What is the point of PTS class feedback?

DaveMoeDee

Hutch679 wrote: »

@ZOS_GinaBruno just mentioned there will be no further class changes in the Summersey update, thus confirming the initial PTS notes for class changes are final.

What's the point of giving class feedback for changes made in the initial PTS release if those are going to be the final changes? Why can't information be relayed to the player base? Seems to be too much focus on the crown store and not enough into combat balance.

PS. RIP Mag warden.

Obviously they can still make changes post-Summerset.

Eventually you need to get parts of the code are in their final form before releasing software updates. You probably don't want every part of the code to be undergoing change up until release. That doesn't mean that development stops.

Crown store is completely irrelevant.

Feanor

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Feanor wrote: »

Again: If you pull 20k and are not a top player or a PvP player, why does balance getting requested bother you? It doesn’t concern you then at all.

It does if :
- Changes occur that force me to relearn my character in order to reach my 20K again.
- Changes make my gameplay less fun (yes I had a lot of fun knocking down enemies - players and mobs alike - with my crystal frags, and that fun has been taken away from me for the sake of "balance")
- ZOS decides - as requested by some here - that the development and release of further zones/quests/features should be kept on hold until "balance" is achieved.
- If the forums, which I usually enjoy reading, are constantly cluttered with usually rude "balance requests" and "balance rants".

(and pls answer my question about the "point of balance" - I know I added it later, I'm always writing in steps, sorry about that)

The point of balance? Having an equal playing field. Or at least one where the end result is depending more on the individual skill of the player than on other factors outside.

You don’t raid or play PvP apparently. But can’t you understand that a game shouldn’t be designed in a way where the choice of class brings you a great advantage just because you play that class specifically?

In Homestead magSorc was so strong that end game PvE Raids that were doing score runs consisted of 8 magSorc DDs, 2 DK tanks and 2 Healers. Simply because the damage with off balance and the absurd volatile familiar as it was then was through the roof.

In PvP we have an era of stamina characters being much much better for at least a year now. Don’t you see that’s an issue?

Of course overland NPCs don’t complain. But in the end, balance is good for everyone. Because everyone has close to equal chances then.

Ley

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

casparian wrote: »

Which is why we're frustrated that the devs, patch after patch, keep devoting their (understandably limited) time and energy to making new stuff instead of fixing our classes. "We didn't have enough time" misses the point -- to a lot of us, that sounds like a reason to not put out new content, not a reason to neglect existing content.
I understand that fixing existing issues is much harder to monetize than pumping out a new land to explore, but at some point in order to retain players you're going to need to make us feel like the time we're putting into the classes we play is time well spent.

Wu... whaaat ?
Are you suggesting that the (imho 90%) of players who enjoy exploration, lore, quests, roleplay and trading, should just sit and wait until you (imho 10%) min/maxers get your 2% upwards or downwards of fine tuning of class abilities for the sake of "balance" ?
You can't be serious...
There's far more player retention gained with new zones, stories and system than with "class balance".

I appreciate you.

I think people on the forums forget sometimes that they are the vast minority of ESO players. They assume that everyone shares their concerns, when in fact a majority of players don't even notice most of these changes unless they are pointed out to them.

I'm not sure where this obsession over this fantasy called balance is stemming from. You'd be hard pressed to find a complex game with true balance. At best you create a FoTM system, where every update the balance of powers shift to create a new BiS for different rolls, a WiS (worst in slot), and various positions in between.

Balance is:
X=Y=Z=A=B
Or
Rock>Scissor>Paper>Rock...

Good luck having every class be able to accomplish every roll equally good, while maintaining some sort of uniqueness.

b.bredfeldtub17_ESO

Runefang wrote: »

Wu... whaaat ?
Are you suggesting that the (imho 90%) of players who enjoy exploration, lore, quests, roleplay and trading, should just sit and wait until you (imho 10%) min/maxers get your 2% upwards or downwards of fine tuning of class abilities for the sake of "balance" ?
You can't be serious...
There's far more player retention gained with new zones, stories and system than with "class balance".

The content you're talking about is the shallowest form of content available. Linear story "quests" that ollow every trope known to man-kind and offer nothing cool, unique, or interesting in the story aspect. It's generic content that could be thought of in 5 minutes by a child who's read enough fantasy books, right up there with twilight. Also, we're not talking 2%. That's a huge lie if you think that's all it is. Average person does around 10k. I can barely break 20k right now because I refuse to use a bow (it's not a L2P issue, I've used a bow and can break 35k ez with no gold gear and like 3 pieces of divines). The difference between a meta build and a non-meta build in the hands of someone who knows how to play is almost 100%.

