Update 35 PTS Combat Feedback & Upcoming Changes

TX12001rwb17_ESO

People are complain simply because they cannot achieve as high DPS as before, wouldn't the solution to fix this to simply make all Fire and Forget abilities stronger?

If Eviscerate, Scythe, Concealed Weapon, Cryystal Frags do 8000 damage on live it could do 12000 damage in U35, that sort of thing.

DeathStalker

This response by ZOS gives me 2 big questions.
1. How does lowering dps making fights longer and harder increase accessibility?
2. Will NPC monsters be using the same lowered damage scale?

PandaSticks

I main a nb. Why why why is twisting path nerfed?? And why is my CLASS ABILITY killers blade the same as a weapon ability??? It's supposed to be unique because it's a "class" ability...I'm so confused.

starkerealm

DeathStalker wrote: »

This response by ZOS gives me 2 big questions.
1. How does lowering dps making fights longer and harder increase accessibility?
2. Will NPC monsters be using the same lowered damage scale?

There's actually a real answer for #1, and ESO doesn't do it.

Titan Quest's Anniversary Edition introduced a speed toggle. Playing at double speed (which is the default now, IIRC) is way less accessible because you have less time to react to events around you. Dropping it back to the 2006 speed is much more accessible, it's easier to parse what's going on, but if you're an experienced player it is more tedious (since you're already used to the late game combat tempo where things are coming at you constantly.)

Total War offers another example, with a 1/2 speed option in tactical modes. Again, it gives the player more time to understand what's going on and respond.

However, critically, in both of those cases, it's making the combat easier, because everything is slowed down. Reducing player damage by itself is often a (very cheap) way of increasing difficulty.

Can you increase accessibility by increasing difficulty? I"m not sure, it might be possible, but I'm not sure how you'd do that. (Possibly through unique items, which, I guess Oakensoul does that already, restricts your options but aids accessibility.)

Olen_Mikko

So, i guess sorcs and wardens were loud enough to get some changes reverted. Nightblades, make sure to be loud enough so we'll get our incoming buffs.

spacewolfplays

I sure hope they extend this PTS cycle if needed. Seriously. Dont rush these big changes. Let the feedback in and delay the release to live.

vivisectvib16_ESO

Caff32 wrote: »

Stop. Looking. At. Spreadsheets.
Start. Listening. To. Your. Players.
WE. DON'T. WANT. THESE. CHANGES.

This. No one asked for this. Especially this late into the game's life-cycle. I'm sick and tired of being exhausted by the mental gymnastics being played by the dev/design teams in order to justify constantly putting their players through the ringer and then acting like we're out of line when we're upset/react.

@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_Gilliam @ZOS_MattFiror @ZOS_RichLambert

Dagoth_Rac

starkerealm wrote: »

DeathStalker wrote: »

This response by ZOS gives me 2 big questions.
1. How does lowering dps making fights longer and harder increase accessibility?
2. Will NPC monsters be using the same lowered damage scale?

There's actually a real answer for #1, and ESO doesn't do it.

Titan Quest's Anniversary Edition introduced a speed toggle. Playing at double speed (which is the default now, IIRC) is way less accessible because you have less time to react to events around you. Dropping it back to the 2006 speed is much more accessible, it's easier to parse what's going on, but if you're an experienced player it is more tedious (since you're already used to the late game combat tempo where things are coming at you constantly.)

Total War offers another example, with a 1/2 speed option in tactical modes. Again, it gives the player more time to understand what's going on and respond.

However, critically, in both of those cases, it's making the combat easier, because everything is slowed down. Reducing player damage by itself is often a (very cheap) way of increasing difficulty.

Can you increase accessibility by increasing difficulty? I"m not sure, it might be possible, but I'm not sure how you'd do that. (Possibly through unique items, which, I guess Oakensoul does that already, restricts your options but aids accessibility.)

