Please fix Endless Archive difficulty

Rowjoh

EdjeSwift wrote: »

Rowjoh wrote: »

You're missing the point entirely.

Lets phrase it this way:

Question: How many times is a casual gamer that can't advance very far going to accumulate enough currency to be of much value?

Answer 1: Only a few times because its too frustrating for them to persist with it, before giving up.
or
Answer 2: Grind it to death over many months to accumulate enough currency to be of value.

Conclusion: Answer 1 very much seems to be what's actually happening, as clearly indicated by the torrent of complaints here and elsewhere

What point am I missing? You said the majority of players aren't playing EA for the currency, so what are they playing it for that I didn't cover?

If they're not interested in anything I listed, and I included fun on purpose, then EA doesn't interest them and they can move on, nothing wrong with that. There's a lot of content in a lot of games I enjoy that I don't participate in and that's fine. If a player doesn't want to put in the grind for the rewards they don't have to, they just shouldn't ask for the rewards they didn't work for.

If the "casual player" as you stated, is frustrated by the content, I heartily suggest they move on, I don't want anyone to be frustrated in their gaming, there's so much to do in ESO that being frustrated over some enemies you can't beat shouldn't be high on the list.

As for grinding, that's the cornerstone of nearly every successful MMO, you gotta give the players something to work towards, or else they'll stop playing.

You need to address your responses to casual gamers, not me lol. That's the point you're continuing to miss

As for grinding EA, it's a bit pointless as there's nothing that will significantly improve builds over what is currently available as even the sets aren't must-have BIS.

Everything you've listed is either cosmetic or achievement based, aspects that are attractive to casual gamers, except the achievement bit is proving too challenging for them, hence the complaints (see title of thread), not that there's anything wrong with that at all.

spartaxoxo

Braffin wrote: »

Once again: It may be a torrent of complaints, but there are only a very few complainers. That's an essential difference.

Surveys, forums, etc only ever represent a small portion of players. But they're a usually a representative sample (that skews towards more hardcore players) and are generally a good indicator of how a given playerbase feels about content. Developers ignore player feedback on forums and social media at the risk of alienating playerbases.

Rowjoh

AlterBlika wrote: »

Rowjoh wrote: »

Majority of players are not playing EA just for the currency. The currency reward is pitiful unless you can go deep into the content, which casual gamers can't hence the flood of complaints you see all around you

What are they playing for then?

Ask them lol

it certainly isn't for anything that'll improve a build like unique weapons or BIS sets.

why are/aren't you doing it then?

Braffin

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Once again: It may be a torrent of complaints, but there are only a very few complainers. That's an essential difference.

Surveys, forums, etc only ever represent a small portion of players. But they're a usually a representative sample (that skews towards more hardcore players) and are generally a good indicator of how a given playerbase feels about content. Developers ignore player feedback on forums and social media at the risk of alienating playerbases.

The people complaining are clearly the minority here. A thousand posts by a small fraction of users doesn't change the fact, that the majority in this thread (as in any other) is fine with difficulty of EA.

Nobody talked about the ratio of forum users to non forum users. It's all about the fact, that the players, which are fine with the difficulty of EA, outweight the complainers by far. Reframing statements others have made won't change that.

Really, I thought for some time you are interested in a open and fair discussion based on facts. It's sad, that this is seemingly not the case.

cozmic72

Adapt or die. When EA was first released I didn’t make it far but I learned mechs and adapted my builds. Now I can finish arcs 1-2 on purely DPS builds solo. After those initial arcs, I start to change my build for more survivability to advance further. I’ve made it to last boss in arc 7 but generally call it a day after arc 4 due to time.

I choose Visions based on how far I want to go with the understanding my DPS will mostly come from them as I adjust for more survivability. I have also crafted heavy sets specifically for this that I equip as I progress. And don’t forget to use those mystery verses if you encounter a difficult boss or marauder.

Luck is a huge factor. The Visions you get, bosses you face, and even the map a marauder spawns on can all impact advancement. But I enjoy the challenge and roll with what EA offers.

If you go in expecting to advance without adapting to the arenas specific mechanics you will not get far.

Good luck.

LouisaB75

ComradeBiscuit wrote: »

Are you applying dots to the mantikora? It can be a battle of attrition, but you should be able to do it if you keep dots up on the boss, focus the lightning pylon, and take the atros out with aoe. Honestly, this fight is a mess and probably my least favourite not-obviously-bugged boss in there. I don't think it is bugged, but might be a bit overtuned. I find the WB version of the boss easier (probably due to the larger arena).

(The other boss you are referring to is Molag Kena. I think her shield storm adds thingy is health based? So it should definitely not be happening so often.)