That's pathetic from a AAA game company.

ZOS_JesC

Greetings, we've removed more comments that were off topic, baiting, or contained personal insults directed at other members. While we understand thread topics can cause tension to rise, we request that all forum posts still adhere to our forum rules and that comments remain civil and constructive. Thank you for your understanding.

Minno

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

casparian wrote: »

Which is why we're frustrated that the devs, patch after patch, keep devoting their (understandably limited) time and energy to making new stuff instead of fixing our classes. "We didn't have enough time" misses the point -- to a lot of us, that sounds like a reason to not put out new content, not a reason to neglect existing content.
I understand that fixing existing issues is much harder to monetize than pumping out a new land to explore, but at some point in order to retain players you're going to need to make us feel like the time we're putting into the classes we play is time well spent.

Wu... whaaat ?
Are you suggesting that the (imho 90%) of players who enjoy exploration, lore, quests, roleplay and trading, should just sit and wait until you (imho 10%) min/maxers get your 2% upwards or downwards of fine tuning of class abilities for the sake of "balance" ?
You can't be serious...
There's far more player retention gained with new zones, stories and system than with "class balance".

He's suggesting that when you use an ability, for any content, you aren't punished because zos was insistent with their design intent for the abilities. For example, templars eclipse, should be used in all facets of the game but the cc imunity means it has niche application in PvP but even more limited application in both casual overland and trial conditions and additionally doesn't apply to both DMG architypes despite it being defensive in nature. Why does an expensive ability fail to be cast on a heavy mob/ bosses or easily give a player immunity to crowd control so you can let them run away from you?

And then when you make the game more mobile, you have to look at the old design and ask "is this really working?".

This is why we expect zos to add in class/set/skill balance changes. Especially if new game modes come out.

templesus

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Feanor wrote: »

Just merely stating that, for the average player (and there's a lot of us) all classes perform more or less equally fine. If there are class balance issues, only the 10% of players (if not 1%) will notice/diagnose them.

All classes perform equally fine when the content is easy, like overland pve and dungeons. That’s not the point of balance though.

Nope. Not what I meant.
I'll pull 20K DPS with ANY of my characters (which involve all 5 classes).
Any top 1% player will perform 35K DPS at least with ANY of my characters (because they're fully BiS geared with the exception of maelstroem weapons). Maybe they'll pull 32K with the magwarden and 45K with the magsorc. While I'll pull 20K with BOTH.
However my 20K will be enough for 95% of the content.

To sum it up :

- Class balance is only noticeable/usable by 5% of the playerbase
- Class balance only matters for 5% of the game's PVE content.

Admittedly PvP is a different story but there are so few PvPers as compared to PvEers that it doesn't really matter either.

May I ask what is, according to you, the point of balance ?

No successful MMO has EVER survived catering to the sub-par casual players. EVER. The point of balance is to please the end-game players, which is who game developers cater to most of the time. Regardless of your hypothetical 90% who hypothetically ALL share your same opinion regarding balance(this is a giant logical fallacy you committed), ZOS will continue to release END-GAME content because that is what sells. Not quests that could be completed by a 5 year old and more ways to role play.

zParallaxz

templesus wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Feanor wrote: »

Just merely stating that, for the average player (and there's a lot of us) all classes perform more or less equally fine. If there are class balance issues, only the 10% of players (if not 1%) will notice/diagnose them.

All classes perform equally fine when the content is easy, like overland pve and dungeons. That’s not the point of balance though.

Nope. Not what I meant.
I'll pull 20K DPS with ANY of my characters (which involve all 5 classes).
Any top 1% player will perform 35K DPS at least with ANY of my characters (because they're fully BiS geared with the exception of maelstroem weapons). Maybe they'll pull 32K with the magwarden and 45K with the magsorc. While I'll pull 20K with BOTH.
However my 20K will be enough for 95% of the content.

To sum it up :

- Class balance is only noticeable/usable by 5% of the playerbase
- Class balance only matters for 5% of the game's PVE content.

Admittedly PvP is a different story but there are so few PvPers as compared to PvEers that it doesn't really matter either.

May I ask what is, according to you, the point of balance ?

