FlopsyPrince wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I'm late to the thread but I want to say that I am a casual player and have no interest in end game content. It's not that I couldn't do it, I just plain don't want to.

The problem for me occurs when end game players say that the game is too easy and suggest that the difficulty needs to be increased, specifically overland which is the world I live in. I don't want my world made more difficult to accommodate a very small percentage of players.

The ceiling can be lowered without raising the floor where I am very content.

I agree, yet many in the Overland Content pinned thread claimed many people wanted harder overland content.

I maintain that most do not and that is part of spreading the game out to far more players.

It's beginning to look as if the "harder overland" folks are getting their wish with U35. I believe I won't be doing much other than farming and crafting for a while.

Jaraal wrote: »

I think the One Tamriel model is responsible for a lot of the dissatisfaction in overland difficulty.

One Tamriel saved this game.

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

I would still argue that any effort into making overland harder would ultimately provide less value for the effort since most players only do quests once and don't run lots of alts. A few key exceptions exist of course, but I am looking at the playerbase as a whole.

Even the "want it harder" crowd would most likely do it once (or maybe a time or two more) and not come back. This might be fine if it wouldn't impact those who like it as it is now. I know I am in the latter camp and I have run a great many alts.

Yes, the harder overland content might be theoretically optional, but it would not be if only that mode would get certain things, which it would need to do to make it worth challenging.

Yes, I'm in agreement with your first two points. I have 75 characters - I replay a LOT of quests. The third point, for me not so much. I don't actually care about rewards. Yeah. I know - I'm weird.

baltic1284 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

I think the One Tamriel model is responsible for a lot of the dissatisfaction in overland difficulty.

One Tamriel saved this game.

Thing is it also did damage too might have saved the game is a long stretch but doing damage at the same time also. PvP is a mess for those that PvP and PVE player base is so unwelcomed in PvP that Skyshards missions gear Armor you name it is locked away behind a very messy PvP.
Most of the game isn't inviting either, many new players become lost customers with a week to a month due to no explanation at all of anything in game except wack that guy now do it again now block that do it again now power attack do it again. Then off to the wild blue I have no idea what I am doing.
Another problem that is hurting the game is the community itself, i know it may not seem as bad as some make but it is that bad especially when you as a PVE get blamed for everything wrong in PvP, then get told the content itself is locked behind PvP cause you refuse to play may way or get blamed for fake tanking when the Tank role got nerfed something harder than any other role in the game at this point. Or updates like U35 that drive what is left of the player base away instead of just going ok this was a bad no way we are doing that lets not release it apologize and actually work with the community on this.
PvP that can do some things i am not going to say here to a player that says stop and they keep doing it or chase a player that doesn't even want to PvP and just wants the missions sky shards or the gear and move on, then get bullied attacked, pick on, called things I'm not going to say here at the moment, or get life threats from those in the PvP community that do such things many will say no but it is a major issue right now in the PvP community
One Tamriel got rid of one selling point that the player base was liking locked factions for the PvP and Three banners war. player then was not paying for the game cause of that they went cause of the horrible mess the game was back then and not much has improved since then either. The fact Imperials were sold separate to try and get money with the state the game itself was in was also bad, instead of just adding the Imperials as a Neutral race with a unique start that didn't involve doing the whole Mollag Bal line of missions could have been a selling point, not destroying locked factions which was never asked for in the forums back then trust I was testing back then and read the forums.
The fact even then performance for PvP was a mess and not working right on launch day plus a million other problems that where around that still haven't been fixed is also another reason, all One Tamriel did was create a bunch more problems and solved very little and made the game more built for gambling then actual game play.
Don't get me wrong One Tamriel did save the game but not in the way you think, it just simple delayed all the problems the game had and kicked the can further down the road, and now look at the game players are still leaving the game, over the same issues that were in the day when the game was released and you had to pay for it look what happened when players instead of asking for a fix to PvP started demanding, some in the company just went out of there way and attacked that community over their demands after years of asking. just for example.
SO no, the game is far from a healthy state and all One Tamriel really did was kick the can further down the road in a vein hope of giving time, when they should have just buckled down and fixed the issues and dealt with lose and realized why.

i hated the faction locks in pve, its one of the reasons why i just made all of my toons AD because i didnt want to be forced to play a specific toon to play with friends (and there were times i also had friends who had DC or EP toons i couldnt play with them when they were on those toons)

the faction locks in pve were just straight dumb and im glad they did remove that

Destai wrote: »

Destai wrote: »

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

@Faltasë Thanks for your feedback here. We felt it was important to address the commentary around "anecdotal feedback" quote as this was specifically mentioned in official communication.

