Update 35 PTS Combat Feedback & Upcoming Changes
-
peacenote✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭At this point, even if I had time to test on PTS and give feedback I would have no idea where to start. And I have zero idea how to begin rebuilding my characters from this patch if it goes live. The sheer amount of proposed changes is overwhelming.
I do all roles and have all classes but I try to prioritize how things will affect the healing role and... this whole thing just makes me want to never launch the game again. I have a full time job already; ESO cannot require that much time from me to understand combat changes from a single patch.
My advice to anyone in that position - and it's advice I follow myself - is not to read the patch notes but to continue playing the game the same way as usual and see what the outcome is. Thus far with all the combat and balancing changes there have been over the years I simply haven't noticed them in any game-changing or game-breaking way and have just adapted where necessary as I've gone along. Clearly that is hugely dependent on playstyle, but for those who don't have the time or inclination to follow these things in too fine a detail it's the only practical option and is better than simply abandoning the game without trying it after all this goes live.
I appreciate and understand the advice. But I should probably add that this is the first and only patch where I have felt this way, and I've played since beta. I'm in a raid prog group so I have some responsibility to my team to understand how to prepare for the patch. Also I'm trying to make the point that if ZOS is relying on PTS testers to decide what to go live, the changes have gotten out of control if it's almost impossible to narrow down what's most critical to test to "help."
While I do quest and whatnot, I'm here to tackle end game content with my friends. That's why I play ESO instead of a solo RPG or something. I have never seen a patch cycle so convoluted and crazy that I don't feel like I have the capacity to grasp what I need to do to be ready for raiding the raid night after the patch drops. That's... too much change.10 -
Jazraena✭✭✭✭✭
✭shadyjane62 wrote: »More importantly, a lot of people actively welcomed, not only tolerated, AwA. Opinions clashed there, hard.
Some actively welcomed the principle, but most of those who did so and provided feedback on the PTS didn't like the way it was implemented, the assumption having been that it would be either an additional system or a purely optional one, not one that would remove totally the character-based approach of the last 8 years. In the event, the jumbled mess that was implemented on the PTS was overwhelmingly criticised, as was the way that ZOS simply wouldn't engage over it.
I could point to a few hundred people's worth of ESO communities that are still overwhelmingly positive towards AwA. Sorry, but it had a lot more people supporting it than you think.
I deleted 17 alts because of the AWA, so I guess I was in the other camp than you.
I'm not saying it wasn't controversial.
I'm saying it wasn't as onesided as people pretend.5 -
Jazraena✭✭✭✭✭
✭More importantly, a lot of people actively welcomed, not only tolerated, AwA. Opinions clashed there, hard.
Some actively welcomed the principle, but most of those who did so and provided feedback on the PTS didn't like the way it was implemented, the assumption having been that it would be either an additional system or a purely optional one, not one that would remove totally the character-based approach of the last 8 years. In the event, the jumbled mess that was implemented on the PTS was overwhelmingly criticised, as was the way that ZOS simply wouldn't engage over it.
I could point to a few hundred people's worth of ESO communities that are still overwhelmingly positive towards AwA. Sorry, but it had a lot more people supporting it than you think.
Please feel free to do so, after reading the 90 odd pages on the PTS forum which is where the feedback I referred to was concentrated.
Basically every roleplayer community welcomed it. As in, actual cooperative roleplayers, not the 'I play the game thematically' kind.1 -
Dagobertfuk✭✭✭@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_Kevin
Im talking from pvp perspective, with halfed heal
Dark Cloak how it is on actual PTS will be a Skill nobody will use ever again. It wasnt stronger than many other Heals even. Vigor was way stronger on people with high weapon/spellpoer. And since vigor gets major resolve its even less worth it, to even think about using it as a Nightblade.
My Nightblade in Cyrodiil on live servers with 40k HP gets 2,6k hps with dark cloak. After the first Dark Cloak Nerf in pts week one or two, i had to be 50% Player HP to get the heal value from live servers. Right now on pts after the second nerf, i have to be at 10% player HP to get almost old value of 2520 hps. I did the math with the pts maximum of 14%. Even Vampire Drain, a skill nobody with more than 2 braincells is using in PvP to heal up, heals more than actual PTS Dark Cloak.
Any reason why anyone should use PTS Dark Cloak instead of another healing ability other than for style? I can't think of any. Mainly because every other healing ability heals me more by a frightening margin, no matter how much HP I have, except at 10% where Dark Cloak get it old healing value.
