Maintenance for the week of February 23:
· [IN PROGRESS] NA megaservers for maintenance – February 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [IN PROGRESS] EU megaservers for maintenance – February 23, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 17:00 UTC (12:00PM EST)
· [IN PROGRESS] ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – February 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [IN PROGRESS] NA megaservers for maintenance – February 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [IN PROGRESS] EU megaservers for maintenance – February 23, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 17:00 UTC (12:00PM EST)
· [IN PROGRESS] ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – February 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
ESO updates: Total misunderstanding
-
max_only✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭OrdoHermetica wrote: »
I agree with you except
The Elder Scrolls is not their IP.
They're a wholly owned child organization of the company who does own the IP. They can most certainly do whatever they please with it, because they are most definitely doing so with the direct oversight and approval of their parent company. It'd be a different story if they were a third-party studio doing work on a separate existing franchise (i.e. BioWare and KOTOR), but in this case... that's not really a meaningful distinction. For all intents and purposes, ESO is an in-house project, just like YouTube original content is realistically in-house for Google, even though technically they're different companies.
What you wrote only makes their halfassedness worse.#FiteForYourRite Bosmer = Stealth
#OppositeResourceSiphoningAttacks
|| CP 1000+ || PC/NA || GUILDS: LWH; IA; CH; XA
""All gods' creatures (you lot) are equal when covered in A1 sauce"" -- Old Bosmeri Wisdom1 -
Mr_Walker✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭OrdoHermetica wrote: »
I agree with you except
The Elder Scrolls is not their IP.
They're a wholly owned child organization of the company who does own the IP. They can most certainly do whatever they please with it, because they are most definitely doing so with the direct oversight and approval of their parent company. It'd be a different story if they were a third-party studio doing work on a separate existing franchise (i.e. BioWare and KOTOR), but in this case... that's not really a meaningful distinction. For all intents and purposes, ESO is an in-house project, just like YouTube original content is realistically in-house for Google, even though technically they're different companies.
Correct, but given that, and given how this game is sold off the back of 20+ years of established lore, maybe some of what they do should make sense from a lore point of view.
Eg: Even in quest dialogues in this very game Argonians still think they're resistant to poison....7 -
Trinity_Is_My_Name✭✭✭✭✭
✭
Simplee answer: Endless moaning about 'OPness' from PVPers.So after reading netch potes, 15ish discords, 3 forums i have (and i guess 90% of players) only 1 question: "Why you keep doing this changes?".
Seriously, if you look back at most of the large-scale changes they've ALL been attempts to lol balance PVP .. which no MMO has ever done as far as I know .. by nerfing to Oblivion skill after another, to the huge detriment of the PVE game: prime example being removal of CC such as stuns from Shards, nerfing to the grouund of Rune Cage, etc.
Very, very few 'balance' changes have been driven by PVE considerations .. this game would be hugely better off without PVP.
Agree 100%. Almost every change is due to the wine here from the PVP players. I'm sure the PVP community is minuscule in size compared to the PVE community yet we have changes continuously based on the PVP threads posted here about "imbalance" and "OPness".
This game would be so much better if PVP and PVE were completely separated. Instead, ZOS drives off both PVP and PVE players with the continuous changes.
4 -
SirMewser✭✭✭✭✭So after reading netch potes, 15ish discords, 3 forums i have (and i guess 90% of players) only 1 question: "Why you keep doing this changes?".
Of course all of us understand main concept of each single change, like "you can only have 1 ord same as 1 spear" "healing springs is OP, need to nerf it" ect.
But
Why do you realise so different changes? First, you nerf snipe, now you buff it, you buff sheilds now you nerf it, you tried to decrease DPS, now you buff it ....and more and more. All this changes are too far away from each other every 2-3 month.
They are not bad, they are what they are, all high-end players will adapt easily to every buff/nerf.