Faltasë wrote: »

I know this may seem like a moot point to make but could we get some communication from the team on the antagonistic acknowledgments from the developers? Like, it does seem relatively bad that forum moderators are able to tell us to not bait, be disrespectful... Gilliam (saying that they don't consider anecdotal feedback, and where the tone of that specific post was passive aggressive in its own right)

(Abbreviated to highlight core comment being referenced)

The comment was not meant to be antagonistic. It was meant to clarify what feedback would be helpful for the dev team and nothing more. So for example, feedback with player data from PTS or clearly explaining situations in which combat changes would positively or negatively impact play experience are what the team was looking for.

Other feedback like (and this is just a mock example), "These changes are garbage and do you even play the game?", are not what the dev team is looking for when asking for feedback. While that kind of feedback expresses player sentiment, it does not help the team in providing feedback they can work off of to address concerns. So the note on anecdotal feedback was more so to address comments like that. Not to antagonize anyone. However, given the feedback around the rhetoric, we will keep that in mind as a team going forward in communication.

Lastly, we want to touch on this line here:

Faltasë wrote: »

Like, it does seem relatively bad that forum moderators are able to tell us to not bait, be disrespectful...does the exact same thing with no consequences and indirectly causing a good chunk of the player base to devalue solid criticisms with "whining children".

(Abbreviated to complete core sentence without the quotes referenced.)

As Forum Manager, I feel obligated to answer this one specifically for moderation purposes. First, I want to make it clear that we do not perceive you as "whiny children".

Second, I understand the comment was perceived as being antagonistic, however trying to match the perceived antagonizing commentary with additional antagonizing commentary does not help general communication. I understand the community concern around the U35 combat changes but we will not tolerate baiting or bashing, especially to the dev team, as a player response to deal a consequence. Certainly not on the forum.

So where does this leave us? I encourage you to question or ask for clarification when you see something as antagonistic, much like @Faltasë has. This was a respectful way to question and ask for motivation around word usage and general commentary. So thank you for asking the question. Most of the time, these situations can be cleared up though general questions rather than acting on the assumption of ill intent. There are ways to be critical of choices without berating members of the team. That will also aid in avoiding getting actioned on the forum. The whole point is to create an open place where positive and negative sentiment can be shared and communication can be had. As noted earlier, we will be more vigilant with our rhetoric as well to help this point.

To close, sorry for the long answer, but hopefully this helps to provide some context regarding the "anecdotal feedback" quote. Thanks all for the continued feedback.

Appreciate the feedback, Kevin. Seeing actual candor is a pleasant surprise. My thoughts are as follows.

Part 1: Regarding your mock-up statement.
First - the comment you mocked up is still important feedback, and very likely how many people feel right now. What do you expect from players when we keep saying one thing and you guys keep doing the opposite? With this update it's not about numbers. It's about an overwhelmingly unwanted change being forced through a 5 week PTS cycle. I appreciate that Gilliam needs data to make better decisions, but the whole effort seems to be contrary to what the community is saying en masse - we don't want it.

Second - asking if a developer plays their game is an important question, too. Especially if their approach is based on data rather than how a change feels. If a developer comes out the gate with a baffling change, how are we not supposed to feel like there's a disconnect? How can we respectfully say someone (or their idea) is out of touch, especially when it needs to be said? Sometimes people get lost in their own ideas and they need to be shown that.

Third - Sweeping changes need more time so we can better test it against whatever the stated goal is - if it's stated at all. And if you guys can't articulate what your goals actually are beyond something vague like "increase accessibility", how are we supposed to feel like it's anything but your mock-up comment? You guys are making massive changes, we want to see them played by you before it impacts the game we all love. If it's so great, and absolutely must launch, then show us. Play test it. Do a vet trial with your changes in front of the community. We deserve that at the very least.

