Maintenance for the week of December 22:
• NA megaservers for maintenance – December 22, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – December 22, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
• NA megaservers for maintenance – December 22, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – December 22, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
ZOS: If you care about ESO, PLEASE TAKE TIME TO READ
-
MacCait✭✭✭✭✭
✭@Zyrudin It seems we agree on many points. I too agree with some of the changes, and some of the ideas for the direction of the game... I just can't get behind a system that:
Hacks everything apart so drastically; a system that cannot be tested and tracked to see what changes are going to affect what (tracking variables); a system that has in place many contradictions over what it states it wants to achieve; a system that states it wants to help make things easier for the average player and the new player, in in actuall effect over complicates things, and with results that will most likely (at this point) do completely the opposite and make things harder for the new players and the mass majority of average players; a system that perpetually makes the same mistakes of trying to opperate one system for two entirely different models (PvP - PvE).
@MacCait
The manner of it, not the reason - yes, it seems we agree on that.
In the ESO Live Rich Lambert did concede that the reason for this was, quote, «to slow things down» because they wanted «separate phases: a burn phase and then regen». He didn't say it, because he couldn't say it, but to me that reads "we wanted people to play the game as intended".
This was confirmed when he said that a trial leader that was testing the new trial said first that «every DD needs top DPS to make it in vet trials» and then after trying he changed his opinion to «actually, we focused on the mechanics and made it through».
This is the very reason for the changes, with which I agree. However, I cannot accept the reasoning of "one single game PvP + PvE" because it is two different types of adversary, completely.
@ZyrudinI need to see this myself. I can't find a link to the video anywhere just yet.
@IronCrystal posted in another thread:IronCrystal wrote: »Nah, it was truly disappointing.
"we wan't to make sure everyone is running out of resources" The lead combat designer said this verbatum.
They are ruining end game scene. Gonna be a mass exodus again of raiders.
If that is what was actually said, my heart sinks for this game. I think the game will indeed lose a great deal of players if this is their true intention.
Where you say:...He didn't say it, because he couldn't say it, but to me that reads "we wanted people to play the game as intended".
If that is indeed their intention, that is contradictory to the whole "play as you want" scenario, and is instead a "play as we dictate" scenario.
If anyone finds a link can you post it. I can't find one as of yet.
Edited wrong game tagEdited by MacCait on April 28, 2017 8:52PM1 -
Zyrudin✭✭✭✭@MacCait
Here you go.
They did say they will "look into" and eventually "adapt" end game difficulty as well.0 -
BuddyAces✭✭✭✭✭
✭You want to slow the game down?????? Why? I wonder how long it's going to take to clear a vet dungeon now. You're going to make them take at least twice as long. WHY? Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee heavy attacking sure is fun- said *** nobody ever. You devs are so disconnected to your player base it's atrocious.
Your dungeon finder is borked and now I know why you haven't bothered fixing it. NOBODY is going to want to be using it once this rolls around. There are non dlc dungeons that some of your player base can not complete right now, I know this for a fact because I run into this currently. Will be running with only guildies come that time then since no one person is going to want to be in COA2 for 3 hours because of the pug they're in. Also, people are definitely going to have fun getting kicked in stupid 4 man content when they're not up to par. Good luck to you dps who have to sit in Q for 3 hours and then get booted 10 minutes into a dungeon because you're not decked out in the current meta.
And your whole thing of trying to balance both the pve and pvp aspect of the game as one setting will NEVER happen. You can not do it. How many years have you been trying now? Give it up and separate the two. It's not fair to either side to do it this way. I don't give a rats ass about PVP but the folks who do like to PVP shouldn't have to put up with OP crap in their game play because of PVE. PVE players shouldn't have to deal with nerfs because of a bunch of whiny PVP people (face it, 90 percent of you pvp'ers do nothing but whine about everything but what you're currently playing). Having it separate would make it so much easier for you guys to tweak either side for the better.They nerfed magsorcs so hard stamsorcs felt it,lol - Somber97866
I'm blown away by the utter stupidity I see here on the daily. - Wrekkedd1 -
IronCrystal✭✭✭✭✭
✭@Zyrudin It seems we agree on many points. I too agree with some of the changes, and some of the ideas for the direction of the game... I just can't get behind a system that:
Hacks everything apart so drastically; a system that cannot be tested and tracked to see what changes are going to affect what (tracking variables); a system that has in place many contradictions over what it states it wants to achieve; a system that states it wants to help make things easier for the average player and the new player, in in actuall effect over complicates things, and with results that will most likely (at this point) do completely the opposite and make things harder for the new players and the mass majority of average players; a system that perpetually makes the same mistakes of trying to opperate one system for two entirely different models (PvP - PvE).
