ZOS: If you care about ESO, PLEASE TAKE TIME TO READ

Zyrudin

@Violynne Then I would suggest coming into the thread (which, despite what you and I see happening in the forums right now has been one yet uninfected by the rage that's happening due to the patch notes) and layout things more in the manner that you did responding to me.

The "type" of your previous response is the kind of post that has been triggering that rage, attracting all the angry mobs to come in and turn each and every concern thread into a boiling cauldron.

People are concerned (some more than others) because the way they have been playing the game will change and that is understandable. Moreover, it is certainly understandable as well, that the introduction of a new class at the same time as applying these nerfs is (even if technically ideal) has brought to many people's minds examples that happened with other games, even if actually unrelated or incomparable.

If I am a salesman approaching you on a product you already use and tell you "Hey, I've got this new addition to that you're already using, take a look! Neat, huh?" and then, when you are interested, I go on and tell you "Oh and by the way, the product you've been using is going to change a lot when that new addition is launched". You will certainly at least consider if you're being made.

I read more to his concerns than you do, which is fine. I decided not to counter the arguments, personally, but I would like that others are not discouraged from doing so if this thread turns into another rage whirlpool. I am following this thread awaiting the arguments from both sides.

Regards!

Gomumon

Violynne wrote: »

If you, or anyone else, thinks this is an active discussion, well, I suppose I'm just too damn old for what constitutes a conversation this day.

You could take the same time and effort as the OP to rebut, but I don't think anyone could bend over far enough to see things from your POV. But you know that, so opted for the lazy mockery of what is, for the most part, a solid post that most players I have talked to agree with.

[Edit to remove profanity and insulting content]

Violynne

Zyrudin wrote: »

@Violynne Then I would suggest coming into the thread (which, despite what you and I see happening in the forums right now has been one yet uninfected by the rage that's happening due to the patch notes) and layout things more in the manner that you did responding to me.

The "type" of your previous response is the kind of post that has been triggering that rage, attracting all the angry mobs to come in and turn each and every concern thread into a boiling cauldron.

No, my post isn't triggering the rage. It's already established and I'm sure you've read the reply above to note my statement about opinions has just been confirmed.

When I read the patch notes, the only thing which upset me was the notice CP was being raised to 180, as I had just spent most of my dreugh wax upgrading my CP160 from head to toe. That news hurt, since my bank only has a few wax remaining.

As for the rest of it? No concerns. No issues. No worries. Why? Because they're patch notes for a PTS.

The same thing happens every time: ZoS makes a statement, people rush to buy bomb shelters and bottled water because their world is ending.

Every. Single. Time.

You'd think this community would learn to keep its mouth quiet enough until the notes actually reflect the changes which will be ported over. But nope. It's "the sky is falling! Lost sales! ZoS only cares about money!" rhetoric bombardment.

I suppose you could say I'd rather wait until the changes are applied, try them for myself, and IF I experience issues, address them to ZoS without accusing them of caring about their game, threatening a walk out, or predicting their sales will tumble because the change is too horrible to play.

I know this seems counter-intuitive to the rage machine on the forum.

I have, and never will, put any confidence on opinions formed on rhetoric, conjecture, or blatant disregard of any facts (so no, I don't watch Fox News).

I especially don't like it when people then project these asinine remarks and include me in their audience.

Zyrudin

Violynne wrote: »

No, my post isn't triggering the rage. It's already established and I'm sure you've read the reply above to note my statement about opinions has just been confirmed.

When I read the patch notes, the only thing which upset me was the notice CP was being raised to 180, as I had just spent most of my dreugh wax upgrading my CP160 from head to toe. That news hurt, since my bank only has a few wax remaining.

As for the rest of it? No concerns. No issues. No worries. Why? Because they're patch notes for a PTS.

The same thing happens every time: ZoS makes a statement, people rush to buy bomb shelters and bottled water because their world is ending.

Every. Single. Time.

You'd think this community would learn to keep its mouth quiet enough until the notes actually reflect the changes which will be ported over. But nope. It's "the sky is falling! Lost sales! ZoS only cares about money!" rhetoric bombardment.

I suppose you could say I'd rather wait until the changes are applied, try them for myself, and IF I experience issues, address them to ZoS without accusing them of caring about their game, threatening a walk out, or predicting their sales will tumble because the change is too horrible to play.

I know this seems counter-intuitive to the rage machine on the forum.

I have, and never will, put any confidence on opinions formed on rhetoric, conjecture, or blatant disregard of any facts (so no, I don't watch Fox News).

I especially don't like it when people then project these asinine remarks and include me in their audience.

I disagree. If you already saw the rage then stepping in and launching a mocking remark is nothing but throwing fuel on a brazier.

In any case, if you could help me find it, where in the patch notes is the gear cap increase mentioned?
I must have missed it, but I did read them and didn't find that reference:

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/335600/pts-patch-notes-v3-0-0
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/338733/pts-patch-notes-v3-0-1

Still, I am not really that concerned if that happens, as I am sure a 20 CP increase will not be that significant while the 180 drops are picked up. I understand your position on the gold tempers, though. That is why I never commit to turning gear legendary until I have good assurances about what is going to happen (which can always change, of course).

Back to the original discussion:
One of the points I agree with the OP is that the balancing is, admittedly, being done equally for PvE and PvP, which is indeed a wrong call. A simple separation of effects on the same abilities and gear effects would be enough to make them effective and not disrupt one in favor of the other. Nevertheless, I do think that the sustain changes are also needed for PvE, only perhaps a bit too radical at this moment.

MacCait

@Violynne, if you are going to continue a conversation here with @Zyrudin, as Zyrudin seems to want to do, can I please ask that you STOP TROLLING. So far, NOTHING you have said is true. You have paraphrased me out of context, making false accusations as to what I have supposedly said, attributing your own version of events to my original post. My original post is there for anyone to read, so falsely claiming I have said this or that is transparent, as anyone can re-read it to see if I actually stated the thing you have accused me of stating.

You are either purposefully misstating facts to TROLL, agitate, and attempt to cause strife and ridicule, OR you have simply skimmed through my post, thinking you understand where I am coming from and what I am saying, WITHOUT ACTUALLY READING the post. Either way, EVERY SINGLE thing you have stated is wholly false and incorrect.

In the event you claim not to be TROLLING… If you take time to ACTUALLY READ my original post, you would not make so many mistakes.

I have already pointed out the other things you have stated which are wholly incorrect in my above post. These following things from your last posts are also incorrect:

Violynne wrote: »

I'm complaining about changes on a test server because I believe they affect my game now.

Incorrect: I have NEVER stated that even once in my entire original post.

Violynne wrote: »

Despite the tone, nothing in the OP's post indicates they saw these changes for themselves. Quite the contrary: they're only complaining on hearsay of other vocal members.