The Rock Band video games had something like this but it was a bizarre case where faster was easier. It didn't speed up or slow down the music itself, but it cut in half the amount of music that showed on the "note highway" coming towards you and doubled the speed of the "note highway". So instead of seeing 50 notes coming at you, all jumbled into a blurred mess, you would see 25 notes coming at you, with more space between the notes. Regular speed was fine for country or pop or other more casual music. But if you were trying to play Iron Maiden or Metallica or something, it was actually mentally easier to process less notes with more space between moving faster than to see more notes with less space between moving slower.

Faded

ZOS_Gilliam wrote: »

We have taken considerable time to go through and better differentiate standards for Damage and Healing over Time effects based on the type of ability it is. In next week’s patch, abilities that stick to a target (such as Fiery Breath or Lightning Form) will retain their longer duration effects, where they take longer to deal damage at an increased rate per cast, but less per second than what’s currently on the Live servers (i.e., all public servers that are not the PTS). Meanwhile, abilities that are bound to a static area, such as Wall of Elements or Spear Shards, will have shorter durations (closer or identical to their current versions on the Live servers) and less Damage per Cast, but more Damage per Second than their “sticky” counterparts. We have also adjusted the cost to be higher than those “sticky” abilities but will still cost less than they currently do on the Live servers.

Good, this was by far the worst thing in the first iteration.

I still think the 2 second tick is a problem. If this change is for performance rather than gameplay reasons, you should say so. It raises the general frustration threshold.

ZOS_Gilliam wrote: »

After these changes go in next week, we will continue to monitor feedback and act accordingly where deemed necessary, so please continue to provide constructive takes and discussions. Note that we are already planning some additional changes for the Sorcerer and Warden, based on your feedback, that will go on the PTS before Update 35 launches.

Cool, I'm about to win a bet. And all the [snip] I do about people's lack of reading comprehension finally boomeranged on me. I'll just edit it out, nobody will know...

A friendly reminder that providing data always helps us far more than anecdotal feedback, though both are still welcome. Finally, thank you all for your patience and time in helping up improve upon these areas. May your roads lead to warm sands.

o7

[edited so nobody will know]
[edited for profanity bypass]

Styxius

My more significant concern with this is similar to the major failings of the infamous Scalebreaker patch. Gilliam your ideas are decent at times, but you miss crucial details that would make them complete.

For a reminder of those who may have forgotten or were not here for the failure the Scalebreaker patch was:
DoT's were rebalanced and many like Caltrops were nerfed to oblivion. Their goal was to make dots per situation selection, between cleave/AoE vs ST in terms of which DoT's you'd use. However, they failed to recognize the place Spammables would face in this environment.

I, unfortunately, believe Gilliam is making similar mistakes again. With so much data it's possible that issues like this would occur. The adjustments made with U34 thus far have highlighted a vast misunderstanding from the combat balance side. The changes to DoT's had potential from a content design standpoint, but the biggest issue for me at the least was the fact they nerfed damage so much that it defeated and contradicted the changes proposed in their goals. The words used read as misleading. I will say that my advice is I'm not sure scrapping them all at this point would work. Maybe you should invert what changes you're doing? Idk, my biggest concern is you keep doing this. We as a community would love to see more of the interactions communicated when you guys attempted modifying LA's to focus on providing recovery more so over the damage. You did it off cycle and as a form to be open and present an idea, you listened to our feedback better than you ever have before and since. You need to go back to this and be more involved with your community. The marketing of Tales of Tribute was a mistake, you made it a focal point and shouldn't have. You should've let us talk about it. Because ToT is a fantastic card game that IS fun.

These changes had a good idea and may have had the best interest in my heart. I want to believe that, but you can not keep making these underhanded comments directed at us. We can do the math, and the presentation of the ideas allowed people to calculate and infer where you were going wrong and started sounding the alarm immediately. It wasn't knee-jerk, it wasn't operating off a premise. It was because we could calculate this data. We have provided entire spreadsheets comparing things at every stage for you we have had community members breaking things down for you. We know how the game works, we love this game.