Part 2: ZOS's Rhetoric and Reception
I'm happy you guys are considering how your comments land. I just hope it goes beyond Gilliam, because I feel like it's deeper. While Gilliam's quote was a little off-mark, I don't think it's as bad as the antagonism I've seen from Rich. This whole PTS cycle started on a sour note - the tweet from Rich - sardonically asking us for trust only for us to be right and you guys having to backtrack on half the changes proposed. That tweet cemented that he views us as "whiny children". I know his directives impact how the forum is managed because he's said as much on his streams. So while you say we're not seen that way, the evidence is quite the opposite. To date, ZOS has done nothing that directly addressed the fallout from that tweet. You've stated yourself that responding in kind to antagonism doesn't help the conversation - so why is that coming from Rich at the start of this PTS? That did nothing but prime us to be upset by something like what Gilliam said.

I get that ZOS devs don't want to feel disrespected but ZOS can't lead with ambiguous announcements, sardonic tweets, "we see your feedback but we're moving ahead anyways", couple that with radio silence on major threads, and then edit our words and not expect people to not be absolutely fuming mad. You guys are creating that cycle.

ZOS needs to be more responsive and reflective in general. Case in point, this thread here. Players are asking Gina to follow up on a thread she's already commented on, and we're not getting any clarification on what seems to be a major gap. So even when we do follow your advice, the result is the same - crickets. Her as a community manager especially, should anticipate that a one-liner is going to generate more questions than answers. It's hard to not infer ill-intent or negligence. We'd all love to give ZOS the benefit of the doubt, but we can't anymore.

Part 3: Closing thoughts:
Can you elaborate on what ZOS is doing to make these forums more welcoming and meaningful for the people here? Why would I come here vs Reddit? I think the general expectation is that there's a chance for development interaction, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Hoping you can clear that up.

I hope you take the time to answer the hard questions I've asked here Kevin. I do appreciate some of the changes made in response to some PTS feedback. I just wish there were more dialogue other than damage control here.

@ZOS_Kevin Can you respond to my points please? I've bolded the points I'm still looking for answers on.

...Do you really expect him to?

SilverBride wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

I think the One Tamriel model is responsible for a lot of the dissatisfaction in overland difficulty.

One Tamriel saved this game.

Agreed but its implementation leaves a lot to be desired. SWTOR isnt an mmo I always reference positively, but they made the world level with you as well.

The game feels less repetitive though because there's 5 different tiers of elite enemies at all levels. No matter what planet you're on there's ALWAYS a difficulty variation depending on where you decide to explore and what you're fighting. A jedi or a mandalorian feel VERY different from a gang of bandits.

The game was also built from the ground up to be a power fantasy, so running across hordes of trash mobs actually feels like a fun, intended change of pace, as opposed to a boring slog.

I havent played SWTOR in years so I dont know if it still plays like this, but its a MUCH better way to handle things than how ESO does it.

psychotrip wrote: »

Destai wrote: »

Destai wrote: »

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

@Faltasë Thanks for your feedback here. We felt it was important to address the commentary around "anecdotal feedback" quote as this was specifically mentioned in official communication.

Faltasë wrote: »

I know this may seem like a moot point to make but could we get some communication from the team on the antagonistic acknowledgments from the developers? Like, it does seem relatively bad that forum moderators are able to tell us to not bait, be disrespectful... Gilliam (saying that they don't consider anecdotal feedback, and where the tone of that specific post was passive aggressive in its own right)

(Abbreviated to highlight core comment being referenced)

The comment was not meant to be antagonistic. It was meant to clarify what feedback would be helpful for the dev team and nothing more. So for example, feedback with player data from PTS or clearly explaining situations in which combat changes would positively or negatively impact play experience are what the team was looking for.

Other feedback like (and this is just a mock example), "These changes are garbage and do you even play the game?", are not what the dev team is looking for when asking for feedback. While that kind of feedback expresses player sentiment, it does not help the team in providing feedback they can work off of to address concerns. So the note on anecdotal feedback was more so to address comments like that. Not to antagonize anyone. However, given the feedback around the rhetoric, we will keep that in mind as a team going forward in communication.