Incorrect: At the time I wrote my post I was not yet on the PTS. Also, at the date I wrote the post NO ONE had tested it or commented on it from their own testing. Of course I had seen the notes with my own eyes, just as everyone else who read the PTS notes. So no, I was not complaining on hearsay.

Violynne wrote: »

The fact he mentioned Deltia's departure completely removes the exact reason why Deltia stated he was leaving the game. It wasn't about the changes. It was about Deltia's life changing, which came directly from his mouth

Incorrect: I have never once mentioned that Deltia left the game. When I mentioned him, it was not in the context of him leaving the game. Deltia has in fact NOT left the game and has himself never stated he was leaving the game.

Violynne wrote: »

Ever since the patch notes were released, this forum has been in an uproar. Atypical from people who can't take 10 seconds of out their day to say, "Hmm. Some of these seem troubling, perhaps I should get clarification on the changes."

I agree, which is why I took the time to make my post. To discuss the meltdown that had occurred over the bad timing of the bombshell that was dropped at the same time as the new product launch, and to speak about how that had caused a stripping of joy from the mass majority of players, including the exact opposite effect of what ZOS where hoping for… a dread of Morrowind release as opposed to the excitement we as a community were all initially feeling.

Violynne wrote: »

Instead, instant backlash, accusations of greed, destroying the game, and other idiotic hyperbole with most having nothing to go on but patch notes of testing.

Incorrect. That is NOT what the post was about, was NOT the intention of what my post was about, and was NOT written from that standpoint. It is also not the first post I have written about the difference between profit and greed when it comes to decisions being made in this game at a business level, I have posts dating back to around a year ago on that subject. What I have to go on is a lot more than patch notes, but a two year history of this game, which includes the trend of increasing prices in crown store while continually pushing the line until the community reacts negatively, finding the maximum point at which the company can push the community without a negative reaction.

Violynne wrote: »

That's not a discussion. That's just idiocy spreading like cancer, and far too many jumping on board to "speak their piece" of the "world is falling" over test notes.

Again, you are either TROLLING, OR you have simply not read the original post. You quote me as saying the world is falling, that life will not go on. These are YOUR STATEMENTS NOT MINE. I have never stated anything like that.

Violynne wrote: »

The ONLY people whose opinions we should be open to are those who've played the PTS and notes how the changes actively affect the game.

This is a very tyrannical approach to who we should and shouldn’t listen to and is the type of thing a dictator would utter. You are also again either trolling or are misconstruing and making incorrect assumptions on what I have said without actually reading the post.

Violynne wrote: »

Everyone else should shut up and stop making assumptions or making threats.

I have made no assumptions. The nature of my post was to communicate to ZOS how things are coming across the mass majority of the community, which is why the mass majority has reacted. I have also not made any threats of any nature and have no power or control over anything to be able to make a threat.

You on the other hand are either trolling or making assumptions, without actually reading the post.

Violynne wrote: »

You're misconstruing the OP's post as a discussion. It's not. Decrying anything about lost sales, what another MMO did (or didn't do), blah blah blah takes away from the point of the discussion if it's to be related to the patch notes.

This shows you haven’t read the post, but have just misconstrued it yourself. The post is not just related to the patch notes, though they of course form a part of it. You have either entirely missed the whole nature of the post and its actual meaning, or are just trolling.

Violynne wrote: »

There's no room for a discussion here. Hell, you and I have been having a better discussion than what the OP barfed out.

As far as I can tell, you have not been having a discussion. @Zyrudin has been trying to reason with you to have a discussion, but all you have done is troll, bait, insult, mock and dismiss. Of course there is no room for discussion if you just attack without even reading the post.

Violynne wrote: »

When I read the patch notes, the only thing which upset me was the notice CP was being raised to 180, as I had just spent most of my dreugh wax upgrading my CP160 from head to toe. That news hurt, since my bank only has a few wax remaining.

Incorrect. There is NO increase to 180 gear! This is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the PTS notes. The only thing that is increasing is the CP from 600 to 630, that is all!

I can’t work out if this is another TROLL or what’s going on with you to make this amount of mistakes.

Violynne wrote: »

As for the rest of it? No concerns. No issues. No worries. Why? Because they're patch notes for a PTS.

One of the points of my post was to communicate to ZOS how many are worried in the game, in conversations within the game. Informing ZOS of the dangers of releasing these kind of drastic changes at the same time as a new product launch. You have therefore got it all wrong by assuming I am just attacking the devs and crying about patch notes.

Yes they are patch notes. Most patch notes make it to live. There is not a lot of precedence for ZOS doing an entire 180 turn on patch notes based on feedback. This is what worries many players in game that I have spoken to. It’s a comment many make. They are just patch notes, but many patch notes make it to live.

If we do not communicate why this is a problem, then of course the PTS notes will hit live as they are without adjustment or compromise. If we at least communicate with ZOS in a reasonable a calm way, then ZOS can decide whether they wish to take on board that feedback. Not all feedback comes from just testing. There are all sorts of feedback based on how customers are feeling about a product.

Violynne wrote: »

The same thing happens every time: ZoS makes a statement, people rush to buy bomb shelters and bottled water because their world is ending.

Every. Single. Time.

You'd think this community would learn to keep its mouth quiet enough until the notes actually reflect the changes which will be ported over. But nope. It's "the sky is falling! Lost sales! ZoS only cares about money!" rhetoric bombardment.

Your statements are simply exaggerative and over dramatic and do not in any way reflect the nature of this thread. This thread is not doing what you claim it is doing. It has been a place of reason and logic.

Until you entered it, it was a place where people where voicing their opinions and feelings in a calm and collected manner, adding to an on-going collective of customer voices who are concerned about the proposed changes to the product they buy and use. This type of feedback is entirely relevant and good for ZOS to hear, whether they choose to consider it or not.

Violynne wrote: »

I suppose you could say I'd rather wait until the changes are applied, try them for myself, and IF I experience issues, address them to ZoS without accusing them of caring about their game, threatening a walk out, or predicting their sales will tumble because the change is too horrible to play.

Incorrect assumptions and false accusations of what you think I have stated!

If you ACTUALLY READ the thread, you will see that is exactly what I have stated I will do. I stated I would wait to see how things pan out and test them for myself.

At no point have any threats been made. The post was one of reason and logic.

Violynne wrote: »

I know this seems counter-intuitive to the rage machine on the forum.

I have, and never will, put any confidence on opinions formed on rhetoric, conjecture, or blatant disregard of any facts (so no, I don't watch Fox News).

Ironically, you are the only person in this thread who has been going off on one and having a rageful and unreasonable rant; no one else, just you.

