Best Of
Re: Dropped from the server for reaching maximum number of messages
SilverBride wrote: »I never found it accusatory and I've had this happen every time I've spent a lot of time at the Alchemy table leveling up my skill. The first time it happened I just Googled it and discovered what it was about. The player isn't being reported or actioned for anything. It's just informing them why they were disconnected and how to prevent it.
While it seems to me that it’s meant to be informative, this use of the term “messaging” is very technical. The message assumes that players will know that technical meaning, which many do not.
Explanatory text must be clear to be successful. When it results in confusion, especially when that means people have to resort to searching online or asking others, that signals the messaging should be clarified.
Since they include an example (“e.g. spamming”), they could expand on that to clarify that add-ons or lag may also be the source of the “messaging.” Listing only one player-sourced culprit implies the blame is on the player, and saying “please avoid” further implies the cause is within the player’s control.
A message such as “You have been dropped for excessive messaging. This may be due to spamming chat, add-on errors, or high latency.” would be more informative and clearer.
Re: Official Night Market Feedback Thread
Just hopping in to say the Night Market is the most fun I've had playing ESO in a while. Outstanding content drop.
Re: Night Market Opinion Poll
They sure didn't make it for me. I only went in to get the house and I won't step foot in there again. What gets me is they did this exact same thing with Craglorn when it was introduced as an "Adventure Zone" and it failed miserably. And the Night Market sounds like that version of Craglorn on steroids.
What I want to know is what made anyone think this would have even a remote chance of being successful now?
I will be very curious what all the players that are loving it now will think when the new has worn off and there are a lot less players for them to group with.
What I want to know is what made anyone think this would have even a remote chance of being successful now?
I will be very curious what all the players that are loving it now will think when the new has worn off and there are a lot less players for them to group with.
Re: Official Night Market Feedback Thread
Apollosipod wrote: »ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »Apollosipod wrote: »PSA to everyone: the Night Market update removed a handful of items from my collections on PS5. I'm missing several mounts and it also weirdly removed the chest piece of one outfit that I've found so far. Check your stuff and submit a support ticket. I've played for years so here's hoping there aren't more items I haven't noticed yet
Hey @Apollosipod what is your support ticket number, please?
The issue has been fixed! Thanks to you and the support team!
Has it been fixed for all players?
I did just get a message that said “16 collection sets updated”…is this the fix?
Re: Official Night Market Feedback Thread
(Also the blue and green look waaaaaaaay too much alike there’s always bottom rows mirrors I can’t tell apart, especially as they’re all moving at the same time)
Re: Night Market: Getting started and basics
Too complicated unless you are a professional gamer.
Re: Night Market Opinion Poll
Who did they make this for? My guess would be for the 1% definitely not for average players. I strongly dislike being railroaded into group play. This game is becoming less and less like TES every patch.
Re: Official Night Market Feedback Thread
The fear of missing out is too huge with this event. A whole mythic and monster set needing 10k favor against such hard content is crazy. It's going to take 3 or 4 hours each day for weeks just to get 10k.
Re: U50 Feedback Thread for Combat Refresh: Werewolf
Alchimiste1 wrote: »Alchimiste1 wrote: »WW seems fine on pts
This is awesome feedback! I type out pages worth of clearly separated sub-topics with genuine feedback and everyone else just drops some random ‘player parse’ from the depths of despair or ‘nerf work good’ comment and this seems to be what they are looking for. 🙃
Alright, let me start by saying that your last 10 or so posts have not been coherent at all. You might want to go back and reword those because it sounds like you are having a monologue with yourself that only you really understand. I think it would help the zos team.
Anyways, pts WW is still very strong. It’s still doing very good damage, the sustain is still good. It admittedly did get less healing. Overall, it seems to be in a more balanced state.
Do you mind submitting some of your own cmxs / clips or anything that can help others understand why you think WW is underperforming ? Perhaps we can look over the gameplay a bit.
Everything is coherent, I had provided my testing earlier in this post (way earlier in this thread I had provided some dummy parse numbers with PvP gear (prior to ‘on monsters’ slammed on every other thing)), and I have also provided descriptors with info above. Many of the suggestions I made simply offer to sidegrade power/ remove werewolf potential to abuse potential systems rather than an outright ‘buff werewolf damage’ so I can simply “be OP”.
Werewolf is still lacking in many areas and has indeed still has had significant reductions from live in several areas (again, berserker bleed duration change is diabolical; I still have nonexistent burst when everyone else has 2-3 burst moves; still don’t have an actual hot). This simply does not fit the “werewolf op” and ‘werewolf needs no changes’ narrative you and group wish to portray.
Someone provided a 4K parse for PvP on werewolf (so what does that mean exactly in relation to the PvP parses) and I quite literally did a breakdown of Redacted’s 6.7k parse using a common and very reasonable scenario I encounter in actual, factual PvP. I’m simply providing feedback, same as you after all my “werewolf seems fine on pts” amigo!
If you’d like- I can pull the tooltips from the ‘live werewolf PvP skills’ (again, we all consider live werewolf to be completely dog so it’s a good item to compare to) and ‘PTS werewolf PvP skills’ using same gear with proof there to give you a side-by-side highlighting where we received heavy nerfs in areas and where we are lacking in comparison to live werewolf/ to your average spec? If anyone wants this part, let me know. I’m not going through the trouble for this person alone (they’ve -these people- wasted enough of my existence).
Because, you know, the PvP community never overreacts here, especially not the Riften duelers or anything.
I would be interested in this. I have heard a few times that some aspects of WW are actually weaker. I know the weapon damage passive is reduced a bit in PvP, but I believed that all damage values were surely boosted. Otherwise it wouldn't produce this good DPS in pve and pvp?
