Best Of
Re: New Mounts I'd Like To Have
Horace-Wimp wrote: »A giraffe mount just because I'd like to see giraffes in ESO.
A brontosaurus mount where we get to ride on top of it's head just like Fred Flintstone. I think this would be an awesome mount just to sit that high up above the ground since we can't fly in this MMO.
Re: To ESO's new Direction: Crown Store feedback - what would make us spend more
Stuff in the crown store is just too expensive.
Drop rate for better rewards in crown packs is hideous. So a pretty easy "no" when you tried it.
I think they should add more bridges connecting crown store rewards and playing the game.
We have the seals of endeavour system, but its not enough.
I would add an npc that offers rewards from crown store with special price options, where you could pay 50% value in crowns and the other half in different ingame currency (gold, tel var, AP, transmutes, whatever). The npc would have a different stack weekly (with different items and different currencies)
Or for example, when you have some sort of ingame achievement you get a discount for a specific item.
(for example you get 20% off for an arms pack when you got the HM from that dungeon).
Drop rate for better rewards in crown packs is hideous. So a pretty easy "no" when you tried it.
I think they should add more bridges connecting crown store rewards and playing the game.
We have the seals of endeavour system, but its not enough.
I would add an npc that offers rewards from crown store with special price options, where you could pay 50% value in crowns and the other half in different ingame currency (gold, tel var, AP, transmutes, whatever). The npc would have a different stack weekly (with different items and different currencies)
Or for example, when you have some sort of ingame achievement you get a discount for a specific item.
(for example you get 20% off for an arms pack when you got the HM from that dungeon).
Re: To ESO's new Direction: Crown Store feedback - what would make us spend more
I stopped giving ZOS money after their response to U35 feedback. Cancelled my eso+ after nearly 10 years of continuous subbing and haven't regretted it a bit. It's much easier to deal with bad game management when you're not paying for it.
Re: Official Discussion Thread for "Battle For The Writhing Wall Event Info"
tomofhyrule wrote: »I will definitely say that making an entire trial-esque Public Dungeon that will be playable for one week is a strange choice indeed.
The idea of entire content pieces being permanently shut down is not exactly player-friendly in the first place, but especially in the light of 2025 being a very light year in terms of content (and a lot of the player resentment around the 2025 Season Pass deals with the higher price for the Pass as opposed to previous Chapters and the fact that there's less content included), the fact that a fair amount of the dev time went specifically to something that will only exist for a single week instead of something players could enjoy for a while seems... especially awkward.
You know Tommy, you make a good point. In this content light year, with so much uncertainty as to what comes next. Making this large set piece a 7 day only thing seems irresponsible. People are getting bored. My main raid team just had our last trial last night. We're on hiatus until more content comes down the pipe. It sucks man. How many of my guild just won't come back. I think they should take this thing, after 7 days and make it a trial. Put in a vet and hm for it and let it stay. Leave the normal version how it is. We all know even if it says 12 people it'll probably only need 4. Why waste a whole cool thing. I sometimes can't get my head around what they're doing in there.
Re: I think events like Writhing Wall are the completely wrong approach to ESOs survival
I missed the last Jubilee event so I didn't get the cake, I literally have all the cakes but the last one. Almost made me want to quit.
Re: Is it time for ZOS to give us an official statement of intentions regarding future vengeance plans?
Joy_Division wrote: »TheAwesomeChimpanzee wrote: »Joy_Division wrote: »JustLovely wrote: »Joy_Division wrote: »They don;t know yet.
You actually think a AAA game producer like ZOS doesn't know what their plans are for a project they've sunk thousands of man hours and who knows how much money into is going to be? Let's try and be real here for a second, shall we?
Yes. And so do you.
There are about a dozen people who constantly flood these forums with complaints and rants about Vengeance. They'll upload screenshots trying to convince ZOS it's a dead server, they deride the players in vengeance as PvE casuals, they claim to speak for all PvPers, they'll claim it's a laggy mess, insist that it will be an empty server because the Vengeance audience is flighty and uninterested in PvP, etc., they have done all of this in the past 6 months in an attempt to demonstrate to ZOS that Vengeance is not worth supporting, so as to ensure that the current ESO campaigns are kept at the least, and ideally the resources allotted for Vengeance would instead go to making a performant GH.