@MacCait
The manner of it, not the reason - yes, it seems we agree on that.
In the ESO Live Rich Lambert did concede that the reason for this was, quote, «to slow things down» because they wanted «separate phases: a burn phase and then regen». He didn't say it, because he couldn't say it, but to me that reads "we wanted people to play the game as intended".
This was confirmed when he said that a trial leader that was testing the new trial said first that «every DD needs top DPS to make it in vet trials» and then after trying he changed his opinion to «actually, we focused on the mechanics and made it through».
This is the very reason for the changes, with which I agree. However, I cannot accept the reasoning of "one single game PvP + PvE" because it is two different types of adversary, completely.
@ZyrudinI need to see this myself. I can't find a link to the video anywhere just yet.
@IronCrystal posted in another thread:IronCrystal wrote: »Nah, it was truly disappointing.
"we wan't to make sure everyone is running out of resources" The lead combat designer said this verbatum.
They are ruining end game scene. Gonna be a mass exodus again of raiders.
If that is what was actually said, my heart sinks for this game. I think the game will indeed lose a great deal of players if this is their true intention.
Where you say:...He didn't say it, because he couldn't say it, but to me that reads "we wanted people to play the game as intended".
If that is indeed their intention, that is contradictory to the whole "play as you want" scenario, and is instead a "play as we dictate" scenario.
If anyone finds a link can you post it. I can't find one as of yet.
Edited wrong game tag
I watched the video again. Here is the exact thing they said (in context).IronCrystal wrote: »I watched the video again. 19:35 in the video.
"We looked at every single class, so, what are the actives the class has, what are the passives, how much are they getting of each of those, and then we looked at that against all the abilities that they are activating, to have sort of like 'well there you know draining at this rate, and they are restoring at this rate, so we wanted to make sure when we compared those two that you're going to be going down over time, you know not immediately, but so that everyone is running out of resources."
https://twitch.tv/videos/138714024
Make PC NA raiding great again!
Down with drama!
What Mechanics Healer - Dro-m'Athra Destroyer
Homestead Raid Scores
vHRC 157,030
vAA 138,287
vSO 153,393
vMoL 154,550
Not raiding in Morrowind0 -
MacCait✭✭✭✭✭
✭IronCrystal wrote: »@Zyrudin It seems we agree on many points. I too agree with some of the changes, and some of the ideas for the direction of the game... I just can't get behind a system that:
Hacks everything apart so drastically; a system that cannot be tested and tracked to see what changes are going to affect what (tracking variables); a system that has in place many contradictions over what it states it wants to achieve; a system that states it wants to help make things easier for the average player and the new player, in in actuall effect over complicates things, and with results that will most likely (at this point) do completely the opposite and make things harder for the new players and the mass majority of average players; a system that perpetually makes the same mistakes of trying to opperate one system for two entirely different models (PvP - PvE).
@MacCait
The manner of it, not the reason - yes, it seems we agree on that.
In the ESO Live Rich Lambert did concede that the reason for this was, quote, «to slow things down» because they wanted «separate phases: a burn phase and then regen». He didn't say it, because he couldn't say it, but to me that reads "we wanted people to play the game as intended".
This was confirmed when he said that a trial leader that was testing the new trial said first that «every DD needs top DPS to make it in vet trials» and then after trying he changed his opinion to «actually, we focused on the mechanics and made it through».
This is the very reason for the changes, with which I agree. However, I cannot accept the reasoning of "one single game PvP + PvE" because it is two different types of adversary, completely.
@ZyrudinI need to see this myself. I can't find a link to the video anywhere just yet.
@IronCrystal posted in another thread:IronCrystal wrote: »Nah, it was truly disappointing.
"we wan't to make sure everyone is running out of resources" The lead combat designer said this verbatum.
