Best Of
Re: U50 Feedback Thread for Combat Refresh: Werewolf
I will say so far questing as a werewolf has been a massively more enjoyable experience. the model is great. the animations feel nice. This rework has been great mechanically. I can't really speak on balance but gameplay feel seems spot on. werewolf went from really annoying to something I would be excited to play when it hits live.
JimT722
5
Re: Fashion Megathread
My Imperial. A combination of Imperial Heavy Tier 3 and 4, and a House Hexos sword and board. He has no true name.
I call him the "Exiled Gladium" for self-roleplay because he disobeyed an unknown order from the false Empress Clivia Tharn (Molag Kena) because he felt something was off, and was banished from the Legions, and Cyrodiil on pain of death from it. Now he wants vengeance, and some answers as to why this is happening at all.
Re: It Appears Grey Host and Vengeance Will Exist Side by Side After All. Thoughts?
CatoUnchained wrote: »WARNING to ZOS: If you limit reward/title progression to vengeance you will lose more customers and your image will be harmed and even more degraded than it already is.
Cato, could you elaborate on what you're referring to in the comment above? I'm reading it as a belief that Veterancy will be only for those who participate in the Vengeance campaign, and that's not the case. Or is this about something else?
Re: Please, PTS feedback to a console player: some questions
1 - we don’t have all the pages of the next tome. What’s in the personality’s spot is body markings (or maybe it’s a skin, I don’t recall). It’s quite pretty but also very specific in use since it’s bright green and black.
2 - I didn’t notice anything but I also didn’t look.
2 - I didn’t notice anything but I also didn’t look.
Soarora
1
Re: Cyrodiil End of Campaign reward tiers have been reset.
ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »
Correct, was NA. Hmmm odd it didn't seem like it was updating and zone chat was commenting. I'll keep track the next ffew evals and see. Could have just been a blip/delay. Sorry for the possible false flag.
No worries! It's good to raise. Yes, please let us know if you notice anything not working or updating as it should.
Yeah, it's updating correctly. Don't mind me... I need more coffee I guess.
LadyGP
1
Re: U50 Feedback Thread for Combat Refresh: Werewolf
My builds are tuned much more offensively than Hoang. I'm generally around mid 30k hp and mid 20k armor with cp investment into crit resist and % mitigation. Conservation of Energy and Dark Deal carry resources. Blood Magic (via Conservation) and Surge are such powerful pseudo-HOT effects that I only seem to need Vigor and Dark Deal on top of those.I really wonder how Stamsorc does all this DPS whilst having 4 hots and 33k armor and 34k health. I mean what do you even use to still have high DPS?
Rest of build is offense and speed. New Shattered Paths Signet + Class Masteries like Static Reverb finally have pressure competitive with burst. I can hit 8k on both the Serpent's Disdain + BfB vamp version, and the MDW + Maarselok mortal version. Both include Vate Inferno back bar and Dragon's Appetite body. Most parts beyond that are standard meta, or interchangeable.
It's not just build though, you need to strike first and perfectly land your entire rotation while eating or avoiding whatever your opponent is throwing at you, which means perfect positioning, effective block weaving and roll canceling, and dynamically adjusting your rotation. I also can't sit there being parsed on like Hoang, so tactically I'm either killing, dying, or Streaking.
xylena
2
Re: U50 Feedback Thread for Class Mastery
Pyrebrand shouldn't interact with Wildfire Embers. Procs aren't supposed to proc procs.
Pyreband & wildfire embers on the PTS are doing absurd DPS numbers. Between those two things + burning, which are essentially all "free" sources of damage which require no thoughtful input from you, they're sometimes netting a combined 4-5k DPS.
It's cool to see a playstyle avenue for dot DK via that mastery passive, but I really hate that we're embracing the "my light attacks cause you to take 5k DPS" mindset. It feels cheap and lazy compared to having passives boost the actual dot abilities of DK themselves. It's problematic in the same way that sets like relequen are problematic. Not to mention completely oppressive to fight against.
Would rather see the passive reworked to boost your dot abilities in some way. Flat % modifiers to dot damage, or perhaps scaling interactions when using multiple DK dots (shatterspike, embers/claw, burning talons, breath). Like perhaps having one of these DK dots active on your opponent will cause the next applied dot to deal x% more damage for it's duration. Just something that requires more thought than the fire and forget damage that is pyre/wildfire.
