Why I think the NDA is a good thing.

MashmalloMan

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

[Class Reps] Meeting Notes - September 25

Sorcerer Shields:

We also said that ZOS has hit sorcerer offensive capability pretty hard the past year, which makes the sort of build diversity they want harder. They acknowledged this and did more than insinuate that sorcerer offense is going to be reformed in the future (at one point, a dev asked out loud if they could be specific. They could not). We told them without these offensive changes it was asking too much to hit the sorcerers with a nerf to their defense first and make them wait for this vague promise in the future.

I cut this out to show some people an example as to why the NDA is a good thing for the community and class reps. I'm willing to bet ZOS has idea's in the pipeline scheduled for 3-12 months in advance and the future of their game and the design direction they want to take needs to be properly planned well in advance.

Under NDA, ZOS can be more vocal about upcoming changes. Imagine all the concerns or idea's they must receive when they already have design choices in their future development cycle that will touch on the changes people are looking for.

Being able to have a clearer and wider scope of the changes to the game ZOS has planned will ultimately allow the reps and ZOS to be more constructive.

AlienatedGoat

This is assuming that ZOS will be more open and vocal under the NDA, and that they will actually listen to the feedback from the Reps.

So far, the feedback from the Reps has been largely ignored. In the case of the Magicka/Sorc shields, ZOS had every opportunity to listen to the Reps and the community, and it didn't change a thing. It wasn't until they pushed ahead with their changes and the playerbase pushed back in anger that ZOS was willing to bend those changes even a little.

Sorry, but I can't be convinced that ZOS will suddenly be more amenable to listening to reasonable feedback from the Reps. I'll wait and see, of course, but thus far ZOS hasn't shown that inclination.

I don't think this is about transparency; it's about obscuring the process from the players.

ezio45

I dont think the Nda is a great idea, but I also dont think it hurts anything as people are suggesting. This will allow the reps to hear about zos "ideas" and the class reps will be able to inform them of how they think the community will take those changes and how the changes will impact gameplay.

What I would really like is for zos to do away with this developing behind the scenes bs. The class reps are great, I personally love the rep program. Its a good way to give zos player feedback about concerns regarding the classes. It would be better though if the whole community new what zos was planning and could relay the concerns they have to the reps. Again not saying I dont trust the class reps, I think they are the best chance of seeming the improvements this game needs.Them getting insight as to what changes the devs are making is a good thing. I just think the more transparency from zos the better.

The_Brosteen

Nda is good if you believe zos is competent and has detailed long term planning abilities. Its bad if you don't believe thats the case.

ccmedaddy

ezio45 wrote: »

It would be better though if the whole community new what zos was planning and could relay the concerns they have to the reps.

Hell no. Considering the fact that 90% of user input on the forums is complete garbarge, this would lead to an even bigger disaster than what this game is right now.

Androconium

there is already a discussion open on this

SirAndy

Phage wrote: »

This is assuming that ZOS will be more open and vocal under the NDA, and that they will actually listen to the feedback from the Reps.

I'm not so optimistic. I was part of a select group of players that were under NDA during the last 6 months of beta.
We had 24/7 access to a in-house ESO server that was not part of the public beta.

While we did have active interactions with the devs, we were largely ignored. We had a long list of issues right before PC launch for the version that we were testing and ZOS decided to go live with a version none of us had ever seen and which did not address the majority of the open issues.

If you were around for PC launch, you know what a debacle that was ...


I was also part of the "Council of Nirn", which was (still is?) a selected group of in-game guild leaders (after PC launch) that had regular meetings with the devs to give more streamlined feedback on the state of the game.
That too was pretty much a waste of time.

So, color me skeptical when it comes to this new "outreach program" ...

ezio45

ccmedaddy wrote: »

ezio45 wrote: »

It would be better though if the whole community new what zos was planning and could relay the concerns they have to the reps.

Hell no. Considering the fact that 90% of user input on the forums is complete garbarge, this would lead to an even bigger disaster than what this game is right now.