No successful MMO has EVER survived catering to the sub-par casual players. EVER. The point of balance is to please the end-game players, which is who game developers cater to most of the time. Regardless of your hypothetical 90% who hypothetically ALL share your same opinion regarding balance(this is a giant logical fallacy you committed), ZOS will continue to release END-GAME content because that is what sells. Not quests that could be completed by a 5 year old and more ways to role play.

Lol at the quest where u run towards this person then that person and so on. A lot of people are still in the early stages of playing the game I.e being a low level and questing to get higher, still wearing mix matched sets etc.

Hutch679

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

Hutch679 wrote: »

@ZOS_GinaBruno just mentioned there will be no further class changes in the Summersey update, thus confirming the initial PTS notes for class changes are final.

What's the point of giving class feedback for changes made in the initial PTS release if those are going to be the final changes? Why can't information be relayed to the player base? Seems to be too much focus on the crown store and not enough into combat balance.

PS. RIP Mag warden.

Obviously they can still make changes post-Summerset.

Eventually you need to get parts of the code are in their final form before releasing software updates. You probably don't want every part of the code to be undergoing change up until release. That doesn't mean that development stops.

Crown store is completely irrelevant.

Crown store is relevant because it takes time and resources to create crown store items. Those resources could be used on combat/class balance. But sure, if you think that spending resources on other projects is irrelevant to the direct issue of not having enough resources to work on combat/class balance lol. I can see how one couldn't put that common sense together.

Ley

templesus wrote: »

No successful MMO has EVER survived catering to the sub-par casual players. EVER. The point of balance is to please the end-game players, which is who game developers cater to most of the time. Regardless of your hypothetical 90% who hypothetically ALL share your same opinion regarding balance(this is a giant logical fallacy you committed), ZOS will continue to release END-GAME content because that is what sells. Not quests that could be completed by a 5 year old and more ways to role play.

I'd like to see some data to back up this theory because it sounds like you just made it up.

Casuals are a vast majority of players, all you need to do to confirm this is go in game and talk to people. If you don't cater to the vast majority of your players, you're game is probably not going to be particularly successful. I'm not saying that developers should neglect end game content and the competitive end game players but not at the expense of the main player base.

Why do you think overland content (most of the game) is super easy mode? Do you think they did that to cater to end-game players?

Also I'd like to point out that end-game content is different for casual players than end-game players and even within those groups different people enjoy different activities.

Destruent

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Feanor wrote: »

Again: If you pull 20k and are not a top player or a PvP player, why does balance getting requested bother you? It doesn’t concern you then at all.

It does if :
- Changes occur that force me to relearn my character in order to reach my 20K again.
- Changes make my gameplay less fun (yes I had a lot of fun knocking down enemies - players and mobs alike - with my crystal frags, and that fun has been taken away from me for the sake of "balance")
- ZOS decides - as requested by some here - that the development and release of further zones/quests/features should be kept on hold until "balance" is achieved.
- If the forums, which I usually enjoy reading, are constantly cluttered with usually rude "balance requests" and "balance rants".

(and pls answer my question about the "point of balance" - I know I added it later, I'm always writing in steps, sorry about that)

And where's the fun for those who don't like getting knocked down by your frags? You sound really selfish, balance is good for everyone if done right.

templesus wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Feanor wrote: »

Just merely stating that, for the average player (and there's a lot of us) all classes perform more or less equally fine. If there are class balance issues, only the 10% of players (if not 1%) will notice/diagnose them.

All classes perform equally fine when the content is easy, like overland pve and dungeons. That’s not the point of balance though.

Nope. Not what I meant.
I'll pull 20K DPS with ANY of my characters (which involve all 5 classes).
Any top 1% player will perform 35K DPS at least with ANY of my characters (because they're fully BiS geared with the exception of maelstroem weapons). Maybe they'll pull 32K with the magwarden and 45K with the magsorc. While I'll pull 20K with BOTH.
However my 20K will be enough for 95% of the content.

To sum it up :

- Class balance is only noticeable/usable by 5% of the playerbase
- Class balance only matters for 5% of the game's PVE content.

Admittedly PvP is a different story but there are so few PvPers as compared to PvEers that it doesn't really matter either.

May I ask what is, according to you, the point of balance ?

No successful MMO has EVER survived catering to the sub-par casual players. EVER. The point of balance is to please the end-game players, which is who game developers cater to most of the time. Regardless of your hypothetical 90% who hypothetically ALL share your same opinion regarding balance(this is a giant logical fallacy you committed), ZOS will continue to release END-GAME content because that is what sells. Not quests that could be completed by a 5 year old and more ways to role play.

