Maintenance for the week of December 23:
• NA megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 14:00 UTC (9:00AM EST)
• NA megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 14:00 UTC (9:00AM EST)
ZOS you are destroying the PvP of this game....
-
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭JustLovely wrote: »JustLovely wrote: »Bammlschwamml wrote: »At some point in time ZOS realized that housing gives the most return for the least effort.
PvP isn't going to get any changes that will attract more players.
Clearly, Zenimax makes more money off of housing. PvP has no direct monetization while housing has a ton of monetization. Housing is likely a cash cow.
Except, per capita, it's the hardcore PvP players that spend the most on the game, not the casuals who spend hours alone playing house.
Of course since PvP has so many cash/crown sinks and housing lacks monetization.
Oh wait, it is the other way around since PvP is free and has no direct monetization.
Direct monetization again...
And then we add commercials and product placement?
Maybe start a crowfunding campaign too?
Pvp is not free. It's part of a game we bought, and keep paying for with eso+, dlcs and the crown store. The game has been financed already. There is no excuse for it not to work.
Exactly. When people try to claim that the PvP crowd aren't some of the biggest spenders in the game it just shows how little they know about the PvP player population.
What's killing Cyrodiil PvP is the insanely, unjustifiably low population caps. It's ZOS limiting their own success.
Their comment was in reply to what I said. I never said that there were no PvP payers that were big spenders. I did state the fact that there is no direct monetization of PvP. After purchasing the base game no further expenditures were required.
Except there is direct monetization of PvP. ZOS puts PvP oriented sets in every new release so PvP players have to buy the latest expansions to have access to the best gear for PvP. This has been pointed out by other posters and I'm certain you will discount this in some convoluted way, but it's the fact.
It is still indirect by definition, as it is not required to play PvP. There is nothing convoluted about it; it is rather straightforward by definition. An accurate definition I have previously presented.
Edited by Amottica on July 30, 2024 10:22PM1 -
WaywardArgonian✭✭✭✭✭Proc sets have nothing to do with effectiveness of ball groups. HoT stacking is what makes ball unkillable.
Proc sets have everything to do with the effectiveness of ballgroups, which is why they are much less effective in a no proc environment.PC/EU altaholic | Smallscale & ballgroup healer | Former Empanada of Ravenwatch | @ degonyte in-game | Nibani Ilath-Pal (AD Nightblade) - AvA rank 50 | Jehanne Teymour (AD Sorcerer) - AvA rank 50 | Niria Ilath-Pal (AD Templar) - AvA rank 500 -
SaffronCitrusflower✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭JustLovely wrote: »JustLovely wrote: »Bammlschwamml wrote: »At some point in time ZOS realized that housing gives the most return for the least effort.
PvP isn't going to get any changes that will attract more players.
Clearly, Zenimax makes more money off of housing. PvP has no direct monetization while housing has a ton of monetization. Housing is likely a cash cow.
Except, per capita, it's the hardcore PvP players that spend the most on the game, not the casuals who spend hours alone playing house.
Of course since PvP has so many cash/crown sinks and housing lacks monetization.
Oh wait, it is the other way around since PvP is free and has no direct monetization.
Direct monetization again...
And then we add commercials and product placement?
Maybe start a crowfunding campaign too?
Pvp is not free. It's part of a game we bought, and keep paying for with eso+, dlcs and the crown store. The game has been financed already. There is no excuse for it not to work.
Exactly. When people try to claim that the PvP crowd aren't some of the biggest spenders in the game it just shows how little they know about the PvP player population.
What's killing Cyrodiil PvP is the insanely, unjustifiably low population caps. It's ZOS limiting their own success.
Their comment was in reply to what I said. I never said that there were no PvP payers that were big spenders. I did state the fact that there is no direct monetization of PvP. After purchasing the base game no further expenditures were required.
Except there is direct monetization of PvP. ZOS puts PvP oriented sets in every new release so PvP players have to buy the latest expansions to have access to the best gear for PvP. This has been pointed out by other posters and I'm certain you will discount this in some convoluted way, but it's the fact.
You called it!4 -
reiverx✭✭✭✭✭Is there anyone on here who actually thinks ZOS will do anything to improve PvP?
I mean, from my point of view after a 4 year break, it takes a special kind of neglect to let things devolve this far. It's not like it was always perfect. There's been many issues over the years but this does feel like something that's been tossed aside and left to decay.3 -
divnyi✭✭✭✭✭
✭Is there anyone on here who actually thinks ZOS will do anything to improve PvP?
I don't want to repeat myself, so here is the link https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/8130692/#Comment_81306920 -
xFocused✭✭✭✭Is there anyone on here who actually thinks ZOS will do anything to improve PvP?
I mean, from my point of view after a 4 year break, it takes a special kind of neglect to let things devolve this far. It's not like it was always perfect. There's been many issues over the years but this does feel like something that's been tossed aside and left to decay.
I'm at the mindset of if they don't want to improve it, if they have no plans to improve then just remove it altogether except for BG's. Cyrodiil is in such a unplayable state anymore that it's almost a chore to login. I've read they've started or at least replaced the servers or some of them but the game still runs absolutely atrocious, like how is the being stuck in combat bug still a thing? Why are players on current gen (hardwired even) consoles getting booted from the game left and right? Not to mention the rubberbanding is happening like wildfire lately, just insane to me there's all these bugs and issues and no communication on whats being done to combat themVENDETTA || https://www.youtube.com/@x_-Focused0 -
olsborg✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Proccsets are too strong, atleast a bunch of them, and they are so much stronger then anything else, they are the meta at any given time. CP makes the game too easy.
PC EU
PvP only1 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭JustLovely wrote: »JustLovely wrote: »Bammlschwamml wrote: »At some point in time ZOS realized that housing gives the most return for the least effort.
PvP isn't going to get any changes that will attract more players.
Clearly, Zenimax makes more money off of housing. PvP has no direct monetization while housing has a ton of monetization. Housing is likely a cash cow.
Except, per capita, it's the hardcore PvP players that spend the most on the game, not the casuals who spend hours alone playing house.
Of course since PvP has so many cash/crown sinks and housing lacks monetization.
Oh wait, it is the other way around since PvP is free and has no direct monetization.
Direct monetization again...
And then we add commercials and product placement?
Maybe start a crowfunding campaign too?
