Best Of
Re: AI chatbot as a non-combat pet?
Strong response for NO!!!
However, consider that there is no going back, AI is here, it is real and it is into everything. The reality is that AI will eventually impact all new or evolving games in some manner. Artwork, animations, story, voice, and even coding of the actual game are all happening now. The fact that real people are replaced is bad for the artists, but great for the franchise's profit margin (and more profit will always win).
As for an AI chatbot: an AI can be forced to avoid discussing any topic its designer tells it to ignore, so romance could be off-limits. My idea would be mostly like a talking ESO lore library.
Thanks for all the comments.
You know what's also here? Nuclear weapons. And I don't see anybody arguing for them to be used more
.Is that comparison hyperbolic? Maybe a little. But considering ai's effects on the environment, labor rights, artists' rights and integrity.... is it? Kind of ghoulish that you'd either a) bring this up or b) want it.
Re: Ideas for ESO Plus
Siege equipment bag. Or at least just make them stackable. I shouldn't lose 30 inventory slots because I go into Cyrodiil prepared. Go figure.
Armor appearance customization by piece.
Armor appearance customization by piece.
Re: Vengeance has officially ended the THREE BANNERS WAR
Love to see how pc content creators stabilising the already existing opinion about this awful campaing.
So glad its over soon
https://youtu.be/5TXwLiJk6sI?si=2nyuyEeGnrXdxrXF
So glad its over soon
https://youtu.be/5TXwLiJk6sI?si=2nyuyEeGnrXdxrXF
amiiegee
7
Re: Companions should have Skill Styles, too!
Players don't need skill styles. Companions, which we don't need at all, certainly don't need skill styles too.
How about ZOS focus on things that matter instead? Performance, combat and game play should be the first priority. With bug fixes and QoL improvements next most important.
Why doesn't ESO need things like Skill Styles and Companions? If ESO is an MMORPG, shouldn't it have characters and customization to enhance the roleplaying experience?
ESO is not just a PvE game, and it's not just a PvP game. It's much more than just the combat system alone.
Re: Share Your Thoughts on ESO's Classes with Us
Why exactly do you need my age for this? If I am above or below your ideal intended age bracket, does that mean my responses get ignored?
Personally I don't know why you need a survey to see the problems. Go look at the sea of fatecarvers in ESO Logs and you learn everything about PvE damage dealers that you need.
Personally I don't know why you need a survey to see the problems. Go look at the sea of fatecarvers in ESO Logs and you learn everything about PvE damage dealers that you need.
Ezhh
7
Re: Vengeance has officially ended the THREE BANNERS WAR
MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »???MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »
I know OP is PS player.
They, console players post here on forum how:
1) Nobody plays Vengeance, and
2) Many of them posted how their PvP guilds are boycotting Vengeance.
So narrative here is that, logically, players reject Vengeance test and is obviously a failure.
Except, I posted that PC EU has 3 bars for each faction in prime time, and Vengeance 1 bar = 3 bars normally.
Screenshot is from the last evening from obviously PC EU just to show that there are players who play and enjoy Vengeance.
So, this projection from consoles how Vengeance is a failure is not true for PC EU mega server, and again PC EU mega server has officially the biggest player population.
And where do you have from that 3 bars in gh are 1 bar in vengeance?
Seems like youre just making up things because you dont like the opinions others have.
Its more like the OP is saying Consoles dont like vengeance since nobody is playing it and youre just projecting it to PC claiming people are liking it.
Different audition, different circumstances, different opinions
On PC there's an addon called miats pvp alerts. With it, you can view the total amount of players in a single area, including those on enemy factions. In the first vengeance test, it told me there were ~250 players on EP alone at arrius. This was an accurate number too btw, the addon doesn't inflate numbers. After the fight, I ported back to the main base and it told me there were ~20 standing at spawn. Now, some of these players may have had the same idea as me, but with how many of them were by the gate, I would wager the total population per alliance during vengeance is 300. I don't know the pop cap per alliance in GH, but I would say it's anywhere from 50-60. I never tested to be sure, but I'm confident that is the cap due to how empty cyrodiil is even at peak times.
The bars on the campaign screen indicate how full the campaign is. Since there 3 bars, it makes sense that an alliance will hit a bar every 1/3 of the way. Say that we take vengeance's and GH's upper guesses, so 60 and 300. For an alliance to gain 1 bar in GH, there would need to be at least 20 players in the campaign on that alliance. There will need to be 60 for it to pop lock. Now for vengeance, it will work the same way, but the number is now higher. For an alliance to gain 1 bar in vengeance, there would need to be at least 100 players in the campaign on that alliance. There will need to be 300 for it to pop lock.
