Are you happy with the racial changes that most likely will go live?

josiahva

Some are nice, others are not.

What I was hoping for out of this whole thing was for ZOS to stop pigeonholing people into certain races for certain builds...and that just did not happen or even come close(no Orc magSorc for me). That would actually be perfectly fine if hybrid builds were an actual thing...it would be ok to have an Orc magicka build then, because you would be getting some use out of the stamina side as well...but with resource pools being king of damage you are still pigeonholed by race for any given build....so I look at all these changes as effectively neutral.

Seraphayel

Most of them look good!

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

John_Falstaff wrote: »

Well, poll results show that only 41% are mostly content with the changes. ^^ The rest are so-so or dislike them. Less than half of satisfied people... balancing could've gone better, frankly.

Well if we do it correctly it's 56:44 pro changes. So the majority likes them overall. Might not be an overwhelming majority but it's fair enough.

And I think most people took the dissatisfied options because of very small or negligible things that bothered them but they blow up just to have a point - well nevermind, it's their opinion and for them it's valid.

Could have gone worse than this and it was obvious that not everybody likes to lose their superiority (like Altmers or PvP Argonians). Nerfs are never universally liked.

Except it's not.

41% like the changes
30% are in the middle
26% don't like them

Yeah and in the middle means half of them like it half don't. Really doesn't matter if we turn it into 56 yes vs. 44 no or 41 yes 26 no. The amount of people liking the changes is bigger than the amount of disliking them which can be rated a success on ZOS side at the end of the day.

Perfect? Not in any way. But fair enough though compared to the outrage some players are causing in the forums - and still the majority likes them.

karthrag_inak wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

John_Falstaff wrote: »

Well, poll results show that only 41% are mostly content with the changes. ^^ The rest are so-so or dislike them. Less than half of satisfied people... balancing could've gone better, frankly.

Well if we do it correctly it's 56:44 pro changes. So the majority likes them overall. Might not be an overwhelming majority but it's fair enough.

And I think most people took the dissatisfied options because of very small or negligible things that bothered them but they blow up just to have a point - well nevermind, it's their opinion and for them it's valid.

Could have gone worse than this and it was obvious that not everybody likes to lose their superiority (like Altmers or PvP Argonians). Nerfs are never universally liked.

Except it's not.

41% like the changes
30% are in the middle
26% don't like them

and that's only out of the 449 people who have bothered to vote. currently steam says there's 25x that many folks playing, and it's not even at a peak time. so whatever the sentiment is now, the folks who -don't- participate are certainly in for a surprise next week

Yeah a surprise because 99% of them might not even care at all...

John_Falstaff

No, I hate them!

Seraphayel wrote: »

Yeah and in the middle means half of them like it half don't. Really doesn't matter if we turn it into 56 yes vs. 44 no or 41 yes 26 no. The amount of people liking the changes is bigger than the amount of disliking them which can be rated a success on ZOS side at the end of the day.

That's the most frivolous interpretation ever - to count a person who says "some changes I like, some not" as two people, one of them liking the change wholeheartedly, one of them resenting the change. That's so absurd. ^^

So no. Less than half of people fully support the change. It's by and large a failure. It is a step, I'll give it that, and anything that makes people grudgingly keep buying stuff from store is a success in ZOS' book no doubt, but we should not torture statistics like that, it's already an endangered species.

As for 99% of the player base, then they're not the target audience for racial passives in general.

Ozby

No, I hate them!

Seraphayel wrote: »

John_Falstaff wrote: »

Well, poll results show that only 41% are mostly content with the changes. ^^ The rest are so-so or dislike them. Less than half of satisfied people... balancing could've gone better, frankly.

Well if we do it correctly it's 56:44 pro changes. So the majority likes them overall. Might not be an overwhelming majority but it's fair enough.

And I think most people took the dissatisfied options because of very small or negligible things that bothered them but they blow up just to have a point - well nevermind, it's their opinion and for them it's valid.

Could have gone worse than this and it was obvious that not everybody likes to lose their superiority (like Altmers or PvP Argonians). Nerfs are never universally liked.

And your generalizing the part of the community that is not happy?

Seraphayel

Most of them look good!

John_Falstaff wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

Yeah and in the middle means half of them like it half don't. Really doesn't matter if we turn it into 56 yes vs. 44 no or 41 yes 26 no. The amount of people liking the changes is bigger than the amount of disliking them which can be rated a success on ZOS side at the end of the day.