But the main problem: I (and so many ppl) dont see any clear path in that patches. Do you want to make PvE harder? Or easier? Do you want to increase overall DPS or decrease it? You want ppl play sorc/nb/dk/stam/mag/whatever in PvE or PvP as dd/tank/heal? Ect....
We need some clear conception of what you are going to do like "ok, for the next year we will make: 1)dps changes(decrease) 2)nerf magsorcs 3) change meta from stam to mag dps (slowly)........
Ppl realy disappointed about all those changes without any comments
Nailed it.
By biggest pet peeve with all of this is that there is no roadmap.2 -
ghastley✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭I think a lot of us assumed that the name "Elder Scrolls Online" meant that it was an evolution of TES games to multi-player, and that aspects of the single-player games would persist. So we expected a PvE game with co-operative team play. If the game is becoming a purely PvP game that just uses PvE as a training ground, then the original audience will leave. And that's why there is no roadmap. The majority won't like where we're going.4 -
OrdoHermetica✭✭✭✭✭
✭OrdoHermetica wrote: »
I agree with you except
The Elder Scrolls is not their IP.
They're a wholly owned child organization of the company who does own the IP. They can most certainly do whatever they please with it, because they are most definitely doing so with the direct oversight and approval of their parent company. It'd be a different story if they were a third-party studio doing work on a separate existing franchise (i.e. BioWare and KOTOR), but in this case... that's not really a meaningful distinction. For all intents and purposes, ESO is an in-house project, just like YouTube original content is realistically in-house for Google, even though technically they're different companies.
What you wrote only makes their halfassedness worse.
I mean, you're not wrong.0 -
Jaraal✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭OrdoHermetica wrote: »
I agree with you except
The Elder Scrolls is not their IP.
They're a wholly owned child organization of the company who does own the IP. They can most certainly do whatever they please with it, because they are most definitely doing so with the direct oversight and approval of their parent company. It'd be a different story if they were a third-party studio doing work on a separate existing franchise (i.e. BioWare and KOTOR), but in this case... that's not really a meaningful distinction. For all intents and purposes, ESO is an in-house project, just like YouTube original content is realistically in-house for Google, even though technically they're different companies.
Correct, but given that, and given how this game is sold off the back of 20+ years of established lore, maybe some of what they do should make sense from a lore point of view.
Eg: Even in quest dialogues in this very game Argonians still think they're resistant to poison....
Yeah, there are NPC's in Rawl'kha, Elden Root, and other places that still talk about Bosmer being the best at stealth.... I know that long time players are just shaking their heads at the dialogue and new-to-TES players are wondering what the heck these quest folk are talking about.
The game is getting more and more convoluted and contrived as time goes by. And the soon to be back quest NPC that many people saw die as part of the main story as well as the established timeline discrepancies only adds to the confusion. It's like having to re-learn the stories every few months.3 -
Varaug_Gaming✭✭✭Now you need to move and avoid mechanics rather then just overheal it"
thats gonna be a big problem with that position desync bug that appeared lately
would have edited my first typo answer if possible0 -
twev✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Varaug_Gaming wrote: »
If you refresh the page after you post - the edit function will present itself.The problem with society these days is that no one drinks from the skulls of their enemies anymore.0 -
LadySinflower✭✭✭✭✭What sucks is that there was a person or group behind every one of these changes, who studied something and based on their study thought the change was necessary. Someone is working really hard studying all kinds of data because it's their job. They are using whatever set of rules and priorities the company has set down. Someone higher up has decided that players do not need to know why these changes are being made. They probably believe that telling us the reasons will lead to arguments contradicting their changes, and they really don't want our opinions. They just want us to blindly accept what they do. Who are we? Nobody, just their paying customers who keep all those number-crunchers doing their jobs. We are the ones who give them the money for their investors, but we aren't important or smart enough to listen to. If they would just say "we did x change because y and z were unbalanced making a and b overpowered when c was used a certain way," some would agree and some would disagree, but we would know and that alone would satisfy our frustration. We would accept it and move on instead of ranting over and over about how ZOS seems to completely disregard us. They really don't, but it sure feels like they do.1 -
randomkeyhits✭✭✭✭✭anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »From what I understood they were taking some heavy swings at things this year (and going forward) to rebuild the base levels of things, however without context of final vision some of the changes seem radical and out of nowhere without any reason.
