Best Of
Re: ESO´s Population is lowered to 2017 level
Also want to add… sorry about the other night. It was out of character, and I’m glad Icy cleaned it up.
We all care about the game, and sometimes it’s easy to forget that.
It's alright. I also apologize. In the heat sometimes it's easy to misunderstand something.
If we wouldn't care about the game that much we all wouldn't have discussed this.
I'll hope you accept my apology and thank you for helping me out.
Re: Greyhost and Vengeance
MorallyBipolar wrote: »JustLovely wrote: »The pop levels on Vengeance feel exactly the same as on GH while both are running. During NA prime time there will be 1 big zerg fight on the front and 1 smaller fight somewhere else, that's about it. The difference is that Vengeance has room to grow because it's accessible to new players, while GH and its gatekept meta will only continue declining.Turtle_Bot wrote: »Assuming the pop caps (numbers given by both ZOS and independent player addons) are correct, then there's roughly similar numbers of players in vengeance that there is in GH (at least on PC EU).
Everyone should have to climb the same hill to PvP. Advocating for the removal of the game mode many of us log in to play because you want a friend or spouse to get into PvP without putting in the same effort the rest of us have is a bad look.
...and yes, advocating for making vengeance permanent is the same as advocating for the removal of Grey Host. ZOS will never run both modes same time.
ZOS ran both Vengeance and Grey Host at the same time the moment you were writing that comment and both of them were populated.
Vengeance was populated enaugh to find big fights even in offhours. More than 1 or 2 bars weren’t needed other than for comparison to GreyHost bars because for some reason Vengeance must have 900 players to not be called dead campaign when ZOS keeps u50 and Ravenwatch despite having 0 players.
GreyHost was full despite outside Vengeance all other campaigns being empty so it lost few players and quality to Vengeance.
Test has shown that both campaigns can run at the same time without hurting GreyHost.
You want Vengeance deleted just to prevent supporters to play there and make up that Vengeance removes GreyHost to get reason and blame the other side of taking away your GreyHost instead.
The side by side "test" showed that if people have an option they won't play vengeance.
Maybe a few more people chose GreyHost than Vengeance but in Vengeance there were fights with 60 players on a faction that still didn’t reach 1 bar.
There was a fight for Sejanus last Saturday where Siege reached cap of 20 with half the players upstairs being unable to setup theirs and 10 players on each side of frontflag preventing anyone from entering threw the open maingate. After 20 minutes AD managed to enter threw sidewall and take keep but EP was able to hold Roof for another 10 minutes and almost took back outpost before they got overrun because they couldn’t replace dead players.
There were times when factions reached 2 bars in Vengeance while GreyHost was up.
In pop locket GreyHost you don’t see more than 60 players at a keep despite cap being said to be 120 but players estimated it to be 60 or 80. And the other 3 campaigns we got back instead of Vengeance are completely dead with Vengeance having multiple times their combined population.
We can have Vengeance active without hurting GreyHost.
Iriidius
5
Re: Greyhost and Vengeance
JustLovely wrote: »The pop levels on Vengeance feel exactly the same as on GH while both are running. During NA prime time there will be 1 big zerg fight on the front and 1 smaller fight somewhere else, that's about it. The difference is that Vengeance has room to grow because it's accessible to new players, while GH and its gatekept meta will only continue declining.Turtle_Bot wrote: »Assuming the pop caps (numbers given by both ZOS and independent player addons) are correct, then there's roughly similar numbers of players in vengeance that there is in GH (at least on PC EU).
Everyone should have to climb the same hill to PvP. Advocating for the removal of the game mode many of us log in to play because you want a friend or spouse to get into PvP without putting in the same effort the rest of us have is a bad look.
...and yes, advocating for making vengeance permanent is the same as advocating for the removal of Grey Host. ZOS will never run both modes same time.
ZOS ran both Vengeance and Grey Host at the same time the moment you were writing that comment and both of them were populated.