Image when i dont have 40k HP. Hard to imagine but it gets even worse rofl.
But a skill that only really works, when i am already with both legs in the grave, in execute range and eating 400% extra dmg from enemy execute's, is a total abilityslot waste.Edited by Dagobertfuk on August 3, 2022 4:22PM2 -
OolongSnakeTea✭✭✭✭Would be cool to have Psijic Order Skill Line imbue weapon and its morphs be able to be applied to heavy attacks, with the new skill-gap-change initiative for players who like heavy attack builds.
"I try to create sympathy for my characters, then turn the monsters loose."– Stephen King3 -
Aldoss✭✭✭✭✭
✭OnGodiDoDis wrote: »ESO_Nightingale wrote: »i really hope that you guys standardise arctic blast's dps as well, giving it 1 tick per second. as it stands, it's worst than most dots because it's damage is lower and it's cost is far higher. this is for obvious reasons, however, arctic blast is closer than ever to being a legit dps skill for pve dps. and it really should be as it's been a frost warden want for a long time. the stun still should be moved to another skill to finally offer us an on-demand stun.
scorch should stick to intervals of 3. (3,6,9). and deep fissure dealing frost damage would be great for frost dps builds while having no impact for other builds.
I would like to add that PvP Wardens use War Maiden, being that all our animal companions skills are Magic damage. Converting Deep Fissure to frost is going to kill that build, leaving us with no other option, as War Maiden offers the highest damage than other sets.
War Maiden is not part of this meta and hasn't been for some time. It's also not the only damage set out there. My current magden build is using coral riptide and clever, which boosts spell damage to over 7k fully buffed, and buffs my healing as well, where War Maiden doesn't.
There are plenty of options for Magdens to use if/once they finalize the identity for warden as frost caster/bleed bruiser.
Holding us back because of one set is not how we'll get the progressive changes we need to stop being bottom barrel.1 -
Mr_Stach✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭While I get the requests to have data to analyze, if large numbers of players start dreading updates and patch notes instead of looking forward to them I think there is something fundamentally wrong. Players are supposed to keep wanting to play because it’s fun.
Altoholic, Frost Warden Sympathizer and Main
Glacial Guardian - Main - Frost Warden Zealot
The Frost Man Cometh - PC Frost Backup11 -
xylena_lazarow✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭
For real, I am dreading having to fight players wearing Mara's Balm with such nerfed PvP damage. We should be looking forward to new builds and sets, not counting the days left that the game is still fun.While I get the requests to have data to analyze, if large numbers of players start dreading updates and patch notes instead of looking forward to them I think there is something fundamentally wrong. Players are supposed to keep wanting to play because it’s fun.PC/NA || CP/Cyro || RIP soft caps3 -
peacenote✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭shadyjane62 wrote: »More importantly, a lot of people actively welcomed, not only tolerated, AwA. Opinions clashed there, hard.
Some actively welcomed the principle, but most of those who did so and provided feedback on the PTS didn't like the way it was implemented, the assumption having been that it would be either an additional system or a purely optional one, not one that would remove totally the character-based approach of the last 8 years. In the event, the jumbled mess that was implemented on the PTS was overwhelmingly criticised, as was the way that ZOS simply wouldn't engage over it.
I could point to a few hundred people's worth of ESO communities that are still overwhelmingly positive towards AwA. Sorry, but it had a lot more people supporting it than you think.
I deleted 17 alts because of the AWA, so I guess I was in the other camp than you.
I'm not saying it wasn't controversial.
I'm saying it wasn't as onesided as people pretend.
Oh, you are extremely correct. Not only was it not one-sided, it was a multifaceted topic with many nuances. Some people wanted only account-wide titles, some people wanted an extra layer of achievements, some people wanted the implementation on the table to be tweaked with better choices, some people were upset about the havoc it wreaked with NPCs and stories and maps, some people were upset with the "earned by" text.... I could go on and on (and have, in previous posts).
It was much more complicated than a simple pro or con. And that's exactly why it's a relevant comparison to U35. ZOS used a sledgehammer to put in AwA, which happened to align with feedback from a portion of the community, when a scalpel could have been used to accomplish the same thing PLUS avoid negatively impacting the play style of many others. Yes, there would have always been the people with such strict opinions that the militant "don't do anything" or "make it so only one character matters" approach is the only thing that would have made them happy, but they were in the minority. A lot of the people who actively welcomed the changes would have been just as happy with some of the suggestions which would have made AwA better.