Yes, I am sure Molag Kena was bugged as I have rolled her enough to notice the difference in that one fight to the rest. It was literally, 1 single hit and she spawned them again, and again, and again. I lost count how many times I took them down only for her to do exactly the same again.

Regarding the Taupezu, yes I was applying DOTs as much as I could, but as I said, I really seem to struggle. Maybe it is just a case of practice, though a few seconds for the conduit is somewhat different to my experience. It was taking far longer to burn them down.

DUTCH_REAPER

This right here is something I do not believe the devs intended to happen. Damage from enemies past arc 6 able to be nerfed to 500 a hit total? come on ZOS.


https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/647806/weakening-glyph-can-break-the-endless-archive-bosses-changes-needs-to-happen#latest

Nilandia

I made a new tank and brought her into the archive to practice, accompanied by a ranged DPS companion to help things go faster. Ran into Molag Kena in arc 1, and she got stuck in the endless shield loop. Obviously I didn't burn her too fast that time. That fight took forever.

Necrotech_Master

DUTCH_REAPER wrote: »

This right here is something I do not believe the devs intended to happen. Damage from enemies past arc 6 able to be nerfed to 500 a hit total? come on ZOS.


https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/647806/weakening-glyph-can-break-the-endless-archive-bosses-changes-needs-to-happen#latest

theres nothing wrong with that

the enchantment has a cooldown and can only proc on 1 enemy at a time, if your not running infused you cant even keep it up all the time

the add stages become much more of a problem at late arcs than the bosses do

AlterBlika

Rowjoh wrote: »

Ask them lol

it certainly isn't for anything that'll improve a build like unique weapons or BIS sets.

why are/aren't you doing it then?

I run it to buy weekly monster motif page which I miss. I'd like to play it for fun, but having limited amount of lives isn't exactly my idea of having fun in this game
So if not for the unique vendor I wouldn't even step in there

DUTCH_REAPER

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

DUTCH_REAPER wrote: »

This right here is something I do not believe the devs intended to happen. Damage from enemies past arc 6 able to be nerfed to 500 a hit total? come on ZOS.


https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/647806/weakening-glyph-can-break-the-endless-archive-bosses-changes-needs-to-happen#latest

theres nothing wrong with that

the enchantment has a cooldown and can only proc on 1 enemy at a time, if your not running infused you cant even keep it up all the time

the add stages become much more of a problem at late arcs than the bosses do

No. It’s not just one enemy that gets it with CP passive that procs to multiple enemies even while blocking. This last update they changed the Vision for enchantments to actually affect this and there is Zero chance it was intended to bring boss arc 7 damage to zero almost. No way.

spartaxoxo

Braffin wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Once again: It may be a torrent of complaints, but there are only a very few complainers. That's an essential difference.

Surveys, forums, etc only ever represent a small portion of players. But they're a usually a representative sample (that skews towards more hardcore players) and are generally a good indicator of how a given playerbase feels about content. Developers ignore player feedback on forums and social media at the risk of alienating playerbases.

The people complaining are clearly the minority here. A thousand posts by a small fraction of users doesn't change the fact, that the majority in this thread (as in any other) is fine with difficulty of EA.

Nobody talked about the ratio of forum users to non forum users. It's all about the fact, that the players, which are fine with the difficulty of EA, outweight the complainers by far. Reframing statements others have made won't change that.

Really, I thought for some time you are interested in a open and fair discussion based on facts. It's sad, that this is seemingly not the case.

I'm not trying to reframe your response. I am replying that the number of complaints are concerning and likely representative of how many casual players feel about the game, even if they are not posting in here.

That is a fact about forum populations. It's just a counterpoint to the idea you stated. And is my own point.

Quote frankly, an open and fair discussion based on facts should mean that people can bring in counterpoints that disagree with a point, without ad hominem.

You say they are only a few. I'm pointing out that few they may be, but forums tend to skew hardcore and the number of complaints are likely representative of casual players in general.

Necrotech_Master

DUTCH_REAPER wrote: »

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

DUTCH_REAPER wrote: »

This right here is something I do not believe the devs intended to happen. Damage from enemies past arc 6 able to be nerfed to 500 a hit total? come on ZOS.


https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/647806/weakening-glyph-can-break-the-endless-archive-bosses-changes-needs-to-happen#latest

theres nothing wrong with that

the enchantment has a cooldown and can only proc on 1 enemy at a time, if your not running infused you cant even keep it up all the time

the add stages become much more of a problem at late arcs than the bosses do

No. It’s not just one enemy that gets it with CP passive that procs to multiple enemies even while blocking. This last update they changed the Vision for enchantments to actually affect this and there is Zero chance it was intended to bring boss arc 7 damage to zero almost. No way.