That's the most frivolous interpretation ever - to count a person who says "some changes I like, some not" as two people, one of them liking the change wholeheartedly, one of them resenting the change. That's so absurd. ^^

So no. Less than half of people fully support the change. It's by and large a failure. It is a step, I'll give it that, and anything that makes people grudgingly keep buying stuff from store is a success in ZOS' book no doubt, but we should not torture statistics like that, it's already an endangered species.

As for 99% of the player base, then they're not the target audience for racial passives in general.

The option in the middle is the equivalent of "neutral". It's neither good nor bad. We can take it completely out of the equation and the "satisfied" crowd would still be bigger than the "dissatisfied" crowd.

Ah if 99% of the playerbase are not the target audience, ZOS must cater to the 1%? Sorry to burst your bubble but no, they must in no way do that.

John_Falstaff

No, I hate them!

@Seraphayel , the wording of the poll is quite clear. Some changes they like, some they don't, I absolutely have no idea how it translated into them being "neutral" for you. You see, if half a cake is made of biscuit and half of horse excrements, I say that I like some part of the cake, but another one, not so much, and of course it does not say anything about me being ready to pay for that cake and bring it home. Please don't take those people out of equation, thank you.

And yes, ZOS must cater to 1% for which the racial passives are important. Those picking flowers or light-attacking in dungeons obviously do not care about racial passives, sorry about bursting -that- bubble of yours. Of course racial passives must be balanced around what a given race can achieve, and that 1% are those who reached the limit where racials actually start mattering.

Ozby

No, I hate them!

josiahva wrote: »

What I was hoping for out of this whole thing was for ZOS to stop pigeonholing people into certain races for certain builds...and that just did not happen or even come close(no Orc magSorc for me). That would actually be perfectly fine if hybrid builds were an actual thing...it would be ok to have an Orc magicka build then, because you would be getting some use out of the stamina side as well...but with resource pools being king of damage you are still pigeonholed by race for any given build....so I look at all these changes as effectively neutral.

Yes! I so agree with you I was absolutely hoping for the same thing. Unfortunately I am a bit sad about the current proposed changes and do not feel very positive about them especially after testing my toons on the pts.

MLGProPlayer

Not really...

Olupajmibanan wrote: »

Altmer, Argonian, Bosmer and other whiners. Our numbers are growing. Let's join forces and flood forum with fix requests for Group Finder. Because it's a complete non-sense to have such basic feature constantly bugged. No racial change matters in front of this

Players have been flooding the forums and Reddit with performance threads for 5 years now. Clearly ZOS has listened.

max_only

Not really...

@Masel @Alcast when do you use stealth detection in pve? Do you detect stealth in your parses? Serious question. Not a troll attempt.

Colecovision

No, I hate them!

max_only wrote: »

@Masel @Alcast when do you use stealth detection in pve? Do you detect stealth in your parses? Serious question. Not a troll attempt.

I'm actually interested in hearing how to use it in pvp. Are we hunting for someone parked near a camp they don't want us to burn? Someone will come out of the camp and make the job harder if we try to use this passive. Just run up and burn it. An orc sure will and they'll live to tell the tale.

Are we hoping it reveals a ganker a little sooner? (Spoiler, it won't) What god awful cloakless nb is going to be ruined because their target has this passive?

So much attention to it's uselessness in pve. I claim it's always useless. For the pure fun of the dodgeroll, I'm going to have a dps gimped character with this passive. So for real. Someone please tell me how to use it, pvp and pve are on the table.

zyk

No, I hate them!

I'm truly shocked by how polarizing these changes are because to me I think it's pretty black and white: You don't negatively change something someone has already paid for unless it's really important, even if some people like it.

It's completely unethical and I think the fact more people don't show empathy towards Bosmer who like the current stealth passive their race has had for YEARS is disappointing. I do not have a Bosmer, but I can empathize with how incredibly frustrating that must be.

ZOS is treating their mature 5 year old product like a Steam Greenlight game that they're free to change according to their whims -- vs actual balance needs.

Edziu

Some are nice, others are not.

Seraphayel wrote: »

John_Falstaff wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

Yeah and in the middle means half of them like it half don't. Really doesn't matter if we turn it into 56 yes vs. 44 no or 41 yes 26 no. The amount of people liking the changes is bigger than the amount of disliking them which can be rated a success on ZOS side at the end of the day.