But that's exactly what they mostly sell and create...

The_Lex

As an Xbox player, the only thing I'm really looking forward to in June is E3.

Riddari

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Feanor wrote: »

Just merely stating that, for the average player (and there's a lot of us) all classes perform more or less equally fine. If there are class balance issues, only the 10% of players (if not 1%) will notice/diagnose them.

All classes perform equally fine when the content is easy, like overland pve and dungeons. That’s not the point of balance though.

Nope. Not what I meant.
I'll pull 20K DPS with ANY of my characters (which involve all 5 classes).
Any top 1% player will perform 35K DPS at least with ANY of my characters (because they're fully BiS geared with the exception of maelstroem weapons). Maybe they'll pull 32K with the magwarden and 45K with the magsorc. While I'll pull 20K with BOTH.
However my 20K will be enough for 95% of the content.

To sum it up :

- Class balance is only noticeable/usable by 5% of the playerbase
- Class balance only matters for 5% of the game's PVE content.

Admittedly PvP is a different story but there are so few PvPers as compared to PvEers that it doesn't really matter either.

May I ask what is, according to you, the point of balance ?

You obviously only play DPS because tank balance is not even close to equal among all the classes.

Mystrius_Archaion

DuskMarine wrote: »

go to school for programming and youll sit there and realize how hard doing that actually is.

No, balance is basic math. Easy stuff.

They just added lots of artificial complexity and certain impossible to balance effects which should be available to everybody or nobody(like cloak or pets).

Coding it in is hard yes, but making a balanced equation is much easier. Then all they have to do is implement the equation without bugs.

schattenkind

This "artificial complexity" is what makes this game interesting, else we all would play one class and have all the same skills. Each class shall have something the others do not.

Fully balancing all this is imho not possible, because you have some statics, but also dynamics.
F.e. the statics:
- races passives
- armor / weapon / jewelery sets + buffs/debuffs + traits + enchants +proc chances
- skills + morphs + buffs/debuffs + skill passives
- cp
- potions / poisons
- food / drinks
- group / aura / aoe effects
- world buffs / debuffs
- specials (vamp / ww)
- dodging / blocking / penetration / mitigation...
All that stuff (and more) you need to consider for balance for every single item, every skingle skill and whatnot.
On paper and with math it might be possible.

But there is one huge factor which inflicts the balance we should not let out:
The players.
F.e.
- experience / setup / mechanic knowledge / playstyle / weaving / situation awarness / ... / and again experience
This makes the balance non existing and impossible to achieve, because all that points differ from player to player and thus results in different outcome.
As someone said already, while I play my DD build and pull out 20k dps, if someone else plays my character he will get 25k dps, other one maybe just 17k...
Now take lag and connection issues into count, when skills dont work as intended, cc breaking lags and so on... Ending up with a very long list of things that math cant balance.

So, talking about "balance" in reality is talking about intersection of interrests. The balance will never exist and for ever there will be those who win and those who lose.

The goal is to come as near as possible to the paper-balance, taking into count at least all static factors - which is enough factors already. Some pending issues are more away from this paper-balance than others, while this will always remain an individual opinion of those who play.

templesus

How many new end-game trials and dungeons have been advertised vs quests in the past year? My point exactly.

DoctorESO

The suit is 10%.

The other 90% is you.

Or is it the other way around?

Ley

schattenkind wrote: »

This "artificial complexity" is what makes this game interesting, else we all would play one class and have all the same skills. Each class shall have something the others do not.

Fully balancing all this is imho not possible, because you have some statics, but also dynamics.
F.e. the statics:
- races passives
- armor / weapon / jewelery sets + buffs/debuffs + traits + enchants +proc chances
- skills + morphs + buffs/debuffs + skill passives
- cp
- potions / poisons
- food / drinks
- group / aura / aoe effects
- world buffs / debuffs
- specials (vamp / ww)
- dodging / blocking / penetration / mitigation...
All that stuff (and more) you need to consider for balance for every single item, every skingle skill and whatnot.
On paper and with math it might be possible.

