I didn't notice any of the listed motifs as being particularly valuable right now. If this change increases the value of Daedric from 250g each to 350g each I'll be pleasantly surprised. The motifs that are generally 10k+ per page aren't on that list so I'm overall happy with the change.

Jacozilla wrote: »

I am not lumping all of the notes as confusing, but this particular section which seems to state one thing, then immediately contradict itself. Reading between the lines, it therefore seems only a few motifs drop rates will be lowered significantly enough to warrant the first part of their statement (quoted below), but they list a big list of motifs without identifying which are actually affected.

Initially you think all are affected, but in their very same paragraph they say the rates are lowered, they then say that for "most' it is marginal.

**from PTS patch notes***

"With the release of the Outfit System, we've adjusted the drop rates for a number of Crafting Motifs to help ensure certain impressive or prestigious Motifs retain a degree of rarity. In most cases, this reduction is marginal. This change affects the following Crafting Motifs:

{list of 14 motifs}"


Statement 1 - ZOS says lowering drop rates of 14 listed motifs so they retain 'impressive or prestigious' rarity. Ok, so far, straight forward. But...

Statement 2 - 'In most cases, this reduction is marginal'

This is typical ZOS double-speak. Without arguing whether lowering the drop rates is good or bad, all I am saying is if statement #1 is true, then statement #2 contradicts it.

Unless of course you connect the two statements much like a venn diagram and include only the overlapping section and exclude the non-overlapping sections.

e.g. They listed 14 motifs - yet said 'most' are only affected marginally. Which leaves the conclusion that if the word 'most' is used correctly, then only a 'few' of these 14 listed are significantly affected (with the rest as stated, only marginally).

So what is the point of listing 14 motifs when by self admission most of them will only have 'marginal' adjustment to drop rate? Why not just list the 2-3-4, the few, that really are lowered in drop rate enough so that statement #1 would legitimately apply? Are we to guess by trial and error which of the 14 are only 'marginally' affected and which are the ones really nerfed?

Given how large the impact of RNG is, even reports by players will be in doubt - player A could say it is X, Y, Z that was truly lowered, and player B would say no it is only A, B, C. So ZOS - if you're going to make a change, and list it in patch notes, why make a large list where you self admit most don't apply, but don't identify the ones that actually do?

allow me to translate: "nerfed drop rates"

QuebraRegra wrote: »

allow me to translate: "nerfed drop rates"

Yeah, the trouble is that if they just say "nerfed drop rates" then everyone is going to fly into a panic instead of just the min/maxers who consider even a 1% difference apocalyptic.

DanielWinterborn wrote: »

So that people won't start hoarding them while they are cheaper and sell them back for a lot more gold in a few months. Smart thinking if you axe me

You either give correct information, or no information....not deceptive information.

If ZOS wants to avoid players hoarding, without arguing whether that would happen or not - let's just concede the point and say it would - then provide either no notice at all of this till launch, or only the general statement without misleading list.

Because to your point, if ZOS is trying to avoid players hoarding, e.g. they are intentionally trying to curb player behavior --- then what is the point if by doing so they intentionally or unintentionally spur other hoarding behavior?

e.g. you are saying ZOS is not identifying which specific motifs are lowered enough to warrant statement #1 re: keeping it rare/prestigious so that players won't hoard them....but by listing 14 specific motifs without noting which is in which group, there would likely be hoarding / price changes based on this list that later turn out wrong.

In short - if preventing hoarding was the goal, then by listing all 14 in this vague manner seem to me to encourage even more hoarding, not less.

Glurin wrote: »

Jacozilla wrote: »

Statement 1 - ZOS says lowering drop rates of 14 listed motifs so they retain 'impressive or prestigious' rarity. Ok, so far, straight forward. But...

Statement 2 - 'In most cases, this reduction is marginal'

This is typical ZOS double-speak. Without arguing whether lowering the drop rates is good or bad, all I am saying is if statement #1 is true, then statement #2 contradicts it.

Not really. Lets say the drop rate is 15% (just pulling numbers out of a hat here) and they reduced it to 14%. The change was marginal, but still a change.

I'm not sure you read the short but entire ZOS statement I quoted above.

I acknowledge your example and point that if 15% was changed to 14%, it would indeed be marginal. But that isn't really relevant here.

The issue isn't whether the change is marginal, not marginal, or good/bad. Those can all be debated elsewhere - I'm not saying a single thing re: whether I like or dislike the magnitude of the change.

What I am saying is ZOS made two seemingly contrary statements explaining WHY they made this change.

Statement #1 - "we've adjusted the drop rates for a number of Crafting Motifs to help ensure certain impressive or prestigious Motifs retain a degree of rarity"

Ok fine - good or bad, agree or disagree, this is a simple statement. Bottom line - drop rates lowered enough that certain motifs retain 'impressive or prestigious' rarity.

Statement #2 - "In most cases, this reduction is marginal"

Again, easy to understand as a separate statement. But connect it to #1 and what you get is that most the 14 listed will see 'marginal' change while a few will see presumably enough lowered drop rate to comply with mission statement #1.

My complaint isn't they are making a marginal change to most of the motifs listed, my issue is they are not identifying which are the ones significantly enough affected to warrant their statement #1 re: keeping it rare.