I dont really think so, alot of the concerns raised from murkimire have been very valid and go against what players what for the game. It would have been better if we got what changes were planned for murkimire before they were set to go live in a month.

Sure, if they release prospected changes in advance would people get mad about some of those changes? yes.

Its would be alot better though if zos was like ok, we think this is a problem. We are thinking about doing (blank) to address this in a few updates. What does the community think.

Instead we get. Ok, all of this is going live in a month. Deal with the changes and test for bugs because we probably dont even have time to fix the bugs much less make massive changes to our massive changes even though the entire community hates them.

Elsonso

The NDA is beneficial and should assist in what the Class Reps need to do.

The need for an NDA is the real problem. I question the need, at this point in the life of the game, for NDA level secrecy about class skills and item sets. NDAs are a pain in the butt. Something to be avoided, if possible. Even if they are planning to introduce a new class or skill line, I question whether the secrecy is really worth it. Certainly not for something like reformulating the Sorcerer skills. They should not be reformulating them, unless they plan on Spell Crafting.

ZOS is ZOS though, and we all know that when the US National Security Administration needs to update their policies for handling Top Secret data, they consult with the experts at ZOS.

In the end, my feeling is that the NDA signals some major changes in the game. New class, significant skill line, or combat turmoil due to spell crafting coming in the 2019 Chapter. Stuff that they need feedback on before they are done designing it.

MashmalloMan

lordrichter wrote: »

The NDA is beneficial and should assist in what the Class Reps need to do.

The need for an NDA is the real problem. I question the need, at this point in the life of the game, for NDA level secrecy about class skills and item sets. NDAs are a pain in the butt. Something to be avoided, if possible. Even if they are planning to introduce a new class or skill line, I question whether the secrecy is really worth it. Certainly not for something like reformulating the Sorcerer skills. They should not be reformulating them, unless they plan on Spell Crafting.

ZOS is ZOS though, and we all know that when the US National Security Administration needs to update their policies for handling Top Secret data, they consult with the experts at ZOS.

In the end, my feeling is that the NDA signals some major changes in the game. New class, significant skill line, or combat turmoil due to spell crafting coming in the 2019 Chapter. Stuff that they need feedback on before they are done designing it.

Yeah seems a bit silly and convoluted, but many of us can't pretend to understand the inner workings of a game development company. They could have someone like Bethesda requiring this of the developers so they can actually have a fully open dialogue about future plans. Were dealing with a game worth -insert a large amount of money- and a company like Bethesda with the huge footprint they have on the gaming industry, I'd imagine they don't have much understanding as to whats happening with ESO, but they want to cover any potential issues that could hurt further revenue with future sales. Could easily be seen as a problem when you start divulging design decisions with class reps, non paid community players and representatives.

Imagine ZOS tells the class rep's, "hey, this is our idea for our next expansion, we plan on releasing spell making that will help balance x, y and z, for class a, b and c." Well honestly, not everyone will be happy with the direction they take their game design and could hurt future sales if class rep's start to feed that information to the community and people are unhappy with it.

Just my 2 cents.

VaranisArano

I'm not sure why people think ZOS listening to player/rep feedback means that ZOS will do what the players/reps want.

ZOS just made it pretty clear that it doesn't, NDA or not.

In their statement, ZOS said "While we greatly value their (Class Reps) input, decisions regarding the direction of the game still fall squarely on the development team."

Essentially, the Devs do what they want. So manage your expectations accordingly.

Waffennacht

Reps were a medium for players to communicate to the devs

Not entirely sure how silencing them is to our benefit.

Especially when you know the reps.

There is like two I feel really do represent how I feel

idk

While I agree that the NDA can be beneficial for reasons in line with what OP suggests, what OP quoted demonstrates one important thing.

That quote demonstrates Zos will not listen to logic. At the core Zos has had a management issue all along.