Unlike most other posts on these issues, this thread has not been a place of rage until you brought that rage here with your trolling, insults, baiting and mockery.

Violynne wrote: »

I especially don't like it when people then project these asinine remarks and include me in their audience.

No body projected anything at you. You were not invited to a discussion here. You chose to jump in and start raging, ranting, attacking and making false accusations all based on complete incorrect assumptions about what you THINK the thread is about, not what the thread is ACTUALLY ABOUT.

So please, enough with this. If you want to stay and discuss based on what the thread is actually about, then do that. But please stop trolling and making wholly incorrect statements and accusations which add nothing to the discussion except to bait.

Zyrudin

Back on topic. I see that nobody is stepping forward, so I'll post my own opinion.

@MacCait, I agree that the essence of the issue here is that PvE is being affected by changes that were mostly needed (and previously noted in) PvP. Therefore, the core problem with this change is that they are triggered by an environment (PvP) that makes no sense for PvE.

In PvP, crowd control is (almost) everything. Mostly, a PvP'er is observed trying to wear the opponent's resources down with CC and DoT's before leaving him vulnerable for the kill. This will be even more so in Battlegrounds, as there is no incoming passing train to rescue either of the players.

In PvE, you (mostly) are unable to even CC a boss (the majority is immune), so it is all about sustainability in a long fight and avoiding damage. This is where the issue arises, in that possible PvP changes would be affecting PvE gameplay - incompatible playstyles.

However, it must be noted that certain levels of high DPS numbers in such a short period of time that break down boss mechanics and skips them, were not intended by ZOS. It must also be noted that group dungeons were not intended to be soloed. This was, of course, developer's fault - and they tried to correct it in later group dungeons, with the introduction of mechanics that required more than one player in the group.

In any case, truly top players will not feel it, in my opinion, and will continue to do their own thing. But from there down, there are a lot of players that need a change (this one or another) to bring them back to playing the game as it was supposed to, that is, to play in teamwork. There will be absolutely no problem with overland solo content, which is doable almost naked (yes, I have tried to test). It is working in a group that needs a fix and I think that this is the direction the changes are going for, whether they will be successful or not. I feel that most are enraged because they can do the maths and feel that their formula will no longer work.

I had defended in the past a sort of radical idea where you would get sort of weekly random behavior bosses, to stir the pot a bit, see who adapted and who didn't, to see who changed their approach to a new behavior and those who just kept trying their same copied formula. Not that I expected it to be implemented, but just to convey the idea that a lot of people that consider themselves top players are merely copies (albeit skilled) with little creativity. If any change can provide that need for creativity ("necessity is the mother of invention") it will make the game more interesting, in my opinion.

The timing and all that are well noticed on your part- it was a gross communication miscalculation on their side.

NecroEnzo

@Zyrudin, Wrong.

This thread is about ZoS launching a superior class behind a paywall, nerfing previously fine classes, and the OP's experience with DCUO which I will vouch for because I had a similar experience.

All that "I wish I was a game developer" analysis you're doing out loud are other issues that should find themselves in a different thread.

Zyrudin

NecroEnzo wrote: »

@Zyrudin, Wrong.

This thread is about ZoS launching a superior class behind a paywall, nerfing previously fine classes, and the OP's experience with DCUO which I will vouch for because I had a similar experience.

All that "I wish I was a game developer" analysis you're doing out loud are other issues that should find themselves in a different thread.

@NecroEnzo I am sure that quick search on these forums will allow us to agree that the previous classes weren't "fine", but I certainly accept the validity of the original argument related to the communication timing, as I've said.

I do not wish to be a game developer, nor do I think I am one. I am stating my opinion, however.

If @MacCait believes that my discussion does not relate to his original post, then I will have no problem retracting from the thread, of course, although I would be interested in reading his insights on this.

Anhedonie

I loled at your attacks on warden's blue betty (it's pretty bad in terms of sustain, actually), but other things are kinda on point.

NecroEnzo

If you spent your money on DCUO, or Everquest Next after Sony sold out,

MacCait

Zyrudin wrote: »

Back on topic. I see that nobody is stepping forward, so I'll post my own opinion.

@MacCait, I agree that the essence of the issue here is that PvE is being affected by changes that were mostly needed (and previously noted in) PvP. Therefore, the core problem with this change is that they are triggered by an environment (PvP) that makes no sense for PvE.

@Zyrudin. Yes I think this is a key point. I think the majority of us feel that PvP DOES need changes, and the direction ZOS are taking on that is both needed and mostly good. I’m not an expert PvP player so I don’t claim to know what all the problems are, but I can understand a few from experience and understand more from listening to sole PvP players.

So yes I do think the core problem to the majority of players in game is that these drastic changes hit PvE and affect the average player. This is a problem for two reasons. Firstly, it’s not fair to the mass majority of players, who do not play 20 hours a day, and who are not part of the minority of elite, or even part of the percentage of players who regularly PvP. Secondly, and more importantly, it is contradictive to what ZOS has stated is their intention; to raise up and help the average players (the floor), while nerfing and lowering the small percentage of elite (the ceiling), thus decreasing the gap between them. As PTS testers are stating, this isn’t what’s going to happen.

I totally agree with the intention behind what ZOS is attempting, and I think there are easier ways to achieve that, by simply creating a separate PvP system. Certain things like this are already in place, such as Battle Spirit, and the PvP passives that alter other effects in a PvP setting. So in effect there is a basis for PvP having it’s own adjustments already. I think building upon that and entirely separating that from PvE is a wonderful idea, and one that the entire community could get behind and actually be happy with.

This kind of change supports the game and keeps its consumers happy, thus keeping players invested in the game/product, and ensuring the longevity and health of the game; which is something we all want.

Zyrudin wrote: »

In PvP, crowd control is (almost) everything. Mostly, a PvP'er is observed trying to wear the opponent's resources down with CC and DoT's before leaving him vulnerable for the kill. This will be even more so in Battlegrounds, as there is no incoming passing train to rescue either of the players.

In PvE, you (mostly) are unable to even CC a boss (the majority is immune), so it is all about sustainability in a long fight and avoiding damage. This is where the issue arises, in that possible PvP changes would be affecting PvE gameplay - incompatible playstyles.

Yes, you hit the nail on the head. Totally agree. They are very, very different play styles, and management sustain of resources are imperative for the PvE setting against AI bosses and mobs. Can you imagine what it’s going to be like for certain melee classes who have no stamina, and have to now engage a Boss with nothing but Heavy attacks (using the Tenacity CP) all the while they generate more Stamina to use weapon powers? It’s not going to be pretty lol.

One idea I’ve seen mentioned, as feedback on the PTS is to adjust Tenacity so that it includes generating from Light attacks. I personally thought that was a good idea if the complete hack job on sustain is going to go ahead. There needs to be some sense of balance for PvE players going up against difficult PvE content.