You and others are doing this because there is a belief that ZOS can be convinced. Because ZOS future plans are not set in stone. That even if they have every intention of going with Vengeance, that their mind could be changed if either support for Vengeance declined among the ESO community or the performance was poor. In short, ZOS could alter tomorrow what they might have intended on doing today.
Or, ZOS isn't sure yet.
AAA studios, including ZOS, change their minds all the time due to unforeseen circumstances. Go west of Dragonsreach and you'll see Cloud Ruler Temple. That was going to be a PvE Trial that could only be accessed by an alliance who controlled certain objectives in Cyrodiil, in accordance to this AAA's original vision the PvP and PvE were to be interlinked. ZOS changed it. Just like the old idea of Imperial City having to be accessed via Cyrodiil. Changed. Just like ZOS's intentions to alter heavy/light attacks. Changed. Just like the old 4v4v4 BGs. Changed. All those old maps and assets just discarded. All of these things were, like Vengeance, projects and systems in which real development resources were allotted. Like an AAA studio, ZOS will adjust according to how mechanically feasible something like Vengeance is and, more importantly, how much their paying customers respond to it. Again, something the people who hate Vengeance know full well considering how forcefully they are venting their frustrations to ZOS.
If people paid attention to ZOS's last Livestream about Vengeance, it is obvious they're not sure how Vengeance will be implemented. They got a question specifically about whether or not the Vengeance model was going coming to Battlegrounds and Brain Wheeler specifically said that was under consideration, meaning *ZOS doesn't know yet*.
You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. Triple-A companies, or really any serious company investing years of resources into a project, don’t just “wing it” with no clear direction or end goal. That’s simply not how large-scale development works.
So it’s one of two things. Either what you’re saying is true and ZOS really has been stumbling along aimlessly for years with no concrete plan for Vengeance, in which case they don’t deserve whatever respect or patience the PvP playerbase still has left. Or, more realistically, you’re just talking out of your depth, because anyone who’s worked on a serious project in a professional environment knows that milestones, deliverables, and end goals are decided well in advance.
Trying to paint ZOS as if they’re still figuring it out as they go, after all this time, all these tests, and all the resources poured in, is either admitting total incompetence on their part or showing you’ve never actually been involved in real project development.
ZOS isn't stumbling along and they aren't winging it. They have devoted resources and there is a developed plan to work on Vengeance. All of this is true and they said so much on Livestream.
What I said is that ZOS isn't sure how or when they are going to implement Vengeance. They haven't made up their minds on that. Brian said so on Livestream about Battlegrounds. That's not incompetence. That doesn't mean they aren't serious about vengeance or don';t have a development plan. That's acknowledging that after two tests they don;t have the data to provide a set in stone determination about vengeance's future implementation. They don;t have all the variables. That's why they are having these tests because even with all the development they aren't sure how things will play out on a Live server under stressful conditions.
Ok, so what's the problem with ZOS telling us what their plans are then?
reazea
5
Re: Is it time for ZOS to give us an official statement of intentions regarding future vengeance plans?
Four_Fingers wrote: »On the other side of the coin, why are PvE players so keen to get rid of the existing PvP when they don't play PvP at all?
What if PvEers did try to PvP, got lagged to death, got ballgroup-steamrolled over and over, got bombed on every ram, flag, or door-repairing, got farmed countless times by players abusing broken sets, and simply figured they had better things to do if there is nothing really fun about the current Cyrodiil?
Are PvEers wrong to ask for a PvP mode where they stand a chance and one they enjoy?
I’m going to answer your questions, respectfully.
1. What if they did try to PvP and weren’t successful?
They’d be PvPing….. maybe storing years of resentment and finally voicing it on the forums since they see a sliver of opportunity to get revenge on those ornery PvPers by gutting the only part of the game they have. Muhahahah
(Reality is, player vs player is survival of the fittest. If Vengeance were to replace normal Cyro, and actual PvPers had to play it, you would get killed in the exact same ways you do now, maybe worse cause numbers matter more in that terrible mode)
2. Are PvErs wrong to ask for a PvP campaign that’s easy?
Yea, pretty much. If that’s what we’re doing, let PvPers get a group finder for easy trials/arenas that give the same rewards as hard mode. Somewhere we can just stand in the back (similar to a wall of a keep) and LA with our bows, I’d really like to get that perfected maul.
You aren't even answering my questions; you answer to some twisted interpretation, respectfully.
