Let's talk about WHY Zos is proposing these combat changes, outside of APM and skill gap...
Stunna
Soul Shriven
Let's get straight to it -- the biggest barrier for Zos to increase the ESO player base is the combat. Almost anyone who has tried ESO and changed their mind attributes this toward the feel of the combat and the necessity to LA weave. If we want ESO to grow and, hopefully, take over the MMO market then we will all have to adapt to a new combat system.
I am not saying that this current implementation is correct (may it is, may it isn't...), but the fact that they are acknowledging this problem and are not afraid of the work/effort to pursue this change is applaud worthy. Many MMOs wither away because the developers refuse to make any fundamental changes.
There are so many variables to showcase skill gap and veteran players and LA weaving is merely one of them. The good players will still shine, so let's make the necessary changes to grow the base. ESO has the potential to be the biggest MMO in the coming years, but not with the way combat is currently implemented.
I am not saying that this current implementation is correct (may it is, may it isn't...), but the fact that they are acknowledging this problem and are not afraid of the work/effort to pursue this change is applaud worthy. Many MMOs wither away because the developers refuse to make any fundamental changes.
There are so many variables to showcase skill gap and veteran players and LA weaving is merely one of them. The good players will still shine, so let's make the necessary changes to grow the base. ESO has the potential to be the biggest MMO in the coming years, but not with the way combat is currently implemented.
7
-
Skjaldbjorn✭✭✭✭✭
✭Let's get straight to it -- the biggest barrier for Zos to increase the ESO player base is the combat. Almost anyone who has tried ESO and changed their mind attributes this toward the feel of the combat and the necessity to LA weave. If we want ESO to grow and, hopefully, take over the MMO market then we will all have to adapt to a new combat system.
I am not saying that this current implementation is correct (may it is, may it isn't...), but the fact that they are acknowledging this problem and are not afraid of the work/effort to pursue this change is applaud worthy. Many MMOs wither away because the developers refuse to make any fundamental changes.
There are so many variables to showcase skill gap and veteran players and LA weaving is merely one of them. The good players will still shine, so let's make the necessary changes to grow the base. ESO has the potential to be the biggest MMO in the coming years, but not with the way combat is currently implemented.
You don't have to eliminate LA weaving to minimize its impact. A reduction in damage along with a buff to HA damage and unchaining sustain from basic attacks would solve every problem they claim to want to solve. With their current line of changing, the only thing they're actually truly accomplishing is creating a bash-weave meta where lower skill players will be even more alienated than they currently are.29 -
StunnaSoul ShrivenWhich is why they are testing this and it's not actually live. This will most likely be a work in progress, but Zos probably wants to implement changes before the launch of other AAA games. They are a business and their higher-up meetings generally revolve around revenue growth and how to attract new players. They are willing to upset a few to bring in the many, again, because they are a business.
They also realize that the people testing these changes are ESO veterans with fewer casual players testing and zero new players testing. Your opinions will be skewed toward what you're used to. I'd be interested to see what player retention looks like on these newer models.
Only time will tell what actually changes, but I believe everyone wants ESO to become the frontrunner of MMOs and there will be some growing pains to get there.
2 -
LiquidPony✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭The game's six years old. It's not going to "take over the MMO market".
Fast, action combat is ESO's core differentiator.
What's your evidence that "many" MMOs fail because they "refuse to make core changes"? Hasn't WoW been falling off for exactly the opposite reason? Too many nonsensical changes to core systems? Too much new RNG? Too many bugs? Isn't that why WoW Classic exists? People wanted to go back to what made the game great in the first place?19 -
ZeroXFF✭✭✭✭✭
✭Well, when it comes to player retention, I would actually come back to the game if they got rid of AC while LA weaving. I didn't leave because of it, but it is the reason I'm not back yet. The proposed changes don't make it any more likely either. I am however glad that I can forever point to this every time someone says that putting LAs on the GCD would result in too much rebalancing work. Clearly ZOS doesn't shy away from big mechanical changes.3 -
Skjaldbjorn✭✭✭✭✭
✭LiquidPony wrote: »The game's six years old. It's not going to "take over the MMO market".
Fast, action combat is ESO's core differentiator.
What's your evidence that "many" MMOs fail because they "refuse to make core changes"? Hasn't WoW been falling off for exactly the opposite reason? Too many nonsensical changes to core systems? Too much new RNG? Too many bugs? Isn't that why WoW Classic exists? People wanted to go back to what made the game great in the first place?