Your fault is that in trying to rail in power creep that you did it wrong. That's okay though! People make mistakes on these things, and that's just how it is. We want clearer communication in advance. PTS cycles have an aura of dread and concern the more they have gone on. There feels to be no understanding expressed towards us that maybe this is a poor design method for making changes. You need to do them more frequently, in significantly smaller batches, fine-tuning more than anything. We have data a year ago from builds being made and content creators including my own that are completely worthless within 3 months? Data gets scrambled so often that there is no filter to define what the game is. We want more interactions, focus more on building a class identity, identity of abilities, and more. Focus on improving performance in combat as that's a major issue. Focus on improving the API for addons so that they can be more stable in the engine you provide. Class identity is the biggest issue, not how high DPS is because the majority of your players aren't at that level. I'm part of the stats shown by groups such as OMC where only 600 characters had cleared vRG HM by their stats. You shouldn't be designing this content for the absolutely 1% of DPS players, make them more mechanically engaging, and make them more fun. When you make content that fits that, don't do massive balance changes at the same time. Because if you do then people will be too stuck on what you changed to enjoy what you made.

I sincerely hope you guys can pull this back and work on building the communities trust, the actions that were taken during this PTS cycle even got news outlets talking about the backlash. You can avoid this by being better at talking with us. Anyway, that's enough for now, it's heartbreaking seeing how you approached this situation. It was unfortunately not thought out well and felt like an attack on the player base and had so many mixed messages and so many misleading factors that were blatantly obvious to the community but felt ignored.

The most commonly pointed out one is that you mentioned wanting to hear out our casual friends who like heavy attack builds and that you got them on this one! Kind of mentality, while also delivering them one of the hardest heavy attacks nerfs of all time. It's concerning that it feels like it was written as if these changes were to help and be good. I'm unsure if it's because of the severe lack of communication with the community, or if the information shared isn't properly being communicated. But it felt like these changes were made in a bubble with people who didn't have the heart in it for the community.
This isn't an attack on anyone, I just hope that we can get more thorough communication because this gives me massive shades of Scalebreaker and the player loses that occurred due to similar failures in understanding and communication in development. The ideas aren't bad, they're just not being executed properly.

P.s.: I do like the Jabs change, I do think the Flurry needs the audio fixed. We need more visual flare abilities to help build identity. Also, identity in play and functionality would be appreciated, more so than what they currently are, by a lot. Give them an identity, and a spreadsheet won't accomplish that. But, a community of passion and ideas can. Not all abilities should be 1:1 equals, and that's okay.

TechMaybeHic

Dude. Even sticky dots have been weak as is and I don't think need watered down. Maybe pve DPS is good but pvp they mostly suck save for a handful

anvilbert

Maybe instead of dummy humping,have your team get out and run game content like trials 4 man dungeons on vet hard mode while hog tieded and see how their insane tactics work trying to clear that content with only 20k dps ,heals and tanks with no resistances. Unless of course your whole objective is to sabotage the game itself.

Selot

Cancel the patchnotes entirely. Don't let it go live.

The_Lex

@Gilliamtherogue @ZOS_BrianWheeler @ZOS_RichLambert

Can you please, for the love of all things holy (or unholy, if you prefer), STOP CHANGING THE ENTIRE GAME EVERY 3 DAMN MONTHS!!

Ulfgarde

ZOS_Gilliam wrote: »

A friendly reminder that providing data always helps us far more than anecdotal feedback, though both are still welcome.

I've not played the game in years nor posted on these forums but I've kept up with the game regardless. Let me be clear that I have experienced PvP friends still playing this game and can still give valuable feedback to your team.