I've never played any other online game but ESO and one of the motivation I had for trying ESO was to find out how a "neverending game" could work. It's clear to me that constant changing of combat system is just as part of the "neverending aspect" and player retention as expansions are.
How do other games deal with combat changes ? And how do their communities react to them ?
I'll give you two examples.
DCUO first,
Very similar to here really, no separation between PvE and PvP skills but there were separate gear sets. Only problem with that was for the first few years you could use either type for both game modes which meant you had some funky crossover glass cannons and some players who couldn't work out the difference. It took about three years before they finally made PvE gear for PvE only and likewise with PvP.
With abilities there were constant nerf wars fought in the forums with both sides claiming their game mode was being destroyed by the demands of the other. Now I think about it they couldn't resolve ani-cancelling either and called it a "feature" by ignoring it for the first two years (not official) then scaling instances around the ability to use it. They rebuilt combat a number of times adding complex new systems like weapons mastery then devaluing it and making powers primary again and kept switching because they simply couldn't balance things. To my knowledge they still havn't managed it.
Then Warframe.
They acknowledged (neat word ZOS, look it up) that with the game direction a single balance was impossible. They disabled PvP and then created PvP specific variants of the frames powers and rebalancing all frame stats, unlocking six frames initially, making sure they were happy with them and then adding the rest of the frames a couple at a time. They also created PvP specific mods to cater to the rebalancing and have been moving forwards ever since.
There is the occasional drama when something is stupid broken but its noted and then dealt with in what I consider a reasonable timeframe.
ESO is most definitely at the DCUO end of the scale and I consider Warframe to be one of the better for getting the balance right. Most games are somewhere between the two extremes. One thing I will note is that most of the better balanced ones have good community communication.
EU PS41 -
SirAndy✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I always cringe when i see comments citing "lore" as a reason something can/can not/should/should not be done.
They *literally* create the lore out of nothing.
There is no "established" world, it's all fake and there's nothing preventing their writers from changing anything they want at any point in time.
It's right up there with arguing real world physics applying to a fantasy computer game ...
1 -
darkblue5✭✭✭✭✭I think a lot of us assumed that the name "Elder Scrolls Online" meant that it was an evolution of TES games to multi-player, and that aspects of the single-player games would persist. So we expected a PvE game with co-operative team play. If the game is becoming a purely PvP game that just uses PvE as a training ground, then the original audience will leave. And that's why there is no roadmap. The majority won't like where we're going.
That's literally what ESO was billed as at launch??? There was a huge emphasis on the Three Banner War. The initial cinematic if I remember correctly focused on the war aspect primarily.
They've really backed away from that. The endgame is now PvPing on the forums about skill changes that won't have any impact on the viability of overland questing ala Skyrim.0 -
Sandman929✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭It's not so much a "vision" as it is an interesting marriage of impulse shopping and game design. Sometimes it's a Digiorno pizza that leaves us fat and giggly, but sometimes it's a burrito that gives us a stomachache.1 -
Shantu✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭My main beef is that their vision for combat appears to be influenced by a few (PVP and elitists) and completely divorced from the kind of game play most of us enjoy. Starting with Nerfmire, I can't think of a single change that was for the benefit of PVE. My guess is that "codifying our vision and long-term strategy for combat" means they'll have a baseline logic to guide them from making mistakes they have to "balance" down the road. This has everything to do with making their jobs easier and absolutely nothing to do with customer satisfaction. Only when customer dissatisfaction starts affecting revenue will any of us matter.
I'm not ready to quit yet, but with the attrition these changes keep causing, fun is ebbing away and a time to walk away is on the horizon.
3