That's the most frivolous interpretation ever - to count a person who says "some changes I like, some not" as two people, one of them liking the change wholeheartedly, one of them resenting the change. That's so absurd. ^^

So no. Less than half of people fully support the change. It's by and large a failure. It is a step, I'll give it that, and anything that makes people grudgingly keep buying stuff from store is a success in ZOS' book no doubt, but we should not torture statistics like that, it's already an endangered species.

As for 99% of the player base, then they're not the target audience for racial passives in general.

The option in the middle is the equivalent of "neutral". It's neither good nor bad. We can take it completely out of the equation and the "satisfied" crowd would still be bigger than the "dissatisfied" crowd.

Ah if 99% of the playerbase are not the target audience, ZOS must cater to the 1%? Sorry to burst your bubble but no, they must in no way do that.

John_Falstaff wrote: »

@Seraphayel , the wording of the poll is quite clear. Some changes they like, some they don't, I absolutely have no idea how it translated into them being "neutral" for you. You see, if half a cake is made of biscuit and half of horse excrements, I say that I like some part of the cake, but another one, not so much, and of course it does not say anything about me being ready to pay for that cake and bring it home. Please don't take those people out of equation, thank you.

thats it!

as how I like some changes I also hate some and how it looks here..

while I like some of them at all I dont want them to go on live because I see some other which I dont like and by those changes which I dont like because are bad I dont want also these which I like to go on live because it will be even worse to these which I hate

it fit perfectly to this sentence about cake - as here are changes which I dont like (atleast in that big amount) then I doont want this patch even if there is some things which I like...I would want this if there was less things which I hate, Im not even saying to be no any things I hate but atleast to be less these things and more which I like, then I would take it

but if this patch is even half to half things I like and I dont like then I dont want it becasue just half of this with things I hate is to much for me to take it whole so better for me would be to not even touch this in current state

Starlight_Knight

Not really...

Bosmer loosing stealth and getting a stupid dodge roll passive... LAME!!!

MLGProPlayer

Not really...

Seraphayel wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

John_Falstaff wrote: »

Well, poll results show that only 41% are mostly content with the changes. ^^ The rest are so-so or dislike them. Less than half of satisfied people... balancing could've gone better, frankly.

Well if we do it correctly it's 56:44 pro changes. So the majority likes them overall. Might not be an overwhelming majority but it's fair enough.

And I think most people took the dissatisfied options because of very small or negligible things that bothered them but they blow up just to have a point - well nevermind, it's their opinion and for them it's valid.

Could have gone worse than this and it was obvious that not everybody likes to lose their superiority (like Altmers or PvP Argonians). Nerfs are never universally liked.

Except it's not.

41% like the changes
30% are in the middle
26% don't like them

Yeah and in the middle means half of them like it half don't. Really doesn't matter if we turn it into 56 yes vs. 44 no or 41 yes 26 no. The amount of people liking the changes is bigger than the amount of disliking them which can be rated a success on ZOS side at the end of the day.

Perfect? Not in any way. But fair enough though compared to the outrage some players are causing in the forums - and still the majority likes them.

karthrag_inak wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

John_Falstaff wrote: »

Well, poll results show that only 41% are mostly content with the changes. ^^ The rest are so-so or dislike them. Less than half of satisfied people... balancing could've gone better, frankly.

Well if we do it correctly it's 56:44 pro changes. So the majority likes them overall. Might not be an overwhelming majority but it's fair enough.

And I think most people took the dissatisfied options because of very small or negligible things that bothered them but they blow up just to have a point - well nevermind, it's their opinion and for them it's valid.

Could have gone worse than this and it was obvious that not everybody likes to lose their superiority (like Altmers or PvP Argonians). Nerfs are never universally liked.

Except it's not.

41% like the changes
30% are in the middle
26% don't like them

and that's only out of the 449 people who have bothered to vote. currently steam says there's 25x that many folks playing, and it's not even at a peak time. so whatever the sentiment is now, the folks who -don't- participate are certainly in for a surprise next week

Yeah a surprise because 99% of them might not even care at all...

40% =/= majority.

You can't just take half of those who voted "some are nice, others are not" and count them as "happy with the changes" votes. There is a reason why they voted for that option and not the first two.

You also can't ignore those votes to say you have a "majority".

Gnortranermara

Some are nice, others are not.

I voted "Some are nice, others are not." and I consider these racial changes, in their current condition, to be an abject failure overall. Voting "Some are nice, others are not." is just one of many indicators that I'm remaining objective and unbiased in my conclusions. Some are nice. That in no way indicates approval of the patch as a whole.

HatchetHaro

Not really...