As a WoW player for six and a half years, the game started to nosedive when they began catering to more casual players with things like welfare epics, LFR and so on and so forth. Though yeah, the drastic mechanics and fundamental core concept changes haven't helped, either.5 -
Skjaldbjorn✭✭✭✭✭
✭Well, when it comes to player retention, I would actually come back to the game if they got rid of AC while LA weaving. I didn't leave because of it, but it is the reason I'm not back yet. The proposed changes don't make it any more likely either. I am however glad that I can forever point to this every time someone says that putting LAs on the GCD would result in too much rebalancing work. Clearly ZOS doesn't shy away from big mechanical changes.
They aren't putting LAs on the gcd. Wut? lol1 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭No offense, but before Morrowind we still weaved basic attacks into our skills and people still complained about it.
Basically, we can guess all day long as to what motivated Zos to consider the change they have us testing right now but player base growth has not seemed to be an issue with ESO. In the end what the OP here surmises is just that, pure conjecture.
Further, Zos specifically stated they had a goal in Morrowind to raid the floor and lower the ceiling. This is not a guess as zos specifically stated as much. This has been and intent for awhile. However, their plans were ill-conceived as one of the lasting changes they made with that update was buffing LAs. In more than one raid team of top players that adjusted to the change just fine I heard them talking about how bad that was for the game as a whole. It was bad then and it is bad now.3 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Well, when it comes to player retention, I would actually come back to the game if they got rid of AC while LA weaving. I didn't leave because of it, but it is the reason I'm not back yet. The proposed changes don't make it any more likely either. I am however glad that I can forever point to this every time someone says that putting LAs on the GCD would result in too much rebalancing work. Clearly ZOS doesn't shy away from big mechanical changes.
Why are you even mentioning LAs on a GCD. This is not part of the change Zos is considering. Not even close.1 -
Hanokihs✭✭✭✭✭No offense, but before Morrowind we still weaved basic attacks into our skills and people still complained about it.
Basically, we can guess all day long as to what motivated Zos to consider the change they have us testing right now but player base growth has not seemed to be an issue with ESO. In the end what the OP here surmises is just that, pure conjecture.
Further, Zos specifically stated they had a goal in Morrowind to raid the floor and lower the ceiling. This is not a guess as zos specifically stated as much. This has been and intent for awhile. However, their plans were ill-conceived as one of the lasting changes they made with that update was buffing LAs. In more than one raid team of top players that adjusted to the change just fine I heard them talking about how bad that was for the game as a whole. It was bad then and it is bad now.
I feel like this is the very simple answer and everyone is blowing the proposed changes out of proportion. They have a new combat team that's undoing the changes made by the last combat team - I could be talking out of my butthole here, but I'm thinking that's the timeline of things behind the scenes. And this could be the first of many combat tweaks geared toward their new focus on lowering the APM required to be a successful player.Skjaldbjorn wrote: »You don't have to eliminate LA weaving to minimize its impact. A reduction in damage along with a buff to HA damage and unchaining sustain from basic attacks would solve every problem they claim to want to solve. With their current line of changing, the only thing they're actually truly accomplishing is creating a bash-weave meta where lower skill players will be even more alienated than they currently are.
They're not eliminating anything, and I honestly don't get why everyone thinks and acts like they are. Sincerity Mode activated. Were you guys legit not around before they nerfed Heavy Attacking and made Light Attacks carry dps in the first place?"I haven't really played much yet, but lemme tell you all about how the game should include X and be a lot more like Y!" - Half the posters on this forum."I've been here for years, and lemme tell you all about how they should never change or evolve Z, because then the game would be ruined forever." - The other half of posters on this forum.2 -
ZeroXFF✭✭✭✭✭
✭@Skjaldbjorn @idk
Really, guys? [snip] I'm talking about the magnitude of change, and I also explicitly say in my comment that the proposed changes will not make my return any more likely, but putting LAs on the GCD would, meaning I know very well that it's not part of the current changes.
As for why I bring it up at all, it's because putting LAs on the GCD would solve literally every problem they outlined in their post, along with a couple other problems.
[edited for bait]Edited by ZOS_FalcoYamaoka on March 27, 2020 6:47PM0 -
Skjaldbjorn✭✭✭✭✭
✭Skjaldbjorn wrote: »You don't have to eliminate LA weaving to minimize its impact. A reduction in damage along with a buff to HA damage and unchaining sustain from basic attacks would solve every problem they claim to want to solve. With their current line of changing, the only thing they're actually truly accomplishing is creating a bash-weave meta where lower skill players will be even more alienated than they currently are.
They're not eliminating anything, and I honestly don't get why everyone thinks and acts like they are. Sincerity Mode activated. Were you guys legit not around before they nerfed Heavy Attacking and made Light Attacks carry dps in the first place?