It is why the game launched in what was pretty much a beta stage. Poor management was at the core. It is why Zos has made knee jerk changes, because poor management has lacked or has not instilled a vision in how this game should be played an developed. As long at that one constant remains in play we will continue to see the same results.

Vapirko

VaranisArano wrote: »

I'm not sure why people think ZOS listening to player/rep feedback means that ZOS will do what the players/reps want.

ZOS just made it pretty clear that it doesn't, NDA or not.

In their statement, ZOS said "While we greatly value their (Class Reps) input, decisions regarding the direction of the game still fall squarely on the development team."

Essentially, the Devs do what they want. So manage your expectations accordingly.

Yes of course they do what they want. They’re paid employees and it’s their game for better or worse. Obviously class reps won’t be able to override their decision. That should be obvious and unsurprising. It’s also removing the reps from the line of fire.

VaranisArano

Waffennacht wrote: »

Reps were a medium for players to communicate to the devs

Not entirely sure how silencing them is to our benefit.

Especially when you know the reps.

There is like two I feel really do represent how I feel

Prior to Murkmire, the communication cycle looked like:

Players <--> Class Reps --> Devs --> Patch Notes

So prior to Murkmire, players and Class reps could discuss everything freely, but the Devs couldn't talk to the Class Reps, and could only listen, which created some issues and situations where the feedback wasn't helpful.

Now, the communication goes like:

Players--> Class Reps <--> Devs --> Patch Notes.

Theoretically players should still be able to communicate their concerns to the Class Reps. The Class Reps just might not be able to respond in quite the free ranging discussion as before. However, the Devs can now more freely discuss things with the Reps, getting better feedback. However, game development comes only from the Devs, as always.

Now, for how it will work out practically? I dunno. It might turn out better for the game development, but I don't know that players will feel any more listened to.

Vapirko

Waffennacht wrote: »

Reps were a medium for players to communicate to the devs

Not entirely sure how silencing them is to our benefit.

Especially when you know the reps.

There is like two I feel really do represent how I feel

And they will still be a medium, they’ll just have greater leeway to discuss more in depth changes with ZOS. What they can’t do is pass certain information from the devs to us, which they weren’t doing anyway, so no change there. It’s not like the devs were giving them secret info before. For example previously they might have only been able to discuss immediate upcoming changes, that pretty much everyone knew about already and it’s too late to make big alterations. Now however, it’s more likely they can discuss future plans and try to get a sense from players whether the changes are good beforehand and make necessary changes prior to PTS so that PTS can be used for bugs and not big last minute changes

Galalin

This is not going to make a shred of difference ZoS has proven time and time again they dont listen to feedback until there is sheer and utter outrage by the masses. A few class reps raising concerns will do nothing. ZoS will dismiss them as usual it's just more smoke and mirrors and the class reps are to involved to see this because they want to feel important.

VaranisArano

Vapirko wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

I'm not sure why people think ZOS listening to player/rep feedback means that ZOS will do what the players/reps want.

ZOS just made it pretty clear that it doesn't, NDA or not.

In their statement, ZOS said "While we greatly value their (Class Reps) input, decisions regarding the direction of the game still fall squarely on the development team."

Essentially, the Devs do what they want. So manage your expectations accordingly.

Yes of course they do what they want. They’re paid employees and it’s their game for better or worse. Obviously class reps won’t be able to override their decision. That should be obvious and unsurprising. It’s also removing the reps from the line of fire.

And yet people continue to be surprised, or at the very least, have unrealistic expectations for what the class Reps should be able to accomplish, judging by the continued whing about how the Devs arent listening to players (read that as doing what players want). Frankly, I realized the devs do what they want when the Morrowind Sustain Nerfs happened, so this is no surprise for me, unlike many who were so unpleasantly surprised by Murkmire.

I agree that's the intent of this statement by ZOS - to take responsibility for the game development all on the Dev team, not the Reps. I'm not sure they managed it, though I'm hopeful. The Class Reps didn't deserve what got heaped on them over Murkmire.