But there is one huge factor which inflicts the balance we should not let out:
The players.
F.e.
- experience / setup / mechanic knowledge / playstyle / weaving / situation awarness / ... / and again experience
This makes the balance non existing and impossible to achieve, because all that points differ from player to player and thus results in different outcome.
As someone said already, while I play my DD build and pull out 20k dps, if someone else plays my character he will get 25k dps, other one maybe just 17k...
Now take lag and connection issues into count, when skills dont work as intended, cc breaking lags and so on... Ending up with a very long list of things that math cant balance.

So, talking about "balance" in reality is talking about intersection of interrests. The balance will never exist and for ever there will be those who win and those who lose.

The goal is to come as near as possible to the paper-balance, taking into count at least all static factors - which is enough factors already. Some pending issues are more away from this paper-balance than others, while this will always remain an individual opinion of those who play.

Thank you.

LonePirate

I need to commend ZOS for creating the best dog and pony show imaginable when it comes to soliciting player feedback on classes, abilities, etc. and then proceeding to ignore every piece of that feedback. Other game companies might try to fool their players by making illusory changes. ZOS doesn't do that. They now state up front they won't be making any class or balance changes. I, for one, appreciate this honesty and courage. Other companies do not have the guts to be so dismissive towards their paying customers. ZOS is charting a new and exciting course for everyone involved.

If anyone thinks any recommendations will be implemented once they are offered by the players involved in the pending Class Representation Program, please PM me so we can talk about some fantastic real estate and cryptocurrency opportunties I have for you!

Razorback174

Joy_Division wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

casparian wrote: »

Which is why we're frustrated that the devs, patch after patch, keep devoting their (understandably limited) time and energy to making new stuff instead of fixing our classes. "We didn't have enough time" misses the point -- to a lot of us, that sounds like a reason to not put out new content, not a reason to neglect existing content.
I understand that fixing existing issues is much harder to monetize than pumping out a new land to explore, but at some point in order to retain players you're going to need to make us feel like the time we're putting into the classes we play is time well spent.

Wu... whaaat ?
Are you suggesting that the (imho 90%) of players who enjoy exploration, lore, quests, roleplay and trading, should just sit and wait until you (imho 10%) min/maxers get your 2% upwards or downwards of fine tuning of class abilities for the sake of "balance" ?
You can't be serious...
There's far more player retention gained with new zones, stories and system than with "class balance".

The thing is, a lot of these 90% of players do care about character/build performance because there is feedback all the time about how instances such as vMA are inaccessible, how gear/rewards are inaccessible because of end-game content, how they are frustrated with DLC dungeons, stories of how they tried PvP once and got insta-killed and never again, etc.

With so many nerfs, so many poorly performing skills, so much power depends on specific gear and CP acquisition, etc., it has become harder to do many things in this game that aren't Overland questing. Just because these people enjoy exploration, quests, etc., does not mean they don't want to be able to get achievements and skins in more difficult content or are not concerned at all that they play a weak class. If anything I find it condescending to simply assume "the (imho 90%) of players who enjoy exploration, lore, quests, roleplay and trading" are obvious or do not care about how their class performs.

You make valid points, Joy. But do you honestly think that the current player gap is caused by "class balance" or because of some abilities performing less than others ? I believe the main reason for some content being inaccessible to casual/bad/average players is the absence of soft caps and the importance of weaving/AC. The solution for that would be to slow down the combat pace and reduce the impact of LA and HA. In other words, reduce the weight of "player skill" and increase the weight of "character skill" in the overall result. And I do not believe that this is what "balance change" advocates are actually looking for.

I wasn't being "condescending" at all. Just merely stating that, for the average player (and there's a lot of us) all classes perform more or less equally fine. If there are class balance issues, only the 10% of players (if not 1%) will notice/diagnose them.

You did not mean to be condescending, but you are trying to speak for 90% of the community based on just your assumptions rather than evidence, which I find to be problematic. I don't doubt we all have a reasonable hunch of what certain sectors of the player-base wants or desires, but that is (too) long a leap to all of a sudden be assigning specific numbers and stating what they do or do not want.

But to your question, yes, I absolutely feel a huge gap in power comes from the way ZoS has balanced their game. Before the champion system, the majority of power we had as players came from our class abilities, which was accessible to everyone, not specific gear, not max CP points, not specific combat mechanics such as maintaining off-balance, etc., There were certain gear sets that were broken or very strong such as Warlock and Twin Sisters, but Twin Sisters were soon nerfed and I didn't have to do a end-game Trial to get Warlock. So even if the players were relatively inexperienced or did not know how to play efficiently, the power was still accessible in their kit: it was just a matter of learning how to use it.