For U35, at least in PTS round 1 (at this point I'm not following everything but the empower change seems pretty sudden and drastic), ZOS appeared to have used not one but many sledgehammers in a variety of areas of the game's combat to accomplish some very specific goals, and with changes this broad and deep in one go it's almost impossible to even assess unintended consequences and decimated play styles that could have been kept intact while still accomplishing the stated goals if done more carefully across a longer timeline. It's become a very frustrating roller coaster to be on.8 -
Elsonso✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭It was much more complicated than a simple pro or con. And that's exactly why it's a relevant comparison to U35. ZOS used a sledgehammer to put in AwA, which happened to align with feedback from a portion of the community, when a scalpel could have been used to accomplish the same thing PLUS avoid negatively impacting the play style of many others.
My belief, based on how they chose to do AwA, what they said, including things said in Slashlurk's stream in 2021, and how they promoted it, was that it was less about feedback from one particular portion of the community and more about what they needed it to do. The scalpel approach might not have achieved what they needed. If this was the case, I would have been fine with it if they had just said so, rather than turtling up and ghosting the players on the subject.
If it was not the case, and changing it was just something they didn't want to do, I would have been fine if they had said that, rather than turtling up and ghosting the players on the subject.
For U35, ... ZOS appeared to have used not one but many sledgehammers in a variety of areas of the game's combat to accomplish some very specific goals, and with changes this broad and deep in one go it's almost impossible to even assess unintended consequences and decimated play styles that could have been kept intact while still accomplishing the stated goals if done more carefully across a longer timeline. It's become a very frustrating roller coaster to be on.
I keep getting this nagging feeling that there are several goals for these changes. They are telling us the one that they think we should hear about, but it is the other ones that are really driving the changes. Meanwhile, what they are telling us ain't selling it.
Maybe it is just what it is, but I am so used to being ghosted, that I just assume that there is more and we have to figure it out for ourselves.
6 -
Tandor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭More importantly, a lot of people actively welcomed, not only tolerated, AwA. Opinions clashed there, hard.
Some actively welcomed the principle, but most of those who did so and provided feedback on the PTS didn't like the way it was implemented, the assumption having been that it would be either an additional system or a purely optional one, not one that would remove totally the character-based approach of the last 8 years. In the event, the jumbled mess that was implemented on the PTS was overwhelmingly criticised, as was the way that ZOS simply wouldn't engage over it.
I could point to a few hundred people's worth of ESO communities that are still overwhelmingly positive towards AwA. Sorry, but it had a lot more people supporting it than you think.
Please feel free to do so, after reading the 90 odd pages on the PTS forum which is where the feedback I referred to was concentrated.
Basically every roleplayer community welcomed it. As in, actual cooperative roleplayers, not the 'I play the game thematically' kind.
I guess there's more than one kind of elitist playing the game, not just the parse obsessives
! 2 -
Jazraena✭✭✭✭✭
✭More importantly, a lot of people actively welcomed, not only tolerated, AwA. Opinions clashed there, hard.
Some actively welcomed the principle, but most of those who did so and provided feedback on the PTS didn't like the way it was implemented, the assumption having been that it would be either an additional system or a purely optional one, not one that would remove totally the character-based approach of the last 8 years. In the event, the jumbled mess that was implemented on the PTS was overwhelmingly criticised, as was the way that ZOS simply wouldn't engage over it.
I could point to a few hundred people's worth of ESO communities that are still overwhelmingly positive towards AwA. Sorry, but it had a lot more people supporting it than you think.
Please feel free to do so, after reading the 90 odd pages on the PTS forum which is where the feedback I referred to was concentrated.
Basically every roleplayer community welcomed it. As in, actual cooperative roleplayers, not the 'I play the game thematically' kind.
I guess there's more than one kind of elitist playing the game, not just the parse obsessives !
It's not about elitism.
It's about said thematical players (of which I am one myself occasionally, mind you) being something different than people doing cooperative roleplaying in the TES universe using ESO as a medium. One isn't better than the other; they're simply different things and nobody is aided in thematical players coopting the other term.4 -
JMadFour✭✭✭✭✭I am in no way, shape, or form, defending these combat changes. I trust all of you when you say these are bad changes.