But the flip side of saying "The Dev team likes their advice but does what we want" is that we get things like Murkmire, which leave the community slapping on the jade-colored glasses when it comes to player input actually being taken into account.

There's always an element of "take it or leave it" when it comes to developing games. With Murkmire, ZOS said "Take it or leave it," and this is just reiterating that. To paraphrase, "Yes, we've got the Class Reps, and we want their advice, but ultimately, we make the choices to listen or not and you can take it or leave it."

I'm not sure its a good or a bad thing - its just how ZOS has chosen to run ESO. So again, players need to manage their expectations accordingly.

Elsonso

Marshall1289 wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

The NDA is beneficial and should assist in what the Class Reps need to do.

The need for an NDA is the real problem. I question the need, at this point in the life of the game, for NDA level secrecy about class skills and item sets. NDAs are a pain in the butt. Something to be avoided, if possible. Even if they are planning to introduce a new class or skill line, I question whether the secrecy is really worth it. Certainly not for something like reformulating the Sorcerer skills. They should not be reformulating them, unless they plan on Spell Crafting.

ZOS is ZOS though, and we all know that when the US National Security Administration needs to update their policies for handling Top Secret data, they consult with the experts at ZOS.

In the end, my feeling is that the NDA signals some major changes in the game. New class, significant skill line, or combat turmoil due to spell crafting coming in the 2019 Chapter. Stuff that they need feedback on before they are done designing it.

Yeah seems a bit silly and convoluted, but many of us can't pretend to understand the inner workings of a game development company. They could have someone like Bethesda requiring this of the developers so they can actually have a fully open dialogue about future plans. Were dealing with a game worth -insert a large amount of money- and a company like Bethesda with the huge footprint they have on the gaming industry, I'd imagine they don't have much understanding as to whats happening with ESO, but they want to cover any potential issues that could hurt further revenue with future sales. Could easily be seen as a problem when you start divulging design decisions with class reps, non paid community players and representatives.

Imagine ZOS tells the class rep's, "hey, this is our idea for our next expansion, we plan on releasing spell making that will help balance x, y and z, for class a, b and c." Well honestly, not everyone will be happy with the direction they take their game design and could hurt future sales if class rep's start to feed that information to the community and people are unhappy with it.

Just my 2 cents.

Like I said, ZOS is ZOS. They share the "corporate culture" with other Zenimax Media enterprises, but ZOS is still ZOS. Bethesda is not sitting in the background pulling strings to make ZOS do an NDA. I am pretty sure that is all ZOS.

ZOS will say that they don't want early prototype designs getting out into the public. That actually happened with Champion System. People expected one thing, got another. The problem was not that ZOS released early design data. The problem was that ZOS released early design data, and then clammed up and waited to tell people that it changed. I think the "correction" to that mistake was secrecy and NDAs.

We have a parent-child relationship with ZOS. The model fits, right down to the seemingly arbitrary decisions made by the parents and the children having temper tantrums over those decisions. It is a rather old and outdated model of interacting with the customer, but they seem to like it. It is certainly great for the "parents".

Class Rep NDAs. They have decided to take a few children and ask what the children think of the family plans. This week, they swore them to secrecy so they could tell them upcoming plans. In this dysfunctional relationship, yes, it is imperative that some of the children be allowed to hear the secrets, even if they cannot share them.

Turelus

lordrichter wrote: »

The NDA is beneficial and should assist in what the Class Reps need to do.

The need for an NDA is the real problem. I question the need, at this point in the life of the game, for NDA level secrecy about class skills and item sets. NDAs are a pain in the butt. Something to be avoided, if possible. Even if they are planning to introduce a new class or skill line, I question whether the secrecy is really worth it. Certainly not for something like reformulating the Sorcerer skills. They should not be reformulating them, unless they plan on Spell Crafting.

ZOS is ZOS though, and we all know that when the US National Security Administration needs to update their policies for handling Top Secret data, they consult with the experts at ZOS.