Pvp is not free. It's part of a game we bought, and keep paying for with eso+, dlcs and the crown store. The game has been financed already. There is no excuse for it not to work.
Exactly. When people try to claim that the PvP crowd aren't some of the biggest spenders in the game it just shows how little they know about the PvP player population.
What's killing Cyrodiil PvP is the insanely, unjustifiably low population caps. It's ZOS limiting their own success.
Their comment was in reply to what I said. I never said that there were no PvP payers that were big spenders. I did state the fact that there is no direct monetization of PvP. After purchasing the base game no further expenditures were required.
Except there is direct monetization of PvP. ZOS puts PvP oriented sets in every new release so PvP players have to buy the latest expansions to have access to the best gear for PvP. This has been pointed out by other posters and I'm certain you will discount this in some convoluted way, but it's the fact.
As noted, three posts before this one would be indirect monetization. Purchasing those sets and access to the zones or gear are not required to participate in PvP. This has been pointed out multiple times, and Zenimax understands it very well, which is why the only notable investment in PvP we have seen in recent years is some new gear.
Since it is not required to participate in PvP is not direct monetization. Such an example that is presented in the post I have just quoted can only be considered indirect monetization. Hence my comment on the subject stands solid.
2 -
Bushido2513✭✭✭✭✭It's funny people sit here and talk about how bad pvp is and I don't disagree. At the same time there's a queue to get into PVP. I understand there's an event but I'm more so saying that while the game isn't nearly at it's best at all, there's a lot of people that enjoy or tolerate sub par offerings. Maybe that's a bit of the issue as well?0
-
BlackRaidho✭✭✭Bushido2513 wrote: »It's funny people sit here and talk about how bad pvp is and I don't disagree. At the same time there's a queue to get into PVP. I understand there's an event but I'm more so saying that while the game isn't nearly at it's best at all, there's a lot of people that enjoy or tolerate sub par offerings. Maybe that's a bit of the issue as well?
2 servers up for the entire Europe in CP (locked and not), almost empty easily 75% of the time on a weekly basis. Yes, it's bad. Yes nobody except some happy fews enjoy themselves playing it.2 -
Bushido2513✭✭✭✭✭BlackRaidho wrote: »Bushido2513 wrote: »It's funny people sit here and talk about how bad pvp is and I don't disagree. At the same time there's a queue to get into PVP. I understand there's an event but I'm more so saying that while the game isn't nearly at it's best at all, there's a lot of people that enjoy or tolerate sub par offerings. Maybe that's a bit of the issue as well?
2 servers up for the entire Europe in CP (locked and not), almost empty easily 75% of the time on a weekly basis. Yes, it's bad. Yes nobody except some happy fews enjoy themselves playing it.
Thanks for that. I only see psna so I'm not aware of how it is in other environments. I only mostly see my play experience and those of streamers on other platforms mostly PC.
The game has several flaws on top of flaws but I think it's worth noticing that some platforms and players are impacted worse than others.
In the times I've played the main campaign it's always laggy and full of groups where people won't die and just try to farm other players with battles that seem to go on for ages. So I mostly end up in ic and bgs but have friends that play main campaign and seem to be overall happy with their experience.
So we may always have a problem if a larger majority is just either blissfully ignorant or playing a game they dislike as the lesser of two evils.0 -
CrazyKitty✭✭✭✭✭Super low population caps are what's hurting Cyrodiil more than anything else at this point.4
-
StaticWave✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭JustLovely wrote: »JustLovely wrote: »Bammlschwamml wrote: »At some point in time ZOS realized that housing gives the most return for the least effort.
PvP isn't going to get any changes that will attract more players.
Clearly, Zenimax makes more money off of housing. PvP has no direct monetization while housing has a ton of monetization. Housing is likely a cash cow.
Except, per capita, it's the hardcore PvP players that spend the most on the game, not the casuals who spend hours alone playing house.
Of course since PvP has so many cash/crown sinks and housing lacks monetization.
Oh wait, it is the other way around since PvP is free and has no direct monetization.
Direct monetization again...
And then we add commercials and product placement?
Maybe start a crowfunding campaign too?
Pvp is not free. It's part of a game we bought, and keep paying for with eso+, dlcs and the crown store. The game has been financed already. There is no excuse for it not to work.
Exactly. When people try to claim that the PvP crowd aren't some of the biggest spenders in the game it just shows how little they know about the PvP player population.
What's killing Cyrodiil PvP is the insanely, unjustifiably low population caps. It's ZOS limiting their own success.
Their comment was in reply to what I said. I never said that there were no PvP payers that were big spenders. I did state the fact that there is no direct monetization of PvP. After purchasing the base game no further expenditures were required.
Except there is direct monetization of PvP. ZOS puts PvP oriented sets in every new release so PvP players have to buy the latest expansions to have access to the best gear for PvP. This has been pointed out by other posters and I'm certain you will discount this in some convoluted way, but it's the fact.
It is still indirect by definition, as it is not required to play PvP. There is nothing convoluted about it; it is rather straightforward by definition. An accurate definition I have previously presented.
You’re talking as if PvPers aren’t subbing to ESO+, buying cosmetics, race changes, Alliance change tokens, new chapters, etc.Platform:
PC NA
Main:
Static Wave - AD stamsorc8 -
Desiato✭✭✭✭✭
✭Destroying?!
From my pov it was destroyed long ago. It's been an unsupported disaster at both technical and gameplay levels for years.
I love AvA, I really want to play it, but I feel nauseated when I think about actually doing it.
Even if one tolerates the bugs and technical issues, the pvp is SO bad. Either one is pug stomping PVE players in bad builds who are only there for transmutes, or they're stalemating constantly. Fights drag on and on and on. I had countless 1v1 and small scale fights that ended after 5-20 minutes because eventually someone just got bored and gave up. There was also "soft" surrenders where one party intentionally stops playing smart to go for an unlikely win, exposing themselves in the process. Actually good fights are few and far between.
The sorc buff was the nail in the coffin for me. They are SO tedious.
I *honestly* don't know what daily players get out of it. I haven't even touched on the trolls tanks and healbots, including the plethora of tanky healbot ball groups who apparently play just to not be able to die because they can't even focus down a solo player in a non-tank build at range.
Edited by Desiato on August 1, 2024 5:13PMspending a year dead for tax reasons1 -
BlackRaidho✭✭✭PVP is obviously not designed for Champion Points.