well, considering they fixed that so it would actually work, and they didnt nerf focused efforts

in addition to the fact that endless archive has basically nothing tradeable except the treasure maps with the currency, i dont see it mattering much

theres literally no reason to push past arc 4 unless your looking to try to leaderboard or challenge yourself

and as mentioned in the other thread, it takes a good RNG to actually get a 4-5 stack of attuned enchantments to even make it do as much as that

unless you specifically build for it, it wont happen, just throwing a weakening enchantment on with infused and getting 4x attuned does like -1300 something dmg, but it doesnt have a lot of uptime without infused

i personally dont want to give up my current gear setup to run heartland, and i would be losing a bunch of armor switching off defending trait

honestly it wouldnt be any different than someone building for permanent magma shell using elf bane, ult cost reduction, and major/minor heroism, combined with visions like additional ult cost reduction and extended major/minor effects and verses like tomefoolery, which is probably just as OP as the weakening enchantment

DUTCH_REAPER

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

DUTCH_REAPER wrote: »

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

DUTCH_REAPER wrote: »

This right here is something I do not believe the devs intended to happen. Damage from enemies past arc 6 able to be nerfed to 500 a hit total? come on ZOS.


https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/647806/weakening-glyph-can-break-the-endless-archive-bosses-changes-needs-to-happen#latest

theres nothing wrong with that

the enchantment has a cooldown and can only proc on 1 enemy at a time, if your not running infused you cant even keep it up all the time

the add stages become much more of a problem at late arcs than the bosses do

No. It’s not just one enemy that gets it with CP passive that procs to multiple enemies even while blocking. This last update they changed the Vision for enchantments to actually affect this and there is Zero chance it was intended to bring boss arc 7 damage to zero almost. No way.

well, considering they fixed that so it would actually work, and they didnt nerf focused efforts

in addition to the fact that endless archive has basically nothing tradeable except the treasure maps with the currency, i dont see it mattering much

theres literally no reason to push past arc 4 unless your looking to try to leaderboard or challenge yourself

and as mentioned in the other thread, it takes a good RNG to actually get a 4-5 stack of attuned enchantments to even make it do as much as that

unless you specifically build for it, it wont happen, just throwing a weakening enchantment on with infused and getting 4x attuned does like -1300 something dmg, but it doesnt have a lot of uptime without infused

i personally dont want to give up my current gear setup to run heartland, and i would be losing a bunch of armor switching off defending trait

honestly it wouldnt be any different than someone building for permanent magma shell using elf bane, ult cost reduction, and major/minor heroism, combined with visions like additional ult cost reduction and extended major/minor effects and verses like tomefoolery, which is probably just as OP as the weakening enchantment

That’s a very fair point from that angle.

jaws343

DUTCH_REAPER wrote: »

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

DUTCH_REAPER wrote: »

This right here is something I do not believe the devs intended to happen. Damage from enemies past arc 6 able to be nerfed to 500 a hit total? come on ZOS.


https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/647806/weakening-glyph-can-break-the-endless-archive-bosses-changes-needs-to-happen#latest

theres nothing wrong with that

the enchantment has a cooldown and can only proc on 1 enemy at a time, if your not running infused you cant even keep it up all the time

the add stages become much more of a problem at late arcs than the bosses do

No. It’s not just one enemy that gets it with CP passive that procs to multiple enemies even while blocking. This last update they changed the Vision for enchantments to actually affect this and there is Zero chance it was intended to bring boss arc 7 damage to zero almost. No way.

What CP passive is that? Truly interested because I didn't know there was one that procced enchants on multiple enemies.

Edit: NVM, it is cutting defense. I somehow missed the enchant proc condition of this... Game changer for my EA build.

HalfDragoness

For me personally it's only the Marauder's that are a jolt in difficulty level. Especially as the first bunch of times you do EA it's not obvious when they will appear. It also annoyed me that if they kill you, you don't get another chance to try and fight them during that cycle. You don't get a chance to learn, unless you then do EA repeatedly, where you learn that Marauders usually appear once per cycle starting in arc 2, and then almost always appear directly after you've fought a boss (Only on one occasion so far has a Marauder spawned on stage 2 rather than stage 1 for me). There's also three of them with very different mechs.

YffresTrill

HalfDragoness wrote: »

For me personally it's only the Marauder's that are a jolt in difficulty level. Especially as the first bunch of times you do EA it's not obvious when they will appear. It also annoyed me that if they kill you, you don't get another chance to try and fight them during that cycle. You don't get a chance to learn, unless you then do EA repeatedly, where you learn that Marauders usually appear once per cycle starting in arc 2, and then almost always appear directly after you've fought a boss (Only on one occasion so far has a Marauder spawned on stage 2 rather than stage 1 for me). There's also three of them with very different mechs.

