Please communicate with us ZOS. This is a major update.

sans-culottes · May 14

tomofhyrule wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

Im sorry , what communication exactly would you like?

Theyve told you what the update will be.
theyve provided patch notes, which are as far as i can tell comprehensive

theres nothing else to say is there?

But that's the thing: they're not comprehensive.

Let's even look past combat for a second - they changed the UI and the animations. We got a whole paragraph on why they are changing the animations because of saving space backend and the like, and then they pulled those changes in the last patch because it wasn't working. As for the UI, all we got was "we're modernizing it!" The feedback thread is on its 7th page and nothing has been said about why this was necessary despite near universal negative feedback.

That's something that could use a dev answer. "Hey, we're doing this because of reason X" would go a long way when it looks like someone just wanted to make the UI ugly for no reason. I mean, anyone can see that the new version of the group UI was just removing the alpha channel from the smudge, which means it now has an off-center black box in your face. Really? That's the finished product?!?

As for the combat feedback, so many people are pointing out issues with various OP skills (double-proc bow in PvP), or broken combos (slotting Grim Focus in PvE just gives a lot of WD/SD for free), or nerfs that were too heavy-handed (DK sustain being nuked because of the potential to get loads of ulti... which then also got nerfed in the form of Pillager). A simple "hey, we see what you're saying and we'll address that" or "yeah, but we actually want this setup to be OP for reason X" would make the community feel heard.

When we don't get anything from the devs, we'll start inventing reasons on our own, and people tend to assume the worst. As it is, a character who keeps their original Class without Subclassing will be underpowered compared to a subclass, and ZOS hasn't said anything along those lines. So... do they believe we should all "play as we want?" Because their actions make it sound like "Hey, we're introducing Subclassing, so you all had better go and subclass with your characters, and we're going to take away a lot of your power unless you do it." We don't know what their goal is - is it to give us freedom or to force us into Subclassing? But the fact that everything is going as it is makes it seem like their goal is for everyone to have to Subclass, they're just not saying it.

This is exactly the distinction that keeps getting blurred: acknowledging feedback is not the same as explaining design logic.

When UI changes are made, reversed, and then redeployed with no clarity on purpose—when core systems are introduced with performance disparities built in, but no articulation of baseline expectations—players aren’t inventing outrage. They’re filling a vacuum.

You’re right: patch notes aren’t a plan. And silence in the face of universal questions doesn’t read as confidence. It reads as absence.

Whether it’s subclassing, UI overhaul, or backend optimizations disguised as quality-of-life, the pattern holds. And the message received is not, “play how you want.” It’s: “opt in, or fall behind.”

MJallday · May 14

tomofhyrule wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

Im sorry , what communication exactly would you like?

Theyve told you what the update will be.
theyve provided patch notes, which are as far as i can tell comprehensive

theres nothing else to say is there?

But that's the thing: they're not comprehensive.

Let's even look past combat for a second - they changed the UI and the animations. We got a whole paragraph on why they are changing the animations because of saving space backend and the like, and then they pulled those changes in the last patch because it wasn't working. As for the UI, all we got was "we're modernizing it!" The feedback thread is on its 7th page and nothing has been said about why this was necessary despite near universal negative feedback.

That's something that could use a dev answer. "Hey, we're doing this because of reason X" would go a long way when it looks like someone just wanted to make the UI ugly for no reason. I mean, anyone can see that the new version of the group UI was just removing the alpha channel from the smudge, which means it now has an off-center black box in your face. Really? That's the finished product?!?

As for the combat feedback, so many people are pointing out issues with various OP skills (double-proc bow in PvP), or broken combos (slotting Grim Focus in PvE just gives a lot of WD/SD for free), or nerfs that were too heavy-handed (DK sustain being nuked because of the potential to get loads of ulti... which then also got nerfed in the form of Pillager). A simple "hey, we see what you're saying and we'll address that" or "yeah, but we actually want this setup to be OP for reason X" would make the community feel heard.

When we don't get anything from the devs, we'll start inventing reasons on our own, and people tend to assume the worst. As it is, a character who keeps their original Class without Subclassing will be underpowered compared to a subclass, and ZOS hasn't said anything along those lines. So... do they believe we should all "play as we want?" Because their actions make it sound like "Hey, we're introducing Subclassing, so you all had better go and subclass with your characters, and we're going to take away a lot of your power unless you do it." We don't know what their goal is - is it to give us freedom or to force us into Subclassing? But the fact that everything is going as it is makes it seem like their goal is for everyone to have to Subclass, they're just not saying it.