Zyrudin wrote: »

However, it must be noted that certain levels of high DPS numbers in such a short period of time that break down boss mechanics and skips them, were not intended by ZOS. It must also be noted that group dungeons were not intended to be soloed. This was, of course, developer's fault - and they tried to correct it in later group dungeons, with the introduction of mechanics that required more than one player in the group.

Yes I agree that is a problem. However I think they just need to get creative with a solution. One idea that immediately came to mind when you said this was they could introduce code that acts as a sensor to a group Dungeon; a code that reacts to the number of people in a Dungeon. IF the number of people in a Dungeon is less than 4, the difficulty increases. IF the number of people in a Dungeon equals ONE, then if ZOS chooses to they could make the difficulty so high that it would be impossible to solo (if they do not want people soling that type of content). I think there are many creative ways things could be done by just doing something different. There is a term in psychology and self-improvement circles: “If you always do the same thing, you’ll always get the same results”. It also amounts to the same thing in any scientific approach to experiment design; change small things and examine those interactions, but don’t run the same experiment over and over and expect different results.

Zyrudin wrote: »

In any case, truly top players will not feel it, in my opinion, and will continue to do their own thing. But from there down, there are a lot of players that need a change (this one or another) to bring them back to playing the game as it was supposed to, that is, to play in teamwork. There will be absolutely no problem with overland solo content, which is doable almost naked (yes, I have tried to test). It is working in a group that needs a fix and I think that this is the direction the changes are going for, whether they will be successful or not. I feel that most are enraged because they can do the maths and feel that their formula will no longer work.

Totally spot on. The most enjoyable aspect of this game is teamwork. The most fun I have ever had is when I’ve been in a great group, felt that sense of teamwork and where we struggled but won the moment. That is something that needs to be encouraged within the game, without making it so difficult that the team becomes so frustrated. I think that’s a fine line and a very difficult job for ZOS to achieve. Keeping a balance between the joy of playing, which in turn keeps the consumer happy and coming back, and enough challenge to make sure its not too easy. Two things that will turn away a customer are frustration and boredom; both relate to a lack of joy.

I also agree that many players can see on paper that it will not work by doing the math, or making calculations. Although I’d regard myself as an average player, I’m probably somewhere in the middle; I’m certainly not elite, and I mostly PvE, but enjoy PvP from time to time. Where I may differ from the usual average player is that I theorycraft; it’s one of the things I most enjoy about the game and keeps me invested.

I much prefer this type of game where a player has the ability to come up with their own build based on the mechanics and gear available. Many other games just have set skills that everyone shares, and it’s a matter of just pressing buttons. This game is superior because it has the ability to theorycraft, and involves a lot of strategy, IF the player so wishes it. So players that are used to theory crafting can see straight away that if you take away too many things, and replace nothing, it’s going to be a real problem. Many of us were able to predict this on paper, which in turn for many things is now showing to be true in current tests. This is what is worrying for the state of the game when concerned with PvE and the average player.

Zyrudin wrote: »

I had defended in the past a sort of radical idea where you would get sort of weekly random behavior bosses, to stir the pot a bit, see who adapted and who didn't, to see who changed their approach to a new behavior and those who just kept trying their same copied formula. Not that I expected it to be implemented, but just to convey the idea that a lot of people that consider themselves top players are merely copies (albeit skilled) with little creativity. If any change can provide that need for creativity ("necessity is the mother of invention") it will make the game more interesting, in my opinion.

Hey I like this idea. I’d never heard of that before. That’s actually pretty good. It would keep the game pretty interesting as long as it wasn’t too difficult; just a little unpredictability in the AI personality. I think it may be a difficult thing to implement though. Code wise, you might still just end up with a variety of personalities that, with enough experience, top end players would then still be able to predict. I think it comes back to the same problem; top-end players are always going to re-adjust and find ways around something, where the mass majority won’t. Therein also lays a danger in constantly hurting the average player because of this effect.

Zyrudin wrote: »

The timing and all that are well noticed on your part- it was a gross communication miscalculation on their side.

I was pretty shocked I admit. The reason was because I think for anyone who has either worked in sales, advertising, merchandising, and strategy consulting; it is a very basic principle for any new product. You don’t want to present uncertainty at the time of a new product launch. In fact, if possible, never present uncertainty… though that’s harder to achieve. But definitely not at the time of a new product launch.

MacCait

NecroEnzo wrote: »

@Zyrudin, Wrong.

This thread is about ZoS launching a superior class behind a paywall, nerfing previously fine classes, and the OP's experience with DCUO which I will vouch for because I had a similar experience.

All that "I wish I was a game developer" analysis you're doing out loud are other issues that should find themselves in a different thread.

It was a long thread I know, and like any piece of writing, it has a journey touching upon key points along the way and then arriving at a conclusion. Perhaps I should of, and maybe still should write a brief summary so no misunderstanding occurs. I'll do that as soon as I get a moment.

For me, I didn't intend to write a piece that wholly claims that ZOS are launching a superior class behind a paywall, but rather to voice a concern and point out that is how it can be percieved, while also trying to voice concern that if that is so, then it does in fact become P2W, and in turn players are understandibly going to have a problem with this.

As for the group of us who came over from DCUO, I was presenting that experience as an example of what happens when ANY game company makes huge changes, ignores feedback, lacks the strategic foresight of how their changes will affect a community of consumers, and what happens when a company steers from decsisions that enhance a game and therfore increase potential for profit, and decisions based on greed, which then have the undesired effect of leading to loss.

I stated that I think ZOS are better and more reasonable than many other developers, and in truth I believe this is a far greater product. The problem sometimes lays in a business team coming in and giving suggestions of what to do to get the most money from the consumer... which can be a problem when the business team don't really understand the nature of 'Gamers'. I'm not saying ZOS as a whole doesn't, of course they do. You can see how certain staff are enthusiastic and are obviously Gamers... or the game wouldn't get produced. But producing the game and selling the game are different things. I don't know who the business advisors are, if it's internal or external. I was voicing the concern that if too many decsions come from a point of not understanding the nature of their consumers, where certain decisions lead to a stripping of JOY from the game, it's inevitable we will lose players.

As someone who loves this product, who enjoys the community, and understakes the game as a hobby, I do not want to see it fail. I am however resigned to the fact I have no control over the issue, and like any other Gamer, will leave once the joy of the product has gone.

I do think @Zyrudin 's comments are pertinent to the discussion, and thankful for the discussion continuing and returning on point, mainly because so many other threads are negative and can bash each other and the devs.

Edit for typo

MacCait

Anhedonie wrote: »

I loled at your attacks on warden's blue betty (it's pretty bad in terms of sustain, actually), but other things are kinda on point.

