I feel like part of the problem with balancing is sometimes ZOS listens to the feedback

ck37090

Now hear me out. Yes, the people testing most of the stuff out are the people that understand and probably play this game the best. However, they aren't the majority of the player base.

For instance, the latest proposed changes to light and heavy attacks. Now honestly, I didn't test it and I don't know what the actual effects are but the general idea they had for it would have been an improvement for the majority of players (if it had the intended effect)... But the majority of players aren't going to test any of this stuff out. So ZOS takes the feedback from the small percentage of the players that really know this game to an extent much greater than the actual majority of players. Which I get because these are the people testing but they are also the ones playing at a much higher level than most other players.

Again, I don't know if the recent changes would have been good or not but I do feel like decisions based on player feedback are from the very top tier players and given from their perspective rather than what would truly benefit the majority.

darthgummibear_ESO

Ectheliontnacil

The feedback also detailed how these changes would have negatively impacted more inexperienced players.

I.e. it would have resulted in a bashweaving meta, and bashweaving is even harder to perform than LA weaving (especially on console) .
Also lower overall dps would make progressing vCR and stuff harder for moderately experienced players.
And there's many new players that simply LA spam, which is zero damage with the LA changes.

Sanguinor2

First of all: Majority doesnt care About Combat changes. Most of the Players that Play the game for the elder scrolls experience, questing, stories, overland Content, housing, trading etc. wont care what happens balance wise.
Second: One would think that those that understand the game the best are the ones that actually know if something is a bad idea.
Third: If it was what the majority wanted it would be very far from balance because the majority wants whats good for them only and couldnt care less About others. If the majority decided PvP balance for example we would be stuck in an eternal duel between stamblade and magsorc for godmode and everything else being trash.
Fourth: Relates to 2nd to a Degree, something that would truly Benefit the majority, might completely break the game if someone knows what to do, for example much higher ability Damage would Benefit the majority that doesnt LA weave very much. But who would Benefit more from higher ability Damage? Someone that Spams abilities without any idea what he is doing or someone that knows exactly what he is doing?

About recent changes: They wouldnt have achieved what Zos wanted at all. The lowest Damage Players that mainly spam light attacks but rarely use abilities would have had their already low Damage cut by 78%. Those that dont enjoy weaving would have to weave for Sustain or build for more Sustain and so loosing more Damage. Those that want high Damage wouldve had to start bash weaving increasing their APM which Zos didnt want to happen.

Elsonso

I am sure that ZOS has been influenced by players in ways that have made the game combat worse.

Iskiab

In part yea. If you want to figure out what’s overperforming just look at PTS balance changes that they’ve rolled back, or buffs they were going to do but didn’t because people complained so it’s left weak.

The light and heavy attack change was a weird one, I’m not sure what their intent was. It might have had something to do with overall balance with vampire changes? I’m not sure, it might have been a general change.

A lot of times people question certain changes like they don’t make sense, but in reality there’s an OP combination that they’re nerfing that isn’t widely known about. People don’t share the best stuff.

I think it’s a healthy give and take usually. ZoS makes changes based on info not everyone has and sometimes there are things that are overlooked that are brought to their attention.

ATreeGnome

ck37090 wrote: »

Now hear me out. Yes, the people testing most of the stuff out are the people that understand and probably play this game the best. However, they aren't the majority of the player base.

For instance, the latest proposed changes to light and heavy attacks. Now honestly, I didn't test it and I don't know what the actual effects are but the general idea they had for it would have been an improvement for the majority of players (if it had the intended effect)... But the majority of players aren't going to test any of this stuff out. So ZOS takes the feedback from the small percentage of the players that really know this game to an extent much greater than the actual majority of players. Which I get because these are the people testing but they are also the ones playing at a much higher level than most other players.

Again, I don't know if the recent changes would have been good or not but I do feel like decisions based on player feedback are from the very top tier players and given from their perspective rather than what would truly benefit the majority.

I don't think that you really understand the impact the proposed changes would have had on the lower and middle tier players and the skill gap. It's pretty clear that the ESO combat team didn't either, or these changes would never have been proposed as is.