All vengeance is doing on console is showing how low of a population consoles have. That's it. Console players are taking it as vengeance killing pvp, but it's actually them protesting over a misunderstanding.
Estin
5
Re: Would you be okay with Subclassing being rolled back?
tomofhyrule wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »tomofhyrule wrote: »PDarkBHood wrote: »Also, don't forget (most of you need constant reminding), you do not have to subclass any of your characters if you do not want to. It is a choice, your choice to subclass.
Also, don't forget (most of you need constant reminding), if you choose not to Subclass, you have significantly less power and you are not going to effectively contribute to your group in endgame PvE or PvP and will be excluded.
That's only true of the highest of the high end players. You go into a PUG or more casual guild group and the pure class player is not automatically less effective than the subclassed one. Plenty of those also don't exclude people for not swapping.
Meta pushing guilds obviously require meta pushing but they're not how the general playerbase operates or experiences the game. They're an elite few.
…so “oh, their experiences don’t matter because they do high-level content?” Do you realize how toxic that sounds?
How would your experience be different if Subclassing were balanced? People who don’t do high-level content could still build however they want, but then the people who do play high-level content would also be able to. It’s not like it has to be one or the other.
Good thing I didn't say any of that then. This is a thread soft proposing the deletion of subclassing entirely, not just improving the balance. So, it is important to remember that everyone's experiences with a system matters when discussing such a thing. The majority of players are not automatically outclassed by a subclassed build. They are not being excluded from content for not using it. Such things happening to elite players are a result of imbalance, yes, but it is also those guilds own longstanding exclusionary practices for the sake of creating elite teams that is driving it. Those teams don't just want to clear endgame content but to excel at it.
Obviously, subclassing should be balanced. But it shouldn't be deleted because meta guilds require meta. They will always require meta. And such exclusion is NOT an inherent part of the system. Many players do group content without such issues because they do it through more casual guilds or through pickup groups, which do not have those requirements. Subclassing is not different than any other class or set in that regard. The game obviously needs balancing to allow for more diversity at the top .That was true before subclassing too. It's been true for a while now.
All online ongoing multiplayer games will require rebalancing from time to time. And meta chasers will always form elite teams. Those things are inherent to multiplayer gaming. It's not a reason to delete entire features.
Re: Would you be okay with Subclassing being rolled back?
The poll is biased. What I want from Subclassing is not listed here.
Re: Vengeance is Dead.
Artisian0001 wrote: »RaidingTraiding wrote: »Artisian0001 wrote: »CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »Artisian0001 wrote: »CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »Artisian0001 wrote: »People shouting their complaints into the void about solo play like this is a single player RPG and as if vengeance wasn't made with much smaller target caps to prioritize them, and now it's dead. Almost like I've said a thousand times, people who complain don't even know what they want or what they are complaining about.
Smaller target caps don't benefit solo players, they benefit large groups. That's just common sense.
How is that common sense when the large groups can't heal all their group members effectively? Vengeance is made to incentivize people to stop grouping in such large amounts and branch out. That's common sensePlayers just refuse to strop grouping.
They don't need to heal all their group members effectively if the players trying to damage them can't choose who they're damaging.
Heals in Vengeance are, for the most part, targeted heals or smart heals. That means you're either manually selecting low health players or the game is selecting low health players for you.
AoE Damage skills in Vengeance are simply choosing 3 players at random. There is no way to focus the low health pockets of players with AoE skills, which heavily incentivises stacking in a zerg.
The attacking solo player will spam their AoE skills and damage people at random, while the Zerg will spam AoE heals and heal only the people that need it the most.
Let's say you're in a small man trying to bomb a Zerg. Your 4 man group perfectly lines up your ultimates and skills right on top of a zerg, except you don't kill anyone because the game decided that each person in your group should damage different players in the zerg at random. The zerg spams AoE heals like the Necro corpse heal, and suddenly all the people that took damage are back up to full because only the people that needed healing were healed.
To actually incentivise solo/small man, heals should be capped and damage skills should be uncapped OR AoE damage skills should prioritize low health targets the same way that AoE heals do.
You are just lying to try to win a point. The AoE targeting on damage isn't random. I know you mainly play BGs but you can at least be truthful in what you're saying. This is why everything on the forums gets ignored when people complain, they just lie about how the game functions.