Also, with the huge power creep, the difference between a min-maxxed player today is miles ahead of the sorts of players who do not prioritize combat effectiveness. Players today must do things to acquire power outside their class (grind gear, grind CPs, grind jewelry mats, maximize group warhorn up-time, circumvent intentional resource bottlenecks and other nerfs, etc) as well as "L2P". It's a tall order.

I think it's fair to say just about every gamer does not like dying before a quest objective is completed and wants the proper tools to function correctly and effectively in order to be able to complete the quest objective. Because of the nerfs, because of the neglect to balance, because of the reliance of systems outside the classes, completing the quest objectives for anything that is not overland content has gotten overly restrictive for everyone, not just those players whose focus is more exploration or RP. If I am not grouped up with three other players who are super cognizant of PvE mechanics, it's pretty much pointless to do something like Falkreath Hold dungeon. I spent 6 hours the other night in a group of 12 players, many of who have been at the game since Launch and know what they are doing, just to beat Sanctum Ophidia. Too many nefs. Too much emphasis on gear. Too much reliance on overly convoluted mechanics like off-balance. Not enough tender loving care to what out classes can do and what has been taken away from them.

Yep, this is what killed any of my hopes for ever running a trial or any vet DLC dungeons. Normal is too faceroll easy, and vet is "one small screw up is a full wipe" difficult. (No dedicated guild either)

If your build isn't absolutely perfect, most consider that you are nothing more than a detriment. And nerfing things across the board for the sake of "balance" does not help that.

Making things more difficult for the somewhat decent players (like myself), only further gates end-game experience and rewards to only the most elite players. The ones who min/max, the ones who have a fully dedicated trials guild, the ones who know how to weave and animation cancel, the ones who have BIS gear (which is usually gated behind already difficult content).

I've been here since launch and have seen so many heavy handed nerfs. No stam regen while blocking in IC, the removal of soft caps, the gutting of so many core class abilities (does anyone even remember Blinding Flashes?), the Morrowind "heavy attacks are now required" resource management update, the list goes on.

What happened to "lowering the ceiling and raising the floor"? Because the ceiling is getting further and further away, while the floor is dropping out from under us.

zParallaxz

LonePirate wrote: »

I need to commend ZOS for creating the best dog and pony show imaginable when it comes to soliciting player feedback on classes, abilities, etc. and then proceeding to ignore every piece of that feedback. Other game companies might try to fool their players by making illusory changes. ZOS doesn't do that. They now state up front they won't be making any class or balance changes. I, for one, appreciate this honesty and courage. Other companies do not have the guts to be so dismissive towards their paying customers. ZOS is charting a new and exciting course for everyone involved.

If anyone thinks any recommendations will be implemented once they are offered by the players involved in the pending Class Representation Program, please PM me so we can talk about some fantastic real estate and cryptocurrency opportunties I have for you!

You low key had me going there for a minute, I was like wtf is he actually saying this.

Faulgor

I'm mostly amazed that they only balance about once a year and yet accomplish so little. Other MMOs manage to push balance patches every 1-2 weeks without them becoming confusing RPG kaleidoscopes.
It just seems like they are horrendously understaffed, and the devs they have left are mostly working on the Crown Store.

anitajoneb17_ESO

Joy_Division wrote: »

You did not mean to be condescending, but you are trying to speak for 90% of the community based on just your assumptions rather than evidence, which I find to be problematic. I don't doubt we all have a reasonable hunch of what certain sectors of the player-base wants or desires, but that is (too) long a leap to all of a sudden be assigning specific numbers and stating what they do or do not want.

I wrote "imho 90%" and that "imho" includes all the restrictions you mention.

Joy_Division wrote: »

But to your question, yes, I absolutely feel a huge gap in power comes from the way ZoS has balanced their game. Before the champion system, the majority of power we had as players came from our class abilities, which was accessible to everyone, not specific gear, not max CP points, not specific combat mechanics such as maintaining off-balance, etc., There were certain gear sets that were broken or very strong such as Warlock and Twin Sisters, but Twin Sisters were soon nerfed and I didn't have to do a end-game Trial to get Warlock. So even if the players were relatively inexperienced or did not know how to play efficiently, the power was still accessible in their kit: it was just a matter of learning how to use it.
Also, with the huge power creep, the difference between a min-maxxed player today is miles ahead of the sorts of players who do not prioritize combat effectiveness. Players today must do things to acquire power outside their class (grind gear, grind CPs, grind jewelry mats, maximize group warhorn up-time, circumvent intentional resource bottlenecks and other nerfs, etc) as well as "L2P". It's a tall order.