Don't forget that PVP was here since "Veteran system", before "Champion Points System".
CP makes PVP worst than ever with endlesses 1v1 or even 1vX because "i'm soooooo tanky look at me jumping around lmao", and of course, casual players or bad players are just stomped by 24/7 pro-players.
And it's not healthy at all.
I deeply think that ZOS never found a satisfying way to make CP PVP enjoyable for everyone, and just let players makes it work somehow.1 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭StaticWave wrote: »JustLovely wrote: »JustLovely wrote: »Bammlschwamml wrote: »At some point in time ZOS realized that housing gives the most return for the least effort.
PvP isn't going to get any changes that will attract more players.
Clearly, Zenimax makes more money off of housing. PvP has no direct monetization while housing has a ton of monetization. Housing is likely a cash cow.
Except, per capita, it's the hardcore PvP players that spend the most on the game, not the casuals who spend hours alone playing house.
Of course since PvP has so many cash/crown sinks and housing lacks monetization.
Oh wait, it is the other way around since PvP is free and has no direct monetization.
Direct monetization again...
And then we add commercials and product placement?
Maybe start a crowfunding campaign too?
Pvp is not free. It's part of a game we bought, and keep paying for with eso+, dlcs and the crown store. The game has been financed already. There is no excuse for it not to work.
Exactly. When people try to claim that the PvP crowd aren't some of the biggest spenders in the game it just shows how little they know about the PvP player population.
What's killing Cyrodiil PvP is the insanely, unjustifiably low population caps. It's ZOS limiting their own success.
Their comment was in reply to what I said. I never said that there were no PvP payers that were big spenders. I did state the fact that there is no direct monetization of PvP. After purchasing the base game no further expenditures were required.
Except there is direct monetization of PvP. ZOS puts PvP oriented sets in every new release so PvP players have to buy the latest expansions to have access to the best gear for PvP. This has been pointed out by other posters and I'm certain you will discount this in some convoluted way, but it's the fact.
It is still indirect by definition, as it is not required to play PvP. There is nothing convoluted about it; it is rather straightforward by definition. An accurate definition I have previously presented.
You’re talking as if PvPers aren’t subbing to ESO+, buying cosmetics, race changes, Alliance change tokens, new chapters, etc.
Nope. I am not and have not even suggested that by any stretch.
Those choice expenditures are not directly required to play PvP, so they are not a direct monetization of PvP. This means my comments still stand 100% accurate: there is no direct monetization of PvP. Thanks for helping demonstrate that fact.
1 -
Rohamad_Ali✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭StaticWave wrote: »JustLovely wrote: »JustLovely wrote: »Bammlschwamml wrote: »At some point in time ZOS realized that housing gives the most return for the least effort.
PvP isn't going to get any changes that will attract more players.
Clearly, Zenimax makes more money off of housing. PvP has no direct monetization while housing has a ton of monetization. Housing is likely a cash cow.
Except, per capita, it's the hardcore PvP players that spend the most on the game, not the casuals who spend hours alone playing house.
Of course since PvP has so many cash/crown sinks and housing lacks monetization.
Oh wait, it is the other way around since PvP is free and has no direct monetization.
Direct monetization again...
And then we add commercials and product placement?
Maybe start a crowfunding campaign too?
Pvp is not free. It's part of a game we bought, and keep paying for with eso+, dlcs and the crown store. The game has been financed already. There is no excuse for it not to work.
Exactly. When people try to claim that the PvP crowd aren't some of the biggest spenders in the game it just shows how little they know about the PvP player population.
What's killing Cyrodiil PvP is the insanely, unjustifiably low population caps. It's ZOS limiting their own success.
Their comment was in reply to what I said. I never said that there were no PvP payers that were big spenders. I did state the fact that there is no direct monetization of PvP. After purchasing the base game no further expenditures were required.
Except there is direct monetization of PvP. ZOS puts PvP oriented sets in every new release so PvP players have to buy the latest expansions to have access to the best gear for PvP. This has been pointed out by other posters and I'm certain you will discount this in some convoluted way, but it's the fact.
It is still indirect by definition, as it is not required to play PvP. There is nothing convoluted about it; it is rather straightforward by definition. An accurate definition I have previously presented.
You’re talking as if PvPers aren’t subbing to ESO+, buying cosmetics, race changes, Alliance change tokens, new chapters, etc.
Nope. I am not and have not even suggested that by any stretch.
Those choice expenditures are not directly required to play PvP, so they are not a direct monetization of PvP. This means my comments still stand 100% accurate: there is no direct monetization of PvP. Thanks for helping demonstrate that fact.
monetize
verb
mon·e·tize ˈmä-nə-ˌtīz also ˈmə-
monetized; monetizing
transitive verb
1
: to coin into money
also : to establish as legal tender
2
: to purchase (public or private debt) and thereby free for other uses moneys that would have been devoted to debt service
3
: to utilize (something of value) as a source of profit
Anything ZoS sells for profit is monitized. This includes everything in the game. Words matter.1 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Rohamad_Ali wrote: »StaticWave wrote: »JustLovely wrote: »JustLovely wrote: »Bammlschwamml wrote: »At some point in time ZOS realized that housing gives the most return for the least effort.
PvP isn't going to get any changes that will attract more players.
Clearly, Zenimax makes more money off of housing. PvP has no direct monetization while housing has a ton of monetization. Housing is likely a cash cow.
Except, per capita, it's the hardcore PvP players that spend the most on the game, not the casuals who spend hours alone playing house.
Of course since PvP has so many cash/crown sinks and housing lacks monetization.
Oh wait, it is the other way around since PvP is free and has no direct monetization.
Direct monetization again...
And then we add commercials and product placement?
Maybe start a crowfunding campaign too?
Pvp is not free. It's part of a game we bought, and keep paying for with eso+, dlcs and the crown store. The game has been financed already. There is no excuse for it not to work.
Exactly. When people try to claim that the PvP crowd aren't some of the biggest spenders in the game it just shows how little they know about the PvP player population.
What's killing Cyrodiil PvP is the insanely, unjustifiably low population caps. It's ZOS limiting their own success.
Their comment was in reply to what I said. I never said that there were no PvP payers that were big spenders. I did state the fact that there is no direct monetization of PvP. After purchasing the base game no further expenditures were required.