The majority of the feedback that I saw from higher end players took very careful consideration as to how the changes would affect players of all skill levels and play styles. Such as how tanks and healers who light attack weave would get huge advantages over those who do not. Or how players who bash weave properly would end up with an even larger damage advantage over those who do not - the exact opposite of shrinking the skill gap. Or how the players in the community that mostly play just with light attack spamming would see a massive DPS loss and struggle far more to complete even easy content.

Most end game players wouldn't even be that upset about receiving some minor nerfs if really did shrink the skill gap. Anyone who's been playing long enough can see that the endgame communities have been shrinking and that something needs to be done to bring in new blood.

The problem is that combat changes often don't have the effect that ZOS intends.

Ri_Khan

The problem with balance is that they're primary focus seems to be on selling new chapters full of new content every single year instead. They need to keep pumping out new gear sets, classes and skill lines annually in order to appease the BOD, the whales and the rest of the zombie consumer masses that throw a temper tantrum and threaten to leave if they don't get their shiny new exclusives fed to them on a regular basis.

Every time they add new stuff and nerf all the pre-existing stuff to make room for it, any semblance of balance goes right out the window. It doesn't help that they like to make adjustments with a sledgehammer approach most of the time either. It's one thing to adjust something +/- 70% for testing on PTS but then they'll just go live without tuning it, often despite testers telling them there's an issue.

I'd say there's been very little actual balance ever, really. It's been more of a random and very uncomfortable seesaw ride so far.

ck37090

I appreciate the responses...I didn't mean the post just about the recent proposed changes, that was just an example. In that case I just thought the concept sounded solid in theory but like I said I didn't know the actual effects. I just felt like the majority of the player base isn't represented with feedback.

peacenote

I believe that this is sometimes true. Not everyone, not even devs, can know every aspect and play style of a game like this, and I've seen lots of evidence over the years that changes made to improve a specific issue had unintended consequences. PvP changes that wreaked havoc in PvE, DPS-focused changes that impacted the tanks and healers, attempts to make content more accessible that ultimately further divided the playerbase, etc.

However (though I know you said this was just an example) this last occurrence of an off-cycle PTS drop where folks were able to give feedback and have it be heard was a huge step in the right direction of how things could work better going forward. I didn't get the feeling that the changes were going to be completely scrapped. I think the feedback is going to be analyzed and incorporated into future attempts at combat changes.

Good changes in the game should take into account PvE and PvP, all three major roles, stamina and magicka-based builds, and beginners, intermediate, and advanced players. It's when feedback from only one or some of these areas is addressed without thought for the others (accidentally or due to some kind of internal priority system, probably $$$) that we see end results where it would have been better if ZOS ignored the feedback altogether.

ImmortalCX

peacenote wrote: »

Good changes in the game should take into account PvE and PvP, all three major roles, stamina and magicka-based builds, and beginners, intermediate, and advanced players. It's when feedback from only one or some of these areas is addressed without thought for the others (accidentally or due to some kind of internal priority system, probably $$$) that we see end results where it would have been better if ZOS ignored the feedback altogether.

There are alot of people who are not hardcore ESO players who have an extensive background in gaming. Thus, while we are not invested in testing out the latest changes, we can anticipate how they might improve the game. And we have a perspective on what is "wrong" with the game.

I am CP600+ with 1.5 years of playing. What I can say is that the LA/HA changes were well intentioned, and I would have liked to see them, or perhaps with some changes.

If they can narrow the skill gap / performance gap between beginning and advanced players, then they can better tune the content for everyone. This is the part that everyone is overlooking.


It would be great if they could amp up the difficulty level of dungeons, but with the current disparity between weavers and button mashers, we all know what would happen. Button mashers / beginners would stop queuing for dungeons, and then they would quit.

I have played many games PVP and have mastered some of them, but the times I've tried BGs and Cyrodil was completely unsatisfying (around CP160-300 was when I last tried it). Without specific gear setups and finely honed skills, you will be instagibbed. (Let alone the mechnical difficulties of having to reload your skill bars and gear every time you want to pvp.. its a collosal mess.)

As a result of the performace gap in PVP, most people group up in a zerg ball. When you are fighting people, its lots of AOE and random snipes from people who aren't even in your view. Its a junk PVP game. If they can bridge the performance gap between noobs and experts, they can start to improve the game.