Personally, I would be for marauders respawning if they kill you once so you can practice, but, this could make them a total run-ender for some people, so I can see why one might be against that.

I've seen people suggesting that they could not aggro automatically but be optionally aggroable in a corner of the room. Perhaps a compromise would be that they auto-aggro the first time, but if you die you have the option to try again?

MidniteOwl1913

Toxic_Hemlock wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

...SNIP
FYI as you can see, I can straight up eat mechs from arc 4 bosses. I don't even need to dodge them. I also survived a glass ceiling block in this build from tho'at in arc 3. I mean it's safer if I block them obviously, but I messed up in this fight but was able to recover because this build can take a lot of punishment.

https://youtu.be/ka-hiG7QApA?si=SNEmS7huE4V-0LNY

I had to comment on this as it seems the intention of named mechanics gets lost when we talk about the bosses.

The Endling (I think that is its name) does not have what I would call mechanics. It has a couple knockbacks that can be eaten, so long as you are not on the edge of the platform, along with lightning attacks. These "red circle" events can be easily eaten if you have any kind of tanky build abilities (shields, high HP, good heals). My problem is not in having to avoid damage over time and avoiding red circles, it is in avoiding the one-hit dead mechanics in EA.

This is my major problem with EA. The only character I have done EA with was an arcanist wearing deadly, hexos and oaken, I compensate for my lack of skill with a high heal thanks to vigor, awesome shields (CP used to buff them) and great health of 35k; I have "tanked" the endling with this build too. All this means absolutely NOTHING if I am half a second late in standing behind a pillar, leave the safety circle for a few seconds due to knockdown, or do not block fast enough on a one-hit or don't take out the blobs fast enough on tho'at.

These are my problems and IMO should not be included in Arc 1 as 99.9% of the time they are my demise. All the other red circle events they can keep as if I am standing in a circle long enough with the aforementioned build to be damaged I deserve to die.

Edit: clarity

Yes, I don't die from damage I die from fiddly mechanics. And those side mini-games are also a fiddly pain.

Nice furnishing, nice sets totally not worth it.

jaws343

HalfDragoness wrote: »

For me personally it's only the Marauder's that are a jolt in difficulty level. Especially as the first bunch of times you do EA it's not obvious when they will appear. It also annoyed me that if they kill you, you don't get another chance to try and fight them during that cycle. You don't get a chance to learn, unless you then do EA repeatedly, where you learn that Marauders usually appear once per cycle starting in arc 2, and then almost always appear directly after you've fought a boss (Only on one occasion so far has a Marauder spawned on stage 2 rather than stage 1 for me). There's also three of them with very different mechs.

Personally, I only think Mauraders and the blobs in ARCs 4+ are disproportional to the rest of the content. The Mauraders are straight forward imo, the blobs are oddly out of sync from my experience.

Take ARC 6 for example:

One cycle you get the ice AOE. Easy to avoid, almost a not existent problem as long as you are mobile.
One cycle you get the laser, also easy to avoid. Not a problem.
Once cycle the tentacles. Again, easy, no problem.

But the blobs. They just keep spawning. And it is pretty much endless. And they are disproportionally more difficult to manage than the other hazards. In the thoat fight, the blobs are equally as harmless as the other hazards because only a few pop up at a time. But in the cycles themselves, they get pretty overwhelming.

Those two things would be the only difficulty changes I would recommend. Bosses are fine outside of bugs. Difficulty ramping is fine. Just the blobs with ads and the mauraders a small bit of toning back.

Necrotech_Master

jaws343 wrote: »

HalfDragoness wrote: »

For me personally it's only the Marauder's that are a jolt in difficulty level. Especially as the first bunch of times you do EA it's not obvious when they will appear. It also annoyed me that if they kill you, you don't get another chance to try and fight them during that cycle. You don't get a chance to learn, unless you then do EA repeatedly, where you learn that Marauders usually appear once per cycle starting in arc 2, and then almost always appear directly after you've fought a boss (Only on one occasion so far has a Marauder spawned on stage 2 rather than stage 1 for me). There's also three of them with very different mechs.

Personally, I only think Mauraders and the blobs in ARCs 4+ are disproportional to the rest of the content. The Mauraders are straight forward imo, the blobs are oddly out of sync from my experience.

Take ARC 6 for example:

One cycle you get the ice AOE. Easy to avoid, almost a not existent problem as long as you are mobile.
One cycle you get the laser, also easy to avoid. Not a problem.
Once cycle the tentacles. Again, easy, no problem.

But the blobs. They just keep spawning. And it is pretty much endless. And they are disproportionally more difficult to manage than the other hazards. In the thoat fight, the blobs are equally as harmless as the other hazards because only a few pop up at a time. But in the cycles themselves, they get pretty overwhelming.