It was a bit of hyperbole in a way, but in others, not so much. All the damage transitioning away from light attacks will just transition into bash weaving as sustain goes through the roof. I played during Morrowind. I played through both a HA and LA meta. Bash weaving is a newer revelation that is going to create an even worse, more toxic, more restrictive metagame.2 -
Skjaldbjorn✭✭✭✭✭
✭@Skjaldbjorn @idk
@Skjaldbjorn @idk
Really, guys? [snip] I'm talking about the magnitude of change, and I also explicitly say in my comment that the proposed changes will not make my return any more likely, but putting LAs on the GCD would, meaning I know very well that it's not part of the current changes.
As for why I bring it up at all, it's because putting LAs on the GCD would solve literally every problem they outlined in their post, along with a couple other problems.
[edited for bait]
Are you putting bashes on the GCD as well? Because otherwise, no, it doesn't solve a critical issue being introduced with this change.Edited by ZOS_FalcoYamaoka on March 27, 2020 6:47PM0 -
Drako_Ei✭✭✭✭✭If this change gets implemented i dont want this game to grow, i want it to die if they do that5
-
ZeroXFF✭✭✭✭✭
✭Skjaldbjorn wrote: »@Skjaldbjorn @idk
Really, guys? Troubles with reading comprehension? I'm talking about the magnitude of change, and I also explicitly say in my comment that the proposed changes will not make my return any more likely, but putting LAs on the GCD would, meaning I know very well that it's not part of the current changes.
As for why I bring it up at all, it's because putting LAs on the GCD would solve literally every problem they outlined in their post, along with a couple other problems.
Are you putting bashes on the GCD as well? Because otherwise, no, it doesn't solve a critical issue being introduced with this change.
Oh, it does solve it. If you have to choose between a LA and a skill that does 5x as much damage, you will choose the skill most of the time, and unless you have a build that specializes in boosting bashing, that gap will be bigger than what you would get from bashing. And if we ignore the proposed changes and just compare it to live, it would solve it too, because on live you lack the sustain to bash under these circumstances.Edited by ZeroXFF on March 27, 2020 5:39AM0 -
Skjaldbjorn✭✭✭✭✭
✭Skjaldbjorn wrote: »@Skjaldbjorn @idk
Really, guys? Troubles with reading comprehension? I'm talking about the magnitude of change, and I also explicitly say in my comment that the proposed changes will not make my return any more likely, but putting LAs on the GCD would, meaning I know very well that it's not part of the current changes.
As for why I bring it up at all, it's because putting LAs on the GCD would solve literally every problem they outlined in their post, along with a couple other problems.
Are you putting bashes on the GCD as well? Because otherwise, no, it doesn't solve a critical issue being introduced with this change.
Oh, it does solve it. If you have to choose between a LA and a skill that does 5x as much damage, you will choose the skill most of the time, and unless you have a build that specializes in boosting bashing, that gap will be bigger than what you would get from bashing.
On the PTS currently bashing is doing 3-4x more damage than LAs. It makes the LAs worth it as long as you need the sustain. Yes, it would REDUCE the number of LAs, but if they allow you to sustain the bash cancels to weave two damage sources into a single GCD, as we do now with LAs, it does not solve the problem.0 -
ZeroXFF✭✭✭✭✭
✭Skjaldbjorn wrote: »Skjaldbjorn wrote: »@Skjaldbjorn @idk
Really, guys? Troubles with reading comprehension? I'm talking about the magnitude of change, and I also explicitly say in my comment that the proposed changes will not make my return any more likely, but putting LAs on the GCD would, meaning I know very well that it's not part of the current changes.
As for why I bring it up at all, it's because putting LAs on the GCD would solve literally every problem they outlined in their post, along with a couple other problems.
Are you putting bashes on the GCD as well? Because otherwise, no, it doesn't solve a critical issue being introduced with this change.
Oh, it does solve it. If you have to choose between a LA and a skill that does 5x as much damage, you will choose the skill most of the time, and unless you have a build that specializes in boosting bashing, that gap will be bigger than what you would get from bashing.
On the PTS currently bashing is doing 3-4x more damage than LAs. It makes the LAs worth it as long as you need the sustain. Yes, it would REDUCE the number of LAs, but if they allow you to sustain the bash cancels to weave two damage sources into a single GCD, as we do now with LAs, it does not solve the problem.
If LAs are on the GCD, you can't both use skills and get resources from LAs at the same time. So as long as skills are stronger than LA+bash, skills will be the preferred choice. You can still bash cancel skills or LAs, but in the former case you'd run out of resources quickly, and in the latter case you'd be doing less damage.