Except there is direct monetization of PvP. ZOS puts PvP oriented sets in every new release so PvP players have to buy the latest expansions to have access to the best gear for PvP. This has been pointed out by other posters and I'm certain you will discount this in some convoluted way, but it's the fact.
It is still indirect by definition, as it is not required to play PvP. There is nothing convoluted about it; it is rather straightforward by definition. An accurate definition I have previously presented.
You’re talking as if PvPers aren’t subbing to ESO+, buying cosmetics, race changes, Alliance change tokens, new chapters, etc.
Nope. I am not and have not even suggested that by any stretch.
Those choice expenditures are not directly required to play PvP, so they are not a direct monetization of PvP. This means my comments still stand 100% accurate: there is no direct monetization of PvP. Thanks for helping demonstrate that fact.
monetize
verb
mon·e·tize ˈmä-nə-ˌtīz also ˈmə-
monetized; monetizing
transitive verb
1
: to coin into money
also : to establish as legal tender
2
: to purchase (public or private debt) and thereby free for other uses moneys that would have been devoted to debt service
3
: to utilize (something of value) as a source of profit
Anything ZoS sells for profit is monitized. This includes everything in the game. Words matter.
I agree with everything stated. Thank you for making this clear. The game has a lot of monetization. Some of it is directly related to aspects of the game, and some do not pertain to any specific area of the game.
That is why I have clearly and accurately stated that there is no direct monetization of PvP outside of the small expenditure required to purchase the base game.
Further, I have never stated that no PvP player spends money on other areas of the game. Of course, a number do, and many enjoy both PvE and PvP, but that does not change the fact of my core statement. And this is what I have quoted here explains so plainly. Thank you for clarifying this.
1 -
Turtle_Bot✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Rohamad_Ali wrote: »StaticWave wrote: »JustLovely wrote: »JustLovely wrote: »Bammlschwamml wrote: »At some point in time ZOS realized that housing gives the most return for the least effort.
PvP isn't going to get any changes that will attract more players.
Clearly, Zenimax makes more money off of housing. PvP has no direct monetization while housing has a ton of monetization. Housing is likely a cash cow.
Except, per capita, it's the hardcore PvP players that spend the most on the game, not the casuals who spend hours alone playing house.
Of course since PvP has so many cash/crown sinks and housing lacks monetization.
Oh wait, it is the other way around since PvP is free and has no direct monetization.
Direct monetization again...
And then we add commercials and product placement?
Maybe start a crowfunding campaign too?
Pvp is not free. It's part of a game we bought, and keep paying for with eso+, dlcs and the crown store. The game has been financed already. There is no excuse for it not to work.
Exactly. When people try to claim that the PvP crowd aren't some of the biggest spenders in the game it just shows how little they know about the PvP player population.
What's killing Cyrodiil PvP is the insanely, unjustifiably low population caps. It's ZOS limiting their own success.
Their comment was in reply to what I said. I never said that there were no PvP payers that were big spenders. I did state the fact that there is no direct monetization of PvP. After purchasing the base game no further expenditures were required.
Except there is direct monetization of PvP. ZOS puts PvP oriented sets in every new release so PvP players have to buy the latest expansions to have access to the best gear for PvP. This has been pointed out by other posters and I'm certain you will discount this in some convoluted way, but it's the fact.
It is still indirect by definition, as it is not required to play PvP. There is nothing convoluted about it; it is rather straightforward by definition. An accurate definition I have previously presented.
You’re talking as if PvPers aren’t subbing to ESO+, buying cosmetics, race changes, Alliance change tokens, new chapters, etc.
Nope. I am not and have not even suggested that by any stretch.
Those choice expenditures are not directly required to play PvP, so they are not a direct monetization of PvP. This means my comments still stand 100% accurate: there is no direct monetization of PvP. Thanks for helping demonstrate that fact.
monetize
verb
mon·e·tize ˈmä-nə-ˌtīz also ˈmə-
monetized; monetizing
transitive verb
1
: to coin into money
also : to establish as legal tender
2
: to purchase (public or private debt) and thereby free for other uses moneys that would have been devoted to debt service
3
: to utilize (something of value) as a source of profit
Anything ZoS sells for profit is monitized. This includes everything in the game. Words matter.
I agree with everything stated. Thank you for making this clear. The game has a lot of monetization. Some of it is directly related to aspects of the game, and some do not pertain to any specific area of the game.
That is why I have clearly and accurately stated that there is no direct monetization of PvP outside of the small expenditure required to purchase the base game.
Further, I have never stated that no PvP player spends money on other areas of the game. Of course, a number do, and many enjoy both PvE and PvP, but that does not change the fact of my core statement. And this is what I have quoted here explains so plainly. Thank you for clarifying this.
By this same logic, there is no direct monetization of anything at all in ESO, even housing.
You can buy houses for in game gold (real money not required).
You can farm/craft furnishings (real money not required).
You can harvest all materials required for housing (real money not required).
You don't need any DLC gear to do housing, since anything housing related that drops from harder content is purely optional and not required.
You don't need ESO+
You don't need to buy crowns/crates/mounts/cosmetics, these are all completely optional and not required to do housing.
You don't need the latest chapter to do housing.
You don't need to spend a single dollar on this game outside of buying the base game to do housing. Everything required to play house in ESO is available from the base game. Nothing in the crown store is required to play house. Therefore housing has the exact same direct monetization in ESO that PvP has.3 -
Bammlschwamml✭✭✭I agree with everything stated. Thank you for making this clear. The game has a lot of monetization. Some of it is directly related to aspects of the game, and some do not pertain to any specific area of the game.
That is why I have clearly and accurately stated that there is no direct monetization of PvP outside of the small expenditure required to purchase the base game.
Further, I have never stated that no PvP player spends money on other areas of the game. Of course, a number do, and many enjoy both PvE and PvP, but that does not change the fact of my core statement. And this is what I have quoted here explains so plainly. Thank you for clarifying this.
I am curious. What exactly is your core statement? Because many people seem to misunderstand. What about "direct monetization" and its definition is so fascinating? Are you trying to imply something, or are you just making a neutral observation?2 -
StaticWave✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭StaticWave wrote: »JustLovely wrote: »JustLovely wrote: »Bammlschwamml wrote: »At some point in time ZOS realized that housing gives the most return for the least effort.
PvP isn't going to get any changes that will attract more players.