Honestly I believe your numerical mindset is what is upsetting the community the most. It shows how disconnected your team is to what we want to see from the game; instead, you are OBSSESSED with these spreadsheets and want to homogenize the game even more than it ever has. All creativity and new skills get stifled every time something interesting is added. Any time you add new sets or make a class stronger, it gets flattened to this ridiculous standard that you have created for unknown reasons. For the sake of numbers you want to kill PvP's healing responsiveness and Templar's fluidity, not to mention the identity of jabs being a 4-tick ability. This is just a small list of these reckless and neurotic updates that keep making the game feel unpredictable and not worth putting effort into.

First it was your team wanting to make every spammable the same damage, making everything feel similar other than the ones that were simply much more overpowered. Just compare surprise attack's changes to freaking necro's skull or warden's birds and tell me that you don't lack the foresight in these changes proving you don't care about the health of PvP.

And worst of all I believe the quote you posted is just petty and passive aggressive to the community. Those who oppose your little numbers game that you've run into this game for these years. And overall it goes to show you don't care about us and think of our input as needless and anecdotal. My point is this: Stop trying to devalue the playerbase's input; you are developer and obviously do not play the game actively to be able to act like you know better.

Maybe think for a second that in these metas, for example, that having sets that deal more damage than skills themselves, maybe it's the sets that need to be dealth with ASAP? Maybe situational awareness and your ability to manage your buffs/heals on yourself should be paramount to skillful combat?

We all want the best from this game. That is all. Apologies for not the best organized post.

Holycannoli

I mean I guess it's something?



But you guys really are intent on pushing this travesty of a patch through aren't you?

You need to stop homogenizing everything. You need to stop trying to make all these skills the same. Same damage, same durations, it's so boring like that.

And the fact it was said you'll spend the next few patches balancing this patch, instead of balancing it now before it's even released. It's not a good look guys.

peeslingerb14_ESO

Providing data?

How about go out and play through some content with the changes. Instead of banging away at a test dummy in a static environment.


You guys do not have the player base to make these changes. In fact, the state of the active player base is in direct correlation these type of continual game changing nerfs.

All of my guilds newest players left once they learned that Update 35 would make there damage even worse than it already is.
It took us a while to convince those people to join us. They finally come over to try out ESO now they are gone.

Also, Its okay to address DOT damage however, You are completely skirting the entire issue with the update. The overall nerf to damage and complete gutting of certain builds is what has players concerned the most.

Calandrel

K9002 wrote: »

TPishek wrote: »

Half the classes also won't be able to sustain with how much more expensive they made the ground dots. I don't get why we are making ground dots more expensive than single target ones AGAIN when this was tried before and this same team reverted it due to the backlash.

Unstable Wall of Elements and Templar's Shards won't be usable as AoE spammables anymore. Clearing trash packs in dungeons will take even longer and people will come into actual boss fights with less resources. Just fantastic.

Um, if you read the dev post the ground DoTs are going to be cheaper than on live...

Referring to ground DoTs: "We have also adjusted the cost to be higher than those “sticky” abilities but will still cost less than they currently do on the Live servers."

JustAGoodPlayer

ZOS_Gilliam wrote: »

Greetings, everyone. We’d like to update you all on where we are at with the PTS feedback we have seen and our plans of action. Firstly, we would like to thank everyone who has taken the time to go through the changes and hop onto the PTS to get hands-on experience before submitting their feedback. The sheer amount of data and in-game application has helped us tremendously to hone in on the problem spaces that the larger sentiments have pointed out, and has also given us a better idea of how to isolate and tackle those problems. Let’s quickly go over the main themes we would like to improve on.

There are three main issues we would like to address with some targeted adjustments in next week’s PTS patch. These mainly pertain to Damage and Healing over Time effects, as we’ve found those have been the focus of the majority of conversations between all types of players. The first is the loss of reactive gameplay with ticking Area of Effect-based abilities, where delayed tick rates make them feel far less reactive to their surroundings and further punish their lack of mobility as such. The second is how the extension of durations on Area of Effect-based abilities actively harms their effectiveness since their power has been stretched out over a longer period, further increasing their risk of targets not staying in the area. The final is how ESO has always been a game about choice, and how global standards can over-define the reality of ability portrayal and can actively harm that idea. Now, let us go over what you are probably really here for – what we are doing to address these points.