Lastly, we want to touch on this line here:

Faltasë wrote: »

Like, it does seem relatively bad that forum moderators are able to tell us to not bait, be disrespectful...does the exact same thing with no consequences and indirectly causing a good chunk of the player base to devalue solid criticisms with "whining children".

(Abbreviated to complete core sentence without the quotes referenced.)

As Forum Manager, I feel obligated to answer this one specifically for moderation purposes. First, I want to make it clear that we do not perceive you as "whiny children".

Second, I understand the comment was perceived as being antagonistic, however trying to match the perceived antagonizing commentary with additional antagonizing commentary does not help general communication. I understand the community concern around the U35 combat changes but we will not tolerate baiting or bashing, especially to the dev team, as a player response to deal a consequence. Certainly not on the forum.

So where does this leave us? I encourage you to question or ask for clarification when you see something as antagonistic, much like @Faltasë has. This was a respectful way to question and ask for motivation around word usage and general commentary. So thank you for asking the question. Most of the time, these situations can be cleared up though general questions rather than acting on the assumption of ill intent. There are ways to be critical of choices without berating members of the team. That will also aid in avoiding getting actioned on the forum. The whole point is to create an open place where positive and negative sentiment can be shared and communication can be had. As noted earlier, we will be more vigilant with our rhetoric as well to help this point.

To close, sorry for the long answer, but hopefully this helps to provide some context regarding the "anecdotal feedback" quote. Thanks all for the continued feedback.

Appreciate the feedback, Kevin. Seeing actual candor is a pleasant surprise. My thoughts are as follows.

Part 1: Regarding your mock-up statement.
First - the comment you mocked up is still important feedback, and very likely how many people feel right now. What do you expect from players when we keep saying one thing and you guys keep doing the opposite? With this update it's not about numbers. It's about an overwhelmingly unwanted change being forced through a 5 week PTS cycle. I appreciate that Gilliam needs data to make better decisions, but the whole effort seems to be contrary to what the community is saying en masse - we don't want it.

Second - asking if a developer plays their game is an important question, too. Especially if their approach is based on data rather than how a change feels. If a developer comes out the gate with a baffling change, how are we not supposed to feel like there's a disconnect? How can we respectfully say someone (or their idea) is out of touch, especially when it needs to be said? Sometimes people get lost in their own ideas and they need to be shown that.

Third - Sweeping changes need more time so we can better test it against whatever the stated goal is - if it's stated at all. And if you guys can't articulate what your goals actually are beyond something vague like "increase accessibility", how are we supposed to feel like it's anything but your mock-up comment? You guys are making massive changes, we want to see them played by you before it impacts the game we all love. If it's so great, and absolutely must launch, then show us. Play test it. Do a vet trial with your changes in front of the community. We deserve that at the very least.

Part 2: ZOS's Rhetoric and Reception
I'm happy you guys are considering how your comments land. I just hope it goes beyond Gilliam, because I feel like it's deeper. While Gilliam's quote was a little off-mark, I don't think it's as bad as the antagonism I've seen from Rich. This whole PTS cycle started on a sour note - the tweet from Rich - sardonically asking us for trust only for us to be right and you guys having to backtrack on half the changes proposed. That tweet cemented that he views us as "whiny children". I know his directives impact how the forum is managed because he's said as much on his streams. So while you say we're not seen that way, the evidence is quite the opposite. To date, ZOS has done nothing that directly addressed the fallout from that tweet. You've stated yourself that responding in kind to antagonism doesn't help the conversation - so why is that coming from Rich at the start of this PTS? That did nothing but prime us to be upset by something like what Gilliam said.

I get that ZOS devs don't want to feel disrespected but ZOS can't lead with ambiguous announcements, sardonic tweets, "we see your feedback but we're moving ahead anyways", couple that with radio silence on major threads, and then edit our words and not expect people to not be absolutely fuming mad. You guys are creating that cycle.

ZOS needs to be more responsive and reflective in general. Case in point, this thread here. Players are asking Gina to follow up on a thread she's already commented on, and we're not getting any clarification on what seems to be a major gap. So even when we do follow your advice, the result is the same - crickets. Her as a community manager especially, should anticipate that a one-liner is going to generate more questions than answers. It's hard to not infer ill-intent or negligence. We'd all love to give ZOS the benefit of the doubt, but we can't anymore.