Questions are clearly indicated with the question mark:
1. What if PvEers figured they had better things to do than deal with op ballgroups, broken builds, lag, etc?
For some reason, you make it about being unsuccessful and resentful, while it is simply about being tired of the unbalanced mess that is the current PvP.
2. Are PvEers wrong to ask for a PvP mode where they stand a chance and one they enjoy?
“A mode where they stand a chance and one they enjoy” means a balanced environment and improved performance. At least Vengeance has improved performance, and imbalance is atm less game-breaking than on live.StihlReign wrote: »ZOS keeps using a vocabulary like “experimenting”, etc. It is clear that they are testing different ideas and systems, and none of those has any guarantee of becoming permanent. Vengeance might disappear entirely once all data is collected. I’m not sure why PvPers are panicking so badly, I guess deep inside they know that current PvP is just too broken on many levels.
PvPer's see a ton of money going into the development of features they don't want to see in a FUTURE PvP environment so they've asked for clarity. Panic seems like a stretch but here you are.
PvEers see a ton of money going into the development of features they don't want to see and don't care about. They would rather see a new chapter with more quests.
On what grounds do PvPers reserve the exclusive right to decide what the FUTURE PvP will look like? What's wrong with having regular Cyrodiil and a second, Vengeance-like campaign, both enabled at the same time?StihlReign wrote: »We gave PvErs a simple solution via CP and an easy to purchase 2 pc set to stop them from getting bombed and ganked during events. It was nerfed in record time, about 2 weeks. The info is in the patch notes.
LOL. Since when do PvPers work for ZOS? PvPers have given exactly nothing to PvEers, and now are also trying hard to take away any possibility of an additional PvP mode from those who would welcome such an alternative.StihlReign wrote: »Reading comprehension and objectivity are severely lacking in any Vengeance discussion. Also, the discrimination against PvE mains' voices and opinions, even when they pvp regularly (or used to), is disappointing. It gives an image of a PvP community that is a self-proclaimed elite but one devoid of vision, open-mindedness, and the ability to embrace change.
Also devoid of reading skills.
I'm not a PvP main since beta; claiming on this forum that you're a PvPer is pointless, and it just derails any discussion. Anyway, as I said, I don't care about what happens to the current version of PvP, and yes, I'm not going to play it as it is right now; it's an awful experience.
But I'm all in for testing a potential alternative PvP version. If Vengeance's results help fix the current PvP, then I'm happy for those who enjoy it. If Vengeance becomes a mode in its own right, much enhanced than what we saw so far, then I'm going to play it on a regular basis. If Vengeance gets deleted once testing is over, then I get at least 1 week of PvP every 3 months, while it lasts, that is fun when populations are balanced.
PvE has received an incredible amount of resources from the devs. PvP has one main zone and the devs couldn't be bothered to make even simple changes suggested by the players. Things are left half done, unexplained, ignored, mocked or given some of the worst excuses - while doing nothing, or something no one asked for. Why is clarity an unreasonable request?
This is patently false. Back in 2021, ZOS tested some players' ideas, like disabling crosshealing outside of groups or disabling proc sets, so yeah, devs bother from time to time. They also introduce things no one asked for, but since it's their game, they can do whatever they deem best, whether we agree or not.
Nobody is asking for a blind trust in ZOS, but rather that PvPers chill so they can access clarity of thinking and their reading skills again, and stop jumping to misguided conclusions like "Vengeance will replace all of PvP" or "PvEers hate us and want PvP deleted from the game."
Yet for most of the history of ESO there have been people on this forum posting regularly that the game would be better if PvP was removed. Right below this thread there is even a poll asking if the 3 banners war should end with the next patch.
I guess you just missed those hundreds of threads over the years.
I guess you just missed those hundreds of votes that I cast over the years in polls asking for a PvE version of Cyrodill.
Thank you for proving my point.
Re: Hollow Jack beam feels like a waste
Mrnetch3211 wrote: »I love it and it's not like they are forcing you to buy it.
no but
1. using resources on A they cant be used on B
2. Turning ESO more and more away from the seriousness and lore of Elder Scrolls and turning it into a second fortnite will turn a lot of elder scrolls fans away over time
Re: Hollow Jack beam feels like a waste
It's more unimmersive cheap looking nonsense that uses too much, too bright and badly done effects.
Arcanists skills are bad enough as they are with hurting eyes and heads, this thing looks like it's even worse.
Arcanists skills are bad enough as they are with hurting eyes and heads, this thing looks like it's even worse.