But if it makes you happy, let's remove damage from bashing too. I actually agree, bashing should be a defensive action, and only do the interrupt. Instead tanks should get the 1hs skill line buffed to compensate, and nobody else was supposed to be bashing for damage anyways.0 -
Skjaldbjorn✭✭✭✭✭
✭If LAs are on the GCD, you can't both use skills and get resources from LAs at the same time. So as long as skills are stronger than LA+bash, skills will be the preferred choice. You can still bash cancel skills or LAs, but in the former case you'd run out of resources quickly, and in the latter case you'd be doing less damage.
But if it makes you happy, let's remove damage from bashing too. I actually agree, bashing should be a defensive action, and only do the interrupt. Instead tanks should get the 1hs skill line buffed to compensate, and nobody else was supposed to be bashing for damage anyways.
It's not about what makes me happy, it's about accomplishing the stated goals. If people are so vehemently against LA weaving, what the hell do you think will happen when bash weaving becomes the meta? Builds, races and raid structure will change to accommodate the new resources drain requirements. That's what the meta is. It's maximum optimization down to the smallest number to gain DPS. This is obviously just conjecture, but a rotation of;
LA/Bash -> Skill/Bash -> Skill/Bash -> DoT/Bash -> DoT/Bash -> LA/Bash -> Skill/Bash -> Skill/Bash
So on and so forth. Obviously it would adapt based on class and available skills. The DoT meta would become incredibly popular again in favor of LA -> Skill/Bash rotations. It's less important to have consistent spammable damage if you can feasibly supplement with DoTs that tick while you sustain.0 -
ZeroXFF✭✭✭✭✭
✭Skjaldbjorn wrote: »If LAs are on the GCD, you can't both use skills and get resources from LAs at the same time. So as long as skills are stronger than LA+bash, skills will be the preferred choice. You can still bash cancel skills or LAs, but in the former case you'd run out of resources quickly, and in the latter case you'd be doing less damage.
But if it makes you happy, let's remove damage from bashing too. I actually agree, bashing should be a defensive action, and only do the interrupt. Instead tanks should get the 1hs skill line buffed to compensate, and nobody else was supposed to be bashing for damage anyways.
It's not about what makes me happy, it's about accomplishing the stated goals. If people are so vehemently against LA weaving, what the hell do you think will happen when bash weaving becomes the meta? Builds, races and raid structure will change to accommodate the new resources drain requirements. That's what the meta is. It's maximum optimization down to the smallest number to gain DPS. This is obviously just conjecture, but a rotation of;
LA/Bash -> Skill/Bash -> Skill/Bash -> DoT/Bash -> DoT/Bash -> LA/Bash -> Skill/Bash -> Skill/Bash
So on and so forth. Obviously it would adapt based on class and available skills. The DoT meta would become incredibly popular again in favor of LA -> Skill/Bash rotations. It's less important to have consistent spammable damage if you can feasibly supplement with DoTs that tick while you sustain.
The 200 or so resources that you get from LAs on PTS will not allow you to sustain the rotation you've written out, especially if you don't have the bash cost reduction that tanks have. So the changes I proposed are sufficient. And if not, well, like I said, I don't care about the bash damage, it may very well just be an interrupt.0 -
Drako_Ei✭✭✭✭✭Skjaldbjorn wrote: »If LAs are on the GCD, you can't both use skills and get resources from LAs at the same time. So as long as skills are stronger than LA+bash, skills will be the preferred choice. You can still bash cancel skills or LAs, but in the former case you'd run out of resources quickly, and in the latter case you'd be doing less damage.
But if it makes you happy, let's remove damage from bashing too. I actually agree, bashing should be a defensive action, and only do the interrupt. Instead tanks should get the 1hs skill line buffed to compensate, and nobody else was supposed to be bashing for damage anyways.
It's not about what makes me happy, it's about accomplishing the stated goals. If people are so vehemently against LA weaving, what the hell do you think will happen when bash weaving becomes the meta? Builds, races and raid structure will change to accommodate the new resources drain requirements. That's what the meta is. It's maximum optimization down to the smallest number to gain DPS. This is obviously just conjecture, but a rotation of;
LA/Bash -> Skill/Bash -> Skill/Bash -> DoT/Bash -> DoT/Bash -> LA/Bash -> Skill/Bash -> Skill/Bash
So on and so forth. Obviously it would adapt based on class and available skills. The DoT meta would become incredibly popular again in favor of LA -> Skill/Bash rotations. It's less important to have consistent spammable damage if you can feasibly supplement with DoTs that tick while you sustain.