I think this is a strawman example, but i understand the premise

I think theres an unrealistic expectation from the wider community for Zos and its devs to explain themselves and the thing that everyone forgets - they dont have a duty to do so.

You pay your money, you make your choice - and only you can decide if you like it.

licenturion · May 14

sans-culottes wrote: »

When UI changes are made, reversed, and then redeployed with no clarity on purpose

Since we get nothing of communication on this (even when there was zero positive feedback) I think some changes like this are not driven by developers but more by marketing with stuff like 'our findings has found if we make the UI more modern the game will resonate more with younger new players during a free to play weekend'

I new from the start that the new UI push would go through no matter what and without any communication. With UI stuff it is always like that in every company, no matter how much outrage there is. But at that point I wonder why bother rolling that out on PTS if no input is being used at all.

tomofhyrule · May 14

MJallday wrote: »

tomofhyrule wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

Im sorry , what communication exactly would you like?

Theyve told you what the update will be.
theyve provided patch notes, which are as far as i can tell comprehensive

theres nothing else to say is there?

But that's the thing: they're not comprehensive.

Let's even look past combat for a second - they changed the UI and the animations. We got a whole paragraph on why they are changing the animations because of saving space backend and the like, and then they pulled those changes in the last patch because it wasn't working. As for the UI, all we got was "we're modernizing it!" The feedback thread is on its 7th page and nothing has been said about why this was necessary despite near universal negative feedback.

That's something that could use a dev answer. "Hey, we're doing this because of reason X" would go a long way when it looks like someone just wanted to make the UI ugly for no reason. I mean, anyone can see that the new version of the group UI was just removing the alpha channel from the smudge, which means it now has an off-center black box in your face. Really? That's the finished product?!?

As for the combat feedback, so many people are pointing out issues with various OP skills (double-proc bow in PvP), or broken combos (slotting Grim Focus in PvE just gives a lot of WD/SD for free), or nerfs that were too heavy-handed (DK sustain being nuked because of the potential to get loads of ulti... which then also got nerfed in the form of Pillager). A simple "hey, we see what you're saying and we'll address that" or "yeah, but we actually want this setup to be OP for reason X" would make the community feel heard.

When we don't get anything from the devs, we'll start inventing reasons on our own, and people tend to assume the worst. As it is, a character who keeps their original Class without Subclassing will be underpowered compared to a subclass, and ZOS hasn't said anything along those lines. So... do they believe we should all "play as we want?" Because their actions make it sound like "Hey, we're introducing Subclassing, so you all had better go and subclass with your characters, and we're going to take away a lot of your power unless you do it." We don't know what their goal is - is it to give us freedom or to force us into Subclassing? But the fact that everything is going as it is makes it seem like their goal is for everyone to have to Subclass, they're just not saying it.

I think this is a strawman example, but i understand the premise

I think theres an unrealistic expectation from the wider community for Zos and its devs to explain themselves and the thing that everyone forgets - they dont have a duty to do so.

You pay your money, you make your choice - and only you can decide if you like it.

No, ZOS doesn't have a duty to explain themselves.

On the other hand, the players don't have a duty to test the changes on PTS to find bugs. The players don't have a duty to play the game on live if the changes are intolerable. The players don't have a duty to continue financially supporting a game that doesn't care about their experience.

A little going out of one's way to make connections can go a long way.

Daoin · May 14

tomofhyrule wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

tomofhyrule wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

Im sorry , what communication exactly would you like?

Theyve told you what the update will be.
theyve provided patch notes, which are as far as i can tell comprehensive

theres nothing else to say is there?

But that's the thing: they're not comprehensive.

Let's even look past combat for a second - they changed the UI and the animations. We got a whole paragraph on why they are changing the animations because of saving space backend and the like, and then they pulled those changes in the last patch because it wasn't working. As for the UI, all we got was "we're modernizing it!" The feedback thread is on its 7th page and nothing has been said about why this was necessary despite near universal negative feedback.

That's something that could use a dev answer. "Hey, we're doing this because of reason X" would go a long way when it looks like someone just wanted to make the UI ugly for no reason. I mean, anyone can see that the new version of the group UI was just removing the alpha channel from the smudge, which means it now has an off-center black box in your face. Really? That's the finished product?!?