However, I find the idea of a game community who reduces the entire game down to a number generated by repeatedly attacking an inanimate object for a period of time complaining that the Devs used spreadsheets instead of gameplay to determine and implement their changes to be hilarious.6 -
Jazraena✭✭✭✭✭
✭shadyjane62 wrote: »More importantly, a lot of people actively welcomed, not only tolerated, AwA. Opinions clashed there, hard.
Some actively welcomed the principle, but most of those who did so and provided feedback on the PTS didn't like the way it was implemented, the assumption having been that it would be either an additional system or a purely optional one, not one that would remove totally the character-based approach of the last 8 years. In the event, the jumbled mess that was implemented on the PTS was overwhelmingly criticised, as was the way that ZOS simply wouldn't engage over it.
I could point to a few hundred people's worth of ESO communities that are still overwhelmingly positive towards AwA. Sorry, but it had a lot more people supporting it than you think.
I deleted 17 alts because of the AWA, so I guess I was in the other camp than you.
I'm not saying it wasn't controversial.
I'm saying it wasn't as onesided as people pretend.
Oh, you are extremely correct. Not only was it not one-sided, it was a multifaceted topic with many nuances. Some people wanted only account-wide titles, some people wanted an extra layer of achievements, some people wanted the implementation on the table to be tweaked with better choices, some people were upset about the havoc it wreaked with NPCs and stories and maps, some people were upset with the "earned by" text.... I could go on and on (and have, in previous posts).
It was much more complicated than a simple pro or con. And that's exactly why it's a relevant comparison to U35. ZOS used a sledgehammer to put in AwA, which happened to align with feedback from a portion of the community, when a scalpel could have been used to accomplish the same thing PLUS avoid negatively impacting the play style of many others. Yes, there would have always been the people with such strict opinions that the militant "don't do anything" or "make it so only one character matters" approach is the only thing that would have made them happy, but they were in the minority. A lot of the people who actively welcomed the changes would have been just as happy with some of the suggestions which would have made AwA better.
For U35, at least in PTS round 1 (at this point I'm not following everything but the empower change seems pretty sudden and drastic), ZOS appeared to have used not one but many sledgehammers in a variety of areas of the game's combat to accomplish some very specific goals, and with changes this broad and deep in one go it's almost impossible to even assess unintended consequences and decimated play styles that could have been kept intact while still accomplishing the stated goals if done more carefully across a longer timeline. It's become a very frustrating roller coaster to be on.
Fair comparison, actually, from that POV. Though the main difference to me is that nobody actually looking at it is saying 'this is a good thing'.
At best, the recent additions and updates made a few us of go 'This might become a good thing, but side effects'.0 -
VaranisArano✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭More importantly, a lot of people actively welcomed, not only tolerated, AwA. Opinions clashed there, hard.
Some actively welcomed the principle, but most of those who did so and provided feedback on the PTS didn't like the way it was implemented, the assumption having been that it would be either an additional system or a purely optional one, not one that would remove totally the character-based approach of the last 8 years. In the event, the jumbled mess that was implemented on the PTS was overwhelmingly criticised, as was the way that ZOS simply wouldn't engage over it.
I could point to a few hundred people's worth of ESO communities that are still overwhelmingly positive towards AwA. Sorry, but it had a lot more people supporting it than you think.
Please feel free to do so, after reading the 90 odd pages on the PTS forum which is where the feedback I referred to was concentrated.
Basically every roleplayer community welcomed it. As in, actual cooperative roleplayers, not the 'I play the game thematically' kind.
I guess there's more than one kind of elitist playing the game, not just the parse obsessives !
It's not about elitism.
It's about said thematical players (of which I am one myself occasionally, mind you) being something different than people doing cooperative roleplaying in the TES universe using ESO as a medium. One isn't better than the other; they're simply different things and nobody is aided in thematical players coopting the other term.
I guess I'm confused as to your distinction here.
I'm guessing that cooperative role-playing using ESO as a medium is somewhat akin to D&D role-playing or MMO role-playing servers as in WOW?
Whereas thematic role-playing like "My character is an Imperial do-gooder worshiper of Stendarr and I role-play through the quests accordingly" is more akin to the traditional TES singleplayer game experience?
As a player who does both types, I'm not really seeing the problem or why one is "co-opting" the term roleplaying from the other.
(Sorry that this is completely off topic from combat, but I love hearing how other people think about roleplaying.)Edited by VaranisArano on August 3, 2022 7:31PM3 -
Jazraena✭✭✭✭✭
✭VaranisArano wrote: »More importantly, a lot of people actively welcomed, not only tolerated, AwA. Opinions clashed there, hard.