It will actuallly be LA/Skill/Bash everytime0 -
ZeroXFF✭✭✭✭✭
✭Skjaldbjorn wrote: »If LAs are on the GCD, you can't both use skills and get resources from LAs at the same time. So as long as skills are stronger than LA+bash, skills will be the preferred choice. You can still bash cancel skills or LAs, but in the former case you'd run out of resources quickly, and in the latter case you'd be doing less damage.
But if it makes you happy, let's remove damage from bashing too. I actually agree, bashing should be a defensive action, and only do the interrupt. Instead tanks should get the 1hs skill line buffed to compensate, and nobody else was supposed to be bashing for damage anyways.
It's not about what makes me happy, it's about accomplishing the stated goals. If people are so vehemently against LA weaving, what the hell do you think will happen when bash weaving becomes the meta? Builds, races and raid structure will change to accommodate the new resources drain requirements. That's what the meta is. It's maximum optimization down to the smallest number to gain DPS. This is obviously just conjecture, but a rotation of;
LA/Bash -> Skill/Bash -> Skill/Bash -> DoT/Bash -> DoT/Bash -> LA/Bash -> Skill/Bash -> Skill/Bash
So on and so forth. Obviously it would adapt based on class and available skills. The DoT meta would become incredibly popular again in favor of LA -> Skill/Bash rotations. It's less important to have consistent spammable damage if you can feasibly supplement with DoTs that tick while you sustain.
It will actuallly be LA/Skill/Bash everytime
We're talking about my proposal with LAs being on the same GCD with skills, so no, that would not be possible.0 -
Skjaldbjorn✭✭✭✭✭
✭Skjaldbjorn wrote: »If LAs are on the GCD, you can't both use skills and get resources from LAs at the same time. So as long as skills are stronger than LA+bash, skills will be the preferred choice. You can still bash cancel skills or LAs, but in the former case you'd run out of resources quickly, and in the latter case you'd be doing less damage.
But if it makes you happy, let's remove damage from bashing too. I actually agree, bashing should be a defensive action, and only do the interrupt. Instead tanks should get the 1hs skill line buffed to compensate, and nobody else was supposed to be bashing for damage anyways.
It's not about what makes me happy, it's about accomplishing the stated goals. If people are so vehemently against LA weaving, what the hell do you think will happen when bash weaving becomes the meta? Builds, races and raid structure will change to accommodate the new resources drain requirements. That's what the meta is. It's maximum optimization down to the smallest number to gain DPS. This is obviously just conjecture, but a rotation of;
LA/Bash -> Skill/Bash -> Skill/Bash -> DoT/Bash -> DoT/Bash -> LA/Bash -> Skill/Bash -> Skill/Bash
So on and so forth. Obviously it would adapt based on class and available skills. The DoT meta would become incredibly popular again in favor of LA -> Skill/Bash rotations. It's less important to have consistent spammable damage if you can feasibly supplement with DoTs that tick while you sustain.
It will actuallly be LA/Skill/Bash everytime
We're talking about my proposal with LAs being on the same GCD with skills, so no, that would not be possible.
LA -> Skill/Bash would be a sustainable rotation, even with LAs being on GCD, and you probably wouldn't have to LA each cycle. Again, adapting the builds to sustain the rotation is a thing. You're acting as though people are just gonna stick to an Orc with their exact same rotations and just add bashes.0 -
ZeroXFF✭✭✭✭✭
✭Skjaldbjorn wrote: »Skjaldbjorn wrote: »If LAs are on the GCD, you can't both use skills and get resources from LAs at the same time. So as long as skills are stronger than LA+bash, skills will be the preferred choice. You can still bash cancel skills or LAs, but in the former case you'd run out of resources quickly, and in the latter case you'd be doing less damage.
But if it makes you happy, let's remove damage from bashing too. I actually agree, bashing should be a defensive action, and only do the interrupt. Instead tanks should get the 1hs skill line buffed to compensate, and nobody else was supposed to be bashing for damage anyways.
It's not about what makes me happy, it's about accomplishing the stated goals. If people are so vehemently against LA weaving, what the hell do you think will happen when bash weaving becomes the meta? Builds, races and raid structure will change to accommodate the new resources drain requirements. That's what the meta is. It's maximum optimization down to the smallest number to gain DPS. This is obviously just conjecture, but a rotation of;
LA/Bash -> Skill/Bash -> Skill/Bash -> DoT/Bash -> DoT/Bash -> LA/Bash -> Skill/Bash -> Skill/Bash
So on and so forth. Obviously it would adapt based on class and available skills. The DoT meta would become incredibly popular again in favor of LA -> Skill/Bash rotations. It's less important to have consistent spammable damage if you can feasibly supplement with DoTs that tick while you sustain.