As for the combat feedback, so many people are pointing out issues with various OP skills (double-proc bow in PvP), or broken combos (slotting Grim Focus in PvE just gives a lot of WD/SD for free), or nerfs that were too heavy-handed (DK sustain being nuked because of the potential to get loads of ulti... which then also got nerfed in the form of Pillager). A simple "hey, we see what you're saying and we'll address that" or "yeah, but we actually want this setup to be OP for reason X" would make the community feel heard.

When we don't get anything from the devs, we'll start inventing reasons on our own, and people tend to assume the worst. As it is, a character who keeps their original Class without Subclassing will be underpowered compared to a subclass, and ZOS hasn't said anything along those lines. So... do they believe we should all "play as we want?" Because their actions make it sound like "Hey, we're introducing Subclassing, so you all had better go and subclass with your characters, and we're going to take away a lot of your power unless you do it." We don't know what their goal is - is it to give us freedom or to force us into Subclassing? But the fact that everything is going as it is makes it seem like their goal is for everyone to have to Subclass, they're just not saying it.

I think this is a strawman example, but i understand the premise

I think theres an unrealistic expectation from the wider community for Zos and its devs to explain themselves and the thing that everyone forgets - they dont have a duty to do so.

You pay your money, you make your choice - and only you can decide if you like it.

No, ZOS doesn't have a duty to explain themselves.

On the other hand, the players don't have a duty to test the changes on PTS to find bugs. The players don't have a duty to play the game on live if the changes are intolerable. The players don't have a duty to continue financially supporting a game that doesn't care about their experience.

A little going out of one's way to make connections can go a long way.

i would argue pts testers do not pts to specifically find bugs anyway, all as i see is a promotion grounds and rules bent to serve the few

CameraBeardThePirate · May 14

MJallday wrote: »

Im sorry , what communication exactly would you like?

Theyve told you what the update will be.
theyve provided patch notes, which are as far as i can tell comprehensive

theres nothing else to say is there?

what you (everyone) appears to be criticising and questioning is the decision of the change, and effect of the change. not the communication.

its not up to ZOS to justify their decisions, design, commercial or otherwise.

the only decision to make is whether you want to continue to pay for their product. and only you can answer that.

How about commenting on the fact that they broke multi corpse consumers in PvP with the corpse adjustments? They've literally made an ultimate unusable in PvP by accident, and across multiple weeks of posts, pings, and comments, have remained silent on the issue.

ZOS literally asks us to provide feedback on this forum. If they're going to ignore major issues that get pointed out, why should we bother to provide the feedback in the first place?

Joy_Division · May 14

MJallday wrote: »

Im sorry , what communication exactly would you like?

Theyve told you what the update will be.
theyve provided patch notes, which are as far as i can tell comprehensive

theres nothing else to say is there?

what you (everyone) appears to be criticising and questioning is the decision of the change, and effect of the change. not the communication.

its not up to ZOS to justify their decisions, design, commercial or otherwise.

the only decision to make is whether you want to continue to pay for their product. and only you can answer that.

Having been an active member of the "PTS community" during the first dramatic combat revision (the 1.6 patch with CP), the difference between developer communication then and now is night and day. Every week during that PTS cycle there were combat changes, and quite a bit of them.

I would say the same thing about the next major combat revision, Morrowind. Oh boy did a lot of people dislike that patch and made their feelings known. ZOS did not change their vision, I didn't like it, but at least they communicated throughout the patch and told us why they were taking the approach and what was their vision.

In general, ZOS's communication in the early days of ESO was so much better. I remember the devs actually hoping into Teamspeak (that's how long ago this was) with our guilds and asking us for feedback, while telling us what they were trying to accomplish.

Even if I didn't agree with their decisions, it motivated me to actually get on the PTS, test things, and offer ZOS suggestions because I thought issues were getting attention. I still remember the PTS where the old combat dev gave the infamous "house" analogy for templars. OK, we didn;t agree with that (for years and years, that Templar that on the PTS was the longest forum thread ever on the entire forums), but at least there was communication, and some things were (eventually) smoothed out.

So, there is a lot more to say.

I'm not asking them to justify their decisions. But because MMOs are a continuing developing project (unlike most products than when purchased are a one time transaction and won't change), I would like some insight into where the devs feel they are, where they want to go, and what are some of the things that were unexpected that have come up in the PTS process that they are looking to work on. It's not an unreasonable ask. They are trying to sell us on a season. I would like to know what I am paying for. Right, I can just walk away and not buy the product. But why does the relationship between ZOS and its customers have to be cold, non-existent, and take-it-or-leave-it? It once wasn't. t would be nice to try and get back to that.

