The thing is everyone wants the Developers to listen to them, they want communication and explanations.
However the moment one says something like "one idea was AP caps" the community turns into a pitch fork and torch wielding mob throwing insults and rude comments out.
The community has also demanded developers lose their jobs because they're "incompetent" many times. If you want the developers to actually listen to you and respect you start acting like someone (or a community) which deserves that respect. Additionally your view and the views of these forums are still only a fraction of this games player base, maybe we're the more vocal and invested members but that doesn't mean we have all the information required to understand what's happening.
Simply enough start looking at making constructive threads and give feedback and information in a way which developers like Wrobel can come and look at it, see what you're talking about and walk away without filtering through all the hyperbol and rage without actual factual evidence to back it up.
There is a link in my signature to a post I made early on in ESO's release. It's taken from the EVE Online forums and is a breakdown from a developer about what makes a post useful to him. If you really want to provide feedback which get looked at and listened to read that and try to post that way.
Lastly, just because they don't go with your idea doesn't mean they're not listening, end of the day this is still their game and they can make the choices they want. If you're really not happy with that go and find another MMO which satisfies your needs more.
/endrant
Animal_Mother wrote: »ZOS - DLC sells subs. Patches don't. You'll have your Thieves Guild and like it.
I believe users are the testers, so most changes will only be rolled out with a DLC because that is the only time we the users test changes on the PTS.
Time and again we see "simple" changes either not work or cause other problems. I believe their approach is not unreasonable based on historical problems and performance. That does not mean I like it.
I would suggest that they paper trial balancing and class changes BEFORE dropping them to the PTS. By this I mean, communicating to the users what they are thinking of doing to get our feedback BEFORE HAND.
He also said exactly why they're large releases and not small patches.
Because they go through extensive debate/testing both by ZOS and us before they go live. That wouldn't be as thorough is they were in the incremental patches.
He also said exactly why they're large releases and not small patches.
Because they go through extensive debate/testing both by ZOS and us before they go live. That wouldn't be as thorough is they were in the incremental patches.
Well, CCP, who run EVE online do that as well very carefully and there is even a board of elected players who work together with the Devs - this is ok for bigger changes, which have to be done with care and have a longer development cycle (as in weeks) - but bug fixes have to be done a lot quicker and are done by CCP in a very responsive way - this makes us players feel as if they care and they actually do - I do not have the same feeling with ZOS, otherwise simple bugs would be fixed within days and medium ones within a week. But of course, if a company does not care about a quality product, nothing will help.
The CSM have to my knowledge never been effective in stopping bad changes, nor been involved in balance changes.
Take the nerf to nullsec bounties and the "extra cash maker" structure, or the recent SP injectors where most CSM members said they were horrible ideas but CCP rolled them out any way.
I fully agree CCP has better communication and speed on issues, however they also have much bigger teams and a different development/company structure to my understanding. CCP reports to CCP, ZOS reports to Zenimax.
Again it took CCP a long time to reach where they are now, and only after the slap in the face which was the Incarna/Monocle debatable.
EVE Online also benefits from daily downtimes, meaning they're able to release a patch every day without additional downtimes, if ZOS were to release a patch more than once a week people would scream bloody murder (as we see any time a server restart/emergency patch is released).
Don't get me wrong here, I would LOVE to see ZOS work the same way as CCP however I feel they're far too different as companies and developers. Still, ZOS have listened to some of the feedback offered from us about how CCP have successfully done thing, for example the lists of changes threads we now see for expansions testing.
WalkingLegacy wrote: »
Why would you think that?
Lol, in this chain the there is the following quote used about ZOS fixes: "they go through extensive debate/testing both by ZOS and us before they go live." That ZOS debate/testing process consists of:
"Eric, they are yelling about all the bugs they found on the PTS again."
"Whiners. Just tell 'em we'll be on it in an upcoming patch, Gina, but don't say which one. Then pass me the pizza, babe."
gw2only1b14_ESO wrote: »
Actually fits more in line with:
"Now you have a million game designers, a million arm chair developers, a million CEOs [telling us what to do],"
to those not aware of other mmos woes:
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/star-citizen-creator-wishes-hed-explained-games-de/1100-6434856/
WalkingLegacy wrote: »
The vast difference is Star Citizen is still in Alpha!!! ESO is live...
And Cloud Emporium, a brand new Dev team, is quick to patch and fix bugs now that they understand their own back end tech.