They are ruining end game scene. Gonna be a mass exodus again of raiders.
If that is what was actually said, my heart sinks for this game. I think the game will indeed lose a great deal of players if this is their true intention.
Where you say:...He didn't say it, because he couldn't say it, but to me that reads "we wanted people to play the game as intended".
If that is indeed their intention, that is contradictory to the whole "play as you want" scenario, and is instead a "play as we dictate" scenario.
If anyone finds a link can you post it. I can't find one as of yet.
Edited wrong game tag
I watched the video again. Here is the exact thing they said (in context).IronCrystal wrote: »I watched the video again. 19:35 in the video.
"We looked at every single class, so, what are the actives the class has, what are the passives, how much are they getting of each of those, and then we looked at that against all the abilities that they are activating, to have sort of like 'well there you know draining at this rate, and they are restoring at this rate, so we wanted to make sure when we compared those two that you're going to be going down over time, you know not immediately, but so that everyone is running out of resources."
https://twitch.tv/videos/138714024
Thanks for that @IronCrystal
For everyone else I found the link, it's here:
www.twitch.tv/videos/138691043
I'm watching now
Edit: Doh lol I just noticed Ironcrystal also added the link to the video, my badEdited by MacCait on April 29, 2017 2:13AM0 -
Wreuntzylla✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
So in effect what appears to be occurring is players are being forced to buy the new Warden class if they wish to stay relevant to group play, or remain competitive. For those players who choose not to do that, it appears all classes except for the powerful Magic Sorc, are being made ineffective, to the point of actually destroying the way those classes play. This is incredibly unfair to a great many of your players who have spent years developing their characters class and enjoy the way those classes play. It also seems that those P2W conspiracy theorists may be proven correct, because this does actually come across as P2W. EDIT: To be clear I'm not saying it is or isn't P2W, but that it's starting to appear as if it may in fact be that way with this update, and this is something you (ZOS) should be concerned about.
I think it's important to separate the aspects of your argument.
Every MMO I have ever played makes new classes overpowered. However, after the sales on the xpac slow down, the nerfs come. So, typically the choice being presented is whether to play the new class and prepare for future disappointment or keep playing what you are playing and experience current disappointment. I usually go with the first option because when the nerf hits, I can still go back to my previous main.
In any event, it is impossible to connect OP new classes to other changes and deduce a sinister plot to extract money from players, in a way that will kill the game, because it happens all the time without any sinister aspect. It's such a fact of life in MMOs and such a completely transparent cash grab that players nowadays understand and accept it as par for the course. Game companies have learned from earlier mistakes and nowadays typically respond to the most OP aspects even before the xpac revenue stream slows down.
You mention elsewhere in your post that ZoS have taken skills away from certain classes and given them to the new class. While making a new class OP is almost invariably a temporary event, and you know it will resolve itself, skill transfers are more fundamental changes that are very unlikely to be undone. It also smacks of extreme callousness or indifference. Sorry you loved that, you can't have it anymore, we are giving it to someone else. Further, even if it doesn't affect your class, if the company is willing to do that once, why should anyone think it won't happen again and next time to their class? This is a good place to focus your efforts. It's not something most people will accept in the way people accept the new class issue.Cause of Drastic Changes - PvP directly affecting PvE
So it appears the whole reason for these drastic changes seems to stem from a small percentage of players who are able to create builds with what you term ‘infinite sustain’. I’ve tried to establish an exact figure on what percentage of players actually do this, but can only see references to an elite 1% of PvP specific players.
It's not reasonable to believe PvP is driving these changes.
Sustain nerfs can't be PvP driven. ESO already has active methods of temporarily nerfing sustain in the form of poisons, which are an incredible PvP tool. Increasing the resource cost of your opponent by 60% is so effective that its generality banned from duels by the dueling community.
The nerf to healing is also not PvP driven. I typically run builds that apply major and minor defile, and I invest heavily into befoul. Note that the tooltip on befoul is misleading in that it increases all sources of heal debuffs and not just abilities. The tooltip on your gear, reverb bash and even poison increases with increased spending in befoul. Without wearing Fasalla's Guile, I debuff players 58%. Although in rare cases even that is not enough, sustain poisons act as an eventual 100% heal debuff.