ItsNotLiving · May 14

I’ve honestly never seen any game forum where people have to literally beg for any kind of response on such a massive game changing update. Kind of sad.

tomofhyrule · May 14

Let's even look at a more recent example: Vengeance.

They announced Vengeance, and instantly everyone feared "omg template PvP with no more theorycrafting!" So what happened? We were asked to test it on PTS. The Devs even asked everyone to get onto the PTS at a specific time and they tried to break the game. We were told this would go live for a single week of testing. They did a livestream specifically to answer questions. They made an entire Q&A specifically on Vengeance.

That was a lot of communication. That made people feel comfortable about it. That definitely felt like they were testing something and trying to help the community.

On the other hand: Subclassing. "Hey, we're dropping this thing that we haven't really bothered to balance, but at least casuals will have fun with it. Who cares if it's OP though, because nobody cares about the endgamers, amirite? Also the only balance we're doing is to nerf a few class lines, and if you don't like it we expect you to Subclass because there's literally nobody who wants to play a pure class anymore, right?"
Nothing else. It will go live, and people will find busted techniques. People will complain that their DPS went down because they picked skill lines based on aesthetics and not min-maxing, and endgame content will increase their requirements because the top end increased.

There are ways that they could have done Subclassing to cater to casuals and endgamers both, but instead we have something that pits those playerbases against each other. There are explanations and balancing they could have done based on our feedback to make the final product not demand three specific setups and all else being garbage-tier. There are things they could have done to make everyone feel heard and valued.
And above all, a radical change like this could have been presented more than 6 weeks out so that people could have given feedback on what to balance over a longer period instead of literally one major combat rebalance at week 4 (which had very few changes in the first place).

A lot of people wanted to believe Matt's letter where they said they'd be more focused on smaller changes that they could patch in smaller cycles, and that they were walking away from trying to crunch to release major things on a schedule. And yet... most of the stuff in U46 just completely feels rushed to meet a deadline.

We've been saying for a few cycles now that the PTS has gone from feeling more like a testing server to being a content creator's preview server where no feedback is accepted or even acknowledged. At this point, why even have a PTS anymore? Just go back to what we had pre-Summerset and let the favored few content creators get their screenshots so they can help hype the new thing, and let the plebs like us just wait and get whatever we get.

LukosCreyden · May 14

Regardless of people's personal opinions on the matter, there exists a disconnect between the developers and players. A disconnect that is on the developers to fix.
Necromancer is an example of this; the class is still a mess. GLS is a bad skill. The corpse problem that was brought into being by people who clearly did not think such a decision through,.or have no experience with necromancer in pvp and so had no idea it even could BE a problem.

Communication is awful. The dev highlights in the patch notes are not enough, the livestreams are just PR-fests with no real conversations, feedback threads are not receiving engagement from the devs.
And people wonder why folk on here get so salty. Most of that salt would genuinely vanish if Communication was good enough. "Are the devs otherwise engaged?" Can nobody take a little time to pop in and browse the forums and interact? Sure, they may get some of the more immature elements on the forum spewing nonsense at them, but honestly? Use adult behaviour.
Ignore 'em, ban 'em. Nothing to be scared of.

ForumBully · May 14

ItsNotLiving wrote: »

I’ve honestly never seen any game forum where people have to literally beg for any kind of response on such a massive game changing update. Kind of sad.

After a decade it's still impressive. It's made even more annoying by developer notes claiming they're making a change because of feedback that no one, anywhere, ever provided.
Remember all those posts about the difficulty of using Merciless Resolve at 5 stacks? Me neither.

Aldoss · May 14

Wowee.

Another PTS cycle. Another excellent post from @Joy_Division. Crickets from ZOS.

I don't care anymore to waste my time in this void, but there was one thing mentioned that I hope to clear up for other people:

licenturion wrote: »

I assume they will just release it and see what the player base does with it and buff/nerf outliers with quick hotfixes instead of waiting for the quarterly big patch.

The above quote is a pipe dream. That ship has sailed long ago and ZOS will never again be a company that makes hotfixes to patch broken systems or broken content.

What things do they hotfx? The important stuff... you know... when the Crown Store gets broken or when someone finds a way to buy something for free. That stuff gets hotfixed.