Plus, they have weekly 'wtf is going' updates. They have a great one on one with their community.
gw2only1b14_ESO wrote: »
Kinda why it was posted....
Forestd16b14_ESO wrote: »Um.... You do know it takes more than a day or week to rebalance and program a entire MMORPG game right? So 2 months or 3 months for balancing and game changes in a MMORPG is pretty common.
WalkingLegacy wrote: »
You're assuming and trying to persuade us that their incremental patches are thorough, when they aren't.
There's taking time, and taking too much time. It is starting to become a trend on the experience of their QA team (if they even have one) and the skills and experience of Wrobel's team. The point of the thread is that bug fixes (broken skills, quests, animations, items, etc etc) balance changes (such as two similar skills but one is more favorable over the other or broken skills like Templar Charge) are NOT DLC contents.
Patch notes example on what class nerfs/buffs/fixes should look like:
Blizzard is starting a good trend with Developer comments on why they do something. This is something that other companies should mimic. I realize this a double edged sword though and listening to Wrobel's reasoning may cause a deep desire of head to keyboard smashing.
League has been doing this for awhile and of course it causes negative feedback from people who don't agree with the change but it allows for understanding and communication. If people disagree with a change, but don't know why it was implemented, they can't make sound arguments as to why the change was wrong or right. When devs actually explain their position, people can more effectively counter or accept the develop position. I suspect tESO don't want discussion from anyone except the secret guild meetings they hold with PC players.
As far as the actual topic of the post goes, I agree bugs need to be addressed significantly faster. BALANCE(balance does not equal bug) changes on the other hand should not happening left and right. Ideally, the game wouldn't need balance changes if it was done right the first time but that's obviously not possible. Balance changes should be tentative because the smallest tweak in numbers can have a huge negative impact. However, issues that are clearly not intended(bugs) need to be acknowledged and removed ASAP.
WalkingLegacy wrote: »
Yes but releasing a new game, next gen if you will, with the mentality of yesteryears then you're only hurting your game.
There are other MMOs other than EVE where hotfixes and back end client fixes are pushed without any down time or player side patches. (I'm not saying they should do this to fix the current issues - just an example of what is possible)
Stacking up fixes and waiting 3-4 months or more than 12 months in ZOS case, is not acceptable for a healthy MMO.
I'm not making excuses for mediocrity to succeed. I'm asking the team to look at this problem and fix it.
The CSM have to my knowledge never been effective in stopping bad changes, nor been involved in balance changes.
Take the nerf to nullsec bounties and the "extra cash maker" structure, or the recent SP injectors where most CSM members said they were horrible ideas but CCP rolled them out any way.
I fully agree CCP has better communication and speed on issues, however they also have much bigger teams and a different development/company structure to my understanding. CCP reports to CCP, ZOS reports to Zenimax.
Again it took CCP a long time to reach where they are now, and only after the slap in the face which was the Incarna/Monocle debatable.
EVE Online also benefits from daily downtimes, meaning they're able to release a patch every day without additional downtimes, if ZOS were to release a patch more than once a week people would scream bloody murder (as we see any time a server restart/emergency patch is released).
Don't get me wrong here, I would LOVE to see ZOS work the same way as CCP however I feel they're far too different as companies and developers. Still, ZOS have listened to some of the feedback offered from us about how CCP have successfully done thing, for example the lists of changes threads we now see for expansions testing.
The thing is everyone wants the Developers to listen to them, they want communication and explanations.
However the moment one says something like "one idea was AP caps" the community turns into a pitch fork and torch wielding mob throwing insults and rude comments out.
The community has also demanded developers lose their jobs because they're "incompetent" many times. If you want the developers to actually listen to you and respect you start acting like someone (or a community) which deserves that respect. Additionally your view and the views of these forums are still only a fraction of this games player base, maybe we're the more vocal and invested members but that doesn't mean we have all the information required to understand what's happening.
Simply enough start looking at making constructive threads and give feedback and information in a way which developers like Wrobel can come and look at it, see what you're talking about and walk away without filtering through all the hyperbol and rage without actual factual evidence to back it up.
There is a link in my signature to a post I made early on in ESO's release. It's taken from the EVE Online forums and is a breakdown from a developer about what makes a post useful to him. If you really want to provide feedback which get looked at and listened to read that and try to post that way.
Lastly, just because they don't go with your idea doesn't mean they're not listening, end of the day this is still their game and they can make the choices they want. If you're really not happy with that go and find another MMO which satisfies your needs more.
/endrant