. It felt like a great game to play after playing ES: 3/4/5 and have something that fits in the lore (up to a certain point in time.)
And nothing I say is suggesting no group or PVP or similar. Totally fine to have for online game, I just noticed a very big change in direction that seems to diverge quite a bit.
Re: The Night Market event is already dead?
All event content loses half the players in the first week this is normal ESO behavior.
I do think ZOS needs to build the content so it's dynamic in nature so can auto adjust based on live population, looking at you Harrowstorms
I do think ZOS needs to build the content so it's dynamic in nature so can auto adjust based on live population, looking at you Harrowstorms
Re: Let us create companions! :D
I'd rather have a slightly different system. I've asked for a while to let us have our alt characters as companions/houseguests. Companion wise they could let us select a companionized version of skills/build and pull from our characters' cosmetics/voice/etc. Houseguest wise you just need the physical appearance. I know there are some logistics issues like when you update their appearance or change an outfit but those could be addressed. Several of my characters are friends, family, lovers, etc and I would love for them to go on an adventure together instead of me having to imagine it in my head as I quest.
Emeratis
1
Re: Push NB rework ahead of warden
ItsNotLiving wrote: »Warden is probably almost done you should be trying to jump sorcerer.
And their work is probably early stages too, PTS for Sorc would be 2nd week of September, 4 months away. The bigger overhauls probably take between 4~6 months which seems to be why WW was used as a breather in U50.
Warden needs massive work from top to bottom, Sorc is a close 2nd, hanful of great abilities, but both have dated VFX/SFX, clunky ability animations, a huge pile of dead skills, and Perma Pet AI that has been a massive point of contention since 2014.
The 3rd hardest class to rehaul imo would probably be Necro from a functionality/fantasy standpoint, they already have some pretty good VFX/SFX, but how the skills and class kit functions is messed up with many people claiming it doesn't really feel like the traditional Necro you find in other RPGs which is entirely true. Probably why Templar and NB come before Necro, but after Warden and Sorc, to give breathing room like WW provided.
Try Templar. Skrew those guys right lol?
Re: Concerns About ESO’s Future Direction and Solo Player Experience
Hmm my personal conclusion after 10 years of ESO is that I've been stuck being a solo player not because I don't want to group, but because I do not like the group content. And by that, I mean the formula not its execution.
I wonder if I'm alone in this and whether ZOS should think about that for a bit. Solo is, for the most part, a story driven adventure experience. Group content for the most part are combat obstacle courses that need to be rehearsed. Not the same thing at all.
Completely agree. I'm the same. I run dungeons (in pugs, so it's not that I won't group) because there's a sticky book, i.e. a collection, and I like doing collections. If there wasn't a sticky book, I'd have done each dungeon once for the quest and not stepped foot inside it again, unless it was the only way for me to get 3/3 endeavors (now challenges). I don't do trials, even though there's a collection aspect there too, because trials are sloggy combat (not difficult, but in terms of
"it takes a while to kill stuff"). The sloggy combat overrides the collection aspect for me there.
Combat just for the sake of combat, which is what dungeons, trials, arenas, the IA, and the NM are, bores me to tears, which is fortunate because due to an RSI I can't do them much anyway. I'm a story/exploration gamer through and through. That's also reflected in the single-player games I play.
I'll admit that I don't understand gamers who spend a lot of their gaming time watching red bars reduce down to zero and repeating the same content over and over, when they could be experiencing something new. But then they probably don't understand me.
Anyway, I love TES SP games because of the story (not necessarily the main quests, but the quests you discover along the way) and the massive amounts of exploration. ESO has that in its zones - more story than exploration, though. The more ESO moves away from story/exploration, the less I'll be interested in playing it.
Fortunately there's some story content coming down the pipe later in the year, and also other things that could appeal to me. The open question for me right now is whether there will be enough to keep me around. My sub renews in February, so I'll be able to see the story content, favours, rumours, sage's vault, and the solo dungeons before then (and most importantly the warden work) so I can see exactly what we're getting and if it'll scratch the story/exploration itch enought to stay.
BardokRedSnow wrote: »If you want the game to last another ten, twenty years though then you need to anttract another audience.
If attracting one audience results in losing another audience, ESO won't have gained anything. This isn't an argument against creating group content, just pointing out that it would be in ESO's best interest to retain ALL of its current audiences and attract new/returning players.
I don't have any figures to back up what I'm about to say (like everyone else in this thread), but I suspect that ESO would lose more players by going full-on with group-oriented content than it would gain, meaning there would be a net loss in players. Fortunately it's not doing that.