Vengeance was populated enaugh to find big fights even in offhours. More than 1 or 2 bars weren’t needed other than for comparison to GreyHost bars because for some reason Vengeance must have 900 players to not be called dead campaign when ZOS keeps u50 and Ravenwatch despite having 0 players.
GreyHost was full despite outside Vengeance all other campaigns being empty so it lost few players and quality to Vengeance.
Test has shown that both campaigns can run at the same time without hurting GreyHost.
You want Vengeance deleted just to prevent supporters to play there and make up that Vengeance removes GreyHost to get reason and blame the other side of taking away your GreyHost instead.
Iriidius
5
Re: Future of Battlegrounds
3way matches with 0% chance of either winning or losing? Those were extremely rare. How many do you have? Can you please send them to me?It absolutely does! Same exact problem when it was 3way though.@xylena , @Major_Mangle You don't think that having matches that are either 100% guaranteed wins or 100% guaranteed losses drives people away from Battlegrounds?
I just spent like 3 minutes going over old BG screenshots and found about 30 matches where 2 teams had absolutely no chance of winning. Would probably be more than twice that if I also counted matches where 1 team did not have any chances of winning.
One of those happened in easily 75%+ of the 3way matches I had. You not wanting to remember that is just delusional.
Re: Housing should "do more"
gusthermopyle wrote: »That said, the aforementioned housing community have long asked for additions such as harvestable plants, fishing in lakes/rivers, sleeping in beds (perhaps even with a small boost in stamina as a result of spending a few seconds sleeping well in your own cozy bed.
Sadly most of the things asked for by dedicated housing folks are never realised. We still don't even have basic weapons/armour furnishings. The more voices raised the better!
These suggestions came up from all kinds of people since housing was implemented; there were threads about this in the main forum all the time. The ability to use beds (and maybe gain a little xp buff for it) was one that came up very often, as well as having harvestable plants for alchemy. So it's not just the exclusive endgame housing community that asked for these functions, but many more people. Still, ZOS hasn't reacted on it yet.
Also, I don't have the impression that OP wants to become part of a bigger more specialized community with visitors and competitions. Some people just want to use their house to roleplay with it a bit themselves, or with a few friends at most.
I just think that a lot of the housing systems potential is not used
I stopped buying houses a long time ago because I am not someone of the housing community who just wants to have houses to decorate them - i need to have a reason to go there, do something but would love that to be the case, to HAVE a reason...and I think if they expanded on what you can do with houses they would sell a lot more of them to people outside the housing community...
Re: Future of Battlegrounds
Artisian0001 wrote: »SummersetCitizen wrote: »Many 3-way matches were just as painful as these cherry picked examples.
I thought the sheer number prove they're not being cherry picked. Just out of curiosity, how many of these do you think have been posted so far?
balanced chaosball:
balanced chaosball 2:
balanced crazy king:
balanced crazy king 2:
balanced domination (with Haki):
balanced deathmatch (with Haki):
balanced deathmatch 2:
Its very much cherry picked (very surprising @Haki_7 didnt post the actually balanced matches he was part of, I know).
I can also cherry pick more matches like that if you want to act like that proves anything.
That's all people on the forums do. The 4v4 and 8v8 game modes are way better than a 3 team system that is just fighting for position to third party, which I did enjoy, but ultimately is less competitive than a straight up fight. The devs just did a bad job with the 2 team system, but it is far superior.
But don't the hundreds of scoreboards that have already been posted prove that the 4 flaws make 2 teams bgs objectively worse?
Relic 1 & 2, impossible to lose. Thankfully the first one ended quickly.
Crazy King 1 & 2, impossible to lose:
DM 1, impossible to win. Green-5 had no choice but to go around targeting newcomers.
DM 2 & 3, impossible to lose:
Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 114: Waiting 16 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/EU)
https://youtu.be/lnM7gj0bbvwNo, believe it or not, posting cherry picked screenshots doesn't prove anything at all. Basketball players are typically taller than average, but I can post hundreds of videos of shorter players being better than taller players, does this prove anything? Of course not. If that's literally your standard of evidence, good luck my man.