Varana

ImmortalCX wrote: »

I am CP600+ with 1.5 years of playing. What I can say is that the LA/HA changes were well intentioned, and I would have liked to see them, or perhaps with some changes.

If they can narrow the skill gap / performance gap between beginning and advanced players, then they can better tune the content for everyone. This is the part that everyone is overlooking.

You do know where roads paved with good intentions will eventually lead to?

Again - the most serious and thought-through feedback to these proposed changes did not overlook that aspect.
On the contrary, they specifically addressed it, and came to the conclusion that these stated goals were not achieved by what ZOS implemented. You're somewhat misrepresenting the feedback here. Not necessarily the usual howling and gnashing of teeth on the forums, but many experienced players and content creators who actually tested these changes, instead of being lulled into just assuming that they did what ZOS said they'd do, really talked about this. Some even agreeing with you that the goal was beneficial - but coming to the conclusion that this road wouldn't lead there.

ImmortalCX

Varana wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

I am CP600+ with 1.5 years of playing. What I can say is that the LA/HA changes were well intentioned, and I would have liked to see them, or perhaps with some changes.

If they can narrow the skill gap / performance gap between beginning and advanced players, then they can better tune the content for everyone. This is the part that everyone is overlooking.

You do know where roads paved with good intentions will eventually lead to?

Again - the most serious and thought-through feedback to these proposed changes did not overlook that aspect.
On the contrary, they specifically addressed it, and came to the conclusion that these stated goals were not achieved by what ZOS implemented. You're somewhat misrepresenting the feedback here. Not necessarily the usual howling and gnashing of teeth on the forums, but many experienced players and content creators who actually tested these changes, instead of being lulled into just assuming that they did what ZOS said they'd do, really talked about this. Some even agreeing with you that the goal was beneficial - but coming to the conclusion that this road wouldn't lead there.

I didn't say that the proposed changes would have the desired effect. It might have bridged the gap some. Perfection is the enemy of good enough.

If a PVP player can be 75% as effective using primarily heavy attacks as an expert is using all his offensive skills, that would have helped immensly. Imagine being a new PVP player who can be effective by clicking his mouse and using a few defensive cooldowns. You would keep playing. It would swell the ranks.

Likewise, if a PVE "clicker" could do 75% as much dps as an expert player, they could make the dungeons more difficult and it would be a better experience for everyone.

I would like them to revisit this change. Long term players are never going to be happy. Any sweeping change will be met with major resistance. You say that logic prevailed in this situation. I'm not sure I wasn't part of the discussion, but I know that long term players have alot invested in the status quo and are not necessarily trusted to see the big picture. People can come up with "reasons" to support any outcome they are comfortable with.

The main problems with ESO are that the mechanics are stagnant and glitchy, and power creep has made most of the content too easy. Game needs an overhaul like the LA/HA change.

Jeremy

ck37090 wrote: »

Now hear me out. Yes, the people testing most of the stuff out are the people that understand and probably play this game the best. However, they aren't the majority of the player base.

For instance, the latest proposed changes to light and heavy attacks. Now honestly, I didn't test it and I don't know what the actual effects are but the general idea they had for it would have been an improvement for the majority of players (if it had the intended effect)... But the majority of players aren't going to test any of this stuff out. So ZOS takes the feedback from the small percentage of the players that really know this game to an extent much greater than the actual majority of players. Which I get because these are the people testing but they are also the ones playing at a much higher level than most other players.

Again, I don't know if the recent changes would have been good or not but I do feel like decisions based on player feedback are from the very top tier players and given from their perspective rather than what would truly benefit the majority.

I disagree and believe the proposed changes would have been a disaster for a majority of players. Because the players who play "at a much higher level" than most other players are already experts at weaving (or they use macros) where as a majority of the players cannot weave so effortlessly, especially while dealing with mechanics, dodging, or constantly maneuvering around their enemies (which is far more difficult than weaving on a training dummy). The number of players who can pull that off perfectly (not to mention the number of internet connections) is likely small when compared to a majority. This isn't to mention it screwed every build or play style out there that relied on heavy attacks for sustain, which again is more likely to impact the general player base instead of end game raiders because they tended not to use heavy attacks to recover their resources anyway.