Combat will never be hotfixed. Systems will never be hotfixed. If anyone is reading this and hasn't been around for long, you should know that broken combat mechanics linger in this game longer than anything I've ever seen.

Go read @CameraBeardThePirate's thread on necros this patch. It isn't hyperbole. They are literally (again) breaking an entire skill system for an entire class (that people paid real money for) and are doing nothing about it.

Even when the devs acknowledge that they purposefully broke something, but will "keep a watchful eye on it and make future changes", those changes can stagnate and get neglected for literal years before they ever, if they ever do, get looked at. (How many patches has it been now since ZOS said that they'd be giving GLS updates after they "let it cook"?)

ZOS has no interest in end game balance because that's not what keeps the company worth Billions of dollars.

@ZOS_MattFiror has plans for this game, but he is unwilling to share them honestly with the community that supports it, outside of his annual address which is just a PR letter for each year. @ZOS_RichLambert has a vision for this game, but won't come to the forums anymore, ever since the Twitch controversy. @ZOS_BrianWheeler likely has a treasure trove of insights to share regarding combat, but also won't come to the forums to discuss them.

They make decisions. Those decisions get published here for anyone to read. Some players choose to comment on the changes. Those comments are never actually read or relayed in any meaningful way. We sometimes get replied to by @ZOS_Kevin or @ZOS_JessicaFolsom, but they are not devs and clearly have no ability to advocate for the comments getting shared every PTS cycle by the players that choose to donate their time to give feedback on the decisions being published.

These are truths for how modern day ZOS conducts business.

The choice is yours as a player: either accept it and try to find facets of the game that you still find enjoyable or accept it and find something else to fill your time and money with.

My wife and I made our choice.

gc0018 · May 15

ZOS doesn't care. I think it is a good sign which means ESO became less important and most of the developers are leaving ESO for something greater like elder scroll 6!!

LukosCreyden · May 15

@gc0018 that'd be Bethesda. ZOS is different from Bethesda. ZOS are currently working on an as-of-yet unnamed second project.

Yudo · May 15

If their was a vision they would not deviate to this extend from class identity and core game mechanics built over a decade without clear motivation. I guess is also hard to share your vision with your customers when it boils down to shareholders wanting to make profit by cutting corners

They already made the decision when announcing subclassing. Now they are just managing the public accordingly. Great if they hear us, shouting into the void if not.

Minimum viable system to allows them to market the term "subclassing / 3000+ combo / new features" - OK
Simplify chapters and sell for the same. Cut some expenses, skip cinematics - OK
Sales metrics going as expected - OK

They are done.
But I'm done too.

SkaiFaith · May 15

While it's surely possible to agree that it feels like there's been silence from devs this PTS cycle, I also have the feeling there's been "players silence" - I'm not saying players haven't made their voice heard, but it seems to me there have been fewer inputs from players than past PTS cycles.

I think I didn't hear anything about the new Trial. The dedicated feedback page is almost empty and YouTube algorithm didn't show me any video about it (which is unusual).
I tried searching for an image of the new Event Mount and... Not a single one in the whole internet.

As I said, it feels like fewer players engaged, so maybe as a result devs didn't talk much. Maybe they got less data than they expected.

Renato90085 · May 15

SkaiFaith wrote: »

While it's surely possible to agree that it feels like there's been silence from devs this PTS cycle, I also have the feeling there's been "players silence" - I'm not saying players haven't made their voice heard, but it seems to me there have been fewer inputs from players than past PTS cycles.

I think I didn't hear anything about the new Trial. The dedicated feedback page is almost empty and YouTube algorithm didn't show me any video about it (which is unusual).
I tried searching for an image of the new Event Mount and... Not a single one in the whole internet.

As I said, it feels like fewer players engaged, so maybe as a result devs didn't talk much. Maybe they got less data than they expected.

here have mount
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/676340/new-trial-mount-skin-pts#latest

and my friend have some in PTS doing hard mode but not many,zos change 2(3?)time new trial in 3/4 patch, so we are waiting live patch
but they discussed more about leaving the game or not .

necro_the_crafter · May 15

when peeople point out an issue on the pts I expect ZoS to respond either with acknowledgment, or with explanation of why its not an issue.

Lets take corpse changes and pet limits, telling us something would be helpful to the necromancer community, because such a change renders some abilities utterly useless.