In the end, my feeling is that the NDA signals some major changes in the game. New class, significant skill line, or combat turmoil due to spell crafting coming in the 2019 Chapter. Stuff that they need feedback on before they are done designing it.

I agree with you entirely, but it all boils down to marketing wanting control over how ZOS presents itself.
If we know a new class is coming six months before the announcement stream, they can't build hype for marketing because we know everything.
Sadly this is the kind of corporate culture in many games companies now.

However, given ZOS is never going to change on that front, I support the NDA over no NDA in what it can achieve. Better the reps know than don't.

TheShadowScout

Having seen the issue from both sides in my life, I understand the need and utility for NDAs... even tho it is a bit vexing for anyone on the outside.
On the other hand, so would be getting all vague plans subject to change told all the time, only to be vexed when thopse plans DO change as they inevitably do; anyone can look up the forum history to see how much people whine when plans they had been looking forward to change, as it happened often enough during ESO development into its current incarnation!

All in all, I have no issues, and see no reason for them to drop NDAs. Especially not since there are legal issues involved that can get tricky in some cases... and the suits in charge will keep insisting on that to cover their bases, right?

VaranisArano wrote: »

Prior to Murkmire, the communication cycle looked like:

Players <--> Class Reps --> Devs --> Patch Notes

...where discussion happened where it did not matter as much... players and reps can talk around about what has been released, and the result is passed along without any chance to get feedback on upcoming plans because the NDA is still there, making the next step in line a one-way street of information.

VaranisArano wrote: »

Now, the communication goes like:

Players--> Class Reps <--> Devs --> Patch Notes.

...where the NDA "infowall" is shifted one step back so discussion happens with those who make the decisions, the Developers. With the reps as preselectors for player thoughts, and then having a chance to give their own interactive feedback to the ideas under development they are required not to disclose.

I like latter one better. More finetuning of ideas that way, I daresay. Even tho I too am anvious and would love to pitch in, but... I do not have such an overblown opinion of myself that I think I am entitled to that sort of access...

usmguy1234

ccmedaddy wrote: »

ezio45 wrote: »

It would be better though if the whole community new what zos was planning and could relay the concerns they have to the reps.

Hell no. Considering the fact that 90% of user input on the forums is complete garbarge, this would lead to an even bigger disaster than what this game is right now.

That's literally the point of the reps. To act as filters between the community and the devs and to also to put their perspective in the mix. If general consensus is the changes suck or the idea is horrible Zos should take that in to heavy consideration.
Sometimes I do wonder if the devs are just bull headed or if the architecture of the game doesn't allow them to make changes very easily. If the last part is true then the new nda might be a better option. This is where company transparency could really help out.

antihero727

SirAndy wrote: »

Phage wrote: »

This is assuming that ZOS will be more open and vocal under the NDA, and that they will actually listen to the feedback from the Reps.

I'm not so optimistic. I was part of a select group of players that were under NDA during the last 6 months of beta.
We had 24/7 access to a in-house ESO server that was not part of the public beta.

While we did have active interactions with the devs, we were largely ignored. We had a long list of issues right before PC launch for the version that we were testing and ZOS decided to go live with a version none of us had ever seen and which did not address the majority of the open issues.

If you were around for PC launch, you know what a debacle that was ...


I was also part of the "Council of Nirn", which was (still is?) a selected group of in-game guild leaders (after PC launch) that had regular meetings with the devs to give more streamlined feedback on the state of the game.
That too was pretty much a waste of time.

So, color me skeptical when it comes to this new "outreach program" ...

I remember the council of Nirn too. There were too many trade guild concerns. The PvE leaders got a few words and questions in but all PvP issues wee put in the end questions. They were never addressed or even acknowledged. The real I remember over 7 meetings only Gina was present on most of them.

Fleshreaper

The NDA has one purpose. It's to keep players from farming gear before hand, so that when the next meta drops they are not instantly over powering everyone else.