In other words: all these changes did was give experts at weaving a significant sustain advantage instead of damage advantage (which amounts to the same thing in the end) and kick players who used heavy attacks to recover their resources in the ass (which would have included a lot of tanks and healers). So these changes would have accomplished nothing positive in terms of "closing the gap" between players who weave and those who don't - and just annoyed a great many others.

There is a real issue here - but this wasn't the way to solve it.

JumpmanLane

ImmortalCX wrote: »

peacenote wrote: »

Good changes in the game should take into account PvE and PvP, all three major roles, stamina and magicka-based builds, and beginners, intermediate, and advanced players. It's when feedback from only one or some of these areas is addressed without thought for the others (accidentally or due to some kind of internal priority system, probably $$$) that we see end results where it would have been better if ZOS ignored the feedback altogether.

There are alot of people who are not hardcore ESO players who have an extensive background in gaming. Thus, while we are not invested in testing out the latest changes, we can anticipate how they might improve the game. And we have a perspective on what is "wrong" with the game.

I am CP600+ with 1.5 years of playing. What I can say is that the LA/HA changes were well intentioned, and I would have liked to see them, or perhaps with some changes.

If they can narrow the skill gap / performance gap between beginning and advanced players, then they can better tune the content for everyone. This is the part that everyone is overlooking.


It would be great if they could amp up the difficulty level of dungeons, but with the current disparity between weavers and button mashers, we all know what would happen. Button mashers / beginners would stop queuing for dungeons, and then they would quit.

I have played many games PVP and have mastered some of them, but the times I've tried BGs and Cyrodil was completely unsatisfying (around CP160-300 was when I last tried it). Without specific gear setups and finely honed skills, you will be instagibbed. (Let alone the mechnical difficulties of having to reload your skill bars and gear every time you want to pvp.. its a collosal mess.)

As a result of the performace gap in PVP, most people group up in a zerg ball. When you are fighting people, its lots of AOE and random snipes from people who aren't even in your view. Its a junk PVP game. If they can bridge the performance gap between noobs and experts, they can start to improve the game.

Some people just wait to long to START PvP. The invite to Cyro is at level 10. I started full CP then, with 3 pieces of twin sisters jewelry and NO IDEA what CP even was.

Further, I had no illusions about being good at the game at all. I knew I had much to learn and set about learning it.

Many, get good at some form of PvE, enter Cyro, get mopped and instead of seeking to get better, they give up (or lately) ask ZOS for some kind of help. When ZOS made ESO, they seemed to assume PvP was just another part of the game. What they overlooked was the fact that DYING is frowned upon in ESO.

Dying is how you learn. Or more importantly dying SHOULD motivate you to learn. To enter this game and expect instant mastery is silly. One must dedicate oneself to improving. There are no shortcuts.

Malmai

JumpmanLane wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

peacenote wrote: »

Good changes in the game should take into account PvE and PvP, all three major roles, stamina and magicka-based builds, and beginners, intermediate, and advanced players. It's when feedback from only one or some of these areas is addressed without thought for the others (accidentally or due to some kind of internal priority system, probably $$$) that we see end results where it would have been better if ZOS ignored the feedback altogether.

There are alot of people who are not hardcore ESO players who have an extensive background in gaming. Thus, while we are not invested in testing out the latest changes, we can anticipate how they might improve the game. And we have a perspective on what is "wrong" with the game.

I am CP600+ with 1.5 years of playing. What I can say is that the LA/HA changes were well intentioned, and I would have liked to see them, or perhaps with some changes.

If they can narrow the skill gap / performance gap between beginning and advanced players, then they can better tune the content for everyone. This is the part that everyone is overlooking.


It would be great if they could amp up the difficulty level of dungeons, but with the current disparity between weavers and button mashers, we all know what would happen. Button mashers / beginners would stop queuing for dungeons, and then they would quit.

I have played many games PVP and have mastered some of them, but the times I've tried BGs and Cyrodil was completely unsatisfying (around CP160-300 was when I last tried it). Without specific gear setups and finely honed skills, you will be instagibbed. (Let alone the mechnical difficulties of having to reload your skill bars and gear every time you want to pvp.. its a collosal mess.)