It will actuallly be LA/Skill/Bash everytime
We're talking about my proposal with LAs being on the same GCD with skills, so no, that would not be possible.
LA -> Skill/Bash would be a sustainable rotation, even with LAs being on GCD, and you probably wouldn't have to LA each cycle. Again, adapting the builds to sustain the rotation is a thing. You're acting as though people are just gonna stick to an Orc with their exact same rotations and just add bashes.
How is LA -> Skill/Bash different from LA/Bash -> Skill? With my proposal Skill -> Skill would do more damage, so why bother with bashing? And yeah, LA/Bash -> Skill would be easier to sustain with the same gear, and those doing LA/Bash instead of spammables could build for more damage stats, but I think that this is actually the greatest argument for doing it like I propose. This way the "high APM" people can do the bashing thing, allowing them slightly higher burst when they switch to Skill -> Skill until they run out of resources, but those who have built to sustain permanent Skill -> Skill rotations will still do the same amount of sustained damage.
Thanks for giving me the idea, now we have a solution for the one group that I was struggling to find a good answer for (the high-APM people who love glitchy rotations). They get more burst, but keep the same sustained DPS as people who prefer to actually see the animations in a VIDEO GAME.0 -
Skjaldbjorn✭✭✭✭✭
✭How is LA -> Skill/Bash different from LA/Bash -> Skill? With my proposal Skill -> Skill would do more damage, so why bother with bashing? And yeah, LA/Bash -> Skill would be easier to sustain with the same gear, and those doing LA/Bash instead of spammables could build for more damage stats, but I think that this is actually the greatest argument for doing it like I propose. This way the "high APM" people can do the bashing thing, allowing them slightly higher burst when they switch to Skill -> Skill until they run out of resources, but those who have built to sustain permanent Skill -> Skill rotations will still do the same amount of sustained damage.
Thanks for giving me the idea, now we have a solution for the one group that I was struggling to find a good answer for (the high-APM people who love glitchy rotations). They get more burst, but keep the same sustained DPS as people who prefer to actually see the animations in a VIDEO GAME.
I regret them ever bringing this "APM" concept up, because the metrics they use for it are obnoxiously stupid. Did you know they calculate movement? So if you are a "happy feet" DPS who are constantly moving, you are a "high APM" player. Congratulations.1 -
ZeroXFF✭✭✭✭✭
✭Skjaldbjorn wrote: »How is LA -> Skill/Bash different from LA/Bash -> Skill? With my proposal Skill -> Skill would do more damage, so why bother with bashing? And yeah, LA/Bash -> Skill would be easier to sustain with the same gear, and those doing LA/Bash instead of spammables could build for more damage stats, but I think that this is actually the greatest argument for doing it like I propose. This way the "high APM" people can do the bashing thing, allowing them slightly higher burst when they switch to Skill -> Skill until they run out of resources, but those who have built to sustain permanent Skill -> Skill rotations will still do the same amount of sustained damage.
Thanks for giving me the idea, now we have a solution for the one group that I was struggling to find a good answer for (the high-APM people who love glitchy rotations). They get more burst, but keep the same sustained DPS as people who prefer to actually see the animations in a VIDEO GAME.
I regret them ever bringing this "APM" concept up, because the metrics they use for it are obnoxiously stupid. Did you know they calculate movement? So if you are a "happy feet" DPS who are constantly moving, you are a "high APM" player. Congratulations.
To be honest, even without the movement it's a stupid metric. If the GCD was 0.5 seconds but LAs were on the GCD, it would be the same number of APM, but due to more regular pacing and the ability to queue LAs with skills like you can do with 2 skills now, it would be much more forgiving than what it is now. But in the end the actual APMs don't really matter, we know exactly who they speak of when they use the terms high/low APM players. I do suspect it becoming a meme though.Edited by ZeroXFF on March 27, 2020 6:47AM0 -
Czekoludek✭✭✭✭✭
✭Let's get straight to it -- the biggest barrier for Zos to increase the ESO player base is the combat. Almost anyone who has tried ESO and changed their mind attributes this toward the feel of the combat and the necessity to LA weave. If we want ESO to grow and, hopefully, take over the MMO market then we will all have to adapt to a new combat system.
I am not saying that this current implementation is correct (may it is, may it isn't...), but the fact that they are acknowledging this problem and are not afraid of the work/effort to pursue this change is applaud worthy. Many MMOs wither away because the developers refuse to make any fundamental changes.