Part 3: Closing thoughts:
Can you elaborate on what ZOS is doing to make these forums more welcoming and meaningful for the people here? Why would I come here vs Reddit? I think the general expectation is that there's a chance for development interaction, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Hoping you can clear that up.

I hope you take the time to answer the hard questions I've asked here Kevin. I do appreciate some of the changes made in response to some PTS feedback. I just wish there were more dialogue other than damage control here.

@ZOS_Kevin Can you respond to my points please? I've bolded the points I'm still looking for answers on.

...Do you really expect him to?

SilverBride wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

I think the One Tamriel model is responsible for a lot of the dissatisfaction in overland difficulty.

One Tamriel saved this game.

Agreed but its implementation leaves a lot to be desired. SWTOR isnt an mmo I always reference positively, but they made the world level with you as well.

The game feels less repetitive though because there's 5 different tiers of elite enemies at all levels. No matter what planet you're on there's ALWAYS a difficulty variation depending on where you decide to explore and what you're fighting. A jedi or a mandalorian feel VERY different from a gang of bandits.

The game was also built from the ground up to be a power fantasy, so running across hordes of trash mobs actually feels like a fun, intended change of pace, as opposed to a boring slog.

I havent played SWTOR in years so I dont know if it still plays like this, but its a MUCH better way to handle things than how ESO does it.

No, if not, it’s a good, visible example of what needs improvement with these guys. Trying to give the benefit of the doubt, or just let them demonstrate for us that they avoid hard questions.

sbr32 wrote: »

ArenaNet, developer of Guild Wars 2, yesterday admitted that their "approach to balancing professions and combat in Guild Wars 2 has not been fully aligned with the needs and expectations of our community".

Furthermore -

"As we’ve been reading through your feedback ... it became clear to us that one aspect of the previous balance approach was especially problematic. Specifically, making balance adjustments to PvE builds based on their potential under unrealistic, ideal conditions – conditions that are unlikely to be met unless you’re testing against a golem, or the player is extremely skilled. While these builds can definitely be an issue in a skilled player’s hands, often times the changes have an outsized impact to unrelated builds and average players. With that in mind, we’ll be reverting the changes ...."

Wow. That's awesome.

If only ZOS did something like this, instead of taking the toys they'd given us, breaking them and handing them back with a smile.

baltic1284 wrote: »

One Tamriel got rid of one selling point that the player base was liking locked factions for the PvP and Three banners war. player then was not paying for the game cause of that they went cause of the horrible mess the game was back then and not much has improved since then either. The fact Imperials were sold separate to try and get money with the state the game itself was in was also bad, instead of just adding the Imperials as a Neutral race with a unique start that didn't involve doing the whole Mollag Bal line of missions could have been a selling point, not destroying locked factions which was never asked for in the forums back then trust I was testing back then and read the forums.

I started playing after One Tamriel was in place and I can fully say I appreciate it.

I leveled up a suite of alts in WoW in both the Alliance and the Horde, but I am not sure that added much value to the game.

I would bet few of the current players want to go back to faction locked things.

I was day one player. Left because of the many problems that first year. Only came back because of One Tamriel. Yes it has it owns problems but been here for 8 years. At least until this abomination of a patch.

So One Tamriel did save game for me.

So for me that statement is completely valid.

shadyjane62 wrote: »

I was day one player. Left because of the many problems that first year. Only came back because of One Tamriel. Yes it has it owns problems but been here for 8 years. At least until this abomination of a patch.

So One Tamriel did save game for me.

So for me that statement is completely valid.

My experience was very similar. I started in beta and left after Craglorn and forced grouping was introduced. I rolled a few alts but after struggling through Silver and Gold once I just couldn't do it again.

I came back after One Tamriel and the difference was so refreshing. Now I can quest without struggling and really enjoy it.

One Tamriel may have had flaws, but that can be said about many parts of the game now, so it is not relevant without a lot more clarity. Has any MMO ever made any large change perfectly?