With the way some buffs and perks were shifted around a build some things will be weaker. But additional bonuses were added to some abilities that require self buffing to feel the benefit so you won't feel the benefit.
PTS Major has berserk on Berserker
PTS Hircines Rage has a 12% unique damage / Vulnerability modifier that didn't exist before a that is easier to trigger.
Live has major berserk on Hircines rage that was trickier to trigger.
PTS has Major Protection on Pack Leader and Minor protection on Deafening Roar. But deafening also gained major evasion.
Live has Major protection on Deafening Roar.
There is obviously a lot more to lay out, but overall summary is: if you don't self-buff yourself as a werewolf you may have abilities do less damage than their comparable ability on live. If you do self buff yourself your abilities will do more damage than live.
Then you can kick in rampage and do even more damage than on live.
In terms of survivability the biggest hit is the self heal potency.
What I wanted to know is this:only looking at buffs and passives is too short-sighted for me. Base damage modifiers matter just as much, and surely those did change (increase) compared to live? The heightened DPS of Werewolf betrays that it's active skills are stronger regardless of passive potency.
Dracane
1
Re: U50 Feedback Thread for Class Mastery
Class Mastery Perspective v12.0.2 - Arcanist Healer (Ink-Scribe's Verve)
Ink-Scribe’s Verve changes with Major Force is a great step, but still doesn’t feel properly aligned with how Arcanist healing works.
It should also proc off shielding. A large portion of Arcanist healing output comes from damage absorption with Chakram shielding and additional shielding from the Intricate Runeforms passive. Right now, the passive ignores that, which makes it harder to manage for the role it should be supporting.
Healing beam in theory seems like a good way to proc the Major Force, but the beam channel for 4.5 seconds doesn't align with the uptimes of buffs, debuffs, and group utility in PvE environments. In addition, latency with healing and player positioning makes the beam clunky and inconsistent to use.
Meanwhile, DPS builds using things like Reaving Blows CP can often trigger the passive more easily, which feels backwards.
Overall issue:
The passive is easier to proc on DPS than on actual healers in some cases, and it doesn’t account for shielding which is a core part of Arcanist healing.
Class Mastery Perspective v12.0.2 - Necromancer Healer (Veil's Forfeit)
Veil's Forfeit 66% heal condition to proc a corpse when healing an ally feels too unreliable for a Class Mastery passive, especially for healers. It also provides limited group utility.
As a healer, your value comes from consistency and control, not RNG. Tying corpse consumption to an inconsistent heal proc when healers aim to keep their allies at full health and not below 66% means:
Core Necromancer mechanics (corpse usage) feel inconsistent
It introduces randomness into what should be a skill-based support loop
For a Class Mastery passive, this should be something you can depend on in high-pressure group content, not something that may or may not happen when you need it most.
At the same time, the passive Major Vulnerability extension is valuable for group utility, but the issue is that:
It is universally accessible
It is not tied to support-specific actions
It allows any role (especially DPS) to benefit equally
This creates a blurring of role identity, where:
Supports are no longer the clear drivers of group utility
High-impact debuffs feel baseline instead of role-earned
Group composition becomes less meaningful
Overall:
The corpse consumption mechanic needs to be reliable, not RNG-based and provide greater group utility
The Major Vulnerability extension needs stronger ties to support gameplay
Right now, Veil’s Forfeit has strong ideas, but it lacks both consistency for healers and clear role ownership, which weakens its impact in organized group play.
Ink-Scribe’s Verve changes with Major Force is a great step, but still doesn’t feel properly aligned with how Arcanist healing works.
It should also proc off shielding. A large portion of Arcanist healing output comes from damage absorption with Chakram shielding and additional shielding from the Intricate Runeforms passive. Right now, the passive ignores that, which makes it harder to manage for the role it should be supporting.
Healing beam in theory seems like a good way to proc the Major Force, but the beam channel for 4.5 seconds doesn't align with the uptimes of buffs, debuffs, and group utility in PvE environments. In addition, latency with healing and player positioning makes the beam clunky and inconsistent to use.
Meanwhile, DPS builds using things like Reaving Blows CP can often trigger the passive more easily, which feels backwards.
Overall issue:
The passive is easier to proc on DPS than on actual healers in some cases, and it doesn’t account for shielding which is a core part of Arcanist healing.
Class Mastery Perspective v12.0.2 - Necromancer Healer (Veil's Forfeit)
Veil's Forfeit 66% heal condition to proc a corpse when healing an ally feels too unreliable for a Class Mastery passive, especially for healers. It also provides limited group utility.
As a healer, your value comes from consistency and control, not RNG. Tying corpse consumption to an inconsistent heal proc when healers aim to keep their allies at full health and not below 66% means:
Core Necromancer mechanics (corpse usage) feel inconsistent
It introduces randomness into what should be a skill-based support loop
For a Class Mastery passive, this should be something you can depend on in high-pressure group content, not something that may or may not happen when you need it most.
At the same time, the passive Major Vulnerability extension is valuable for group utility, but the issue is that:
It is universally accessible
It is not tied to support-specific actions
It allows any role (especially DPS) to benefit equally
This creates a blurring of role identity, where:
Supports are no longer the clear drivers of group utility
High-impact debuffs feel baseline instead of role-earned
Group composition becomes less meaningful
Overall:
The corpse consumption mechanic needs to be reliable, not RNG-based and provide greater group utility
The Major Vulnerability extension needs stronger ties to support gameplay
Right now, Veil’s Forfeit has strong ideas, but it lacks both consistency for healers and clear role ownership, which weakens its impact in organized group play.