Yeah, I do understand that. I think things have changed a little since I wrote the thread, Warden was itself recently nerfed a little. My concern was that it was appearing to many that the whole thing was contradictory; declaring war on sustain, while releasing a new class with it's own Betty Netch. The fact that the Warden was also nerfed seems to suggest that ZOS realised this themselves.

Personally I was really excited about the Warden and was going to get the pre-order to try out a new Tank. I had so many ideas. I was really excited when I saw the Betty Netch on ESO Live. But then the bombshell hit with the war on sustain... and that changes things drastically. At that point my concerns are that there is in fact no balance, and what is being robbed from certain classes is then in contradiction to what is happening with the new class.

I think a lot more balancing needs to happen before release, and a lot more compromise on ZOS behalf. I think we're all on the same page about wanting it to be a success, no matter our individual views.

bloodthirstyvampire

They Don't care just lie and put morrowind in the title they Don't care otherwise

brandonv516

Violynne wrote: »

(so no, I don't watch Fox News).

Ah it all makes sense now.

Why would you even consider this necessary in your reply? Please leave your personal life out of this - no one cares and it is not productive to this thread.

Gomumon

@MacCait What would you think of this type of balance?


Offensive-
Power: damage of each attack
Range: how far you can deal damage.
Speed: how fast and frequently you can deal damage.

Defensive-
Vitality: how much damage you can take.
Control: how well you can stop an attacker.
Agility: how much damage you can avoid (or escape).

To address the issue of prolonged fights, I gave a rough golden ratio (3:2 to offense:defense.) This way, someone will die before the Zerg can come save them. Each class gets 100,75,50 for offense and 75,50,25 for defense.

Limitations: this would need to be properly weighted with certain goals in mind (e.g. how much DPS should each class do; how long should dungeons take; how long should duels last, etc.) This is more illustrative to show that sustain doesn't need to be crushed and classes don't need to be homogeneous to be statistically equal.

luen79rwb17_ESO

Getting back on track is not "devolution".

ESO as it is on live is totally broken on the damage vs sustain department. I believe they're in the right path despite some harsh treatment on certain classes.

Zyrudin

MacCait wrote: »

@Zyrudin. Yes I think this is a key point. I think the majority of us feel that PvP DOES need changes, and the direction ZOS are taking on that is both needed and mostly good. I’m not an expert PvP player so I don’t claim to know what all the problems are, but I can understand a few from experience and understand more from listening to sole PvP players.

So yes I do think the core problem to the majority of players in game is that these drastic changes hit PvE and affect the average player. This is a problem for two reasons. Firstly, it’s not fair to the mass majority of players, who do not play 20 hours a day, and who are not part of the minority of elite, or even part of the percentage of players who regularly PvP. Secondly, and more importantly, it is contradictive to what ZOS has stated is their intention; to raise up and help the average players (the floor), while nerfing and lowering the small percentage of elite (the ceiling), thus decreasing the gap between them. As PTS testers are stating, this isn’t what’s going to happen.

I totally agree with the intention behind what ZOS is attempting, and I think there are easier ways to achieve that, by simply creating a separate PvP system. Certain things like this are already in place, such as Battle Spirit, and the PvP passives that alter other effects in a PvP setting. So in effect there is a basis for PvP having it’s own adjustments already. I think building upon that and entirely separating that from PvE is a wonderful idea, and one that the entire community could get behind and actually be happy with.

This kind of change supports the game and keeps its consumers happy, thus keeping players invested in the game/product, and ensuring the longevity and health of the game; which is something we all want.

ZOS, for some reason I honestly do not understand, want to insist on keeping PvP and PvE with shared skills. This will never work, certainly many have tried before. Perhaps they think that if they separate skill balancing between PvE and PvP they will divide players or demotivate them from trying the other. If it is that, it makes no sense, because there are already people that only play PvE and other than never left Cyrodiil (or IC) as soon as they got in.

There are a lot of people that do both and I am sure they realize that shared skills aren't at all effective balancing.

I would even go as far as having the alliance war skills (even the passives) have different effects in PvE and not just PvE skills and passives having different effects in PvP environments.

MacCait wrote: »

Yes, you hit the nail on the head. Totally agree. They are very, very different play styles, and management sustain of resources are imperative for the PvE setting against AI bosses and mobs. Can you imagine what it’s going to be like for certain melee classes who have no stamina, and have to now engage a Boss with nothing but Heavy attacks (using the Tenacity CP) all the while they generate more Stamina to use weapon powers? It’s not going to be pretty lol.

One idea I’ve seen mentioned, as feedback on the PTS is to adjust Tenacity so that it includes generating from Light attacks. I personally thought that was a good idea if the complete hack job on sustain is going to go ahead. There needs to be some sense of balance for PvE players going up against difficult PvE content.

Stamina builds will always be in more trouble simply because they use the same resource for not only their abilities, but also for blocking, dodging and breaking free. Melee stamina are in even worse ground, because they need to evade so much more. It really takes mastery to play them effectively right now. Some kind of solution has to be implemented for stamina builds in this respect and the stamina cost increase is one of the points I disagree the most with the patch notes for PvE.

Light attacks providing resources back might be a bad idea due to the fact that you could get an outstanding return with a tight animation cancelled weaved rotation. I would rather suggest accessible abilities (class, weapon, or any other type) that provide staminasteal on a certain area. then it is controlled per second and not per hit. This is why they introduced the -steal effects, I think.

MacCait wrote: »

Yes I agree that is a problem. However I think they just need to get creative with a solution. One idea that immediately came to mind when you said this was they could introduce code that acts as a sensor to a group Dungeon; a code that reacts to the number of people in a Dungeon. IF the number of people in a Dungeon is less than 4, the difficulty increases. IF the number of people in a Dungeon equals ONE, then if ZOS chooses to they could make the difficulty so high that it would be impossible to solo (if they do not want people soling that type of content). I think there are many creative ways things could be done by just doing something different. There is a term in psychology and self-improvement circles: “If you always do the same thing, you’ll always get the same results”. It also amounts to the same thing in any scientific approach to experiment design; change small things and examine those interactions, but don’t run the same experiment over and over and expect different results.

Yes, that would be merely to prevent soloing, but it would be putting a filter at the end and not at the start of the flow, let's say.
What I speculatively think, personally, is that they want to somehow come up with a solution that prevents builds from being "Over-Powered" in the first place, so that they have to resort to grouping with others and "play the game as it was intended". even in groups, I think they want people following mechanics, instead of just stacking and burning bosses too.

This is why I agree with the direction of the changes, even if I have doubts about the content of them. The game is currently not being played as intended by a lot of people, because Youtube channels are able to share with everyone how to copy ways around the actual intended gameplay.