Clearly, Zenimax makes more money off of housing. PvP has no direct monetization while housing has a ton of monetization. Housing is likely a cash cow.
Except, per capita, it's the hardcore PvP players that spend the most on the game, not the casuals who spend hours alone playing house.
Of course since PvP has so many cash/crown sinks and housing lacks monetization.
Oh wait, it is the other way around since PvP is free and has no direct monetization.
Direct monetization again...
And then we add commercials and product placement?
Maybe start a crowfunding campaign too?
Pvp is not free. It's part of a game we bought, and keep paying for with eso+, dlcs and the crown store. The game has been financed already. There is no excuse for it not to work.
Exactly. When people try to claim that the PvP crowd aren't some of the biggest spenders in the game it just shows how little they know about the PvP player population.
What's killing Cyrodiil PvP is the insanely, unjustifiably low population caps. It's ZOS limiting their own success.
Their comment was in reply to what I said. I never said that there were no PvP payers that were big spenders. I did state the fact that there is no direct monetization of PvP. After purchasing the base game no further expenditures were required.
Except there is direct monetization of PvP. ZOS puts PvP oriented sets in every new release so PvP players have to buy the latest expansions to have access to the best gear for PvP. This has been pointed out by other posters and I'm certain you will discount this in some convoluted way, but it's the fact.
It is still indirect by definition, as it is not required to play PvP. There is nothing convoluted about it; it is rather straightforward by definition. An accurate definition I have previously presented.
You’re talking as if PvPers aren’t subbing to ESO+, buying cosmetics, race changes, Alliance change tokens, new chapters, etc.
Nope. I am not and have not even suggested that by any stretch.
Those choice expenditures are not directly required to play PvP, so they are not a direct monetization of PvP. This means my comments still stand 100% accurate: there is no direct monetization of PvP. Thanks for helping demonstrate that fact.
“There is no direct monetization of PvP”.
So PvErs just randomly buy Alliance change tokens for fun? Lol…
Using your logic, there is no direct monetization of PvE either because cosmetics don’t help you complete dungeons/trials, and cosmetics make up a large part of the Crown Store.
You can’t claim PvP has no direct monetization when you don’t even have concrete data of ESO spending between PvPers and PvErs. Even if PvErs spent more than PvPers, why should they be given priority when LITERALLY THE MAJORITY OF THE CROWN STORE are cosmetics and don’t contribute to the performance of PvE content?
Let’s be real here. It doesn’t matter if you’re a PvPer or a PvEr. Many ppl like their character to look nice. That’s why they buy cosmetics in other PvP games. Many PvPers in ESO are also subbed to ESO+ because they are in trade guilds and sell things for gold to fund their PvP cost. Many PvPers occasionally switch races to try new builds or even buy a new chapter to try new abilities. Many of my PvP friends have bought the Gold Road chapter, including me. Many PvPers also switch factions to play with their friends on the Alliance Locked campaign.
If ZOS had actually created more content for PvP then there would be more content for people to explore. It’s not a matter of whether PvP has direct monetization or not. As long as there is a population that enjoys PvP, there is something to monetize. The real question is “Is the PvP population large enough to spend resources on creating new content?”.
If it was 3 years ago, then I would say yes, the population was large enough. Unfortunately, ZOS has a history of making bad balance changes and failing to deliver their promises on performance fixes, which ultimately drove players away from the PvP scene.
Platform:
PC NA
Main:
Static Wave - AD stamsorc8 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Turtle_Bot wrote: »Rohamad_Ali wrote: »StaticWave wrote: »JustLovely wrote: »JustLovely wrote: »Bammlschwamml wrote: »At some point in time ZOS realized that housing gives the most return for the least effort.
PvP isn't going to get any changes that will attract more players.
Clearly, Zenimax makes more money off of housing. PvP has no direct monetization while housing has a ton of monetization. Housing is likely a cash cow.
Except, per capita, it's the hardcore PvP players that spend the most on the game, not the casuals who spend hours alone playing house.
Of course since PvP has so many cash/crown sinks and housing lacks monetization.
Oh wait, it is the other way around since PvP is free and has no direct monetization.
Direct monetization again...
And then we add commercials and product placement?
Maybe start a crowfunding campaign too?
Pvp is not free. It's part of a game we bought, and keep paying for with eso+, dlcs and the crown store. The game has been financed already. There is no excuse for it not to work.
Exactly. When people try to claim that the PvP crowd aren't some of the biggest spenders in the game it just shows how little they know about the PvP player population.
What's killing Cyrodiil PvP is the insanely, unjustifiably low population caps. It's ZOS limiting their own success.
Their comment was in reply to what I said. I never said that there were no PvP payers that were big spenders. I did state the fact that there is no direct monetization of PvP. After purchasing the base game no further expenditures were required.
Except there is direct monetization of PvP. ZOS puts PvP oriented sets in every new release so PvP players have to buy the latest expansions to have access to the best gear for PvP. This has been pointed out by other posters and I'm certain you will discount this in some convoluted way, but it's the fact.
It is still indirect by definition, as it is not required to play PvP. There is nothing convoluted about it; it is rather straightforward by definition. An accurate definition I have previously presented.
You’re talking as if PvPers aren’t subbing to ESO+, buying cosmetics, race changes, Alliance change tokens, new chapters, etc.
Nope. I am not and have not even suggested that by any stretch.
Those choice expenditures are not directly required to play PvP, so they are not a direct monetization of PvP. This means my comments still stand 100% accurate: there is no direct monetization of PvP. Thanks for helping demonstrate that fact.
monetize
verb
mon·e·tize ˈmä-nə-ˌtīz also ˈmə-
monetized; monetizing
transitive verb
1
: to coin into money
also : to establish as legal tender
2
: to purchase (public or private debt) and thereby free for other uses moneys that would have been devoted to debt service
3
: to utilize (something of value) as a source of profit
Anything ZoS sells for profit is monitized. This includes everything in the game. Words matter.
I agree with everything stated. Thank you for making this clear. The game has a lot of monetization. Some of it is directly related to aspects of the game, and some do not pertain to any specific area of the game.
That is why I have clearly and accurately stated that there is no direct monetization of PvP outside of the small expenditure required to purchase the base game.
Further, I have never stated that no PvP player spends money on other areas of the game. Of course, a number do, and many enjoy both PvE and PvP, but that does not change the fact of my core statement. And this is what I have quoted here explains so plainly. Thank you for clarifying this.