More importantly, if PvP were the issue, it doesn't make sense that ZoS would make these types of changes rather than just buff the existing counters. They could increase the befoul effect and/or remove some restrictions on how poisons are applied. Very easy changes compared to what is being reported.
1 -
Xvorg✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭After 1.6, I decided not to pay for this game, but I did it.
I bought Orsinum several months after its release. Not because I need it, but because it seemed to be a good DLC... and it was. I've enjoyed it a lot in all my runs. Maybe the sets there are not good enough, maybe MSA is not the best trial instance, but the product, as a whole, is interesting.
Nevertheless, I bought it after several patches. I remember I bought it during TG times. TG was a good patch but it's a not-so-great content. During that time I also bought IC... interesting content but not as good as Orsinum.
After TG I've never bought anything again. Not even the packs they have sold.
IDK if my experience is shared by others, but there's something I know: a happy customer buys moar products. If the patch coming doesn't make me happy, I'm not going to buy. But if you give me a good patch, maybe I'll be moar prone to buy a product...Edited by Xvorg on April 29, 2017 12:49AMSarcasm is something too serious to be taken lightly
I was born with the wrong sign
In the wrong house
With the wrong ascendancy
I took the wrong road
That led to the wrong tendencies
I was in the wrong place at the wrong time
For the wrong reason and the wrong rhyme
On the wrong day of the wrong week
Used the wrong method with the wrong technique0 -
I agree that all of this is very well said. I agree with some of your points. But, for some of this, the PTS patch notes is not a good way to evaluate the changes.
I love ESO and Destiny. I'm not going to leave because of a few changes that can also be changed. I need to see how strong my characters are (all Redguards) and compare them with the Warden. I like to tinker and create my own builds. So, I respect the opinions of some of the streamers but I play my own way and I have to develop another strategy to deal either the sustain issues until ZOS decides they went too far.2 -
IwakuraLain42✭✭✭✭✭If you are a Console player like me and if you have a halfway decent PC as well then you can grab a key from this weekends Humble Bundle sale (10 €/$) and try the PTS for yourself. That's what I'm currently planning for this weekend.0 -
MacCait✭✭✭✭✭
✭@MacCait
Here you go.
They did say they will "look into" and eventually "adapt" end game difficulty as well.
@Zyrudin wow I've only just seen this. Strange... the page didn't have a couple of posts on it last night, but this morning I see the posts above the other posts I HAD seen... weird. Maybe I just missed them somehow. Anyway thanks 1 -
POps75p✭✭✭✭great word, but they are falling on deaf ears. it's all about the $, they care less about their customers0
-
t3hdubzy✭✭✭✭great word, but they are falling on deaf ears. it's all about the $, they care less about their customers
I think the devs care about the game, i think they still want to make money and their are stakeholders pushing for money to be made. I mean they arent a charity, and they arent an indie game.
I think the issue is that they have created a terribly complex game and dont have tools in place to help with keeping thinga aligned.0 -
Gomumon✭✭✭@MacCait What would you think of this type of balance?
Offensive-
Power: damage of each attack
Range: how far you can deal damage.
Speed: how fast and frequently you can deal damage.
Defensive-
Vitality: how much damage you can take.
Control: how well you can stop an attacker.
Agility: how much damage you can avoid (or escape).
To address the issue of prolonged fights, I gave a rough golden ratio (3:2 to offense:defense.) This way, someone will die before the Zerg can come save them. Each class gets 100,75,50 for offense and 75,50,25 for defense.
Limitations: this would need to be properly weighted with certain goals in mind (e.g. how much DPS should each class do; how long should dungeons take; how long should duels last, etc.) This is more illustrative to show that sustain doesn't need to be crushed and classes don't need to be homogeneous to be statistically equal.
@Gomumon
Interesting chart. Things are still affected by gear and racial passives though right? I'm not what you do with this... but it's an intersting demo. I there a reason the same colours are used over for different things? As an ex-graphic artist I'd suggest different colours to make it mor eintuitive to see the differences
EDIT gamer tag
Yes, racial and gear variables would still play. It's colored like that because I wanted to illustrate a point I didn't make, but had the idea for, which was that different armors could make up for those missing traits. So, red represented heavy armor, green medium, and blue light. I repeated also because the first three are offensive and second are defensive but are part of the same offense:defense tier.