MacCait wrote: »

Totally spot on. The most enjoyable aspect of this game is teamwork. The most fun I have ever had is when I’ve been in a great group, felt that sense of teamwork and where we struggled but won the moment. That is something that needs to be encouraged within the game, without making it so difficult that the team becomes so frustrated. I think that’s a fine line and a very difficult job for ZOS to achieve. Keeping a balance between the joy of playing, which in turn keeps the consumer happy and coming back, and enough challenge to make sure its not too easy. Two things that will turn away a customer are frustration and boredom; both relate to a lack of joy.

I also agree that many players can see on paper that it will not work by doing the math, or making calculations. Although I’d regard myself as an average player, I’m probably somewhere in the middle; I’m certainly not elite, and I mostly PvE, but enjoy PvP from time to time. Where I may differ from the usual average player is that I theorycraft; it’s one of the things I most enjoy about the game and keeps me invested.

I much prefer this type of game where a player has the ability to come up with their own build based on the mechanics and gear available. Many other games just have set skills that everyone shares, and it’s a matter of just pressing buttons. This game is superior because it has the ability to theorycraft, and involves a lot of strategy, IF the player so wishes it. So players that are used to theory crafting can see straight away that if you take away too many things, and replace nothing, it’s going to be a real problem. Many of us were able to predict this on paper, which in turn for many things is now showing to be true in current tests. This is what is worrying for the state of the game when concerned with PvE and the average player.

That's it: gameplay was designed around teamwork. I am here since launch. You know what the main concerns were in the first few months?

"I am stuck in a solo instance and can't invite a friend to help me out."

ZOS had exaggerated in the early difficulty and many an average player struggled to even get by in the main story or guild quests, and all these were solo instanced. For the most part, from mere delves to public dungeons, to group dungeons, to world bosses, to trials, to PvP, the gameplay was designed around grouping and teamwork. It is how it should be played, how it was designed. It wasn't well designed for that, but it was clearly their intent - and still is. They are trying to fix that, in my opinion, to "force" people to work together, share tactics, agree on strategies and actually play together.

This direction of things I can only agree to, even if not on the method or way it is done. Maybe our contributions will help them.

MacCait wrote: »

Hey I like this idea. I’d never heard of that before. That’s actually pretty good. It would keep the game pretty interesting as long as it wasn’t too difficult; just a little unpredictability in the AI personality. I think it may be a difficult thing to implement though. Code wise, you might still just end up with a variety of personalities that, with enough experience, top end players would then still be able to predict. I think it comes back to the same problem; top-end players are always going to re-adjust and find ways around something, where the mass majority won’t. Therein also lays a danger in constantly hurting the average player because of this effect.

It was just something I threw into the forum, in a discussion, knowing that it wouldn't be implemented. I just wanted to convey that there are a lot of builds and playstyles in ESO that are exact copies, in gear, setup, rotations and behavior. I wanted to show that a lot of players do not play creatively. Not saying that they should change, but just wanted people to reflect on that.

MacCait wrote: »

I was pretty shocked I admit. The reason was because I think for anyone who has either worked in sales, advertising, merchandising, and strategy consulting; it is a very basic principle for any new product. You don’t want to present uncertainty at the time of a new product launch. In fact, if possible, never present uncertainty… though that’s harder to achieve. But definitely not at the time of a new product launch.

I think technical dictated commercial this time around.

KimoBitz

@ZOS_GinaBruno listen to this dude...

IwakuraLain42

In case you missed it (or didn't knew): on tonight's ESO Live there will a segment with Rich Lambert and Erich Wrobel where they will be discussing the changes to the gameplay. Let's see what they have to say, maybe we will see some adjustments on the next patch.

Here's the link to the announcement where you can find the details: elderscrollsonline.com/en-gb/news/post/2017/04/27/eso-live-april-28--2000-bst

Zyrudin

IwakuraLain42 wrote: »

In case you missed it (or didn't knew): on tonight's ESO Live there will a segment with Rich Lambert and Erich Wrobel where they will be discussing the changes to the gameplay. Let's see what they have to say, maybe we will see some adjustments on the next patch.

Here's the link to the announcement where you can find the details: elderscrollsonline.com/en-gb/news/post/2017/04/27/eso-live-april-28--2000-bst

Thanks a lot, @IwakuraLain42!

I will certainly watch and check what they have to say!

kuro-dono

sadly guys its too late. this boat sailed off and sank like titanic did. well this means now we can start doing something in real life. i been doing that myself. much better graphics, and pornography beats any day trials.

veteran maelstorm felt like wife but worse.

only stuff missing is the people here, but hopefully can move them over to play something FUN later on.

whats wrong with game makers these days? is it all about money now and poor details.

Sadistic_Nicci

OP has a lot of solid, need to be read points

toxicpanda

ZOS needs to read this. I know I'm not the only one worried about the future of this game and if I should bother spending any more of my time and money given that we're all seemingly being nerfed into the ground. I've already spent a disgusting amount of money and time on this game. I do love this game but with the way things look like they're heading, I don't know if I want to pay for morrowind, continue my subscription, or spend any more time and money on this game. Which saddens me... I was originally excited for morrowind. But with new games coming out like you said, it's looking that way. I left Destiny for ESO almost two years ago with similar reasons.

MacCait

Gomumon wrote: »

@MacCait What would you think of this type of balance?


Offensive-
Power: damage of each attack
Range: how far you can deal damage.
Speed: how fast and frequently you can deal damage.

Defensive-
Vitality: how much damage you can take.
Control: how well you can stop an attacker.
Agility: how much damage you can avoid (or escape).

To address the issue of prolonged fights, I gave a rough golden ratio (3:2 to offense:defense.) This way, someone will die before the Zerg can come save them. Each class gets 100,75,50 for offense and 75,50,25 for defense.

Limitations: this would need to be properly weighted with certain goals in mind (e.g. how much DPS should each class do; how long should dungeons take; how long should duels last, etc.) This is more illustrative to show that sustain doesn't need to be crushed and classes don't need to be homogeneous to be statistically equal.

@Gomumon

Interesting chart. Things are still affected by gear and racial passives though right? I'm not what you do with this... but it's an intersting demo. I there a reason the same colours are used over for different things? As an ex-graphic artist I'd suggest different colours to make it mor eintuitive to see the differences

EDIT gamer tag

MacCait

NecroEnzo wrote: »

If you spent your money on DCUO, or Everquest Next after Sony sold out,

@NecroEnzo LOL we used to call them "Game break days"

Edit added gamer tag

MacCait

luen79rwb17_ESO wrote: »

Getting back on track is not "devolution".