So, by having a definite answer from devs, If they are looking for ways to change this limitaion, or that limits would stay, but necros skills would be reworked to reflect this new "performance fix", players can definitevly decide for themself if they have to adjust their builds, itemization, hop on another class or take a break from the game.

And having no signals from the devs just leads to frustration on a players part, then frustration leads to indifference. Once you stop caring about the changes, you probably dont care about the game anymore, wich means you stop playing the game and stop spending money on their products. In the end they are just losing customers over a post comment that would cost them practically nothing to write.

ForumBully · May 15

Poor communication is sort of tradition here. Every now and then, they acknowledge that at least.

sans-culottes · May 15

necro_the_crafter wrote: »

when peeople point out an issue on the pts I expect ZoS to respond either with acknowledgment, or with explanation of why its not an issue.

Lets take corpse changes and pet limits, telling us something would be helpful to the necromancer community, because such a change renders some abilities utterly useless.

So, by having a definite answer from devs, If they are looking for ways to change this limitaion, or that limits would stay, but necros skills would be reworked to reflect this new "performance fix", players can definitevly decide for themself if they have to adjust their builds, itemization, hop on another class or take a break from the game.

And having no signals from the devs just leads to frustration on a players part, then frustration leads to indifference. Once you stop caring about the changes, you probably dont care about the game anymore, wich means you stop playing the game and stop spending money on their products. In the end they are just losing customers over a post comment that would cost them practically nothing to write.

Agreed with @necro_the_crafter. The silence in response to feedback—especially around something as central and class-defining as corpse mechanics—speaks volumes.

It’s not just about communication for its own sake. It’s about giving players the information they need to make real decisions. If major changes are going live that gut core mechanics like corpse usage, and if Necromancer players are left guessing whether this is temporary, a design shift, or a permanent limitation, then that isn’t transparency.

And yes, @SkaiFaith, player engagement is down. But why wouldn’t it be? When feedback threads yield silence, when core class functionality breaks in PTS and nothing is said, and when even longform, high-effort posts receive no acknowledgment, the message is clear: this feedback loop is ornamental, not operational.

Players aren’t just giving up out of nowhere. They’re responding to the dynamic ZOS has created. You cannot ask for feedback and then ghost the people who give it. And when people stop posting, it isn’t apathy. It’s resignation.

@ZOS_Kevin, you frequently invoke improved communication. But when players raise urgent, detailed concerns—whether about Necromancer functionality, broken subclassing synergies, or gutted abilities—we’re met with silence.

You’ve said communication is a priority. Players are begging for it. So what are we to believe? The silence isn’t neutral. It’s shaping the narrative far more loudly than any patch note ever could.

Ragnarok0130 · May 15

Erickson9610 wrote: »

It's still communication even if it's something you don't want to hear.

They have to actually say something to be communication. Yes silence is a message but it’s not communication.

IncultaWolf · May 15

I think most of us would rather hear something we don't want to hear, than just complete silence. Every year we get told "we'll do better with communication" but then we have things like this happen again every pts cycle. Like an abusive relationship 💔

Not much to be done at this point in the games life I guess, feels like maintenance mode now. I mostly stopped giving my feedback after stalking blastbones got destroyed despite every single necromancer player in-game and on these forums being against the rework. Update 35 jabs change was pretty bad too.

licenturion · May 15

While I understand that players — myself included — want prompt answers to all their concerns and questions, some of the expectations I’ve seen here don’t reflect how things typically work in large organizations.

At my company, I’m the endpoint everything IT-related. Our developers aren't expected to spend time on forums or social media discussing issues directly with customers. That kind of interaction isn’t a good use of their time and can expose them to toxicity, which ultimately impacts their productivity.

Similarly, I can't just walk up to a developer, ask a question, and then immediately share their response with customers. There are established protocols around what can and cannot be communicated. We must follow a defined communication and approval process, which is managed by a separate department. They coordinate most of the messaging and hold internal “antenna meetings” with the relevant stakeholders working behind the scenes giving their input. All of this is usually stuff on top of the actual work of people and is only done ad hoc in extreme emergencies. So when I have specific development related questions, I don't expect an answer within a week.

sans-culottes · May 15

licenturion wrote: »

While I understand that players — myself included — want prompt answers to all their concerns and questions, some of the expectations I’ve seen here don’t reflect how things typically work in large organizations.