(as an aside, I've checked my guild rosters (3) since NM was released, and on average about 15-20% of online players are in the NM. All three guilds are a good mix of endgame vets/casual players. Of course, there will be times when the percentage is much higher than that, when NM events are running.)
(and just to reiterate, the existence of the NM doesn't bother me. However, it might have gone down better if they hadn't led with it this year, but instead released it alongside solo-oriented content.)
AzuraFan
1
Re: Please move up Necromancer rework to 2026
Oblivion_Protocol wrote: »You’ve said that Necromancer is a scam multiple times, and that’s flat-out wrong. “Scam” implies you’re not getting something you paid for. If you pay for Necromancer, you get Necromancer. It being at the bottom of pile isn’t relevant to the purchase; hence why the phrase “caveat emptor (buyer beware)” exists.
Also, at this point, every class has players somewhere begging the devs to shuffle their schedule around so they can get their refresh next. I’ve worked for enough large companies to know that once a workflow schedule is set and communicated, changing it throws a lot of stuff off and can even cause delays.
While I want you to be able to enjoy Necromancer now, the fact remains that it is indeed the last class to be refreshed, so you’ve got to wait. And threats of unsubscribing and uninstalling aren’t going to move anything along. If the people who uninstalled after subclassing went live wasn’t enough to bring ESO to a grinding halt, you taking away your $15 a month isn’t going to be the proverbial nail in the coffin, either.
I say this because I don’t want you expending a bunch of energy on something that isn’t going to happen. If you sent that big message to ZOS, I promise you it’s in someone’s recycle bin right now, being merrily ignored while they work on the Warden refresh.
I partly agree that by buying a Necromancer you get a Necromancer who is currently at the bottom of the list. And I am quite sure that the Necromancer will be last in line for updates. But I assume that TESO has already lost more than 15 dollars a month. I am sure that some players have stopped playing actively not only because of the subclass system but also, for example, due to the unplayability of their favourite class, the Necromancer. Over the past three months, in 4v4 BGs, I have encountered only one pure Necromancer and about 5-10 players with Necromancer subclasses (and perhaps they just joined the BG to complete their dailies). Meanwhile, I frequently encounter other pure classes relative to the current meta, except for the Templar (they have completely disappeared from BGs over the past three months).
Perhaps the master class passives will temporarily bring back some players who enjoy playing pure classes. But I highly doubt that this will solve the Necromancer problem. All classes will get these passives. And in a month, there will hardly be any pure Necromancers left. The main problem with the Necromancer is not only the complexity of this class (though I really like its mechanics), but the lack of any benefit from the difficulty of executing these mechanics.
Perhaps the developers could temporarily (until the class is reworked) slightly buff his abilities. This does not necessarily have to be an increase in damage. For example, they could slightly increase the duration of buffs (due to the necromancer's additional corpses mechanic, the window between re-buffs is too short for dealing damage). Or if the developers believe that the Necromancer has sufficient damage potential (and the main damage-dealing skill Sacrificial Bones can be nerfed), then perhaps secondary abilities could be improved (I mean the abilities that are ignored due to the presence of better skills in the weapon and guild skill lines). If I understood the developers' idea correctly, they tried to compensate for the corpses mechanic by providing additional bonuses in skills related to this mechanic (extra damage or HP, MP and Stamina regeneration), but unfortunately, because the remains mechanic is like a lottery, these skills are easier to replace with skills from other skill lines. It would be very good if these Necromancer skills were strengthened to a level competitive with other similar skills (considering the complexity of the mechanic).
Perhaps fixing the Corpseburster class set would help. This set can compensate for the Necromancer's lack and complexity of damage implementation. For example, combined with the Necrotic Potency skill, it now almost always explodes the corpse behind the Necromancer. It would be enough to fix it so that the corpse that the player is looking at explodes, rather than a random corpse lying somewhere behind the Necromancer (as is the case with the Shocking Siphon and Restoring Tether skills).
I understand that this will not completely solve all the problems of this class, but at least it will allow the necromancer to be a bit more enjoyable in the game. Although the dependence on randomness will remain, it will be at least somewhat compensated. There are just too many variables for this class (where the enemy is, where the enemy will move, where the corpse will appear, whether it's possible to use a particular corpse, considering the distance from the used corpse, where to use area abilities, correctly timing between re-buffs). Even Molag Bal won't help here.
HarfnUA
1