Not sure what you mean here.
Before the champion system, grinding a new character took 1 to 6 months (through 16 veteran ranks). Now it takes 10 hours...
Many decent if not BiS gear is easily obtainable from accessible dungeons or overland sources. Which was not always the case before (wasn't warlock in DSA ?)
Warhorn, vigor and caltrops are far easier to obtain now than they used to be.

I think stuff (with the exception of master, maelstrom and asylum weapons, but you can get a decent build without them) and abilities are easier to get than they've ever been, and the power gap comes from the player's skill : rotation, weaving, animation canceling, resource management. Isn't it what good players enjoy ? That their competence as players matters more than their gear and flat stats ?

Joy_Division wrote: »

I think it's fair to say just about every gamer does not like dying before a quest objective is completed and wants the proper tools to function correctly and effectively in order to be able to complete the quest objective. Because of the nerfs, because of the neglect to balance, because of the reliance of systems outside the classes, completing the quest objectives for anything that is not overland content has gotten overly restrictive for everyone, not just those players whose focus is more exploration or RP. If I am not grouped up with three other players who are super cognizant of PvE mechanics, it's pretty much pointless to do something like Falkreath Hold dungeon. I spent 6 hours the other night in a group of 12 players, many of who have been at the game since Launch and know what they are doing, just to beat Sanctum Ophidia. Too many nefs. Too much emphasis on gear. Too much reliance on overly convoluted mechanics like off-balance. Not enough tender loving care to what out classes can do and what has been taken away from them.

Again I'm confused. Yes every player would actually like to do everything but everyone understands that some content is meant for "good players only" and accepts that. Isn't it what good players want ? Challenging and rewarding content ? Zos doesn't have a million ways of keeping the content challenging : either they limit the characters, or they upgrade the content to make it harder.

So I'm not sure anymore what it is you want. I'm not sure either what you mean by "balance". In my understanding of the word, it means being able to play the game with any class without too much discrepancy between the classes. You seem to use the word in a wider sense.

On a side note, I'd like to mention (once again) that "average" or "bad players" are not necessarily players that "don't prioritize combat effectiveness". Some people cannot progress beyond a certain level even if they want to, even if they try and even if they learn. There are many factors involved that cannot be bypassed, such as reaction time, sense of observation, hardware, ping, etc...

anitajoneb17_ESO

Destruent wrote: »

And where's the fun for those who don't like getting knocked down by your frags? You sound really selfish, balance is good for everyone if done right.

If done right ?
Please provide one ... just ONE example of any "balance change" on which you ALL agree as being a "right change". Please. Just ONE.

anitajoneb17_ESO

Riddari wrote: »

You obviously only play DPS because tank balance is not even close to equal among all the classes.

Yes I play DD (on all classes but mainly on sorcerer) and healer (on warden, templar and sorcerer). While I find DDing easier on sorc and templar, and healing easier on templar, it is still doable quite efficiently. In ESO you can play any role with any class and isn't it the definition of "balance" ?

For tanks I don't know, obviously DKs have some natural assets for tanking better than other classes, yet I've completed vet Fang Lair (not the easiest dungeon) with a DK tank, a templar tank and a warden tank (not played by me). Again it's doable.

If you really want all characters to be strictly equal you have to get rid of classes altogether. Is it what you want ?

anitajoneb17_ESO

templesus wrote: »

No successful MMO has EVER survived catering to the sub-par casual players. EVER. The point of balance is to please the end-game players, which is who game developers cater to most of the time. Regardless of your hypothetical 90% who hypothetically ALL share your same opinion regarding balance(this is a giant logical fallacy you committed), ZOS will continue to release END-GAME content because that is what sells. Not quests that could be completed by a 5 year old and more ways to role play.

I wrote "imho 90%" which includes your restriction.
You on the other hand make a statement without any back-up, and that statement goes against anything observable both in ESO and in the gaming world in general.
ESO has never flourished more than since One Tamriel and the transformation of overland activities into a walk in the park. The content that sells most and is heavily advertised is the non-combat content (housing, outfit) or the questing / story content. The new chapters are designed in order for new players to start adventuring there. Dailies are designed as an easy routine for casual players and you still see many players doing them even years later (Orsinium!)
Difficult games don't succeed. You can read that on every single gaming forum where oldtime gamers complain that all games are being casualized for the sake of reaching a wider audience and make more money.