I will say most of them look good, but that does not mean I am happy with it.

Seraphayel

Most of them look good!

SidewalkChalk5 wrote: »

Some are nice. That in no way indicates approval of the patch as a whole.

Something like "approval of the patch" was never the topic of the poll. It's solely about the racial changes which is clearly indicated by the poll question.
_________

My point still stands that more people are overall satisfied than dissatisfied with the racial changes. This is backed up by the poll results.

John_Falstaff

No, I hate them!

@Seraphayel , once again, the poll is worded in a very specific way, and the way it's worded, it does not back up any of your points. People replying "some changes I like, some don't" are not indifferent to the patch, however you'd like to write them off as such. However you turn it, there's nothing in the poll to back your point. If anything, only people replying "yes, absolutely" are satisfied with every racial change, which means only meager 13% are okay with racials on the whole.

Lord-Otto

No, I hate them!

Seraphayel wrote: »

SidewalkChalk5 wrote: »

Some are nice. That in no way indicates approval of the patch as a whole.

Something like "approval of the patch" was never the topic of the poll. It's solely about the racial changes which is clearly indicated by the poll question.
_________

My point still stands that more people are overall satisfied than dissatisfied with the racial changes. This is backed up by the poll results.

No?
13% like them, 13% don't, 13% hate them. That"s actually twice as much people not liking it.
The "neutral", as you call them, have one thing in common: they don't like everything. How much of either side isn't clear. Which means "I like many" isn't a positive - it's "neutral".

Seraphayel

Most of them look good!

@John_Falstaff @Lord-Otto

Maybe you didn't notice but I did create this poll. People taking one of the extreme answers are ones I cannot take for serious, let it be the completely positive or negative option. Whereas the extreme negative option is ridiculous because that would imply you hate all of the changes and not just one, two or ten out of the over 30 racials they changed which is absurd and almost impossible.

Nevermind, there are two positive, two negative and a so-so answer. If you count the two negative answers, you've count the two positive as well. And that's were we have ~ 40 vs. 26 in favour of the changes. That's a majority. The so-so can't be applied to positive or negative directly that's why I split them in half and added them to both sides. You cannot say "but more of the so-so favour the negative side" because of [reasons]. It's either split in half or we remove them completely from the argument who likes (positive) or dislikes (negative) the changes.

You can spin your heads and arguments as much as you want, the racial changes are not universally disliked by a majority of people and you cannot make it look like that just because you "hate" them. Majority doesn't.

Nerftheforums

Most of them look good!

Tasear wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Tasear wrote: »

No just shows that PvP is more important than pve in gameplay with these PvP exclusive ablitiies.

Promoting Wheeler to the role of combat design lead was a huge mistake that is only going to become more apparent as time goes on. They either need a PvE and PvP lead with equal power to keep one another in check, or they need to separate the tow modes.

At the rate things are going right now, The Elder Scrolls Online will be PvP Scrolls Online by next year.

Yeah I can not disagree when I see more focus on PvP ascepts instead of balance between the two.

Omegafuckinglul. Imagine complaining because the new combat lead is pvp focused after 4 yers+ of pve focused ones. Wouldn't expect a wiser comment by you two but thumbs up I guess?

John_Falstaff

No, I hate them!

@Seraphayel , argue all you want, but if you wanted the poll to back your point, you should have worded it differently. People understood it the way they did and voted accordingly. So no, you can't generalize on how people accept the racial changes as a whole - the "some I like, some don't" can't be interpreted as neutral, I hate to break it to you. If you wanted to get the answer you seek, should've asked differently, and now, people simply answered the question you've asked, don't try to make a jump to whether they're okay with the changes as a whole. You've asked, you got the answer, you're dissatisfied, and you're trying to squeeze out interpretation you like and wanted to get from that poll. No, it doesn't work like that.

Seraphayel

Most of them look good!

@John_Falstaff

Dissatisfied? Surprise surprise, I'm not! I am very much looking forward to the patch and I am content with 90% of the changes.

I honestly couldn't care less about it, my life doesn't revolve around this topic and I'm not nearly as concerned as others about these small changes.

My only problem is that I have to wait additional two weeks because I'm playing on console. That's my only real gripe with the update.

Olauron

No, I hate them!

Seraphayel wrote: »

More "nuanced"? People didn't choose Altmer because all of the three racials were somehow catered towards "magic". They chose Altmer because it was the best choice to do so when playing a Magicka build. Y'all wouldn't even care if 2/3 racials are crap but the third one is making you clearly superior to others.