As a result of the performace gap in PVP, most people group up in a zerg ball. When you are fighting people, its lots of AOE and random snipes from people who aren't even in your view. Its a junk PVP game. If they can bridge the performance gap between noobs and experts, they can start to improve the game.

Some people just wait to long to START PvP. The invite to Cyro is at level 10. I started full CP then, with 3 pieces of twin sisters jewelry and NO IDEA what CP even was.

Further, I had no illusions about being good at the game at all. I knew I had much to learn and set about learning it.

Many, get good at some form of PvE, enter Cyro, get mopped and instead of seeking to get better, they give up (or lately) ask ZOS for some kind of help. When ZOS made ESO, they seemed to assume PvP was just another part of the game. What they overlooked was the fact that DYING is frowned upon in ESO.

Dying is how you learn. Or more importantly dying SHOULD motivate you to learn. To enter this game and expect instant mastery is silly. One must dedicate oneself to improving. There are no shortcuts.

Hahahaha wat haha mr. miyagi ok 😀

IndianaJames7

The only feedback ZOS listens to is:

I dOn’T hAvE AnY pRoBlEmS wItH pErFoRmAnCe DoInG oVeRlAnD rP. mAyBe ItS yOuR pC?

xXMeowMeowXx

It is up to the devs not us.

The devs are going to do what they want with their game but they do listen to feedback when given properly. This time around the communication was much better. Also, it seemed that key members of the team had the time review our feedback without the usual stress.

Most PTS’ there are so many things that they have to deal with, it is much harder to have this level of communication. So this potential change being tested off cycle worked out better.

There are also many players on the PTS that are not on the forums. ZOS uses many resources for feedback than just here.

ImmortalCX

JumpmanLane wrote: »

Dying is how you learn. Or more importantly dying SHOULD motivate you to learn. To enter this game and expect instant mastery is silly. One must dedicate oneself to improving. There are no shortcuts.

This isn't Dark Souls.

The goal is to increase the player base, not cater to elitists who invested 2500 hours into learning to play. Not everyone was here since beta.

If elite players are so good, they will still rise to the top.

JumpmanLane

ImmortalCX wrote: »

JumpmanLane wrote: »

Dying is how you learn. Or more importantly dying SHOULD motivate you to learn. To enter this game and expect instant mastery is silly. One must dedicate oneself to improving. There are no shortcuts.

This isn't Dark Souls.

The goal is to increase the player base, not cater to elitists who invested 2500 hours into learning to play. Not everyone was here since beta.

If elite players are so good, they will still rise to the top.

Well look, what do you want to do. Login day one and be insta-good?

That’s not exactly realistic. I mean you can still out, participate. You don’t have to dropping fools left and right. Just do what you can do.

I mean, ya REALLY want ZOS to dumb down the game so folks who aren’t good at it can FEEL good about themselves? Well Zenimax doesn’t have to because the Elder Scrolls is a hot enough intellectual property for them to make money regardless.

JumpmanLane

Malmai wrote: »

JumpmanLane wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

peacenote wrote: »

Good changes in the game should take into account PvE and PvP, all three major roles, stamina and magicka-based builds, and beginners, intermediate, and advanced players. It's when feedback from only one or some of these areas is addressed without thought for the others (accidentally or due to some kind of internal priority system, probably $$$) that we see end results where it would have been better if ZOS ignored the feedback altogether.

There are alot of people who are not hardcore ESO players who have an extensive background in gaming. Thus, while we are not invested in testing out the latest changes, we can anticipate how they might improve the game. And we have a perspective on what is "wrong" with the game.

I am CP600+ with 1.5 years of playing. What I can say is that the LA/HA changes were well intentioned, and I would have liked to see them, or perhaps with some changes.

If they can narrow the skill gap / performance gap between beginning and advanced players, then they can better tune the content for everyone. This is the part that everyone is overlooking.


It would be great if they could amp up the difficulty level of dungeons, but with the current disparity between weavers and button mashers, we all know what would happen. Button mashers / beginners would stop queuing for dungeons, and then they would quit.

I have played many games PVP and have mastered some of them, but the times I've tried BGs and Cyrodil was completely unsatisfying (around CP160-300 was when I last tried it). Without specific gear setups and finely honed skills, you will be instagibbed. (Let alone the mechnical difficulties of having to reload your skill bars and gear every time you want to pvp.. its a collosal mess.)