There are so many variables to showcase skill gap and veteran players and LA weaving is merely one of them. The good players will still shine, so let's make the necessary changes to grow the base. ESO has the potential to be the biggest MMO in the coming years, but not with the way combat is currently implemented.
I know a lot more ppl who stopped playing because of performance, constant changes, often stupid and inconsistent like buffing and nerfing dots by high amount in 3 months. Any sources about La weave effect on losing players? Or you just have that hypotesis because you are against weaving and don't care about real data?6 -
malachai✭Czekoludek wrote: »Let's get straight to it -- the biggest barrier for Zos to increase the ESO player base is the combat. Almost anyone who has tried ESO and changed their mind attributes this toward the feel of the combat and the necessity to LA weave. If we want ESO to grow and, hopefully, take over the MMO market then we will all have to adapt to a new combat system.
I am not saying that this current implementation is correct (may it is, may it isn't...), but the fact that they are acknowledging this problem and are not afraid of the work/effort to pursue this change is applaud worthy. Many MMOs wither away because the developers refuse to make any fundamental changes.
There are so many variables to showcase skill gap and veteran players and LA weaving is merely one of them. The good players will still shine, so let's make the necessary changes to grow the base. ESO has the potential to be the biggest MMO in the coming years, but not with the way combat is currently implemented.
I know a lot more ppl who stopped playing because of performance, constant changes, often stupid and inconsistent like buffing and nerfing dots by high amount in 3 months. Any sources about La weave effect on losing players? Or you just have that hypotesis because you are against weaving and don't care about real data?
i started and stopped playing during morrowind. I stopped mainly because of the AC and weaving which felt awful to me and i´m an experienced gamer with decent skill. The only reason i´m checking in is that i heared from a friend, that combat changes are coming. If AC wont be a thing anymore, i´d start to play this great game again
Just replying because your question was actually about people like me! Edited by malachai on March 27, 2020 10:08AM1 -
Czekoludek✭✭✭✭✭
✭Czekoludek wrote: »Let's get straight to it -- the biggest barrier for Zos to increase the ESO player base is the combat. Almost anyone who has tried ESO and changed their mind attributes this toward the feel of the combat and the necessity to LA weave. If we want ESO to grow and, hopefully, take over the MMO market then we will all have to adapt to a new combat system.
I am not saying that this current implementation is correct (may it is, may it isn't...), but the fact that they are acknowledging this problem and are not afraid of the work/effort to pursue this change is applaud worthy. Many MMOs wither away because the developers refuse to make any fundamental changes.
There are so many variables to showcase skill gap and veteran players and LA weaving is merely one of them. The good players will still shine, so let's make the necessary changes to grow the base. ESO has the potential to be the biggest MMO in the coming years, but not with the way combat is currently implemented.
I know a lot more ppl who stopped playing because of performance, constant changes, often stupid and inconsistent like buffing and nerfing dots by high amount in 3 months. Any sources about La weave effect on losing players? Or you just have that hypotesis because you are against weaving and don't care about real data?
i started and stopped playing during morrowind. I stopped mainly because of the AC and weaving which felt awful to me and i´m an experienced gamer with decent skill. The only reason i´m checking in is that i heared from a friend, that combat changes are coming. If AC wont be a thing anymore, i´d start to play this great game again Just replying because your question was actually about people like me!
Question was more about data behind that statememt. I believe there are ppl who stopped playing because of ac but I don't believe that AC is main reason why many players drop the game as OP stated.4 -
Elsonso✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Let's talk about WHY Zos is proposing these combat changes, outside of APM and skill gap...the biggest barrier for Zos to increase the ESO player base is the combat. Almost anyone who has tried ESO and changed their mind attributes this toward the feel of the combat and the necessity to LA weave.
Almost literally, the first sentence with content in the first paragraph talks about the skill gap.
ZOS laid out three things, and if you interpret them without the presumption of malice and incompetence, it is pretty easy to see what they are doing, and why.First, it tends to reward players for pushing buttons as quickly and efficiently as possible. Players with high Actions Per Minute (APM) significantly outperform those with low APM, as they have better up-time of abilities, higher mitigation, much higher DPS, and can simply move around the battlefield better in both PVE and PVP. While we believe it’s good to have a skill gap that promotes mastery, we also believe the gap as it currently exists is too wide, and that many players aren’t finding satisfaction in the climb.
Paraphrased: "we want all players to be able to be successful in combat, even if they have not mastered weaving (high APM)".