That's just absurd. I chose Altmer because they are everything about magic. Only Ayleid could be better but there is no opportunity to use this race in ESO. I chose Altmer for my Direnni Stamina Templar because this race is everything about magic as it should be even for this character.

karthrag_inak

Not really...

Seraphayel wrote: »

karthrag_inak wrote: »

and that's only out of the 449 people who have bothered to vote. currently steam says there's 25x that many folks playing, and it's not even at a peak time. so whatever the sentiment is now, the folks who -don't- participate are certainly in for a surprise next week

Yeah a surprise because 99% of them might not even care at all...

heh. true.

tunepunk

I would prefer if some passives had a little bit more variety. Instead of weapon/spell damage on some races, go for higher penetration. On maybe Altmer, and Dark Elf.

Seraphayel

Most of them look good!

Olauron wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

More "nuanced"? People didn't choose Altmer because all of the three racials were somehow catered towards "magic". They chose Altmer because it was the best choice to do so when playing a Magicka build. Y'all wouldn't even care if 2/3 racials are crap but the third one is making you clearly superior to others.

That's just absurd. I chose Altmer because they are everything about magic. Only Ayleid could be better but there is no opportunity to use this race in ESO. I chose Altmer for my Direnni Stamina Templar because this race is everything about magic as it should be even for this character.

Okay. What's the problem then? The racial is named "Spell Recharge" and you're playing a Stamina character e.g. directly benefit from the change.

As there are no rules or guidelines for what can be accounted as "magic racials" or not there shouldn't exist a problem at all for you. Altmer are still "everything about magic" (well that's not even 100% lore-conform as Altmer are not 100% about magic but don't mind).

Kronuxx

Most of them look good!

Masel wrote: »

MartiniDaniels wrote: »

Masel wrote: »

All parses and math I have seen show that these races are all within a margin that can be put down to human error and chance at this point, and it baffles me how big of a deal these tiny differences are to many people. This is the first time I understand that you simply can't do it right. People will complain whatever change is coming, and it is quite difficult to filter out unbiased reasonable feedback.

So fact that orc is somehow first place for any stamina class at averaged series of 20 parses for each class is within human error limits?

Orc and dunmer are best parsers for a very specific reason, and that is the one that food buffs such as artaeum broth and dubious throne provide too much without a real tradeoff. With them, damage races can get both higher sustain and damage than the sustain counterparts.

These debates are proof of people not seeing the bigger picture at this time. Orc and dunmer outparse them because sustain can be achieved without a more significant tradeoff, not because their stats are OP.

Reducing their stats would decrease their stat density budget unjustifiably, because the issue lies elsewhere.

An insightful comment. I've always thought that the regen foods were way too stat dense compared to the others. Although to be fair artaeum broth isn't exactly cheap to make. These foods speak for themselves in regards to their predominance and the player bias towards using them in both pve and pvp, despite the fact that zos has implemented so many provisioning recipes, most of which never get made. Perhaps a rebalance on provisioning recipes is in order?

Olauron

No, I hate them!

Seraphayel wrote: »

Okay. What's the problem then? The racial is named "Spell Recharge" and you're playing a Stamina character e.g. directly benefit from the change.

As there are no rules or guidelines for what can be accounted as "magic racials" or not there shouldn't exist a problem at all for you. Altmer are still "everything about magic" (well that's not even 100% lore-conform as Altmer are not 100% about magic but don't mind).

The problem is mixing Altmer with the weed from the Folly of Man song. I don't want this weed passive on any of my characters, magicka or stamina. This is not appropriate. This passive will not be taken on any of my characters. The only benefit here is free skill points.

Seraphayel

Most of them look good!

Olauron wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

Okay. What's the problem then? The racial is named "Spell Recharge" and you're playing a Stamina character e.g. directly benefit from the change.

As there are no rules or guidelines for what can be accounted as "magic racials" or not there shouldn't exist a problem at all for you. Altmer are still "everything about magic" (well that's not even 100% lore-conform as Altmer are not 100% about magic but don't mind).

The problem is mixing Altmer with the weed from the Folly of Man song. I don't want this weed passive on any of my characters, magicka or stamina. This is not appropriate. This passive will not be taken on any of my characters. The only benefit here is free skill points.

Okay, great that you've already found a solution for you. And what's appropriate and what's not is not dictated by you (=players). I do get your point though as I have a slightly similar view on classes matching races when it comes to (my) lore and something I'd never mix (Altmer Nightblade for example).