At my company, I’m the endpoint everything IT-related. Our developers aren't expected to spend time on forums or social media discussing issues directly with customers. That kind of interaction isn’t a good use of their time and can expose them to toxicity, which ultimately impacts their productivity.

Similarly, I can't just walk up to a developer, ask a question, and then immediately share their response with customers. There are established protocols around what can and cannot be communicated. We must follow a defined communication and approval process, which is managed by a separate department. They coordinate most of the messaging and hold internal “antenna meetings” with the relevant stakeholders working behind the scenes giving their input. All of this is usually stuff on top of the actual work of people and is only done ad hoc in extreme emergencies. So when I have specific development related questions, I don't expect an answer within a week.

I don’t think anyone is demanding weekly AMA streams with the entire design staff. But what you’re describing is a firewall. And players aren’t asking for trade secrets. They’re asking for basic accountability and engagement on systems that materially affect the way the game is played.

Yes, companies have PR filters. But let’s not pretend the problem here is process. Ion Hazzikostas and Ghostcrawler—both working on games with exponentially larger teams and far more corporate red tape—somehow managed to show up, field questions, and acknowledge thorny issues. Not because it was easy, but because it was necessary. @ZOS_Kevin recently acknowledged this point, only to promptly dismiss it as a luxury reserved for larger teams, as if direct engagement were an extravagance rather than a choice about priorities.

The silence from ESO leadership isn’t about staff size. It’s about posture. Firor and Lambert seem either unwilling or unable to enter the arena of public feedback. Instead, we get curated responses to safe topics and a community team left holding the bag.

The result? An echo chamber of “We’re listening” with no referent, no follow-up, and no reflection of player concerns in the design trajectory.

It’s not about expecting miracles. It’s about the basic respect of treating the community as participants in the world they’re helping to sustain.

If the devs can’t—or won’t—speak plainly, then all we’re left with is patch notes and hope. And hope is not a roadmap.

Ragnarok0130 · May 15

gc0018 wrote: »

ZOS doesn't care. I think it is a good sign which means ESO became less important and most of the developers are leaving ESO for something greater like elder scroll 6!!

Thinking ZoS devs are moving to Bethesda for TES 6 development is a pipe dream. The only pace ZoS devs are likely moving to is ZoS’ new MMO. Unfortunately that means ESO will likely receive less attention and support in the mean time.

wolfie1.0. · May 15

Mayrael wrote: »

MorallyBipolar wrote: »

ForumBully wrote: »

If they give me Vengeance I'll spend more time in the game, otherwise...I can't see this making Cyrodiil better than it was when I decided to leave, so maybe not yet.

As a PvP main if they force vengeance mode on us I'll stop logging into the game all together. At that point ESO will be a completely different game than what I purchased in 2014 for the implicit purpose of PvP end game activities.

Same here. Vengeance was pitched to us as a test campaign, but it feels counterintuitive to ESO’s core—freedom to choose and build our characters however we want.

Edit:
About subclassing.

Subclassing is designed to be embraced. If you choose to stick with a "pure" class for personal reasons, that's just a self-imposed limit—nobody's forcing you to stay pure; it's your own mindset (just like staying pure magicka or pure stamina would be)

The ability to mix and match skill lines is a nod to players of less competitive classes, bringing them closer to the S+ tier. Many players don’t want to juggle multiple characters just to stay efficient. They’d rather invest in one character without feeling punished for a suboptimal choice or being forced to start over due to balance changes in updates.

This ties into another big plus: balance and future updates. With subclassing, we can look forward to patches with hope instead of dread. In the past, players feared their class getting nerfed or others being buffed. Now, you can simply swap skill lines and adapt. Sure, it gives meta-chasers more options, but overall, it makes balancing the game much easier.

As for communication, ZOS doesn’t have to bend to every player’s demands. They’re sharing their plans and vision, and they’re moving forward with it. We can voice our disappointment, but that doesn’t mean they’ll abandon their direction. They might make tweaks, but the core plan stays intact.

It makes balancing harder not easier. Rather than balancing each class as a whole they now will have to balance each skill line against each other and there are now less options to choose from for said balancing.

As for communication, ya your right zos doesn't have to do anything, and isn't obligated to communicate. But that doesn't bring players in, that doesn't encourage playtime and player investment in the game. That doesn't encourage crown purchases and subs.

As for subclassing...one of the reasons I feel this is happening is that zos wants the option of releasing class skill lines instead of full classes in the future. Allowing them to not have to do a full new class.