Those two things would be the only difficulty changes I would recommend. Bosses are fine outside of bugs. Difficulty ramping is fine. Just the blobs with ads and the mauraders a small bit of toning back.

yeah i would agree the blobs are my least favorite tho'at mechanic that occurs in the cycle 3-5 add stages on arc 4+

there is always a minimum of 3 blobs active and they respawn immediately as soon as you kill them, there is no way to keep them under control, so i usually just try to make sure they are interrupted and finish the regular adds as quick as possible

the low health blobs can also combine into larger higher health blobs if they are not killed, which also deal more dmg and harder to kill

the other 3 tho'at mechanics in the add stages are easier to manage, but still provide challenges depending on the size of the arena

i will note that it is 100% totally random which of those 4 tho'at mechanics happen in the add stage, and it can even be totally different if you wipe and restart the add stage

Necrotech_Master

ComradeBiscuit wrote: »

HalfDragoness wrote: »

For me personally it's only the Marauder's that are a jolt in difficulty level. Especially as the first bunch of times you do EA it's not obvious when they will appear. It also annoyed me that if they kill you, you don't get another chance to try and fight them during that cycle. You don't get a chance to learn, unless you then do EA repeatedly, where you learn that Marauders usually appear once per cycle starting in arc 2, and then almost always appear directly after you've fought a boss (Only on one occasion so far has a Marauder spawned on stage 2 rather than stage 1 for me). There's also three of them with very different mechs.

Personally, I would be for marauders respawning if they kill you once so you can practice, but, this could make them a total run-ender for some people, so I can see why one might be against that.

I've seen people suggesting that they could not aggro automatically but be optionally aggroable in a corner of the room. Perhaps a compromise would be that they auto-aggro the first time, but if you die you have the option to try again?

the marauders would have to be balanced better, because right now they do so much dmg its more if a "if you arent a full on tank they will 1 tap you" and even if you are a tank theres always the fire marauder that you basically have to have a "meta" endless archive build to even reliably deal with them

personally im glad they dont respawn if you die and they are gone for the rest of the arc, they are extremely annoying as is being 1 random and 2 overtuned (especially the fire one)

Braffin

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Once again: It may be a torrent of complaints, but there are only a very few complainers. That's an essential difference.

Surveys, forums, etc only ever represent a small portion of players. But they're a usually a representative sample (that skews towards more hardcore players) and are generally a good indicator of how a given playerbase feels about content. Developers ignore player feedback on forums and social media at the risk of alienating playerbases.

The people complaining are clearly the minority here. A thousand posts by a small fraction of users doesn't change the fact, that the majority in this thread (as in any other) is fine with difficulty of EA.

Nobody talked about the ratio of forum users to non forum users. It's all about the fact, that the players, which are fine with the difficulty of EA, outweight the complainers by far. Reframing statements others have made won't change that.

Really, I thought for some time you are interested in a open and fair discussion based on facts. It's sad, that this is seemingly not the case.

I'm not trying to reframe your response. I am replying that the number of complaints are concerning and likely representative of how many casual players feel about the game, even if they are not posting in here.

That is a fact about forum populations. It's just a counterpoint to the idea you stated. And is my own point.

Quote frankly, an open and fair discussion based on facts should mean that people can bring in counterpoints that disagree with a point, without ad hominem.

You say they are only a few. I'm pointing out that few they may be, but forums tend to skew hardcore and the number of complaints are likely representative of casual players in general.

I disagree. Do you have any proof for your claims, that the few mostly seasoned veterans, which play this game for years (besides being obviously performing bad in EA and any other more challenging content) are in any way "representative" for more casual players?

We would have to define the term "casual" beforehand. And I refuse to equal it with "lowly skilled", as that's highly inaccurate.

You say it's a fact, that forums are populated with more hardcore players (again without any proof), and I agree with that.

So it's more likely, the complainers are in fact hardcore players too, regardless the fact they lack the necessary skill or interest to play EA properly. That doesn't make them casuals tho. A player, which is playing a single game for several years and complaining about progress (without even really trying the options at hand), definitely isn't.

So we have a clear minority of hardcore players complaining against a clear majority of hardcore players opposing that. That's the facts, not assumptions regarding casuals based on personal ideology of a few nerfmaniacs.

On a sidenote: Of course counterpoints are perfectly viable. They should at least be somewhat connected to the statement you're responsing tho, instead of twisting someone's words into a completely different statement and arguing against that simply to make a point. That's eristical and dishonest. So yes, my statement stands: Imo you're trying to reframe.

