The class reps are there to highlight the points only AFK, they can pass on ideas for solutions but ultimately the choices of how things are changed or balanced will always lay with ZOS and they've never said otherwise.I’m curious about this because of Wolfhunter’s short list of class balance changes implemented. Did ZOS actually proceed to care about your feedback, or simply ignore it? Do the patch notes seem to reflect the “pain points” that we have been asked to discuss on many occasions now?
In the end, those who managed to get us into a situation bad enough to prompt a Class Rep system, still decide all of the changes. If they aren’t balancing with heavy consideration placed into your feedback, the Class Rep system is a failure
MLGProPlayer wrote: »They didn't touch warden (for the 6th DLC patch in a row), so no. Still the worst class in the game.
We have an another meeting at 20th. So don't lose hope ^^
My opinion is, except few important things like Magden Class CC, a lot of PvP stuff we discussed actually got attention so I am happy with that. Can't say the same for PvE though.
MLGProPlayer wrote: »They didn't touch warden (for the 6th DLC patch in a row), so no. Still the worst class in the game.
Then you are playing it wrong
ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »Just a reminder as mentioned last month, we never intended to address every item from the last meeting with the Class Reps - there simply wasn't enough time. That said, we did adjust a few things based on our meeting with them, and are planning to have another meeting next week to discuss a lot of the PTS feedback.
Band Camp statements: To state "But this one time I saw X doing X... so that justifies X" Refers to the Band camp statement.
Coined by Maxwell
Dk got a change I like and another that I agree with (immunity on wings and nerf to warmth). I still want an increased duration for immunity but we'll see how it plays out although 4 seconds isn't asking for much due to the cost.
I really hope a lot of the feedback passed around and more so vocalized by said reps doesn't make it e.g increased range for burning embers because it somehow feels "clunky". Yeah increased range on a ability that can provide 6k+ heals in PvP at a low cost and ticks for damage... so balanced.
I also hope that Stam Whip doesn't become a thing because we'll have our DoTs nerfed and that'll be a major disruption for PvE but no one seemed to make that connection unless they feel that 44k PvE DPS we pull won't get increased by a stam whip.
Holding out for passive changes, AoE for FoO and a nerf to embers heal.
ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »Just a reminder as mentioned last month, we never intended to address every item from the last meeting with the Class Reps - there simply wasn't enough time. That said, we did adjust a few things based on our meeting with them, and are planning to have another meeting next week to discuss a lot of the PTS feedback.
The class reps are there to highlight the points only AFK, they can pass on ideas for solutions but ultimately the choices of how things are changed or balanced will always lay with ZOS and they've never said otherwise.I’m curious about this because of Wolfhunter’s short list of class balance changes implemented. Did ZOS actually proceed to care about your feedback, or simply ignore it? Do the patch notes seem to reflect the “pain points” that we have been asked to discuss on many occasions now?
In the end, those who managed to get us into a situation bad enough to prompt a Class Rep system, still decide all of the changes. If they aren’t balancing with heavy consideration placed into your feedback, the Class Rep system is a failure
There are always going to be cases where we as a community want one thing but ZOS wants another, so don't expect all their feedback to be acted on exactly how it was desired.
That's my personal view from seeing numerous years of player representatives to games companies on development.
Class reps are just like our politicians. They promise mountains made of gold for us, but in the end, whenever they can they try to push their own agenda.
starkerealm wrote: »Yeah, even with direct access to the team, as a player, you can argue for your position, but it's entirely possible the answer will still be no.
starkerealm wrote: »Their job is to what's best for the game and its players.
SidewalkChalk5 wrote: »starkerealm wrote: »Yeah, even with direct access to the team, as a player, you can argue for your position, but it's entirely possible the answer will still be no.
As it should be, most of the time. Still, it's frustrating - even infuriating - that certain inexplicable deficiencies affecting certain classes should be fixed and would be easy to fix, but are nonetheless ignored by the combat dev team. Templar, for instance, has severe deficiencies in far too many areas: mobility, CC, DPS, sustain, ultimates, access to buffs, etc. The one thing we have going for us, heals, is a constant target for nerfs that can only be explained by incompetence or malice. Healing Ritual costs FAR too much and the secondary heal on BoL is a joke now. I'm sick of hearing this crap about how long it takes and how hard it is. I single-handedly coded the entire combat system for an indie game in under two weeks. Small adjustments to balance an already-existing system are easy, and the class reps made it even easier by spoonfeeding them a really good summary of the exact problems that need addressing. (Really, from the notes of the first meeting it's clear the class reps did great.) A semi-competent monkey with a keyboard could fix it all, given the chance.
SidewalkChalk5 wrote: »But they don't, for the reasons below:starkerealm wrote: »Their job is to what's best for the game and its players.
More and more, I'm realizing just how untrue that is. Their job is to increase player dissatisfaction because dissatisfied people spend their time and effort hopelessly attempting to achieve satisfaction. It's a cheap psychological manipulation to make more money. If you can't get what you want on one build, you switch to another, investing more of your time into playing the game which creates more Crown Store purchase opportunities for the company.
Many players cannot help approaching a game as an optimization puzzle. What gives the most reward for the least risk? What strategy provides the highest chance – or even a guaranteed chance – of success? Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game.
Joy_Division wrote: »I know a lot of folks are disappointed that their pain points did not get addressed this patch or that some of the changes may not have gone far enough. I can relate. I would have handled the templar changes differently, I'm waiting for a mag Warden CC, I still don't like Rune Cage, and I know if Sloads remains unchanged at least half of my opponents will still wear that set next time I que up for Battlegrounds. OK, so hopefully through some further discussion, we can arrive closer to where we think the game should go.
starkerealm wrote: »You were working on a small indy game. Not, you know, an MMO. Scale is an important factor, and it's easy to miss just how much is going on under the hood until you find things breaking.
starkerealm wrote: »It's not about creating "dissatisfaction," because if you truly find a game dissatisfying, you will leave, and it's not about some petty ploy to grab your wallet................. This is about making the game a better experience.
starkerealm wrote: »And, yeah, that means making you uncomfortable sometimes, so you don't slip into a narcoleptic coma of trial grinding, and score runs.
starkerealm wrote: »Many players cannot help approaching a game as an optimization puzzle. What gives the most reward for the least risk? What strategy provides the highest chance – or even a guaranteed chance – of success? Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game.
That's the problem here. Players will look for the most effective possible solution, and abuse the hell out of it. In the process, they will sacrifice the fun. This means making choices that are directly antagonistic to the player's goals. It's not about creating "dissatisfaction,"