Zypheran

Phage wrote: »

This is assuming that ZOS will be more open and vocal under the NDA, and that they will actually listen to the feedback from the Reps.

So far, the feedback from the Reps has been largely ignored. In the case of the Magicka/Sorc shields, ZOS had every opportunity to listen to the Reps and the community, and it didn't change a thing. It wasn't until they pushed ahead with their changes and the playerbase pushed back in anger that ZOS was willing to bend those changes even a little.

Sorry, but I can't be convinced that ZOS will suddenly be more amenable to listening to reasonable feedback from the Reps. I'll wait and see, of course, but thus far ZOS hasn't shown that inclination.

I don't think this is about transparency; it's about obscuring the process from the players.

100% agree. ZOS has always proven itself very poor when it comes to communication. They will no doubt disagree and point to all the announcements, ESO Live issues, Firor vision for the year statements etc. as evidence of their communication....
But effective communication is only 50% talking. The bit ZOS doesn't do, is listening. Or if they do listen, it seems just ignore what they hear.
I am hoping that the take-away from the PR mess that was Murkmire, will be a more willing approach by ZOS to LISTEN to their customers!

Turelus

@SirAndy very interesting... I never knew about the Council of Nirn, also wasn't aware of special group of beta testers towards the end. You get an insightful from me.

From my side of things I can say the Gina, Jess and Kai are awesome at taking our feedback and tweaking things for the community side. Sure not everything we've said has come to pass (I'm still working on getting that LOL button back) but generally I can think of more times they've listened to our feedback regarding communication and forums changes than not.

VaranisArano

TheShadowScout wrote: »

Having seen the issue from both sides in my life, I understand the need and utility for NDAs... even tho it is a bit vexing for anyone on the outside.
On the other hand, so would be getting all vague plans subject to change told all the time, only to be vexed when thopse plans DO change as they inevitably do; anyone can look up the forum history to see how much people whine when plans they had been looking forward to change, as it happened often enough during ESO development into its current incarnation!

All in all, I have no issues, and see no reason for them to drop NDAs. Especially not since there are legal issues involved that can get tricky in some cases... and the suits in charge will keep insisting on that to cover their bases, right?

VaranisArano wrote: »

Prior to Murkmire, the communication cycle looked like:

Players <--> Class Reps --> Devs --> Patch Notes

...where discussion happened where it did not matter as much... players and reps can talk around about what has been released, and the result is passed along without any chance to get feedback on upcoming plans because the NDA is still there, making the next step in line a one-way street of information.

VaranisArano wrote: »

Now, the communication goes like:

Players--> Class Reps <--> Devs --> Patch Notes.

...where the NDA "infowall" is shifted one step back so discussion happens with those who make the decisions, the Developers. With the reps as preselectors for player thoughts, and then having a chance to give their own interactive feedback to the ideas under development they are required not to disclose.

I like latter one better. More finetuning of ideas that way, I daresay. Even tho I too am anvious and would love to pitch in, but... I do not have such an overblown opinion of myself that I think I am entitled to that sort of access...

So that's how you do colored text. Cool!

Er, sorry. On track. Yeah, I think that's the goal and thats how ZOS wants this system to work.

I don't think its going to help with the general perception in the forums that ZOS doesn't care what players think, in part because ZOS and the class reps can't explain themselves full thanks to the NDAs current and preexisting.

In short, I expect the devwlopment problem to get fixed. I expect the communcation problem where players expect to feel like the Devs are actually listening to player feedback to continue. After all, most players will see the development cycle as:

Players --> NDA Approved Class Rep Meeting Notes ---> PTS Patch Notes --> Updates

Which is fine...until you consider that ZOS said the Game Development is all on the Devs, so what you see in the NDA Approved Class Rep Meeting Notes is an amalgam of "Player Concerns vs Dev Concerns" and the Patch Notes are mostly about the Dev's plans for the game. Thats how ZOS wants it to work. Thats how Murkmire worked.