Toxic_Hemlock

MidniteOwl1913 wrote: »

Toxic_Hemlock wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

...SNIP
FYI as you can see, I can straight up eat mechs from arc 4 bosses. I don't even need to dodge them. I also survived a glass ceiling block in this build from tho'at in arc 3. I mean it's safer if I block them obviously, but I messed up in this fight but was able to recover because this build can take a lot of punishment.

https://youtu.be/ka-hiG7QApA?si=SNEmS7huE4V-0LNY

I had to comment on this as it seems the intention of named mechanics gets lost when we talk about the bosses.

The Endling (I think that is its name) does not have what I would call mechanics. It has a couple knockbacks that can be eaten, so long as you are not on the edge of the platform, along with lightning attacks. These "red circle" events can be easily eaten if you have any kind of tanky build abilities (shields, high HP, good heals). My problem is not in having to avoid damage over time and avoiding red circles, it is in avoiding the one-hit dead mechanics in EA.

This is my major problem with EA. The only character I have done EA with was an arcanist wearing deadly, hexos and oaken, I compensate for my lack of skill with a high heal thanks to vigor, awesome shields (CP used to buff them) and great health of 35k; I have "tanked" the endling with this build too. All this means absolutely NOTHING if I am half a second late in standing behind a pillar, leave the safety circle for a few seconds due to knockdown, or do not block fast enough on a one-hit or don't take out the blobs fast enough on tho'at.

These are my problems and IMO should not be included in Arc 1 as 99.9% of the time they are my demise. All the other red circle events they can keep as if I am standing in a circle long enough with the aforementioned build to be damaged I deserve to die.

Edit: clarity

Yes, I don't die from damage I die from fiddly mechanics. And those side mini-games are also a fiddly pain.

Nice furnishing, nice sets totally not worth it.

My point exactly, I can always build to be as tanky as needed, but one missed major mechanic and I'm going to bite it. Something that some here, when telling you to build tankier don't seem to get, no matter, at least you do thanks, I don't feel totally alone in my obsolescence now. 😉

Trier_Sero

Braffin wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Once again: It may be a torrent of complaints, but there are only a very few complainers. That's an essential difference.

Surveys, forums, etc only ever represent a small portion of players. But they're a usually a representative sample (that skews towards more hardcore players) and are generally a good indicator of how a given playerbase feels about content. Developers ignore player feedback on forums and social media at the risk of alienating playerbases.

The people complaining are clearly the minority here. A thousand posts by a small fraction of users doesn't change the fact, that the majority in this thread (as in any other) is fine with difficulty of EA.

Nobody talked about the ratio of forum users to non forum users. It's all about the fact, that the players, which are fine with the difficulty of EA, outweight the complainers by far. Reframing statements others have made won't change that.

Really, I thought for some time you are interested in a open and fair discussion based on facts. It's sad, that this is seemingly not the case.

I'm not trying to reframe your response. I am replying that the number of complaints are concerning and likely representative of how many casual players feel about the game, even if they are not posting in here.

That is a fact about forum populations. It's just a counterpoint to the idea you stated. And is my own point.

Quote frankly, an open and fair discussion based on facts should mean that people can bring in counterpoints that disagree with a point, without ad hominem.

You say they are only a few. I'm pointing out that few they may be, but forums tend to skew hardcore and the number of complaints are likely representative of casual players in general.

I disagree. Do you have any proof for your claims, that the few mostly seasoned veterans, which play this game for years (besides being obviously performing bad in EA and any other more challenging content) are in any way "representative" for more casual players?

We would have to define the term "casual" beforehand. And I refuse to equal it with "lowly skilled", as that's highly inaccurate.

You say it's a fact, that forums are populated with more hardcore players (again without any proof), and I agree with that.

So it's more likely, the complainers are in fact hardcore players too, regardless the fact they lack the necessary skill or interest to play EA properly. That doesn't make them casuals tho. A player, which is playing a single game for several years and complaining about progress (without even really trying the options at hand), definitely isn't.

So we have a clear minority of hardcore players complaining against a clear majority of hardcore players opposing that. That's the facts, not assumptions regarding casuals based on personal ideology of a few nerfmaniacs.

On a sidenote: Of course counterpoints are perfectly viable. They should at least be somewhat connected to the statement you're responsing tho, instead of twisting someone's words into a completely different statement and arguing against that simply to make a point. That's eristical and dishonest. So yes, my statement stands: Imo you're trying to reframe.

If even some hardcore players are asking for a nerf that means most casuals, who are the majority of playerbase, would feel the same, no?
It's ,like, basic logic.

Braffin

Trier_Sero wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Once again: It may be a torrent of complaints, but there are only a very few complainers. That's an essential difference.

Surveys, forums, etc only ever represent a small portion of players. But they're a usually a representative sample (that skews towards more hardcore players) and are generally a good indicator of how a given playerbase feels about content. Developers ignore player feedback on forums and social media at the risk of alienating playerbases.

