Legate_Lanius wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

I think it's a reasonable compromise between health issues due to motion sickness and effectiveness of the class. Keep in mind, it was never intended for arcanist to initiate combat with fully loaded crux, otherwise there were possibilities to gain it outside of combat.

Never intended ? Really ?
You mean the months of internal and public server testing didn’t help with the design ? If the issue was real they’d do that change right before the Necrom release.

It’s another case of a minority shouting louder and getting their way.

The real compromise would have been a setting toggle to convert the 2D cruxes floating around your character which then integrates them in the UI (also defeating the uniqueness of the cruxes).

And honestly if 3 poor 2D icons floating makes you motion sick/annoys you, might aswell delete every VFX and make characters run very slowly along with their mounts. I’m sure everyone would be pleased to learn it’s only for a few players they are affected.

Dreaders123 wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

Wuduwasa13 wrote: »

Please do the same with sorc pets.

Apparently the correct strategy is to get enough people to express the visual distress the repetitive flapping is causing them. Too many people just call it "annoying," rather than describing in detail the physical and emotional discomfort it brings them.

This was a widespread and pretty serious health issue and it's disappointing to see it, and those who (using the proper meaning) suffered, being belittled in this way to score a cheap point. Even more so, because one of the more remarkable elements was the near-uniform message from those needing (not preferring) a fix to please find a way to not impact those who use and enjoy the class as is. At the same time many people who did not have issues were also showing compassion for those who did.

We all need to be careful with statements like these as it creates us/them divides in the user community needlessly. What was apparent as soon as we got past hyberbole was that everyone wanted the same thing if at all possible - fix the migraines and nausea but protect the class.

And yes, there was also a lot of agreement that it would be great if the solution provided for other items such as flappy birds.

Let's not make enemies of each other. A strong community not arguing amongst themselves is a lot easier for ZoS to interact with.

HidesInPlainSight wrote: »

The devs still remaining silent...

zNeo wrote: »

OtarTheMad wrote: »

@ZOS_KaiSchober @ZOS_MattFiror @ZOS_BrianWheeler @ZOS_JessicaFolsom @ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_Finn

The patch notes for 9.0.6 say that only the crux ICON would disappear after 30 seconds but what actually happens is if we do not keep generating crux while in combat, in 30 seconds, we lose all the crux we built up. Is this intended or a bug?

We just want to know either way so we can make adjustments on our Arcanist characters.

We don't just want to know, we want it to work as worded, gib us back our Crux

HidesInPlainSight wrote: »

OtarTheMad wrote: »

zNeo wrote: »

OtarTheMad wrote: »

@ZOS_KaiSchober @ZOS_MattFiror @ZOS_BrianWheeler @ZOS_JessicaFolsom @ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_Finn

The patch notes for 9.0.6 say that only the crux ICON would disappear after 30 seconds but what actually happens is if we do not keep generating crux while in combat, in 30 seconds, we lose all the crux we built up. Is this intended or a bug?

We just want to know either way so we can make adjustments on our Arcanist characters.

We don't just want to know, we want it to work as worded, gib us back our Crux

Well, that’s what I am asking.

If the change and what we have now was intended/the goal then the patch notes were missing info and were supposed to mention that if we don’t keep generating crux we lose it

If the change and what we have now is a bug then it is supposed to be just the icons and the crux we generate is supposed to stay until spent, just the icons go away.

If you mean that you want it all to work like it did when Arcanist hit then that’s not going to happen in all likelihood. Ever since week 1 of the PTS when people started complaining about the motion sickness, headaches and things, well I knew that the icons were going to change. I just thought it’d happen during PTS.

So by now, if it was unintentional the Devs would have said so. They read the forums, they know the community is not pleased with these changes. They also know, the implementation for the Crux change, messed with generating and consuming Crux's actual mechanics, and the Arcanist core functionality.

They are staying silent, because they have nothing to gain from speaking about it, because they intend to stay the course with the decision. Openly engaging the community on an unpopular and game breaking decision, they plan to ride out, would only be more negative press for ZoS. Which they don't want, with Necrom having released two weeks ago on PC and two days ago on console.

ZoS, clearly has an internal policy / culture that wants to minimize any responsibility for negatively received content / changes. This has been a problem in the gaming industry for years now, and something only a few gaming studios have realized hurts their games more than anything.

You can bet your ass, if this was something to do with the Crown Store, there would be community engagement on every post.

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Hi everyone,

First, we want to apologize for the delay in clarifying this past week’s change to Crux duration. What initially started as a quick question internally turned into a much larger discussion about what the change was intended to be, and it boiled down to there being a miscommunication when writing the patch note. We’ve identified the points of failure in the process and will do our best to avoid this from occurring again in the future.

As for the change itself, we can confirm that the intended change is for Crux to expire after 30 seconds, regardless of your combat state. While the primary reason behind this change was to address issues some players were having with motion sickness (in addition to slowing down the icons themselves) this also falls in line with our combat standards of “non-prebuffing” outside of combat. Seeing as Crux can only generate in combat, this also adheres to our rules that they shouldn't exist for extended periods of time outside of combat.