ESO as it is on live is totally broken on the damage vs sustain department. I believe they're in the right path despite some harsh treatment on certain classes.

@luen79rwb17_ESO

Is this is in reference to a reply where I replied to someone going backwards was devolution not evolution?

Where you say ESO on live is totally broken in damage vs sustain... do you mean PvP or PvE, or are you saying both?

If both, would another way of looking at it be to reduce damage rather than sustain?

If this is in reference to the post I think it is... I was suggesting that the game is now 3 years old... what ever the 'Original Vision' was, the game has moved on and has evolved, going through major changes since it's inception. If keeping it to it's 'Original Vision' was so important, I'd ask the question why didn't they stick to that route in the first place?

If the whole 'Original Vision' thing is being suddenly raised at this point, it kinda raises a flag and begs the question, do they even know what they are doing? It kind of looks like a mess to me. Having a vision for a game... then taking a differnt route... deciding oh that isn't what we wanted and changing direction... then taking another route and once again saying oh this isnt what we want... then rinse and repeat a few times over 3 years... then these new changes start talking about an 'Original Vision'... It just seems to me that there is not a solid goal here, and it CAN APPEAR that they are not even sure what it is they want this game to be. That's an issue many seem to have. It's quite unsettling to suddenly decide at the flip of a coin to just change so many drastic things all at once and then use the point of returning to 'Original Vision'. To playrers it can also APPEAR that they are using this 'Original Vision' as a pretext for the drastic change. It's ok guys, we're just returning to the 'Original Vision'. For me it doesn't hold a lot of weight, but instead feels like there is a lot of contradiction here.

I'm all for change and evolution when it benefits the game... but I also think it's important to consider the customer base of players already invested in this game. The game is 3 years old. It was on PC for a year and had many problems at inception. It struggled for a long time and people felt sold out for it being released too early and under developed... It sorted a lot of things and came to console 2 years ago... It was a huge success, but has still had it's ups and downs. Players had to get used to changes like Veteran Rank removal, then One Tamriel... but ultinately these where good changes (I feel). The playerbase has got used to how the game works and a great many people find joy in the way the game works and are invested in it's current state, though aspects of the game need tweaks and balance. As I see it there are no MAJOR problems, but things that could be improved. In it's current state the game is fun for players. I think we also need to consider that many players on console were not around when it was solely on PC and the game has evolved since then... to NOW ask these players to witness the game undergoing major surgery and an about turn to some mythical 'Original Vision' that these console players are totally unaware of is a huge pill for many to swallow, especially when it is APPEARING that these drastic changes will strip a lot of joy form the game. It's a danger the developers should be aware of as it could lead to a large loss of players. The devs have to be very certain these changes are going to retain 'joy' in the game... or its going to be a disater for the poplulation, at least until new players arrive who hopefully like the game in its new state.

Either way, currently at this point we suddenly have a reverse turn with many drastic changes all happening at once, so many huge changes that as an experiment or test it's going to be impossible to track what is going to effect what. There also seems to be a lot of contradiction going on... and all under the header of returning to an 'Original Vision'... so it begs the question: If the Original Vision was so good, why was it abandoned so long ago?

EDIT: player tag was adjusted to work

Kodrac

Violynne wrote: »

When I read the patch notes, the only thing which upset me was the notice CP was being raised to 180, as I had just spent most of my dreugh wax upgrading my CP160 from head to toe. That news hurt, since my bank only has a few wax remaining.

@Violynne Where are you getting this? Nowhere in the patch notes does it say this. You posted the same misinformation in the crafting section too. Gear is not being raised to CP180. They are giving us 30 more champion points to spend for a total of 630 but gear is staying at CP 160.

I erect the spine of confusion. :

MacCait

Zyrudin wrote: »

MacCait wrote: »

@Zyrudin. Yes I think this is a key point. I think the majority of us feel that PvP DOES need changes, and the direction ZOS are taking on that is both needed and mostly good. I’m not an expert PvP player so I don’t claim to know what all the problems are, but I can understand a few from experience and understand more from listening to sole PvP players.

So yes I do think the core problem to the majority of players in game is that these drastic changes hit PvE and affect the average player. This is a problem for two reasons. Firstly, it’s not fair to the mass majority of players, who do not play 20 hours a day, and who are not part of the minority of elite, or even part of the percentage of players who regularly PvP. Secondly, and more importantly, it is contradictive to what ZOS has stated is their intention; to raise up and help the average players (the floor), while nerfing and lowering the small percentage of elite (the ceiling), thus decreasing the gap between them. As PTS testers are stating, this isn’t what’s going to happen.

I totally agree with the intention behind what ZOS is attempting, and I think there are easier ways to achieve that, by simply creating a separate PvP system. Certain things like this are already in place, such as Battle Spirit, and the PvP passives that alter other effects in a PvP setting. So in effect there is a basis for PvP having it’s own adjustments already. I think building upon that and entirely separating that from PvE is a wonderful idea, and one that the entire community could get behind and actually be happy with.

This kind of change supports the game and keeps its consumers happy, thus keeping players invested in the game/product, and ensuring the longevity and health of the game; which is something we all want.

ZOS, for some reason I honestly do not understand, want to insist on keeping PvP and PvE with shared skills. This will never work, certainly many have tried before. Perhaps they think that if they separate skill balancing between PvE and PvP they will divide players or demotivate them from trying the other. If it is that, it makes no sense, because there are already people that only play PvE and other than never left Cyrodiil (or IC) as soon as they got in.

There are a lot of people that do both and I am sure they realize that shared skills aren't at all effective balancing.

I would even go as far as having the alliance war skills (even the passives) have different effects in PvE and not just PvE skills and passives having different effects in PvP environments.

MacCait wrote: »

Yes, you hit the nail on the head. Totally agree. They are very, very different play styles, and management sustain of resources are imperative for the PvE setting against AI bosses and mobs. Can you imagine what it’s going to be like for certain melee classes who have no stamina, and have to now engage a Boss with nothing but Heavy attacks (using the Tenacity CP) all the while they generate more Stamina to use weapon powers? It’s not going to be pretty lol.

One idea I’ve seen mentioned, as feedback on the PTS is to adjust Tenacity so that it includes generating from Light attacks. I personally thought that was a good idea if the complete hack job on sustain is going to go ahead. There needs to be some sense of balance for PvE players going up against difficult PvE content.

Stamina builds will always be in more trouble simply because they use the same resource for not only their abilities, but also for blocking, dodging and breaking free. Melee stamina are in even worse ground, because they need to evade so much more. It really takes mastery to play them effectively right now. Some kind of solution has to be implemented for stamina builds in this respect and the stamina cost increase is one of the points I disagree the most with the patch notes for PvE.