Some actively welcomed the principle, but most of those who did so and provided feedback on the PTS didn't like the way it was implemented, the assumption having been that it would be either an additional system or a purely optional one, not one that would remove totally the character-based approach of the last 8 years. In the event, the jumbled mess that was implemented on the PTS was overwhelmingly criticised, as was the way that ZOS simply wouldn't engage over it.
I could point to a few hundred people's worth of ESO communities that are still overwhelmingly positive towards AwA. Sorry, but it had a lot more people supporting it than you think.
Please feel free to do so, after reading the 90 odd pages on the PTS forum which is where the feedback I referred to was concentrated.
Basically every roleplayer community welcomed it. As in, actual cooperative roleplayers, not the 'I play the game thematically' kind.
I guess there's more than one kind of elitist playing the game, not just the parse obsessives !
It's not about elitism.
It's about said thematical players (of which I am one myself occasionally, mind you) being something different than people doing cooperative roleplaying in the TES universe using ESO as a medium. One isn't better than the other; they're simply different things and nobody is aided in thematical players coopting the other term.
I guess I'm confused as to your distinction here.
I'm guessing that cooperative role-playing using ESO as a medium is somewhat akin to D&D role-playing or MMO role-playing servers as in WOW?
Whereas thematic role-playing like "My character is an Imperial do-gooder worshiper of Stendarr and I role-play through the quests accordingly" is more akin to the traditional TES singleplayer game experience?
As a player who does both types, I'm not really seeing the problem or why one is "co-opting" the term roleplaying from the other.
Yes, those two. Perhaps co-opting is the wrong word. I don't really care however - my point is they're two different things, and on the AwA topic in particular those two groups had largely opposed views to each other. I just need to differentiate the two, and since one predates the other it's fairly straightforward to me.0 -
VaranisArano✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭VaranisArano wrote: »More importantly, a lot of people actively welcomed, not only tolerated, AwA. Opinions clashed there, hard.
Some actively welcomed the principle, but most of those who did so and provided feedback on the PTS didn't like the way it was implemented, the assumption having been that it would be either an additional system or a purely optional one, not one that would remove totally the character-based approach of the last 8 years. In the event, the jumbled mess that was implemented on the PTS was overwhelmingly criticised, as was the way that ZOS simply wouldn't engage over it.
I could point to a few hundred people's worth of ESO communities that are still overwhelmingly positive towards AwA. Sorry, but it had a lot more people supporting it than you think.
Please feel free to do so, after reading the 90 odd pages on the PTS forum which is where the feedback I referred to was concentrated.
Basically every roleplayer community welcomed it. As in, actual cooperative roleplayers, not the 'I play the game thematically' kind.
I guess there's more than one kind of elitist playing the game, not just the parse obsessives !
It's not about elitism.
It's about said thematical players (of which I am one myself occasionally, mind you) being something different than people doing cooperative roleplaying in the TES universe using ESO as a medium. One isn't better than the other; they're simply different things and nobody is aided in thematical players coopting the other term.
I guess I'm confused as to your distinction here.
I'm guessing that cooperative role-playing using ESO as a medium is somewhat akin to D&D role-playing or MMO role-playing servers as in WOW?
Whereas thematic role-playing like "My character is an Imperial do-gooder worshiper of Stendarr and I role-play through the quests accordingly" is more akin to the traditional TES singleplayer game experience?
As a player who does both types, I'm not really seeing the problem or why one is "co-opting" the term roleplaying from the other.
Yes, those two. Perhaps co-opting is the wrong word. I don't really care however - my point is they're two different things, and on the AwA topic in particular those two groups had largely opposed views to each other. I just need to differentiate the two, and since one predates the other it's fairly straightforward to me.
That's fair. ESO has done a lot of emulate the TES singleplayer RPG style, much to its success. But every once in a while there's a sharp reminder like AWA that this is an MMORPG.4 -
Jazraena✭✭✭✭✭
✭Mhm.
I do love AwA, but 'tis a shame we couldn't get both account-wide and individual character tracking.4 -
jaws343✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭It was much more complicated than a simple pro or con. And that's exactly why it's a relevant comparison to U35. ZOS used a sledgehammer to put in AwA, which happened to align with feedback from a portion of the community, when a scalpel could have been used to accomplish the same thing PLUS avoid negatively impacting the play style of many others.