We have taken considerable time to go through and better differentiate standards for Damage and Healing over Time effects based on the type of ability it is. In next week’s patch, abilities that stick to a target (such as Fiery Breath or Lightning Form) will retain their longer duration effects, where they take longer to deal damage at an increased rate per cast, but less per second than what’s currently on the Live servers (i.e., all public servers that are not the PTS). Meanwhile, abilities that are bound to a static area, such as Wall of Elements or Spear Shards, will have shorter durations (closer or identical to their current versions on the Live servers) and less Damage per Cast, but more Damage per Second than their “sticky” counterparts. We have also adjusted the cost to be higher than those “sticky” abilities but will still cost less than they currently do on the Live servers. The standard details are as follows:

• “Sticky” over Time effects will retain their initial PTS iteration of 20+ second durations, 2 second frequencies, with .105 coefficient potency per second (their scaling modifier divided by time), and a baseline cost of 135 per second (2700+)
• Static over Time effects will return to their original duration of 10-15 second durations, 1 second frequencies, with .14 coefficient potency per second (U35 PTS Combat Feedback & Upcoming Changesdown from .1575 on Live, but up from .105 on PTS), and a baseline cost of 270 per second (2700+)

It is our hope these new standards better differentiate the gameplay realities these skills have, reinforcing their strengths and weaknesses, while making them easier to engage with in some ways than compared to what’s currently on Live (easier to manage “sticky” effects, and overall, significantly less cost per second drains).

We have also spent more time looking at durations of where certain skills are sourced and are going to give them base line timers that follow a common denominator. For example, Stampede will remain a 15 second effect as Carve’s final duration is 30 seconds, making it easier to create a rotation where you align a ratio of casts to one another. We hope these differing standards allow you to better decide what type of pacing your build utilizes. If you prefer a higher risk and reward playstyle that is more challenging to keep up and manage, you can opt to take Static over Time abilities. Alternatively, if you want easier to utilize and safer skills with less risk, you can choose to use more Sticky over Time abilities, or a blend of both depending on the encounter or build you’re playing against.

After these changes go in next week, we will continue to monitor feedback and act accordingly where deemed necessary, so please continue to provide constructive takes and discussions. Note that we are already planning some additional changes for the Sorcerer and Warden, based on your feedback, that will go on the PTS before Update 35 launches. A friendly reminder that providing data always helps us far more than anecdotal feedback, though both are still welcome. Finally, thank you all for your patience and time in helping up improve upon these areas. May your roads lead to warm sands.

Do not you think that make dots and AOEs be the same time like they were before is better change. It was already not bad.

The time as example classes as DK - that have longer dots will now have 15 seconds groun aoe and 24 second dots ?
And 20 seconds other dots ? Players already have option before to take 14 second dots and ground AOE or 10 seconds ones.

Now as DK/some other class - I will need to recast ground aoe 2 times put my dots and just spam spammable - for about 15 seconds ? It do not look like some thing really fun.

For HA builds it can be lose of damage - and we already have not got a lot of it.

Why old dots duration was bad ? Is really some problem with it ? Do people dislike it ?

wolfie1.0.

@ZOS_Gilliam

I agree with others here that we want to see the dev team (and only dev team) complete trifectas with these changes. Especially in the hardest dungeons and trials out there.

If you can do it then awesome the nay sayers are wrong and this update is great.

If you can't then maybe you should reconsider the whole thing.

Parsing on dummies is one thing. Being able to apply that to content is another.

mpicklesster

Hi @ZOS_Gilliam,

Thanks for the mid-week feedback. That alone helps alleviate a lot of concerns. As someone who's had to work with the public and process tons of anonymous feedback, I understand the patience and humility it takes to make a gesture like this. As a result, I'll try and be as diplomatic as possible. (I apologize in advance for the length of my post.)