Ragnarok0130 · May 15

SkaiFaith wrote: »

While it's surely possible to agree that it feels like there's been silence from devs this PTS cycle, I also have the feeling there's been "players silence" - I'm not saying players haven't made their voice heard, but it seems to me there have been fewer inputs from players than past PTS cycles.

I think I didn't hear anything about the new Trial. The dedicated feedback page is almost empty and YouTube algorithm didn't show me any video about it (which is unusual).
I tried searching for an image of the new Event Mount and... Not a single one in the whole internet.

As I said, it feels like fewer players engaged, so maybe as a result devs didn't talk much. Maybe they got less data than they expected.

U35 and how our feedback was ignored almost wholesale is where player feedback on PTS began to wane. Unlike with U35 the devs aren’t even trying to appear interested in our feedback on subclassing so lack of interaction with the devs is taking a toll on the already waning player support for the PTS. We are all familiar with the colloquialism “it takes two to tango”; the PTS players are waiting on the dance floor but the devs are at the bar uninterested in dancing with us.

Dalsinthus · May 15

SkaiFaith wrote: »

While it's surely possible to agree that it feels like there's been silence from devs this PTS cycle, I also have the feeling there's been "players silence" - I'm not saying players haven't made their voice heard, but it seems to me there have been fewer inputs from players than past PTS cycles.

I think I didn't hear anything about the new Trial. The dedicated feedback page is almost empty and YouTube algorithm didn't show me any video about it (which is unusual).
I tried searching for an image of the new Event Mount and... Not a single one in the whole internet.

As I said, it feels like fewer players engaged, so maybe as a result devs didn't talk much. Maybe they got less data than they expected.

I've noticed the same. This is undoubtedly the biggest change to our characters in the history of the game, but there is relatively little buzz or conversation happening in the forums and channels that I frequent. When they changed the Bosmer stealth passive we had a 100 page thread, but here the subclassing feedback thread has like 7 or 8 pages total of feedback. I go to YouTube daily and have only seen a small number of creators posting about this (notably Skinny, Ninjapulls, 8pups). Yes there are threads like this one but it seems rather quiet for the scale of the change we're about to experience.

To me this new system seems very half baked and not ready for launch. I'm very nervous for what is coming.

SkaiFaith · May 15

Renato90085 wrote: »

SkaiFaith wrote: »

While it's surely possible to agree that it feels like there's been silence from devs this PTS cycle, I also have the feeling there's been "players silence" - I'm not saying players haven't made their voice heard, but it seems to me there have been fewer inputs from players than past PTS cycles.

I think I didn't hear anything about the new Trial. The dedicated feedback page is almost empty and YouTube algorithm didn't show me any video about it (which is unusual).
I tried searching for an image of the new Event Mount and... Not a single one in the whole internet.

As I said, it feels like fewer players engaged, so maybe as a result devs didn't talk much. Maybe they got less data than they expected.

here have mount
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/676340/new-trial-mount-skin-pts#latest

and my friend have some in PTS doing hard mode but not many,zos change 2(3?)time new trial in 3/4 patch, so we are waiting live patch
but they discussed more about leaving the game or not .

Thank you but I was talking about the Event Mount, the one that comes from the Event Tickets - "Julianos Law Dwarven Spider" or something along this line, can't recall the specific name, sorry...

tomofhyrule · May 15

SkaiFaith wrote: »

Renato90085 wrote: »

SkaiFaith wrote: »

While it's surely possible to agree that it feels like there's been silence from devs this PTS cycle, I also have the feeling there's been "players silence" - I'm not saying players haven't made their voice heard, but it seems to me there have been fewer inputs from players than past PTS cycles.

I think I didn't hear anything about the new Trial. The dedicated feedback page is almost empty and YouTube algorithm didn't show me any video about it (which is unusual).
I tried searching for an image of the new Event Mount and... Not a single one in the whole internet.

As I said, it feels like fewer players engaged, so maybe as a result devs didn't talk much. Maybe they got less data than they expected.

here have mount
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/676340/new-trial-mount-skin-pts#latest

and my friend have some in PTS doing hard mode but not many,zos change 2(3?)time new trial in 3/4 patch, so we are waiting live patch
but they discussed more about leaving the game or not .

Thank you but I was talking about the Event Mount, the one that comes from the Event Tickets - "Julianos Law Dwarven Spider" or something along this line, can't recall the specific name, sorry...

Here it is.