My belief, based on how they chose to do AwA, what they said, including things said in Slashlurk's stream in 2021, and how they promoted it, was that it was less about feedback from one particular portion of the community and more about what they needed it to do. The scalpel approach might not have achieved what they needed. If this was the case, I would have been fine with it if they had just said so, rather than turtling up and ghosting the players on the subject.
If it was not the case, and changing it was just something they didn't want to do, I would have been fine if they had said that, rather than turtling up and ghosting the players on the subject.For U35, ... ZOS appeared to have used not one but many sledgehammers in a variety of areas of the game's combat to accomplish some very specific goals, and with changes this broad and deep in one go it's almost impossible to even assess unintended consequences and decimated play styles that could have been kept intact while still accomplishing the stated goals if done more carefully across a longer timeline. It's become a very frustrating roller coaster to be on.
I keep getting this nagging feeling that there are several goals for these changes. They are telling us the one that they think we should hear about, but it is the other ones that are really driving the changes. Meanwhile, what they are telling us ain't selling it.
Maybe it is just what it is, but I am so used to being ghosted, that I just assume that there is more and we have to figure it out for ourselves.
I think this is exactly what this patch is really. For years now they have been very openly attempting to lower DPS. They tried with the CP changes, they tried with the Crit damage cap, I think the hyrbidization moves were even an attempt at it. And nothing has really worked. So they are trying again, and seemingly succeeding, but they are using accessibility as the buzzword to sell it because players don't want to hear that they are doing too much damage as a whole and the combat/content teams can't keep up with the creep in a reasonable way.6 -
mpicklesster✭✭✭Ragnarok0130 wrote: »If you really want to raise the floor make dots stronger not weaker, make a real tutorial that describes game systems - both intended game systems like skills/weapons/armor vs roles and unintended game systems like light attack weaving. You can't patch class and role competency into the game but you can prep the battlefield to set new players up for success with robust explanations and tutorials so they don't look at us blankly when we tell them about things like LA weaving or that their play style and build from Skryim won't work for group content.
^I, too, really wish ZOS would take this approach to raising the floor. All of these changes to stats and ability durations will do little to raise the floor if a large portion of the player base has no intuition for theory crafting and building a rotation.
As @OolongSnakeTea pointed out in a previous comment, other games (with arguably smaller budgets, mind you) already do a better job educating their players. This means it's entirely feasible for ZOS to do the same. Anyway--check out their original comment here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/7665046/#Comment_7665046 There, they show how a game called Wildstar has made very structured, in-game tutorials. The example tutorial in the clip covers dungeon mechanics, but similar tutorials could easily be made for combat with a budget like ZOS's.
Edit:
P.S. For added "immersion," ZOS could make the tutorials a series of Undaunted quests one must complete before queueing for vet dungeons for the first time.
Edited by mpicklesster on August 3, 2022 7:55PM3 -
Jaraal✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭shadyjane62 wrote: »More importantly, a lot of people actively welcomed, not only tolerated, AwA. Opinions clashed there, hard.
Some actively welcomed the principle, but most of those who did so and provided feedback on the PTS didn't like the way it was implemented, the assumption having been that it would be either an additional system or a purely optional one, not one that would remove totally the character-based approach of the last 8 years. In the event, the jumbled mess that was implemented on the PTS was overwhelmingly criticised, as was the way that ZOS simply wouldn't engage over it.
I could point to a few hundred people's worth of ESO communities that are still overwhelmingly positive towards AwA. Sorry, but it had a lot more people supporting it than you think.
I deleted 17 alts because of the AWA, so I guess I was in the other camp than you.
I'm not saying it wasn't controversial.
I'm saying it wasn't as onesided as people pretend.
95% of the posts were against AwA as it was implemented.
A 5% minority does not invalidate the one-sidedness as displayed.RIP Bosmer Nation. 4/4/14 - 2/25/19.2 -
Jazraena✭✭✭✭✭
✭shadyjane62 wrote: »More importantly, a lot of people actively welcomed, not only tolerated, AwA. Opinions clashed there, hard.
Some actively welcomed the principle, but most of those who did so and provided feedback on the PTS didn't like the way it was implemented, the assumption having been that it would be either an additional system or a purely optional one, not one that would remove totally the character-based approach of the last 8 years. In the event, the jumbled mess that was implemented on the PTS was overwhelmingly criticised, as was the way that ZOS simply wouldn't engage over it.
I could point to a few hundred people's worth of ESO communities that are still overwhelmingly positive towards AwA. Sorry, but it had a lot more people supporting it than you think.