By this same logic, there is no direct monetization of anything at all in ESO, even housing.
You can buy houses for in game gold (real money not required).You can farm/craft furnishings (real money not required)..
You can harvest all materials required for housing (real money not required).
You don't need any DLC gear to do housing, since anything housing related that drops from harder content is purely optional and not required.
You don't need ESO+
You don't need to buy crowns/crates/mounts/cosmetics, these are all completely optional and not required to do housing.
You don't need the latest chapter to do housing.
You don't need to spend a single dollar on this game outside of buying the base game to do housing. Everything required to play house in ESO is available from the base game. Nothing in the crown store is required to play house. Therefore housing has the exact same direct monetization in ESO that PvP has
However, some houses and furnishings can only be purchased via crowns, which is direct monetization. That is the difference.StaticWave wrote: »StaticWave wrote: »JustLovely wrote: »JustLovely wrote: »Bammlschwamml wrote: »At some point in time ZOS realized that housing gives the most return for the least effort.
PvP isn't going to get any changes that will attract more players.
Clearly, Zenimax makes more money off of housing. PvP has no direct monetization while housing has a ton of monetization. Housing is likely a cash cow.
Except, per capita, it's the hardcore PvP players that spend the most on the game, not the casuals who spend hours alone playing house.
Of course since PvP has so many cash/crown sinks and housing lacks monetization.
Oh wait, it is the other way around since PvP is free and has no direct monetization.
Direct monetization again...
And then we add commercials and product placement?
Maybe start a crowfunding campaign too?
Pvp is not free. It's part of a game we bought, and keep paying for with eso+, dlcs and the crown store. The game has been financed already. There is no excuse for it not to work.
Exactly. When people try to claim that the PvP crowd aren't some of the biggest spenders in the game it just shows how little they know about the PvP player population.
What's killing Cyrodiil PvP is the insanely, unjustifiably low population caps. It's ZOS limiting their own success.
Their comment was in reply to what I said. I never said that there were no PvP payers that were big spenders. I did state the fact that there is no direct monetization of PvP. After purchasing the base game no further expenditures were required.
Except there is direct monetization of PvP. ZOS puts PvP oriented sets in every new release so PvP players have to buy the latest expansions to have access to the best gear for PvP. This has been pointed out by other posters and I'm certain you will discount this in some convoluted way, but it's the fact.
It is still indirect by definition, as it is not required to play PvP. There is nothing convoluted about it; it is rather straightforward by definition. An accurate definition I have previously presented.
You’re talking as if PvPers aren’t subbing to ESO+, buying cosmetics, race changes, Alliance change tokens, new chapters, etc.
Nope. I am not and have not even suggested that by any stretch.
Those choice expenditures are not directly required to play PvP, so they are not a direct monetization of PvP. This means my comments still stand 100% accurate: there is no direct monetization of PvP. Thanks for helping demonstrate that fact.
“There is no direct monetization of PvP”.
So PvErs just randomly buy Alliance change tokens for fun? Lol…
Using your logic, there is no direct monetization of PvE either because cosmetics don’t help you complete dungeons/trials, and cosmetics make up a large part of the Crown Store.
You can’t claim PvP has no direct monetization when you don’t even have concrete data of ESO spending between PvPers and PvErs. Even if PvErs spent more than PvPers, why should they be given priority when LITERALLY THE MAJORITY OF THE CROWN STORE are cosmetics and don’t contribute to the performance of PvE content?
Let’s be real here. It doesn’t matter if you’re a PvPer or a PvEr. Many ppl like their character to look nice. That’s why they buy cosmetics in other PvP games. Many PvPers in ESO are also subbed to ESO+ because they are in trade guilds and sell things for gold to fund their PvP cost. Many PvPers occasionally switch races to try new builds or even buy a new chapter to try new abilities. Many of my PvP friends have bought the Gold Road chapter, including me. Many PvPers also switch factions to play with their friends on the Alliance Locked campaign.
If ZOS had actually created more content for PvP then there would be more content for people to explore. It’s not a matter of whether PvP has direct monetization or not. As long as there is a population that enjoys PvP, there is something to monetize. The real question is “Is the PvP population large enough to spend resources on creating new content?”.
If it was 3 years ago, then I would say yes, the population was large enough. Unfortunately, ZOS has a history of making bad balance changes and failing to deliver their promises on performance fixes, which ultimately drove players away from the PvP scene.
Again, it is not required to play PvP. No one needs to be an alliance change token to participate in PvP or even join a different alliance since we can create multiple characters for free.
I have not said anywhere that PvP players do not spend money on the game. I have merely pointed out why PvP does not get the same level of attention as PvE. That is perfectly germain with the title of this thread.
Interestingly, I agree with this thread's title and have demonstrated that in multiple posts here.
1 -
MEBengalsFan2001✭✭✭✭✭MEBengalsFan2001 wrote: »BlackRaidho wrote: »PVP is bad designed, period.
Some happy fews make fun playing around but that's all.
PVP servers are empty all year long till the event, and during the event it's just a noob slayer season. That's the only reason PVP players ask for this event, fresh meat.
If PVP is sooooooo good as some people pretend, then servers should be full even off-event.
The main campaign is pop locked most of the time outside of the event. And with pop caps of 60-80 players/faction, it's no wonder.
It's ZOS' unjustifiably low population cap that's strangling Cyrodiil more than anything else. Pop caps this low are totally irrational unless some of the snipped comments have merit.
60-80? My guild had 5 groups of 12 and there were many other groups around. It’s probably around 150.
5 groups of 12 from one guild huh? I haven't seen anything like that since 24 man groups were a thing, and I'm in Cyrodiil every day for at least 2 hours.
The pop cap is closer to 150 all three factions combined than it is 150/faction.
It’s a lot higher than 150 for the pvp server. Yesterday four full groups just from the guild I am in, that is 48 players and there were plenty of other players in the alliance running around. The cap is probably 500 for the server with the first alliance to lock it getting an extra 50.
Edited by MEBengalsFan2001 on August 5, 2024 4:28PM0 -
Theignson✭✭✭✭✭Joy_Division wrote: »I think most players blame ZOS for what we have to deal with, not the people in organized groups.