You're simply flatout wrong with your statement that MMOs cater to end game players because that's what sells most. End game content cares for player retention and provides some sense of progression but it's definitely not meant to provide raw sales numbers.

anitajoneb17_ESO

b.bredfeldtub17_ESO wrote: »

The content you're talking about is the shallowest form of content available. Linear story "quests" that ollow every trope known to man-kind and offer nothing cool, unique, or interesting in the story aspect. It's generic content that could be thought of in 5 minutes by a child who's read enough fantasy books, right up there with twilight.

Just because you don't like that content doesn't mean it's bad or noone else likes it. I'll pass on the very condescending judgement you express towards those who like it.
The stories are well written for the most part and Elder Scrolls lore is extremely creative, rich, unique, mature and even philosophically relevant. You probably have not paid it the attention it deserves, else you'd have noticed that.

Arobain

Lmao these meta fellas; oh you took the 1 second stun off one ability? Looks like the whole entire class is useless because I can't simply adapt or make my own build

templesus

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

No successful MMO has EVER survived catering to the sub-par casual players. EVER. The point of balance is to please the end-game players, which is who game developers cater to most of the time. Regardless of your hypothetical 90% who hypothetically ALL share your same opinion regarding balance(this is a giant logical fallacy you committed), ZOS will continue to release END-GAME content because that is what sells. Not quests that could be completed by a 5 year old and more ways to role play.

I wrote "imho 90%" which includes your restriction.
You on the other hand make a statement without any back-up, and that statement goes against anything observable both in ESO and in the gaming world in general.
ESO has never flourished more than since One Tamriel and the transformation of overland activities into a walk in the park. The content that sells most and is heavily advertised is the non-combat content (housing, outfit) or the questing / story content. The new chapters are designed in order for new players to start adventuring there. Dailies are designed as an easy routine for casual players and you still see many players doing them even years later (Orsinium!)
Difficult games don't succeed. You can read that on every single gaming forum where oldtime gamers complain that all games are being casualized for the sake of reaching a wider audience and make more money.

You're simply flatout wrong with your statement that MMOs cater to end game players because that's what sells most. End game content cares for player retention and provides some sense of progression but it's definitely not meant to provide raw sales numbers.

It's not meant to provide pure sales numbers, nowhere in my comment did I state that. By me saying that's what sells im stating that's what gets DLCs purchased and keeps the game alive. What this content does provide is longevity for the game to survive as a whole. Do you think WoW releases new end game content for the sake of it? No, they do it so the game lives on, because below easy content cannot keep a game running. Do you honestly think housing will keep a game alive? Seriously? What the devs will continue to do is release dumbed down easier end-game content for casuals, while having hard mode versions of said content to appease veteran players and give the casuals something to "aim for". This is how games stay alive. WoW did it with Cataclysm, GW2 did it with PoF, ESO will continue to do it, and has done it. Guaranteed.

Derra

Razorback174 wrote: »

What happened to "lowering the ceiling and raising the floor"? Because the ceiling is getting further and further away, while the floor is dropping out from under us.

I have to fundamentally disagree here.

The floor has been raised by miles when comparing how unforgiving and hard the game was at launch.
Harder content also gets gradually easier over time with nerfs and powercreep (however this powercreep does not adress content block mechanics - which means that only content you can beat gets easier you won´t be able to complete new content you previously couldn´t if you still can´t beat the contentblock that´s generally on a gamemechanical level).
While at the same time possibilities to optimise get nerfed for every content aswell (which lowers the ceiling for what good/dedicated players can achieve).

The effect of this is imo that if everything comes closer together numerically it gets a lot harder to balance content if you want it to be not trivial - because you have a smaller margin to play around with (which means for the meant to be hard content it forces more optimisation than it used to - because there is less optimisation potential in total - as in you now HAVE to utilize the little that´s left instead of previously you´d have to utilize 50% of what was possible to beat it).

The problem is how this affects mediocre players - because for them it only has negative effects:

They will still be unable to compare to really good/dedicated players because in that scenario it hardly matters if they are 20% or 80% percent behind a good player - good players only compare amongst themselves.
However bad players have been pushed a lot closer to mediocre ones making them harder to distinguish (for pvp this means previously winable encoutners get unwinable and for pve that unbeatable content is still unbeatable but beatable content gets easier).