I deleted 17 alts because of the AWA, so I guess I was in the other camp than you.
I'm not saying it wasn't controversial.
I'm saying it wasn't as onesided as people pretend.
95% of the posts were against AwA as it was implemented.
A 5% minority does not invalidate the one-sidedness as displayed.
You have greatly exagerated assumptions about how representative this forum is.2 -
Tandor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭VaranisArano wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »More importantly, a lot of people actively welcomed, not only tolerated, AwA. Opinions clashed there, hard.
Some actively welcomed the principle, but most of those who did so and provided feedback on the PTS didn't like the way it was implemented, the assumption having been that it would be either an additional system or a purely optional one, not one that would remove totally the character-based approach of the last 8 years. In the event, the jumbled mess that was implemented on the PTS was overwhelmingly criticised, as was the way that ZOS simply wouldn't engage over it.
I could point to a few hundred people's worth of ESO communities that are still overwhelmingly positive towards AwA. Sorry, but it had a lot more people supporting it than you think.
Please feel free to do so, after reading the 90 odd pages on the PTS forum which is where the feedback I referred to was concentrated.
Basically every roleplayer community welcomed it. As in, actual cooperative roleplayers, not the 'I play the game thematically' kind.
I guess there's more than one kind of elitist playing the game, not just the parse obsessives !
It's not about elitism.
It's about said thematical players (of which I am one myself occasionally, mind you) being something different than people doing cooperative roleplaying in the TES universe using ESO as a medium. One isn't better than the other; they're simply different things and nobody is aided in thematical players coopting the other term.
I guess I'm confused as to your distinction here.
I'm guessing that cooperative role-playing using ESO as a medium is somewhat akin to D&D role-playing or MMO role-playing servers as in WOW?
Whereas thematic role-playing like "My character is an Imperial do-gooder worshiper of Stendarr and I role-play through the quests accordingly" is more akin to the traditional TES singleplayer game experience?
As a player who does both types, I'm not really seeing the problem or why one is "co-opting" the term roleplaying from the other.
Yes, those two. Perhaps co-opting is the wrong word. I don't really care however - my point is they're two different things, and on the AwA topic in particular those two groups had largely opposed views to each other. I just need to differentiate the two, and since one predates the other it's fairly straightforward to me.
That's fair. ESO has done a lot of emulate the TES singleplayer RPG style, much to its success. But every once in a while there's a sharp reminder like AWA that this is an MMORPG.
I agree, and it doesn't matter which kind of RPG it is, it is a MMORPG and that's what matters. Many of us are roleplayers and trying to divide us into a roleplaying community as opposed to thematic roleplayers really isn't helpful, not least in the context of the current combat changes as the relevance of the AwA precedent is that it too ended with a supposed Q&A article, and we remember how that was received. I hope this time they will actually address the concerns that have been expressed over these changes.2 -
Jazraena✭✭✭✭✭
✭VaranisArano wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »More importantly, a lot of people actively welcomed, not only tolerated, AwA. Opinions clashed there, hard.
Some actively welcomed the principle, but most of those who did so and provided feedback on the PTS didn't like the way it was implemented, the assumption having been that it would be either an additional system or a purely optional one, not one that would remove totally the character-based approach of the last 8 years. In the event, the jumbled mess that was implemented on the PTS was overwhelmingly criticised, as was the way that ZOS simply wouldn't engage over it.
I could point to a few hundred people's worth of ESO communities that are still overwhelmingly positive towards AwA. Sorry, but it had a lot more people supporting it than you think.
Please feel free to do so, after reading the 90 odd pages on the PTS forum which is where the feedback I referred to was concentrated.
Basically every roleplayer community welcomed it. As in, actual cooperative roleplayers, not the 'I play the game thematically' kind.
I guess there's more than one kind of elitist playing the game, not just the parse obsessives !
It's not about elitism.
It's about said thematical players (of which I am one myself occasionally, mind you) being something different than people doing cooperative roleplaying in the TES universe using ESO as a medium. One isn't better than the other; they're simply different things and nobody is aided in thematical players coopting the other term.
I guess I'm confused as to your distinction here.
I'm guessing that cooperative role-playing using ESO as a medium is somewhat akin to D&D role-playing or MMO role-playing servers as in WOW?
Whereas thematic role-playing like "My character is an Imperial do-gooder worshiper of Stendarr and I role-play through the quests accordingly" is more akin to the traditional TES singleplayer game experience?