Light attacks providing resources back might be a bad idea due to the fact that you could get an outstanding return with a tight animation cancelled weaved rotation. I would rather suggest accessible abilities (class, weapon, or any other type) that provide staminasteal on a certain area. then it is controlled per second and not per hit. This is why they introduced the -steal effects, I think.

MacCait wrote: »

Yes I agree that is a problem. However I think they just need to get creative with a solution. One idea that immediately came to mind when you said this was they could introduce code that acts as a sensor to a group Dungeon; a code that reacts to the number of people in a Dungeon. IF the number of people in a Dungeon is less than 4, the difficulty increases. IF the number of people in a Dungeon equals ONE, then if ZOS chooses to they could make the difficulty so high that it would be impossible to solo (if they do not want people soling that type of content). I think there are many creative ways things could be done by just doing something different. There is a term in psychology and self-improvement circles: “If you always do the same thing, you’ll always get the same results”. It also amounts to the same thing in any scientific approach to experiment design; change small things and examine those interactions, but don’t run the same experiment over and over and expect different results.

Yes, that would be merely to prevent soloing, but it would be putting a filter at the end and not at the start of the flow, let's say.
What I speculatively think, personally, is that they want to somehow come up with a solution that prevents builds from being "Over-Powered" in the first place, so that they have to resort to grouping with others and "play the game as it was intended". even in groups, I think they want people following mechanics, instead of just stacking and burning bosses too.

This is why I agree with the direction of the changes, even if I have doubts about the content of them. The game is currently not being played as intended by a lot of people, because Youtube channels are able to share with everyone how to copy ways around the actual intended gameplay.

MacCait wrote: »

Totally spot on. The most enjoyable aspect of this game is teamwork. The most fun I have ever had is when I’ve been in a great group, felt that sense of teamwork and where we struggled but won the moment. That is something that needs to be encouraged within the game, without making it so difficult that the team becomes so frustrated. I think that’s a fine line and a very difficult job for ZOS to achieve. Keeping a balance between the joy of playing, which in turn keeps the consumer happy and coming back, and enough challenge to make sure its not too easy. Two things that will turn away a customer are frustration and boredom; both relate to a lack of joy.

I also agree that many players can see on paper that it will not work by doing the math, or making calculations. Although I’d regard myself as an average player, I’m probably somewhere in the middle; I’m certainly not elite, and I mostly PvE, but enjoy PvP from time to time. Where I may differ from the usual average player is that I theorycraft; it’s one of the things I most enjoy about the game and keeps me invested.

I much prefer this type of game where a player has the ability to come up with their own build based on the mechanics and gear available. Many other games just have set skills that everyone shares, and it’s a matter of just pressing buttons. This game is superior because it has the ability to theorycraft, and involves a lot of strategy, IF the player so wishes it. So players that are used to theory crafting can see straight away that if you take away too many things, and replace nothing, it’s going to be a real problem. Many of us were able to predict this on paper, which in turn for many things is now showing to be true in current tests. This is what is worrying for the state of the game when concerned with PvE and the average player.

That's it: gameplay was designed around teamwork. I am here since launch. You know what the main concerns were in the first few months?

"I am stuck in a solo instance and can't invite a friend to help me out."

ZOS had exaggerated in the early difficulty and many an average player struggled to even get by in the main story or guild quests, and all these were solo instanced. For the most part, from mere delves to public dungeons, to group dungeons, to world bosses, to trials, to PvP, the gameplay was designed around grouping and teamwork. It is how it should be played, how it was designed. It wasn't well designed for that, but it was clearly their intent - and still is. They are trying to fix that, in my opinion, to "force" people to work together, share tactics, agree on strategies and actually play together.

This direction of things I can only agree to, even if not on the method or way it is done. Maybe our contributions will help them.

MacCait wrote: »

Hey I like this idea. I’d never heard of that before. That’s actually pretty good. It would keep the game pretty interesting as long as it wasn’t too difficult; just a little unpredictability in the AI personality. I think it may be a difficult thing to implement though. Code wise, you might still just end up with a variety of personalities that, with enough experience, top end players would then still be able to predict. I think it comes back to the same problem; top-end players are always going to re-adjust and find ways around something, where the mass majority won’t. Therein also lays a danger in constantly hurting the average player because of this effect.

It was just something I threw into the forum, in a discussion, knowing that it wouldn't be implemented. I just wanted to convey that there are a lot of builds and playstyles in ESO that are exact copies, in gear, setup, rotations and behavior. I wanted to show that a lot of players do not play creatively. Not saying that they should change, but just wanted people to reflect on that.

MacCait wrote: »

I was pretty shocked I admit. The reason was because I think for anyone who has either worked in sales, advertising, merchandising, and strategy consulting; it is a very basic principle for any new product. You don’t want to present uncertainty at the time of a new product launch. In fact, if possible, never present uncertainty… though that’s harder to achieve. But definitely not at the time of a new product launch.

I think technical dictated commercial this time around.

@Zyrudin It seems we agree on many points. I too agree with some of the changes, and some of the ideas for the direction of the game... I just can't get behind a system that:

Hacks everything apart so drastically; a system that cannot be tested and tracked to see what changes are going to affect what (tracking variables); a system that has in place many contradictions over what it states it wants to achieve; a system that states it wants to help make things easier for the average player and the new player, in in actuall effect over complicates things, and with results that will most likely (at this point) do completely the opposite and make things harder for the new players and the mass majority of average players; a system that perpetually makes the same mistakes of trying to opperate one system for two entirely different models (PvP - PvE).

Zyrudin

MacCait wrote: »

@Zyrudin It seems we agree on many points. I too agree with some of the changes, and some of the ideas for the direction of the game... I just can't get behind a system that:

Hacks everything apart so drastically; a system that cannot be tested and tracked to see what changes are going to affect what (tracking variables); a system that has in place many contradictions over what it states it wants to achieve; a system that states it wants to help make things easier for the average player and the new player, in in actuall effect over complicates things, and with results that will most likely (at this point) do completely the opposite and make things harder for the new players and the mass majority of average players; a system that perpetually makes the same mistakes of trying to opperate one system for two entirely different models (PvP - PvE).

@MacCait
The manner of it, not the reason - yes, it seems we agree on that.

In the ESO Live Rich Lambert did concede that the reason for this was, quote, «to slow things down» because they wanted «separate phases: a burn phase and then regen». He didn't say it, because he couldn't say it, but to me that reads "we wanted people to play the game as intended".

This was confirmed when he said that a trial leader that was testing the new trial said first that «every DD needs top DPS to make it in vet trials» and then after trying he changed his opinion to «actually, we focused on the mechanics and made it through».

This is the very reason for the changes, with which I agree. However, I cannot accept the reasoning of "one single game PvP + PvE" because it is two different types of adversary, completely.