The reality is this, when you on the map with so few other players, that means the amount of times you get pulled into an organized group's kill zone where you instantly die is going to be far too many times. That this actual mechanic is a central part of the ESO Cyrodiil experience (i.e., losing absolutely control over your character TWICE and dying without any recourse - two mechanics that have been pounded into the heads of all would be RPG game-masters to avoid since the genre came about in the 1970s), just shows how unwilling ZOS is consider, let alone invest, in ways to make PvP a more enjoyable and inclusive experience
This single set, Rush of Agony, I think contributes most to the death of Cyrodil. Every...single...ball...group uses this and it is all they do all night.
You can be standing 10 meters away (and farther in lag) from any sign or hint of a fight and get pulled into the "circle of death".
As far as I can tell, without ANY audio or visual clue. Then since there is no CC immunity, you are instantly feared/lose all control over your character and die instantly to multiple Ultis/ dozens of spells.
RoA is proc by a teleport, eg Ambush. The 12 meter pull radius occurs from the point where the ambushing player (or stampede) lands. Ball group spells are focused on this spot. NOTE that melee skills are 8m. So if you are a melee trying to fight a ball group you will get pulled, eventually.
This is unlike any other skill in the game. If, eg as a DK I use chains, there is a visual and audio clue that alerts me. With Dark Convergence, a red area effect extends 8m from the center of where it is procced, so I know to block.
RoA: Nothing . NO warning. So the "0.8 seocnd delay" is meaningless. You can't react to something you can't see.
If they simply made a 12m ground marker when RoA effect procced (like, for example, Saint and seducre has) I would be satisfied because then at least you could react. Why shouldn't we have any warning of this set which is used constantly in Zerodil?2 GOs, an overlord and bunches of prefects etc-- all classes...I've wasted a lot of time in PVP1 -
CatoUnchained✭✭✭✭MEBengalsFan2001 wrote: »MEBengalsFan2001 wrote: »BlackRaidho wrote: »PVP is bad designed, period.
Some happy fews make fun playing around but that's all.
PVP servers are empty all year long till the event, and during the event it's just a noob slayer season. That's the only reason PVP players ask for this event, fresh meat.
If PVP is sooooooo good as some people pretend, then servers should be full even off-event.
The main campaign is pop locked most of the time outside of the event. And with pop caps of 60-80 players/faction, it's no wonder.
It's ZOS' unjustifiably low population cap that's strangling Cyrodiil more than anything else. Pop caps this low are totally irrational unless some of the snipped comments have merit.
60-80? My guild had 5 groups of 12 and there were many other groups around. It’s probably around 150.
5 groups of 12 from one guild huh? I haven't seen anything like that since 24 man groups were a thing, and I'm in Cyrodiil every day for at least 2 hours.
The pop cap is closer to 150 all three factions combined than it is 150/faction.
It’s a lot higher than 150 for the pvp server. Yesterday four full groups just from the guild I am in, that is 48 players and there were plenty of other players in the alliance running around. The cap is probably 500 for the server with the first alliance to lock it getting an extra 50.
It's not. The pop cap in Cyrodiil is 60-80/faction. Those that PvP daily, like me, notice every time they lower the population cap. Nor is the cap dynamic. It's a set number, and that number is somewhere between 60-80/faction.5 -
xylena_lazarow✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭
RoA would be fine if it had more like the 2 second delay and proper telegraph that Dark Con does, right now it's a bit nuts because there's no telegraph at all and only a short delay. Tarnished is still more common I think.This single set, Rush of Agony, I think contributes most to the death of CyrodilPC/NA || CP/Cyro || RIP soft caps1 -
Turtle_Bot✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Turtle_Bot wrote: »Rohamad_Ali wrote: »StaticWave wrote: »JustLovely wrote: »JustLovely wrote: »Bammlschwamml wrote: »At some point in time ZOS realized that housing gives the most return for the least effort.
PvP isn't going to get any changes that will attract more players.
Clearly, Zenimax makes more money off of housing. PvP has no direct monetization while housing has a ton of monetization. Housing is likely a cash cow.
Except, per capita, it's the hardcore PvP players that spend the most on the game, not the casuals who spend hours alone playing house.
Of course since PvP has so many cash/crown sinks and housing lacks monetization.
Oh wait, it is the other way around since PvP is free and has no direct monetization.
Direct monetization again...
And then we add commercials and product placement?
Maybe start a crowfunding campaign too?
Pvp is not free. It's part of a game we bought, and keep paying for with eso+, dlcs and the crown store. The game has been financed already. There is no excuse for it not to work.
Exactly. When people try to claim that the PvP crowd aren't some of the biggest spenders in the game it just shows how little they know about the PvP player population.
What's killing Cyrodiil PvP is the insanely, unjustifiably low population caps. It's ZOS limiting their own success.
Their comment was in reply to what I said. I never said that there were no PvP payers that were big spenders. I did state the fact that there is no direct monetization of PvP. After purchasing the base game no further expenditures were required.
Except there is direct monetization of PvP. ZOS puts PvP oriented sets in every new release so PvP players have to buy the latest expansions to have access to the best gear for PvP. This has been pointed out by other posters and I'm certain you will discount this in some convoluted way, but it's the fact.
It is still indirect by definition, as it is not required to play PvP. There is nothing convoluted about it; it is rather straightforward by definition. An accurate definition I have previously presented.
You’re talking as if PvPers aren’t subbing to ESO+, buying cosmetics, race changes, Alliance change tokens, new chapters, etc.
Nope. I am not and have not even suggested that by any stretch.
Those choice expenditures are not directly required to play PvP, so they are not a direct monetization of PvP. This means my comments still stand 100% accurate: there is no direct monetization of PvP. Thanks for helping demonstrate that fact.
monetize
verb
mon·e·tize ˈmä-nə-ˌtīz also ˈmə-
monetized; monetizing
transitive verb
1
: to coin into money
also : to establish as legal tender
2
: to purchase (public or private debt) and thereby free for other uses moneys that would have been devoted to debt service
3
: to utilize (something of value) as a source of profit
Anything ZoS sells for profit is monitized. This includes everything in the game. Words matter.
I agree with everything stated. Thank you for making this clear. The game has a lot of monetization. Some of it is directly related to aspects of the game, and some do not pertain to any specific area of the game.
That is why I have clearly and accurately stated that there is no direct monetization of PvP outside of the small expenditure required to purchase the base game.