As a player who does both types, I'm not really seeing the problem or why one is "co-opting" the term roleplaying from the other.
Yes, those two. Perhaps co-opting is the wrong word. I don't really care however - my point is they're two different things, and on the AwA topic in particular those two groups had largely opposed views to each other. I just need to differentiate the two, and since one predates the other it's fairly straightforward to me.
That's fair. ESO has done a lot of emulate the TES singleplayer RPG style, much to its success. But every once in a while there's a sharp reminder like AWA that this is an MMORPG.
I agree, and it doesn't matter which kind of RPG it is, it is a MMORPG and that's what matters. Many of us are roleplayers and trying to divide us into a roleplaying community as opposed to thematic roleplayers really isn't helpful, not least in the context of the current combat changes as the relevance of the AwA precedent is that it too ended with a supposed Q&A article, and we remember how that was received. I hope this time they will actually address the concerns that have been expressed over these changes.
It's not about dividing, elitism or excluding anyone, again. Sorry if it came across that way. But one group was firmly pro-AwA, the other against. I needed a way to differentiate, no more.0 -
Jaraal✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭shadyjane62 wrote: »More importantly, a lot of people actively welcomed, not only tolerated, AwA. Opinions clashed there, hard.
Some actively welcomed the principle, but most of those who did so and provided feedback on the PTS didn't like the way it was implemented, the assumption having been that it would be either an additional system or a purely optional one, not one that would remove totally the character-based approach of the last 8 years. In the event, the jumbled mess that was implemented on the PTS was overwhelmingly criticised, as was the way that ZOS simply wouldn't engage over it.
I could point to a few hundred people's worth of ESO communities that are still overwhelmingly positive towards AwA. Sorry, but it had a lot more people supporting it than you think.
I deleted 17 alts because of the AWA, so I guess I was in the other camp than you.
I'm not saying it wasn't controversial.
I'm saying it wasn't as onesided as people pretend.
95% of the posts were against AwA as it was implemented.
A 5% minority does not invalidate the one-sidedness as displayed.
You have greatly exagerated assumptions about how representative this forum is.
I don't assume the content of the posts. It's all there in black and white.
Edited by Jaraal on August 3, 2022 8:07PMRIP Bosmer Nation. 4/4/14 - 2/25/19.2 -
Tandor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Can we not derail the thread about update 35 by making it about AWA, thanks.
I understand your point, but actually they're directly related, both in terms of considering the degree of opposition and also the promise of Q&A articles. Those who don't want the combat changes ZOS are pursuing shouldn't overlook the way in which the AwA changes were introduced, precedent-wise. It's also a clear demonstration that even though an unpopular change is pushed through, the opposition to it doesn't just go away. I'm sure that will also be the case with these changes.Edited by Tandor on August 3, 2022 10:22PM3 -
renne✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Can we not derail the thread about update 35 by making it about AWA, thanks.
I understand your point, but actually they're directly related, both in terms of considering the degree of opposition and also the promise of Q&A articles. Those who don't want the combat changes ZOS are pursuing shouldn't overlook the way in which the AwA changes were introduced, precedent-wise. It's also a clear demonstration that even though an unpopular change is pushed through, the opposition to it doesn't just go away. I'm sure that will also be the case with these changes.
Except a ton of people actually wanted AWA, which is not the case here. Either way, this is still not the thread for it.5 -
Elsonso✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭P.S. - And yes, I feel very awkward writing this on the "studio forum". Should be something posted elsewhere.Edited by Elsonso on August 3, 2022 11:50PM0 -
Veesk✭✭✭✭I went back on the PTS today to try and play around with Templar again... and I just cannot bring myself to like or enjoy the jabs/sweeps animation and mechanic change.
I still really dislike the new spear, it's weird that it's an in game motif that has nothing to do with Templars. That super awkward and dramatic swing of the spear back behind your character on the final jab is so weird looking and incredibly distracting in combat. And the speed of the spear jabbing feels slower ironically for a shorter animation, and the actual jabbing motion seems softer and less aggressive. It animates like you are just kinda poking at enemies rather than giving really aggressive jabbing motions.
Please revert the jab/sweep changes, if it needs nerfing on damage or heals whatever but it sucks losing the 4th jab along with this wonky new animation. The current live version looks more accurate to how you would use a spear and it feels better to use. A large majority of Templar mains, based on feedback, show they don't like the changes either.10