We apologize again for publishing an inaccurate patch note surrounding this change, and we appreciate the feedback given so far. We're keeping a close eye on how Crux has been performing and will continue to evaluate for any future changes.

Jaraal wrote: »

zNeo wrote: »

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Hi everyone,
this also falls in line with our combat standards of “non-prebuffing” outside of combat. Seeing as Crux can only generate in combat, this also adheres to our rules that they shouldn't exist for extended periods of time outside of combat.

Thank you for the clarification. I'd be inclined to disagree about it adhering to the "non-prebuffing" standard, as you technically need to have previously been in combat to build said Crux.

Agreed. Does this mean Flame Skull, where the extra damage on the third cast persists after combat, is an outlier not designed to adhere to the new 'anti-prebuffing standard?'

And what about ultimate generation? Surely that would be considered prebuffing, as ulti does not go away after 30 seconds.

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Hi everyone,

First, we want to apologize for the delay in clarifying this past week’s change to Crux duration. What initially started as a quick question internally turned into a much larger discussion about what the change was intended to be, and it boiled down to there being a miscommunication when writing the patch note. We’ve identified the points of failure in the process and will do our best to avoid this from occurring again in the future.

As for the change itself, we can confirm that the intended change is for Crux to expire after 30 seconds, regardless of your combat state. While the primary reason behind this change was to address issues some players were having with motion sickness (in addition to slowing down the icons themselves) this also falls in line with our combat standards of “non-prebuffing” outside of combat. Seeing as Crux can only generate in combat, this also adheres to our rules that they shouldn't exist for extended periods of time outside of combat.

We apologize again for publishing an inaccurate patch note surrounding this change, and we appreciate the feedback given so far. We're keeping a close eye on how Crux has been performing and will continue to evaluate for any future changes.

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

zNeo wrote: »

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Hi everyone,
this also falls in line with our combat standards of “non-prebuffing” outside of combat. Seeing as Crux can only generate in combat, this also adheres to our rules that they shouldn't exist for extended periods of time outside of combat.

Thank you for the clarification. I'd be inclined to disagree about it adhering to the "non-prebuffing" standard, as you technically need to have previously been in combat to build said Crux.

Agreed. Does this mean Flame Skull, where the extra damage on the third cast persists after combat, is an outlier not designed to adhere to the new 'anti-prebuffing standard?'

And what about ultimate generation? Surely that would be considered prebuffing, as ulti does not go away after 30 seconds.

Please do not give them ideas.

Jaraal wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

zNeo wrote: »

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Hi everyone,
this also falls in line with our combat standards of “non-prebuffing” outside of combat. Seeing as Crux can only generate in combat, this also adheres to our rules that they shouldn't exist for extended periods of time outside of combat.

Thank you for the clarification. I'd be inclined to disagree about it adhering to the "non-prebuffing" standard, as you technically need to have previously been in combat to build said Crux.

Agreed. Does this mean Flame Skull, where the extra damage on the third cast persists after combat, is an outlier not designed to adhere to the new 'anti-prebuffing standard?'

And what about ultimate generation? Surely that would be considered prebuffing, as ulti does not go away after 30 seconds.

Please do not give them ideas.

I'm just trying to understand why there seems to be a double standard regarding this. They initially said they were going to modify crux because of potential health issues for certain users, but now it's about a new prebuffing standard that is not universally applied. Which also raises the question of why the prebuffing rules weren't ever considered for the five weeks of the PTS, plus how ever many weeks before that during the inception of the class? Why were they only considered two weeks after the live release? Certainly many people, including management were involved in the class creation process.... yet no one raised any concerns about "prebuffing" until now?

Jaraal wrote: »

OtarTheMad wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

zNeo wrote: »

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Hi everyone,
this also falls in line with our combat standards of “non-prebuffing” outside of combat. Seeing as Crux can only generate in combat, this also adheres to our rules that they shouldn't exist for extended periods of time outside of combat.

Thank you for the clarification. I'd be inclined to disagree about it adhering to the "non-prebuffing" standard, as you technically need to have previously been in combat to build said Crux.

Agreed. Does this mean Flame Skull, where the extra damage on the third cast persists after combat, is an outlier not designed to adhere to the new 'anti-prebuffing standard?'

And what about ultimate generation? Surely that would be considered prebuffing, as ulti does not go away after 30 seconds.

Please do not give them ideas.

I'm just trying to understand why there seems to be a double standard regarding this. They initially said they were going to modify crux because of potential health issues for certain users, but now it's about a new prebuffing standard that is not universally applied. Which also raises the question of why the prebuffing rules weren't ever considered for the five weeks of the PTS, plus how ever many weeks before that during the inception of the class? Why were they only considered two weeks after the live release? Certainly many people, including management were involved in the class creation process.... yet no one raised any concerns about "prebuffing" until now?

It could be something that they are just now starting to really focus on and we might see more in Q3 QoL changes. Idk. Good questions

You can also put yourself in combat with the alchemy system, and prebuff many sets and skills in this manner. And ZOS has been aware of this for years. So it seems rather confusing, based upon their stated desire for standardization, that some things are singled out for nerfing (sometimes after they have been in place for quite some time), while others are left untouched.

Hamish999 wrote: »

personal toggle!