The people complaining are clearly the minority here. A thousand posts by a small fraction of users doesn't change the fact, that the majority in this thread (as in any other) is fine with difficulty of EA.

Nobody talked about the ratio of forum users to non forum users. It's all about the fact, that the players, which are fine with the difficulty of EA, outweight the complainers by far. Reframing statements others have made won't change that.

Really, I thought for some time you are interested in a open and fair discussion based on facts. It's sad, that this is seemingly not the case.

I'm not trying to reframe your response. I am replying that the number of complaints are concerning and likely representative of how many casual players feel about the game, even if they are not posting in here.

That is a fact about forum populations. It's just a counterpoint to the idea you stated. And is my own point.

Quote frankly, an open and fair discussion based on facts should mean that people can bring in counterpoints that disagree with a point, without ad hominem.

You say they are only a few. I'm pointing out that few they may be, but forums tend to skew hardcore and the number of complaints are likely representative of casual players in general.

I disagree. Do you have any proof for your claims, that the few mostly seasoned veterans, which play this game for years (besides being obviously performing bad in EA and any other more challenging content) are in any way "representative" for more casual players?

We would have to define the term "casual" beforehand. And I refuse to equal it with "lowly skilled", as that's highly inaccurate.

You say it's a fact, that forums are populated with more hardcore players (again without any proof), and I agree with that.

So it's more likely, the complainers are in fact hardcore players too, regardless the fact they lack the necessary skill or interest to play EA properly. That doesn't make them casuals tho. A player, which is playing a single game for several years and complaining about progress (without even really trying the options at hand), definitely isn't.

So we have a clear minority of hardcore players complaining against a clear majority of hardcore players opposing that. That's the facts, not assumptions regarding casuals based on personal ideology of a few nerfmaniacs.

On a sidenote: Of course counterpoints are perfectly viable. They should at least be somewhat connected to the statement you're responsing tho, instead of twisting someone's words into a completely different statement and arguing against that simply to make a point. That's eristical and dishonest. So yes, my statement stands: Imo you're trying to reframe.

If even some hardcore players are asking for a nerf that means most casuals, who are the majority of playerbase, would feel the same, no?
It's ,like, basic logic.

No, it doesn't. This "basic logic" is highly flawed.

Being casual usually means, that enjoyment and fun of said players isn't tied to gaming performance or progress made. A dedicated player, which gets their fun from playing well and overcome obstacles would be the opposite.

Being angry or salty because the results of made efforts doesn't meet the own expectations isn't casual at all. On the contrary, it's mostly a behaviour shown by hardcore players, which are looking for a reason of their failure everywhere except themselves. The very same people, which blame tanks or healers for being one-shotted due to ignored mechanics.

Personally I call this type of player "entitlelists".

LouisaB75

HalfDragoness wrote: »

For me personally it's only the Marauder's that are a jolt in difficulty level. Especially as the first bunch of times you do EA it's not obvious when they will appear. It also annoyed me that if they kill you, you don't get another chance to try and fight them during that cycle. You don't get a chance to learn, unless you then do EA repeatedly, where you learn that Marauders usually appear once per cycle starting in arc 2, and then almost always appear directly after you've fought a boss (Only on one occasion so far has a Marauder spawned on stage 2 rather than stage 1 for me). There's also three of them with very different mechs.

*waves at guildie (or someone who shares the name)*

I have noticed the stage one appearance of marauders too. I have yet to have one appear when I have a nice and powerful verse to take them down with like flame aura or class skills increase and exsanguinate.

spartaxoxo

Braffin wrote: »

I disagree. Do you have any proof for your claims, that the few mostly seasoned veterans, which play this game for years (besides being obviously performing bad in EA and any other more challenging content) are in any way "representative" for more casual players?

We would have to define the term "casual" beforehand. And I refuse to equal it with "lowly skilled", as that's highly inaccurate.

You say it's a fact, that forums are populated with more hardcore players (again without any proof), and I agree with that.

It's just something that is well known in those who have done community moderation, that it's a general industry trend. I can't say for certain it is the case in this forum, but given that this one has more hoops to go through than most, it would be very shocking if it didn't follow the same pattern. Forums tend to have players that are representative from all types of players, and they also tend to skew a bit more towards the hardcore crowd. A lot of developers don't talk about that openly, but here's an example of one that did in a different game.

AndyB from Overwatch 2 wrote:

The forums are always much more critical of us than the broader community. This likely has to do with the profile of player who tends to be more engaged on a platform like fora (hyper engaged, core fans), whereas the other platforms tend to be a bit less serious in nature.