ZOS has been told for years that the game does not properly train new players for end-game content. Animation canceling, or weaving, is a learned skill that is integral to good performance in the end-game, and it is something that players learn largely from other players. This results in players happily getting by without weaving (low APM) and then, the first time they try the hard content, they get slammed in the face with a 2x4. The game is different. Combat is different. Combat is harder. There is no ramp to end-game combat. It is a cliff that has to be climbed. At that point, the players learn the harder combat techniques, just do the easier content, or leave the game in frustration.
ZOS has heard this comment. They have commented on these comments. Until now, I have not seen them take any significant action to address these comments. PTS looks like an idea they had to address the comments.Additionally, we believe the over-reliance on a specific mechanic (light attack weaving) leaves less room for playstyle diversity, including lower-APM options. This is particularly evident in veteran content and PvP.
This is addressing "boring" combat techniques. Here, ZOS says that previous changes to LA have created a meta that too many players are locked in on. Again, this is a meta that is not taught by the game. It is something that is picked up and shared by the expert players. They want to break up that meta. This is a normal ZOS quarterly shakeup. In case it has escaped notice, ZOS does have this tendency to break up these sorts of things to force players out of a single prescribed way of doing combat. In doing this, they create new ones, and the cycle continues.Finally, the concept of using light attacks for damage and heavy attacks for restore is, quite simply, unintuitive – especially for less experienced players.
This pretty much speaks for itself. Regardless of what we might think here in the forum, ZOS has evidence that supports this statement, and they are looking at ways to fix this.I'd be interested to see what player retention looks like on these newer models.
Not going to change. Here in the forum, someone is always talking about leaving or canceling a subscription. Someone is always telling the world about the next game they are going to because ZOS has failed. It does not matter what ZOS does, either. When it comes to combat, there is no such thing as a universally popular change. It all depends on how loud the people who are unhappy can get.
I am interested in how this helps new players join the game.
Edited by Elsonso on March 27, 2020 11:58AMXBox EU/NA:@ElsonsoJannus
PC NA/EU: @Elsonso
PSN NA/EU: @ElsonsoJannus
Total in-game hours: 11321
X/Twitter: ElsonsoJannus1 -
LadyNalcarya✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭The game is 6 years old. It's too late to rebuild the combat system, and it's stupid considering that a lot of people play it because they like the system the way it is.
The skill gap could be addressed by buffing easy builds (so that things like Xynode's sorc would stop being meme builds) and most importantly teaching players. No amount of meta nerfing would help someone who doesn't even know that rotations exist. ESO is doing a notoriously terrible job at explaining how it works, no wonder that casual players are left behind.Edited by LadyNalcarya on March 27, 2020 12:43PMDro-m'Athra Destroyer | Divayth Fyr's Coadjutor | Voice of Reason
PC/EU6 -
TheFM✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Skjaldbjorn wrote: »Skjaldbjorn wrote: »If LAs are on the GCD, you can't both use skills and get resources from LAs at the same time. So as long as skills are stronger than LA+bash, skills will be the preferred choice. You can still bash cancel skills or LAs, but in the former case you'd run out of resources quickly, and in the latter case you'd be doing less damage.
But if it makes you happy, let's remove damage from bashing too. I actually agree, bashing should be a defensive action, and only do the interrupt. Instead tanks should get the 1hs skill line buffed to compensate, and nobody else was supposed to be bashing for damage anyways.
It's not about what makes me happy, it's about accomplishing the stated goals. If people are so vehemently against LA weaving, what the hell do you think will happen when bash weaving becomes the meta? Builds, races and raid structure will change to accommodate the new resources drain requirements. That's what the meta is. It's maximum optimization down to the smallest number to gain DPS. This is obviously just conjecture, but a rotation of;
LA/Bash -> Skill/Bash -> Skill/Bash -> DoT/Bash -> DoT/Bash -> LA/Bash -> Skill/Bash -> Skill/Bash
So on and so forth. Obviously it would adapt based on class and available skills. The DoT meta would become incredibly popular again in favor of LA -> Skill/Bash rotations. It's less important to have consistent spammable damage if you can feasibly supplement with DoTs that tick while you sustain.
It will actuallly be LA/Skill/Bash everytime
We're talking about my proposal with LAs being on the same GCD with skills, so no, that would not be possible.
LA -> Skill/Bash would be a sustainable rotation, even with LAs being on GCD, and you probably wouldn't have to LA each cycle. Again, adapting the builds to sustain the rotation is a thing. You're acting as though people are just gonna stick to an Orc with their exact same rotations and just add bashes.
The person you quoted is just one of those people too lazy to actually practice and wants to force everyone to play boring ass slow game play, just ignore him. He has no idea what he's talking aboutEdited by TheFM on March 27, 2020 12:49PM6