Like I said, this wasn't anything balanced or tested mathematical. It was purely conceptual to show that classes can be different whilst still essentially balanced.
Anyway, instead of just designating medium for stamina and light for magicka, and heavy for health, give like a 5 piece bonus in each tree:
heavy armor say gives +10% to power/vitality passives (more mass behind the hits) but then -5% range/control and -10% speed/agility. Boosts max resources, reduces damage.
Medium armor: +10% speed/agility, -5% power/vitality, -10% range/control. Boosts Regen, reduces cooldowns.
Light armor: +10% range/control, -5% speed/agility, -10% power/vitality. Boosts critical, reduces all costs.
If each class had passives that supported such spreads, gear could be used as something that could either make up for what's missing and round things out, or max out a particular trait. For example, a DK in heavy armor would hit hard and be slow, whether or not it's magicka or stamina.
Lastly, I felt like racial passives should all have more even benefits. For example, all races get some sort of damage buff:
Breton - Pets
Redguard - Dual Wielding
Orc - Crit Rate
Altmer - Penetration
Bosmer - Bows
Khajit - Crit Strike
Nord - Two Handed
Dunmer - Destruction Staves
Argonian - Poison
Imperial - One Hand & Shield
Again, I'm far from a mathematician. I just wanted to illustrate that there's probably another way to add balance and diversity than crippling what makes classes stand apart.0 -
Muttsmutt✭✭✭✭✭woah that's a load of feedback right there. good job taking the time and thought power to write this out. i truly truly hope ZOS has read it, that the right eyes have read it.
to get such feedback, for free, on your product... i mean, damn. they should pay for such analysis. perhaps someday this will be more respected, the importance of feedback good like this.PC-EU // UNDEAD2 -
MacCait✭✭✭✭✭
✭@Gilliamtherogue has posted his second video on the PTS changes. Very well explained and informative. He discusses changes to the Champion Point system and new gear sets. Some more positive changes that bring a breath of fresh air to the rest of the mayhem caused by so many drastic changes at once.
Reccomend checking this out.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/U2b-RrR0lHw
Edited by MacCait on April 30, 2017 9:17AM0 -
Zyrudin✭✭✭✭From a PvE perspective, despite the bad timing and the weight of so many changes thrown at the game in one go, I am more and more convinced that the direction (it might be just a first step) will help the game in the longer run.0
-
MacCait✭✭✭✭✭
✭From a PvE perspective, despite the bad timing and the weight of so many changes thrown at the game in one go, I am more and more convinced that the direction (it might be just a first step) will help the game in the longer run.
I like some of the Champion Point changes. However, watching the ESO live, IMO there was also a lot of transparent BS being mentioned and lots of contradiction. The excuse for not seperating PvE and PvP was bizarre.
I totally get their intention and direction, but the whole approach and their statements continue to be contradictory and flawed.
The nerfs to Champion Point system are fine. The nerfs to armour are debatable. The race and class nerfs are NOT good IMO. They feel unnesseary and too much.
Altogether, I think it's just too much happening at once. I hope they continue to not only listen to PTS feedback, non-pts player concerns, but also to take action on them. Being obstinate about their desires won't help the game.1 -
Zyrudin✭✭✭✭Well, Luminous Shards feedback was taken into account and they changed it, which was a good call. Perhaps more are to come, yes.
There is always PR in these circumstances, unfortunately. The devs are instructed by (in this case incompetent) marketeers in that way and there are certain things they have to say that are not believable.0 -
MacCait✭✭✭✭✭
✭Well, Luminous Shards feedback was taken into account and they changed it, which was a good call. Perhaps more are to come, yes.
There is always PR in these circumstances, unfortunately. The devs are instructed by (in this case incompetent) marketeers in that way and there are certain things they have to say that are not believable.
@Zyrudin
Yes I agree. It does however insult the intelligence of the viewer. Looking at the body language of everyone was very interesting
A lot more was being said right there! 1 -
bareheiny✭✭✭✭✭A few minutes into the video, and all I'm getting is "the resource changes are for PVP".
Paraphrasing obviously. But I'm not entirely sure what else can be taken from ZOS wanting us to choose between full out burst damage vs. out sustaining this person.
Unless they're hinting at being about to out sustain instance bosses and such.1