Re: 2025 ESO Gift Exchange!!!
PC EU FluffyPallasCat
Hi!!! How's everyone doing?
Hope everyone has good holidays.
I would love to receive any of the following itens
1 outfit slot
Winged Herald Markings (body)
Commander personality
Thank you
Hi!!! How's everyone doing?
Hope everyone has good holidays.
I would love to receive any of the following itens
1 outfit slot
Winged Herald Markings (body)
Commander personality
Thank you
Re: Argonian's hist mechanism is very similar to..."Avatar".
AvalonRanger wrote: »I couldn't understand logic of Solstice zone of Argonian.
They just put the eggs in the beach of ocean. There're no soul hist tree, even It's a salt water.
How can they hatch the eggs? They don't need hist god anymore?
There's a hist tree on the island.
Some of the lore indicates that Black Marsh might at one time have been much larger and a lot of it is now sunk under the ocean, so the hist network quite possibly extends a lot further out than its current shores.
Also, the hist isn't just the trees, it's strongest where they're present but it's everywhere to some degree.
Re: Official Discussion Thread for "ESO Leadership’s 2025 End-of-Year Letters to the Community"
IMO, how you guys treat PTS feedback is going to be one of the most impactful ways to demonstrate "actions speak louder than words". If there's changes that people straight up don't like on PTS, pumping the brakes on that feature's launch is going to gain the whole company some credibility.
Conversely, if people are poking holes in combat changes, pointing out nasty bugs with content and events, and not one actual developer says anything, then it's going to sink the new leaderships's credibility and another year's content.
We are discussing a better feedback loop for PTS and a better framing for PTS. That way, we are getting the information needed, but we are also communicating what a proper timeline to see suggested fixes are for you, the player.
For example, changing a damage number is something that is realistic for a quick fix during a PTS cycle. Changing an animation for something is something that would take months, because we need to coordinate with various teams to work on the change. Sounds, VFX, SFX, art direction. So trying to give a better example of timeframe for changes is something we are looking at to provide better context around. That is in addition to working toward more back and forth communication.
There are quite a few things we need to change process wise to make this all happen, some of which you will learn about on Jan. 7, but we hope to have more details on PTS as a process and some of our changes within the first few months of 2026.
Hold on Kevin, I want to make sure this is correct. It takes MONTHS to change an animation on something... due to how far apart ZOS keeps their dev teams separated?
Aside from that, as others have said if there's a major issue discovered in the PTS and if it can't be fixed by the time of release, then the thing's release should ideally just be reversed to its pre-PTS state until the fix is ready.
Agreed. I think the big thing is, if something has an unbelievable amount of criticism, pushing it to live is not the answer. Some things, like subclassing, shouldn't have been released in their state and should've been tested far longer. This adherence to a 5-6 week patch cycle is clearly not enough for a lot of the stuff that gets released. It's about polish and completeness, not just releasing things to release them.
Re: Official Discussion Thread for "ESO Leadership’s 2025 End-of-Year Letters to the Community"
Hold on Kevin, I want to make sure this is correct. It takes MONTHS to change an animation on something... due to how far apart ZOS keeps their dev teams separated?
Aside from that, as others have said if there's a major issue discovered in the PTS and if it can't be fixed by the time of release, then the thing's release should ideally just be reversed to its pre-PTS state until the fix is ready.
No, it's not because teams are separated or anything like that. When something ships, other things are already in the works. Dev pipelines can take 12-18months for something to ship. All we are saying is, for bigger changes like changing an animation, teams all need to rearrange things to make sure they can fit in the fix while not causing cascading impacts that could cause issues with other parts of development.
And also wanted to clarify, I was using my example as just that. It is only an example of things we need to consider during PTS. Not a specific example of only focusing on animations over balance.
can you tell us what the point of the PTS servers are in the view of ZOS?