My main concern that this latest iteration of changes doesn't precisely fulfill one of U35's main goals (i.e., "improving accessibility to the game’s combat"). I acknowledge that lengthening the duration of some DOTs and HOTs will certainly help, but it doesn't address the litany of other accessibility issues. In short, I think a complete remedy of accessibility issues will require even more intense collaboration between both the combat devs and the dungeon/trial devs. From an outsider's perspective, it seems that both groups seem to have noticeably different visions for the game's future.

To the playerbase, it appears that the dungeon/trial devs are designing content with one set of combat standards in mind, while the combat devs are working towards a different set of standards in mind. To be more specific, it feels like the dungeon/trial devs are designing content with higher combat standards (i.e., higher DPS & healing levels) than what the combat devs have in mind. This desync alone will continue to create significant content accessibility issues for everyone if it remains unchecked. (I admit that, as a combat dev, it might not be in your power to make decisions about collaborations. Nonetheless, I thought I'd pass along this observation in the hopes that you could pass it along to others.)

With regards to the accessibility of combat: in the future, it might help to recruit a focus group of players with accessibility issues because many of their issues are qualitative in nature (e.g., perceptual and/or motor disabilities). A focus group of them could reveal a trove of accessibility issues that might otherwise be undetectable with a heavily quantitative approach. But for now, in the absence of a focus group, I can list 2 qualitative accessibility issues for which I see no remedy in the latest iteration of the PTS.

Unresolved Accessibility Issues
1.) First is the sheer amount of "timer-watching" players have to do to manage their rotation. Lengthening the duration of some DOTs and HOTs will help with this, but as some players have already pointed out, this doesn't change the fact that many abilities still have different durations. Shifting DOTs and HOTs by a constant will be like a rising tide: it lifts all boats equally. So abilities that were out of synch in the previous patch will likely still be out of synch in the current patch. As a result, the amount of "timer-watching" we have to do won't appreciably change. You can imagine the burden this has on players with impairments to their vision and/or reaction times due to disease or age. One remedy suggested by @code65536 is to do a "time consistency pass." Other words, instead of shifting many DOTs and HOTs by a constant, focus on changing all abilities to be more consistent durations. For example, if the durations of all abilities were changed to be a multiple of 5 or 10 sec, then that would add a lot more predictability to rotations (thereby cutting down on the amount of "timer watching" that players have to do).

2.) The second accessibility issue is what could be called combat cue detection. (This part is probably relevant to both the combat and dungeon/trial devs, but I'm listing it here in the combat section.) While I understand that designing harder content inherently requires harder mechanics, the cues for mechanics in harder content can be obnoxiously subtle and/or short-lived. As a result, many players in the community have come to rely on mechanic alert add-ons like Code's Combat Alerts, Hodor Reflexes, and Raid Notifier. I don't have a perceptual/motor disability and even I still use these add-ons. I seriously doubt I could've gotten any of my trifecta achievements (in a timely manner) without them. Anyways--if so many neurotypical individuals feel the need for these mechanic alert add-ons, imagine how atypical individuals feel? I guess what I'm hinting at here is that some of these add-ons (or just their features) should probably become part of the base game. PC users with perceptual/motor disabilities have access to these add-ons, but console players do not. This is another suggestion that I know is probably not within your power as a combat dev. Nonetheless, I'm hoping you can pass it along to the relevant parties considering that it affects U35's broader vision of improving accessibility.

Conclusion: Lastly, in my opinion, the 2 issues I listed above are probably some of the most pressing accessibility issues for new and/or disabled players. While we all appreciate the dev's ongoing commitment to fine-turning combat, I personally believe it's ultimately more important to sideline the current lineup of PTS combat changes and instead focus on the 2 sets of accessibility issues above. I personally feel that they'll do more to "raise the floor" than the current lineup of combat changes. But that would ultimately be best decided by a focus group of new and/or disabled players.