AndyB from Overwatch 2 wrote:

There’s a general rule of thumb that’s known by most community professionals:

* Less than 10% of all players will ever even look at your forums or owned channels
* Of that 10%, less than 10% will ever be an active participant in the conversation on these owned channels

It’s important to understand that this in no way diminishes the usefulness of community discussion hubs (like forums). Forums serve as a microcosm of the larger OW community, representing viewpoints from many different segments of players; casual, what we call “Core Players”, competitive players, representation from marginalized groups such as BIPOC or LGBTQIA+, the list goes on.

Braffin wrote: »

So it's more likely, the complainers are in fact hardcore players too, regardless the fact they lack the necessary skill or interest to play EA properly. That doesn't make them casuals tho. A player, which is playing a single game for several years and complaining about progress (without even really trying the options at hand), definitely isn't.

So we have a clear minority of hardcore players complaining against a clear majority of hardcore players opposing that. That's the facts, not assumptions regarding casuals based on personal ideology of a few nerfmaniacs.

I mean you can describe them as hardcore if you want to. They probably are if you define it solely as a function of playtime. But, that's not how the devs distinguish between content. It's not how many people are defining it in this thread. And it's not how some of these players have defined themselves. Casual also doesn't have a definitive definition.

On a sidenote: Of course counterpoints are perfectly viable. They should at least be somewhat connected to the statement you're responsing tho, instead of twisting someone's words into a completely different statement and arguing against that simply to make a point. That's eristical and dishonest. So yes, my statement stands: Imo you're trying to reframe.

Where did I attribute any statement to you? I did not. I made my own point. And it was connected to what you were saying.

You stated that only a few people were complaining.
And I stated those few people are likely representative of a larger group, and that this is what makes forum feedback generally important to listen to.

It's likely to be a representative sample is a perfectly valid counterargument to "it's just a few people complaining."

jaws343

LouisaB75 wrote: »

HalfDragoness wrote: »

For me personally it's only the Marauder's that are a jolt in difficulty level. Especially as the first bunch of times you do EA it's not obvious when they will appear. It also annoyed me that if they kill you, you don't get another chance to try and fight them during that cycle. You don't get a chance to learn, unless you then do EA repeatedly, where you learn that Marauders usually appear once per cycle starting in arc 2, and then almost always appear directly after you've fought a boss (Only on one occasion so far has a Marauder spawned on stage 2 rather than stage 1 for me). There's also three of them with very different mechs.

*waves at guildie (or someone who shares the name)*

I have noticed the stage one appearance of marauders too. I have yet to have one appear when I have a nice and powerful verse to take them down with like flame aura or class skills increase and exsanguinate.

I've taken to quickslotting the verse scrolls and popping one when a maurader spawns. But it is definitely a dice roll on if it will be useful or not.

LouisaB75

jaws343 wrote: »

LouisaB75 wrote: »

HalfDragoness wrote: »

For me personally it's only the Marauder's that are a jolt in difficulty level. Especially as the first bunch of times you do EA it's not obvious when they will appear. It also annoyed me that if they kill you, you don't get another chance to try and fight them during that cycle. You don't get a chance to learn, unless you then do EA repeatedly, where you learn that Marauders usually appear once per cycle starting in arc 2, and then almost always appear directly after you've fought a boss (Only on one occasion so far has a Marauder spawned on stage 2 rather than stage 1 for me). There's also three of them with very different mechs.

*waves at guildie (or someone who shares the name)*

I have noticed the stage one appearance of marauders too. I have yet to have one appear when I have a nice and powerful verse to take them down with like flame aura or class skills increase and exsanguinate.

I've taken to quickslotting the verse scrolls and popping one when a maurader spawns. But it is definitely a dice roll on if it will be useful or not.

I didn't realise they could be quickslotted. Handy to know. And yes, they are a dice roll. Usually a bad one in my case.

spartaxoxo

LouisaB75 wrote: »

HalfDragoness wrote: »

For me personally it's only the Marauder's that are a jolt in difficulty level. Especially as the first bunch of times you do EA it's not obvious when they will appear. It also annoyed me that if they kill you, you don't get another chance to try and fight them during that cycle. You don't get a chance to learn, unless you then do EA repeatedly, where you learn that Marauders usually appear once per cycle starting in arc 2, and then almost always appear directly after you've fought a boss (Only on one occasion so far has a Marauder spawned on stage 2 rather than stage 1 for me). There's also three of them with very different mechs.

*waves at guildie (or someone who shares the name)*

I have noticed the stage one appearance of marauders too. I have yet to have one appear when I have a nice and powerful verse to take them down with like flame aura or class skills increase and exsanguinate.

I think making them more likely to appear at stage 1 lowers the odds you get a verse at all. It's why I have been keeping a few mystery verses on hand for them when I do a serious run. i have generally not gotten a useful one (mystery verse I mean) regardless of which I took, and I've tried each box..