As a result of the performace gap in PVP, most people group up in a zerg ball. When you are fighting people, its lots of AOE and random snipes from people who aren't even in your view. Its a junk PVP game. If they can bridge the performance gap between noobs and experts, they can start to improve the game.

Some people just wait to long to START PvP. The invite to Cyro is at level 10. I started full CP then, with 3 pieces of twin sisters jewelry and NO IDEA what CP even was.

Further, I had no illusions about being good at the game at all. I knew I had much to learn and set about learning it.

Many, get good at some form of PvE, enter Cyro, get mopped and instead of seeking to get better, they give up (or lately) ask ZOS for some kind of help. When ZOS made ESO, they seemed to assume PvP was just another part of the game. What they overlooked was the fact that DYING is frowned upon in ESO.

Dying is how you learn. Or more importantly dying SHOULD motivate you to learn. To enter this game and expect instant mastery is silly. One must dedicate oneself to improving. There are no shortcuts.

Hahahaha wat haha mr. miyagi ok 😀

Look, they keep calling Johnny a cream puff, he’s gonna SWEEP YA LEG! No mercy! You better get out there and make a good fight, before they roll YOU and ya lil bicycle down that hill again. Lmao.

“You’re the BEST around! Nothing’s ever gonna get ya down! You’re the best around...!”

I LOVE giving pep talks! Some folks really need em.

JumpmanLane

Double post.

Iskiab

Yea, there is a lot to be said for starting early. I’ve found it’s usually better to make a new toon rather than switch one from stam to mag or vice versa. Level up doing BGs and don’t twink your character, it’s the best way to learn.

ImmortalCX

JumpmanLane wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

JumpmanLane wrote: »

Dying is how you learn. Or more importantly dying SHOULD motivate you to learn. To enter this game and expect instant mastery is silly. One must dedicate oneself to improving. There are no shortcuts.

This isn't Dark Souls.

The goal is to increase the player base, not cater to elitists who invested 2500 hours into learning to play. Not everyone was here since beta.

If elite players are so good, they will still rise to the top.

Well look, what do you want to do. Login day one and be insta-good?

That’s not exactly realistic. I mean you can still out, participate. You don’t have to dropping fools left and right. Just do what you can do.

I mean, ya REALLY want ZOS to dumb down the game so folks who aren’t good at it can FEEL good about themselves? Well Zenimax doesn’t have to because the Elder Scrolls is a hot enough intellectual property for them to make money regardless.

Its not black or white. They can narrow the gap between experts and noobs without giving noobs easy wins. They will still lose badly, they just won't feel like its insurmountable.

JumpmanLane

ImmortalCX wrote: »

JumpmanLane wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

JumpmanLane wrote: »

Dying is how you learn. Or more importantly dying SHOULD motivate you to learn. To enter this game and expect instant mastery is silly. One must dedicate oneself to improving. There are no shortcuts.

This isn't Dark Souls.

The goal is to increase the player base, not cater to elitists who invested 2500 hours into learning to play. Not everyone was here since beta.

If elite players are so good, they will still rise to the top.

Well look, what do you want to do. Login day one and be insta-good?

That’s not exactly realistic. I mean you can still out, participate. You don’t have to dropping fools left and right. Just do what you can do.

I mean, ya REALLY want ZOS to dumb down the game so folks who aren’t good at it can FEEL good about themselves? Well Zenimax doesn’t have to because the Elder Scrolls is a hot enough intellectual property for them to make money regardless.

Its not black or white. They can narrow the gap between experts and noobs without giving noobs easy wins. They will still lose badly, they just won't feel like its insurmountable.

It's not insurmountable now. At the end of the day anyone can improve. Put in the time and the effort.

Narrowing the gap won't help for the very reason you stated: "They will still lose badly" unless the learn. What they should be learning from IS those losses, gaining experience if NOT skill.

It's a hit to the ego. I get it. Yet, what do you want in the end? To BE good or FEEL good?

gabriebe

The problem is ZOS doesn't play its own game, and that leads to trouble between picking good feedback and bad feedback

Somers23

ImmortalCX wrote: »

JumpmanLane wrote: »

Dying is how you learn. Or more importantly dying SHOULD motivate you to learn. To enter this game and expect instant mastery is silly. One must dedicate oneself to improving. There are no shortcuts.