Thanks for your time and commitment. Sincerely,
Pickles

ColtonBrown

[snip]

I have over 600 days played on this game since release on console (ps4, ps5), and have watched it devolve into a cash grab cycle of nerf damage, sell OP mythics or gear in new dlc/chapter, then nerf again to sell next chapter/dlc items. There is no longer any meaningful progression because of the CP 2.0 changes, once you fill out the stars you need for your build, the rest is trash because it's all slottable stars. And any time you claw your way back from nerfs, you get nerfed again anyways. There is absolutely no justification on why it matters if groups can burn content insanely fast, who cares?! People want to play how they want to play, if I want to run around with stupid high dps and nuke everything, I have put the time in and I should be able to do that if I want. If people are complaining because the content is too easy then let them put on gear that isn't meta and make it harder for themselves. There should be more options, not less! Nerfing damage constantly and the constant changes to class identity have killed this game for me and most of the players I play with. Whole guilds are quitting because of this and I have not logged into the game since these changes were proposed. Cancelled my sub after being subbed since release on console. This game was supposed to be about constant progression, that's the way it was fed to us for years, and now in the past couple of years it has these artificial walls put up every couple of months to hold us down. Not fun anymore. Thanks for the good times in the past. The future looks boring. I'm not interested in being set back to dps levels I achieved 2-3-4 years ago.

I loved this game and it's unfortunate you are killing it for me and my friends. I hope the new players you are catering to will stick around for the next 7-8 years and spend as much money with you as me and my friends have in the past 7-8 years. Good luck.

[Edited for Bashing]

FeedbackOnly

Has content been tested with these changes or are we just leaving it say elite players can do it still while leaving our middle gamers who could still do it before pts?

AmendmentI

This post shows you haven't really listened to any of the feedback at all. How exactly was this listening to our feedback? Unless damage has gone up considerably with this then content will still be much harder for all players. If you want to nerf damage and are ok with damage being lower and content being harder then just say that. Because this isn't listening to anythin

Anhedonie

Still pretty bad changes. And not a word on light/heavy attacks. You guys are doing it to yourself.
And the main concern is that content won't be adjusted for lower damage (and we all know you never adjust content), becoming inaccessible for mid tier players. Still haven't fixed that.

SeaUnicorn

The coefficient "increase" is so low and meaningless and our concerns about trial HM encounters being extremely hard to complete for average player are not addressed in any way....

GreatGildersleeve

Everyone is missing the point and ZoS isn’t telling…

They WANT damage to go down. That’s why this is happening. They can muse about floors and ceilings all they want but facts are what they are.

End game, the tippitey top .01%, will be able to manage with the new norm. They will find ways to claw back a portion of what’s being lost but will still manage to complete stuff, perhaps just a little bit slower.

Mid game, the 25k to maybe 75k folks, might still manage to complete but it’s iffy. They might manage to claw something back but it’ll take work. And they could also find themselves shut out of a lot of the content that’s supposed to be more ‘accessible’ with this patch. (I wish they’d stop using that term, use ‘available’ instead since ‘accessible’ has connotations of actual physical accessibility which isn’t this).

The average casual, of which I am part of, has no hope of seeing the inside of a HM trial let alone anything resembling a newer DLC HM.

Urvoth

Stop making sweeping changes no one asked for. Combat is fine as is, and if anything you guys need to go through and work on all the lingering balance issues and inconsistencies from the also unnecessary hybridization changes a few months ago. Class identity and diversity has been gutted after the hybridization changes, so that could use some serious evaluation as well.

If people struggle with LA weaving and rotations, add better combat tutorials.

SkaraMinoc

ZOS is too data-driven. Sometimes intuition is better.

xylena_lazarow

Data? Look at your internal usage statistics for DoT skills versus other damaging skills in PvP. Does ZOS have skill usage statistics? Other games have them, and even share them with their players. Anyway, I'll bet they're already low usage, and about to drop further. But how does one express through data that one-button spam heavy combat is unfun?