What bothers me with this is that it is being sold as making the game more accessible when it instead looks like it will harm those who like things as they are (toward the bottom end) or may even find it challenging. Yeah, I know some posters can play with their feet while watching Netflix, but many of us can't and that is why I am noting this.

Nothing really to add as you summed it up perfectly.

I have played MMOs for about 20 years now and no other game has constantly changed classes and restrospectively gear like ESO. I am somewhat between a casual and hardcore gamer I would say and it takes me a bit to re-gear and re-balance my class across my DPS PVE, healer and DPS PvP set-up every time they make a change. It is getting exhausting and is just not fun anyome.

It is time they take a break from chapters, fix the game and then do an expansion. Their chapters re-using the same formula is not helping overall fatigue.

I stopped playing after the account-wide achievements changes (I know some or maybe even a lot of people liked those changes, and I respect that, but I didn't, and it was enough for me to stop playing - I don't mean to rekindle that debate here as it became totally circular). I had already been playing FFXIV for a while and am quite happy to stay in Eorzea for my MMO fix. Its story affected me in ways I didn't know a videogame could, there's really not a single gameplay system I'm not satisfied with, and it feels like the devs are in touch with what the community wants.

However, like OP, I'm also a diehard singleplayer Elder Scrolls fan with thousands of hours each on Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim, going back 20 years. I love Tamriel with all of my heart and then some. I think about reinstalling this game constantly and keep a very close eye on news, the forums and the subreddit. And I suspect there are a lot of people like me. I would uninstall FFXIV in a heartbeat and never even think about it again if I felt any effort at all was being spent on keeping Elder Scrolls Online alive and feeling fresh - particularly the overland content, which given the quality of the world design, SHOULD be this game's biggest strength. Admittedly, that's just my opinion. Everyone has different opinions of what this game should be about - PVP, overland, dungeons, trials, trading. But we're definitely all united by the fact that we feel that our favorite aspect of the game needs some love (traders might be happy, idk). But instead, it's a never-ending barrage of changes that were obviously going to be unpopular, with no apparent vision behind them.

It's such a huge shame because ESO still has so much untapped potential to be a goldmine for ZOS. I'm not even talking about lootbox whales - just from the recognition of the Elder Scrolls name and with better word of mouth from fans who are actually happy, this game could and should be crushing FFXIV at the WoW-killing game, but it just seems to stubbornly refuse to compete. I can't express how frustrating it is to watch, update after update, as nothing really changes.

As for what's specifically happening right now - I'm sure some people would consider me a filthy casual for this, and that's fine, I'll admit it - I've always thought that weaving just needs to go entirely. It feels awkward, it looks ugly, and it's obviously a bug that ZOS was too embarrassed to fix that has since become endemic to how the game is both balanced and played. Lowering DPS across the board and saying "look guys, we fixed weaving!" doesn't actually solve that problem, and it certainly doesn't make anyone happy. I'm too antisocial for high-end content, but I did enjoy soloing dungeons, and I don't know if that would even be possible now. This isn't even a bandaid fix for a bad combat system, it's more like taking a sledgehammer to an already-very-wobbly house of cards. And I don't have any way to know why they thought this would be a good idea, but I can only assume someone looked a spreadsheet and wanted to change it without taking the time to understand WHY.

IF, however, ZOS were to take time out to INVEST in this game for once, and redesign the combat system from the ground up to be engaging to both casual and hardcore players, then a significant rework could be popular. But that's a gamble that ZOS won't take (I am desperate to be wrong - please prove me wrong, ZOS). It's arguable that changes of the magnitude that are probably necessary to keep this game alive are too much of a risk this deep in the game's life cycle, and I think ZOS knows that. So instead it'll just keep stagnating like this, with occasional sledgehammer-balance changes that don't really address any core issues and just upset people even more, but the game will stick around because MTX keeps it profitable I guess? I don't comprehend that side of things. Point is, the hole ZOS has dug ESO into is probably just too deep now, and that's more than a little heartbreaking.

I don't really know where I'm going with this anymore, I just needed to get it out. In an attempt to coherently wrap up, I guess I would ask if there's anything the community can really do other than make sad doom-n'-gloom forum posts, because that's all I've got.