Further, I have never stated that no PvP player spends money on other areas of the game. Of course, a number do, and many enjoy both PvE and PvP, but that does not change the fact of my core statement. And this is what I have quoted here explains so plainly. Thank you for clarifying this.
By this same logic, there is no direct monetization of anything at all in ESO, even housing.
You can buy houses for in game gold (real money not required).You can farm/craft furnishings (real money not required)..
You can harvest all materials required for housing (real money not required).
You don't need any DLC gear to do housing, since anything housing related that drops from harder content is purely optional and not required.
You don't need ESO+
You don't need to buy crowns/crates/mounts/cosmetics, these are all completely optional and not required to do housing.
You don't need the latest chapter to do housing.
You don't need to spend a single dollar on this game outside of buying the base game to do housing. Everything required to play house in ESO is available from the base game. Nothing in the crown store is required to play house. Therefore housing has the exact same direct monetization in ESO that PvP has
However, some houses and furnishings can only be purchased via crowns, which is direct monetization. That is the difference.StaticWave wrote: »StaticWave wrote: »JustLovely wrote: »JustLovely wrote: »Bammlschwamml wrote: »At some point in time ZOS realized that housing gives the most return for the least effort.
PvP isn't going to get any changes that will attract more players.
Clearly, Zenimax makes more money off of housing. PvP has no direct monetization while housing has a ton of monetization. Housing is likely a cash cow.
Except, per capita, it's the hardcore PvP players that spend the most on the game, not the casuals who spend hours alone playing house.
Of course since PvP has so many cash/crown sinks and housing lacks monetization.
Oh wait, it is the other way around since PvP is free and has no direct monetization.
Direct monetization again...
And then we add commercials and product placement?
Maybe start a crowfunding campaign too?
Pvp is not free. It's part of a game we bought, and keep paying for with eso+, dlcs and the crown store. The game has been financed already. There is no excuse for it not to work.
Exactly. When people try to claim that the PvP crowd aren't some of the biggest spenders in the game it just shows how little they know about the PvP player population.
What's killing Cyrodiil PvP is the insanely, unjustifiably low population caps. It's ZOS limiting their own success.
Their comment was in reply to what I said. I never said that there were no PvP payers that were big spenders. I did state the fact that there is no direct monetization of PvP. After purchasing the base game no further expenditures were required.
Except there is direct monetization of PvP. ZOS puts PvP oriented sets in every new release so PvP players have to buy the latest expansions to have access to the best gear for PvP. This has been pointed out by other posters and I'm certain you will discount this in some convoluted way, but it's the fact.
It is still indirect by definition, as it is not required to play PvP. There is nothing convoluted about it; it is rather straightforward by definition. An accurate definition I have previously presented.
You’re talking as if PvPers aren’t subbing to ESO+, buying cosmetics, race changes, Alliance change tokens, new chapters, etc.
Nope. I am not and have not even suggested that by any stretch.
Those choice expenditures are not directly required to play PvP, so they are not a direct monetization of PvP. This means my comments still stand 100% accurate: there is no direct monetization of PvP. Thanks for helping demonstrate that fact.
“There is no direct monetization of PvP”.
So PvErs just randomly buy Alliance change tokens for fun? Lol…
Using your logic, there is no direct monetization of PvE either because cosmetics don’t help you complete dungeons/trials, and cosmetics make up a large part of the Crown Store.
You can’t claim PvP has no direct monetization when you don’t even have concrete data of ESO spending between PvPers and PvErs. Even if PvErs spent more than PvPers, why should they be given priority when LITERALLY THE MAJORITY OF THE CROWN STORE are cosmetics and don’t contribute to the performance of PvE content?
Let’s be real here. It doesn’t matter if you’re a PvPer or a PvEr. Many ppl like their character to look nice. That’s why they buy cosmetics in other PvP games. Many PvPers in ESO are also subbed to ESO+ because they are in trade guilds and sell things for gold to fund their PvP cost. Many PvPers occasionally switch races to try new builds or even buy a new chapter to try new abilities. Many of my PvP friends have bought the Gold Road chapter, including me. Many PvPers also switch factions to play with their friends on the Alliance Locked campaign.
If ZOS had actually created more content for PvP then there would be more content for people to explore. It’s not a matter of whether PvP has direct monetization or not. As long as there is a population that enjoys PvP, there is something to monetize. The real question is “Is the PvP population large enough to spend resources on creating new content?”.
If it was 3 years ago, then I would say yes, the population was large enough. Unfortunately, ZOS has a history of making bad balance changes and failing to deliver their promises on performance fixes, which ultimately drove players away from the PvP scene.
Again, it is not required to play PvP. No one needs to be an alliance change token to participate in PvP or even join a different alliance since we can create multiple characters for free.
I have not said anywhere that PvP players do not spend money on the game. I have merely pointed out why PvP does not get the same level of attention as PvE. That is perfectly germain with the title of this thread.
Interestingly, I agree with this thread's title and have demonstrated that in multiple posts here.
and no-one needs those houses or furnishing that are only on the crown store, so no, you are wrong, there is zero difference.5 -
xylena_lazarow✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭
Agreed, I see this same silly argument across games, nobody needs to play any video game. If it's not fun or worth the price, people will move to other games or life pursuits, there is no obligation to any of this.Turtle_Bot wrote: »and no-one needs those houses or furnishing that are only on the crown store, so no, you are wrong, there is zero difference.Edited by xylena_lazarow on August 5, 2024 6:42PMPC/NA || CP/Cyro || RIP soft caps0 -
Theignson✭✭✭✭✭xylena_lazarow wrote: »
RoA would be fine if it had more like the 2 second delay and proper telegraph that Dark Con does, right now it's a bit nuts because there's no telegraph at all and only a short delay. Tarnished is still more common I think.This single set, Rush of Agony, I think contributes most to the death of Cyrodil
Agree. Add something, "anything" , that tells you the effect is active. Even a longer delay is meaningless if you don't know the proc is active. If it displayed a circle (like almost every other ability that affects an area) it would be fine.
I suspect, however, that they "Cannot" add an area of effect indicator Because it has no cc effect...just a speculation on my part
Tarnished is everywhere because solo's can use it. I don't think RoA is as useful to a solo. (I've tried it and the results are "meh" for me, but some bombers can make it work)2 GOs, an overlord and bunches of prefects etc-- all classes...I've wasted a lot of time in PVP0