Conservation of Energy makes Blood for Blood full resource positive on all 3 pools. You spam it and all 3 resource pools go up. This maybe shouldn't proc on skills that cost health.
I feel like if we're embracing the "classes can have access to infinite sustain" idea that DK now has, the mag/stam sustain isn't the main issue with conservation (even though it is nearly all the sustain you need as far as duels on the PTS go). The bigger issue I'm seeing is how much this heals now. It is #1 healing on CMX every single fight, and rewards you for stacking health which is a huge problem in PVP. For example, here is the healing on a 40k HP sorc build (which is very easy to achieve these days without giving up much).
Seems some sort of cooldown or reduction in effectiveness to the healing portion of conservation of energy is needed. I am all for buffing the pure classes to DK level, but this is like effortlessly-unkillable levels of healing (assuming you're not fighting an 8k dps pyre DK or a 10k dps WW).
React
4
Re: April 20th Vengeance Only..
BardokRedSnow wrote: »BardokRedSnow wrote: »BardokRedSnow wrote: »They offered double ap for vengeance only alongside greyhost and people still flocked to greyhost... No amount of meaningless titles or the like would get people to move over, and offering rewards like cosmetics and developing the campaign people right now dont wanna play would only ostracize and push more returning players out yet again.
Trying to force customers to like something vs improving upon what they already like is the worst business strategy possible.
What forum goers don't understand overall, because these players don't typically go to the forums, is that most pvpers come from other games like WoW where the actual gameplay and combat is more important to them than anything else. The game mode that gives them the most build diversity and complexity will always win out over what is simple and available to everyone to access out the jump.
...
And a bigger point on that is, if the social aspect was the most important thing, more pvpers would be doing PVE, as PvE is a far bigger social pool than PVP ever could be.
2. ZOS is not forcing customers into Vengeance.
Greyhost is failing to provide meaningful combat for the average player.
Two only things worth addressing, and the first one's a lie. April 20th they're literally putting greyhost on ice for a week which is the pvp we've had for the majority of the game cycle by 99%, for yet another test that even the target audience, pvers and a few jaded greyhost zergers, do not actually enjoy enough to have competitive pvp there.
As was said, a large, very sizeable portion of the population in greyhost either pvp exclusively, primarily or are motivated solely by pvp in Greyhost and do not do much of anything else unless it is with the goal of aiding pvp, in greyhost, battlegrounds, IC, or occupying their time inbetween. You'd be surprised for instance how many people do housing and also pvp, and spend a lot of money for it. For those people, like myself who do not wish to even touch Vengeance, you are being forced to either go pve, quit for a week, or help with this test.
I have the option to not play the game and give zos money? Bet. Thats not being forced at all wow my mistake. Its a huge mistake to tell end game players who spend a lot of money on cosmetics, crates, houses etc to go play something else because we want to switch focus to non end game players, who already have the most content as is.
And that brings me to the next point, Greyhost is an endgame pvp campaign, it is not and never was for the average player, its for those who have done enough to be able to min max for end game content a la pvp.
If they allowed Greyhost to be up as well during these tests you'd see a lot less complaining here, but the only reason zos is forcing all pvp campaigns down in favor of Vengeance for a week is because they know it cant sustain the population its being boasted to have, and so do you because otherwise you wouldn't care so much here.
The Vengeance enjoyers need the greyhost players, not the other way around because they know without that player base its dead. Why, because pvers cannot, have not and will not sustain it because they are not pvpers and the majority of them never will be.
Meanwhile the same players have been holding down greyhost for years and it brings in new players even still. Greyhost is the best end game content zos has because it is dynamic thanks to the large and dedicated population it has. Very minimal effort on their part is required to keep it fresh, which is why its been going for over a decade while the other campaigns are dead, vengeance included as of the last two tests.
Telling that player base which spends lots of money on cosmetics and the like to go play something else for any period of time is a terrible business decision.
Here we go again with the artificial PvE/PvP divide. Most players do both, IMHO.
Vengeance enjoyers don't need greyhosters at all. We will build our own population by making sure PvErs stay in Cyro long enough to become PvPers.