So for anyone who think this new system will avoid another Murkmire Where the Devs seemingly ignore player,concerns to forge ahead with their,own vision for the game...I have my doubts. And therefore, the perception of a communication issue will continue. Like a hydra, solve one problem, two more pop up.

VaranisArano

Fleshreaper wrote: »

The NDA has one purpose. It's to keep players from farming gear before hand, so that when the next meta drops they are not instantly over powering everyone else.

Er, no, the PTS has that covered.

If ZOS wanted to stop prior gear farming they'd:
A. Remove the Public Test Server and its Patch Notes, letting us test upcoming content on PC
B. Change the Patch Notes right before Live like they did for Horns of the Reach. People farmed Mother's Sorrow in anticipation of the new high crit trait on Precise from the PTS and then ZOS nerfed it on the Live patch. This was well prior to the Class Rep system, so clearly unaffected by the NDA.

I mean, if you wanna complain about the NDA, go for it. But maybe try blaming it for problems it actually causes?

Zypheran

Turelus wrote: »

@SirAndy very interesting... I never knew about the Council of Nirn, also wasn't aware of special group of beta testers towards the end. You get an insightful from me.

From my side of things I can say the Gina, Jess and Kai are awesome at taking our feedback and tweaking things for the community side. Sure not everything we've said has come to pass (I'm still working on getting that LOL button back) but generally I can think of more times they've listened to our feedback regarding communication and forums changes than not.

@Turelus I disagree to an extent about ZOS's listening. I think there is a difference between reacting and listening. I am certain they hear what we say but they only seem to react when the player pushback is severe. I can think of so many circumstances where pages of largely unanimous feedback from the community went initially without a response and subsequently ignored. I agree with you that the Community Managers do a good job but I think the issue lies with the dev teams. They seem impervious to influence from the community.
Its not just bad decisions, how many bugs have we seen being screamed about on PTS only to be ignored and make it to live only to add fuel to flames?
There was one comment that interested me in Gilliams post "Amidst the large number of changes we made, we did not give enough time to this specific issue itself, as our attention was focused on other areas of feedback" . This makes me think that the reason they don't react is that they don't have the time/resources. Maybe they need to look at their DLC schedule? I for one, would happily forgo one of the DLC dungeons per year if it gave the company the bandwidth they need to give more resources to feedback.

Turelus

Zypheran wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

@SirAndy very interesting... I never knew about the Council of Nirn, also wasn't aware of special group of beta testers towards the end. You get an insightful from me.

From my side of things I can say the Gina, Jess and Kai are awesome at taking our feedback and tweaking things for the community side. Sure not everything we've said has come to pass (I'm still working on getting that LOL button back) but generally I can think of more times they've listened to our feedback regarding communication and forums changes than not.

Turelus I disagree to an extent about ZOS's listening. I think there is a difference between reacting and listening. I am certain they hear what we say but they only seem to react when the player pushback is severe. I can think of so many circumstances where pages of largely unanimous feedback from the community went initially without a response and subsequently ignored. I agree with you that the Community Managers do a good job but I think the issue lies with the dev teams. They seem impervious to influence from the community.
Its not just bad decisions, how many bugs have we seen being screamed about on PTS only to be ignored and make it to live only to add fuel to flames?
There was one comment that interested me in Gilliams post "Amidst the large number of changes we made, we did not give enough time to this specific issue itself, as our attention was focused on other areas of feedback" . This makes me think that the reason they don't react is that they don't have the time/resources. Maybe they need to look at their DLC schedule? I for one, would happily forgo one of the DLC dungeons per year if it gave the company the bandwidth they need to give more resources to feedback.

You won't get any arguments from me. I would be more than happy to have one story/dungeon DLC mix and one expansion a year with all the time between focused on fixing issues from the previous update.
I love four updates a year, but when two are just dunegons any way I don't feel like I would miss much if I waited longer for that.