Who's lying here? That's exactly how it works. This is one of the main gripes with vengeance and why it is so zerg friendly. You can coordinate aoe ult dumps with a group but you hardly kill anyone because of this very reason. Everyone else hits different targets, even your skills hit different targets, then they just heal up. It's completely useless against zergs. How can you burst down targets if most targets are immune to a lot of your damage because of caps?
If you think AoE targeting is random you just don't care to know how the game works. Calling it random is just uninformed and unskilled. Learn the game.
Which 3 people are going to get hit?
Artisian0001 wrote: »RaidingTraiding wrote: »Artisian0001 wrote: »CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »Artisian0001 wrote: »CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »Artisian0001 wrote: »People shouting their complaints into the void about solo play like this is a single player RPG and as if vengeance wasn't made with much smaller target caps to prioritize them, and now it's dead. Almost like I've said a thousand times, people who complain don't even know what they want or what they are complaining about.
Smaller target caps don't benefit solo players, they benefit large groups. That's just common sense.
How is that common sense when the large groups can't heal all their group members effectively? Vengeance is made to incentivize people to stop grouping in such large amounts and branch out. That's common sense
They don't need to heal all their group members effectively if the players trying to damage them can't choose who they're damaging.
Heals in Vengeance are, for the most part, targeted heals or smart heals. That means you're either manually selecting low health players or the game is selecting low health players for you.
AoE Damage skills in Vengeance are simply choosing 3 players at random. There is no way to focus the low health pockets of players with AoE skills, which heavily incentivises stacking in a zerg.
The attacking solo player will spam their AoE skills and damage people at random, while the Zerg will spam AoE heals and heal only the people that need it the most.
Let's say you're in a small man trying to bomb a Zerg. Your 4 man group perfectly lines up your ultimates and skills right on top of a zerg, except you don't kill anyone because the game decided that each person in your group should damage different players in the zerg at random. The zerg spams AoE heals like the Necro corpse heal, and suddenly all the people that took damage are back up to full because only the people that needed healing were healed.
To actually incentivise solo/small man, heals should be capped and damage skills should be uncapped OR AoE damage skills should prioritize low health targets the same way that AoE heals do.
You are just lying to try to win a point. The AoE targeting on damage isn't random. I know you mainly play BGs but you can at least be truthful in what you're saying. This is why everything on the forums gets ignored when people complain, they just lie about how the game functions.
Who's lying here? That's exactly how it works. This is one of the main gripes with vengeance and why it is so zerg friendly. You can coordinate aoe ult dumps with a group but you hardly kill anyone because of this very reason. Everyone else hits different targets, even your skills hit different targets, then they just heal up. It's completely useless against zergs. How can you burst down targets if most targets are immune to a lot of your damage because of caps?
If you think AoE targeting is random you just don't care to know how the game works. Calling it random is just uninformed and unskilled. Learn the game.
I did double check how zos handled the caps in veng:
AoE damage skills prioritize closest to you
AoE heal skills smartheal to the lowest health ally
Re: Vengeance is Dead.
YandereGirlfriend wrote: »So the takeaway from the OP's post is this.
1) When given the opportunity a lot of people are going to go and do the very thing certain 'pro streamers' have been doing on Gray Host for a long time now. That is run off to the red team so they can gate camp whomever is getting zerged down. After all easy mode makes them feel accomplished, and avoids the risk of ...'losing'.
2) Cyrodiil is in dire need of a revamp to its reward system. Hardcore scrubbery like this is incentivized while choosing the harder more challenging path is punished. Which just leads to ever increasing levels of toxicity, effective obliteration of competition, and a loss of players with a sense of sportsmanship.
SO I must once again point out that a more dynamic AP rewarding system is needed. Imagine how things would be if faction stacking and gate camping the 1 bar team lead to 0 AP for the 'winners' and a lot of AP and other rewards for those playing on hard more.
It'd definitely assist in separating the good players from those who just want to be be trolls, and or leech easy AP.
I have no earthly idea why ZOS has not changed the incentive and buff structure to reward underdog factions in all of like the 11 or whatever years of the game's existence.
On my literal very first day in Cyrodiil aeons ago, my first thought was, "Wait, why is the winning side buffed for bullying the other sides, this seems stupid." From the jump, the win-harder mechanics of Cyrodiil have never made any sense.
This is like blindingly obvious to anyone who spends time there. Underpopulated factions need buffs not nerfs. Or at the very least they need massive rewards to induce them to affirmatively choose Hard Mode PvP over mindless bandwagoning.
So much this. For example, I've said for years that holding scrolls that aren't yours should debuff your faction in exchange for the score, not buff it.