Its not artificial, there's a pvp community and a pve community, that some do other things is irrelevant, most of yall here on the forums are pve majority and have no idea what cyrodiil greyhost is even actually like because they quit after being ganked in bruma or something. And its very evident from the responses.
It's definitely more nuanced than the black and white you describe. I think there are very few people who do exclusively one and never the other. Most players do both, and the only difference is how much more they are playing PvE as compared to their PvP time, and vice versa.
BardokRedSnow wrote: »
Yall failed to build a population even after these tests, and if ravenwatch hasn't been able to sustain a population despite that being very accessible to beginners, there's no reason vengeance will be any different and given its performance the last few times, it won't be.
Don't shift ZOS' responsibility to players who liked the no-proc ruleset more than any other. How were players supposed to build anything in this half-baked mess that no-proc was? Obviously everyone got tired eventually of not knowing what worked and what didn't, of sets that should work but were not working, and of new stat sets added to the game that didn't work there for months. And I'm mentioning just the most prominent issues. One can only cling to whatever shred of hope remains that this time ZOS will implement a ruleset designed much more thoroughly, and that they will keep improving it.
BardokRedSnow wrote: »
If zos played more pvp they'd have realized this also and never bothered with vengeance. It is a waste of resources. Vengeance needs the greyhost population to move over to survive, it was clear as day when they put greyhost and vengeance side by side.
If it weren't the case, these tests wouldn't shut down every other campaign.
Testing an unfinished product where nothing solid is on offer is less attractive than playing a familiar setup with continuity and social structure already in place. It's beyond my belief that people quote it as an accurate reflection of the popularity of any of those campaigns.
Re: U50 PTS: List of errors with the with motif sourcing tooltips
First, why is this information found only in the tooltip for the Crown Store version of the motif? This information should be added to all the tooltips, not just the ones for the Crown version.
Hey code65536! Thanks for this incredible list. We're working our way through the fixes now, and expect to have them in when U50 goes live at the latest. As to your question, we were already touching several hundred defs, which ups the possibility for error, as you have noted
. This fix was focused around 'reducing regret' and allowing folks to make informed decisions when they are in the crown store, although we could certainly consider expanding this in the future.Very appreciated again!
ZOS_Kira
2
Re: Update 50 PTS – Week 1 Summary
Let’s please address the elephant in the room. Healers. Supports, yes, but then you didn’t need to say tanks as well. Keep healers relevant.
For class passives specifically make something for every class that is determined by overheal (not heal). Reading the passives as they have existed to this point makes me terrified that you will end up writing healers as a role out of optimized end game entirely. We already see it in dungeons and arenas, running 3 DPS and a tank because “why would we run a healer if DDs can self-sustain and then we get more damage”? We already see it in current end game optimization where it’s common to run 1 heal, 1 tank.
My concern is that as DDs become more self sufficient and less necessity is placed on healing as a concept, end game groups will eliminate healers entirely because everything they provide can be provided equally as well by a support DD with 1 or 2 heals if necessary.
Example: Major Courage. As a very important buff, this has probably been the single most important thing for keeping healers relevant in the game since the best source (SPC) procs on overheal for 12 party members, no cooldown, potential 100% uptime with someone who plays it well enough. Adding this buff to a single skill on a werewolf is an enormous slap in the face. Where there aren’t specific heal checks, an optimized team can run a werewolf for Major courage instead of a healer at all. While this hasn’t been an issue previously (people choosing banners or Zenas, or soul burst or Yolna for minor courage instead of a werewolf in group), that was because it would be a net loss of damage to run a werewolf. In this case, with the emotional support doggo replacing the healer, it ends up a net increase rather than loss, assuming other buffs can still be sourced elsewhere.
Currently, the only buff that can only be sourced through healing is minor toughness. With Major courage more easily sourceable outside of healing, there becomes very few reasons to run a designated healer as opposed to only running support DDs in much optimized 12 man content.
KEEP HEALERS RELEVANT.
The class passives are an excellent opportunity to do this, but only if you model them with this in mind rather than just your damage or even just supports as a whole. Make a reason for a healer to be there instead of removing the existing ones.
(Edited for autocorrect sabotaging spelling)