This isn't Dark Souls.

The goal is to increase the player base, not cater to elitists who invested 2500 hours into learning to play. Not everyone was here since beta.

If elite players are so good, they will still rise to the top.

I do not like this opinion

justaquickword

Self-interest conquers all.

code65536

ck37090 wrote: »

For instance, the latest proposed changes to light and heavy attacks. Now honestly, I didn't test it and I don't know what the actual effects are but the general idea they had for it would have been an improvement for the majority of players (if it had the intended effect)...

That's a pretty big "if", and I would say that was the biggest problem with the changes--that it doesn't actually offer a clear path for closing that power gap.

The biggest problem that I see is that a lot of players didn't read past the opening statements. They read the part where ZOS says they think the power gap is too wide, and they think, "oh yay, these changes are for us!". They don't actually look at the details surrounding those changes. They don't try things out. And then they fail to realize that these changes don't actually help.

So they see that the changes got scrapped, and they think, "oh no, it's those damn elitists who are trying to keep me down".

Imagine a politician. They make vague promises to make things better for people. But then if you look at what the politician actually does and look at the details, you see that they're actually screwing those people who they are ostensibly benefiting. But many people don't realize this. They just listen to the sound bites and talking points but never actually educate themselves on the details of the issues, so they end up voting against their own interests.

Here, you have a PTS that had increasing low-APM options as one of the mission statements. And then deep down in a bullet point is a massive nerf to lightning staff Tri-Focus, which is important for giving lightning staff heavy attacks versatility. And lightning heavy attack builds are the most common and popular low-APM builds. Talking point: "We want to support low APM options!" Reality: "Let's nerf the AoE effectiveness of the most popular low-APM build."

ck37090 wrote: »

I do feel like decisions based on player feedback are from the very top tier players and given from their perspective rather than what would truly benefit the majority.

A large power gap causes problems for players at the top, too. Every time we get content that seems too easy (e.g., Icereach), every time something that we find challenging gets nerfed (e.g., Halls of Fabrication), we are suffering the consequences of a power gap that has grown too wide. An excessively large power gap is good for nobody. These changes were opposed by the endgame not because it would've closed the power gap (because, well, it wouldn't actually do that), but because they were just poorly-thought-out changes that would've been bad for players of all stripes.

justaquickword wrote: »

Self-interest conquers all.

And here, we have another fine specimen of a person who didn't read past the preface of the PTS patch notes.

Runefang

Elsonso wrote: »

I am sure that ZOS has been influenced by players in ways that have made the game combat worse.

Yes. A good example is that light attacks ended up being strong simply because of the number of Skyrim bow light attack spammers in the game. ZOS thought to raise the ceiling they’d buff light attack damage, yes this was ZOS and not end gamers who could already weave. It helped the dps floor marginally and raised the ceiling further because those who could weave did even better.

Now to reverse a ZOS buff they thought they’d nerf light attacks and buff heavy attacks. Classic ZOS move there. They do often buff something just to nerf it later, think DoTs, Nightblades, Stamdens, Rune Cage. The list goes on. So often things swing between OP and useless without even pausing to be in between.

Runefang

Runefang wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

I am sure that ZOS has been influenced by players in ways that have made the game combat worse.

Yes. A good example is that light attacks ended up being strong simply because of the number of Skyrim bow light attack spammers in the game. ZOS thought to raise the ceiling they’d buff light attack damage, yes this was ZOS and not end gamers who could already weave. It helped the dps floor marginally and raised the ceiling further because those who could weave did even better.

Now to reverse a ZOS buff they thought they’d nerf light attacks and buff heavy attacks. Classic ZOS move there. They do often buff something just to nerf it later, think DoTs, Nightblades, Stamdens, Rune Cage. The list goes on. So often things swing between OP and useless without even pausing to be in between.

I do want to say I agree with the idea that feedback should be ignored at times. If ZOS have a strong vision and are confident they should implement it. Healing changes are a good example of that I think. Overall it worked out well and aside from a few pieces of feedback that were incorporated the rest was good stuff and entirely their ideas which ignored a fair bit of negative feedback.