VMA and VDSA weapons will have perfected versions but your weapon won't be upgraded automatically.

MattT1988

Moose_Scout wrote: »

Any news on this?

Nope not a peep for weeks. So much for improved communication with the playerbase. Disgraceful.

Contaminate

Moose_Scout wrote: »

Any news on this?

So far ZOS still expects everyone to regrind the original vMA weapons.

I do love how they think the players are just too stupid to realize they’re being asked to grind 100+ hours for literally the same weapons that ZOS nerfed to take away from them a few years ago.

“We release the vMA weapons with some minor stat boosts. We remove those stat boosts. We stick the weak weapons in nMA too. We make everyone regrind vMA all over again to get the vMA weapons with some minor stat boosts even though they already did that.”

Haquor

Contaminate wrote: »

Moose_Scout wrote: »

Any news on this?

So far ZOS still expects everyone to regrind the original vMA weapons.

I do love how they think the players are just too stupid to realize they’re being asked to grind 100+ hours for literally the same weapons that ZOS nerfed to take away from them a few years ago.

“We release the vMA weapons with some minor stat boosts. We remove those stat boosts. We stick the weak weapons in nMA too. We make everyone regrind vMA all over again to get the vMA weapons with some minor stat boosts even though they already did that.”

Its a horrendous move by ZOS and the lack of direct communication in regards to the decision process is unfathomable tbh. Actually its not. They just dont want to admit the reason because it is so pathetic. But even the admission would get them more respect than hiding from your customers and subscribers.

Lets be honest... the content itself is not challenging. Its the random chance with no clear end date for attaining a reward for content you already did to death for a reward that is the issue.

Contaminate

Haquor wrote: »

Contaminate wrote: »

Moose_Scout wrote: »

Any news on this?

So far ZOS still expects everyone to regrind the original vMA weapons.

I do love how they think the players are just too stupid to realize they’re being asked to grind 100+ hours for literally the same weapons that ZOS nerfed to take away from them a few years ago.

“We release the vMA weapons with some minor stat boosts. We remove those stat boosts. We stick the weak weapons in nMA too. We make everyone regrind vMA all over again to get the vMA weapons with some minor stat boosts even though they already did that.”

Its a horrendous move by ZOS and the lack of direct communication in regards to the decision process is unfathomable tbh. Actually its not. They just dont want to admit the reason because it is so pathetic. But even the admission would get them more respect than hiding from your customers and subscribers.

Lets be honest... the content itself is not challenging. Its the random chance with no clear end date for attaining a reward for content you already did to death for a reward that is the issue.

The players are supposed to be hamsters on the wheel, and ZOS hopes they buy things while waiting and waiting and waiting for RNG to finally cooperate.

xaraan

Here's the fun part: looks like Master perfected dagger/axe will be a meta build for stam next patch, and perfected will matter since it's front bar. So all those folks saying you don't need perfected, it won't matter, well... so much for that.

Moose_Scout

Devs, please give some solid answers, here.

Thanks!

mav1234

If they want us to regrind veteran arenas... okay... but can we get a rationale? An explanation?

shaielzafine

MattT1988 wrote: »

Moose_Scout wrote: »

Any news on this?

Nope not a peep for weeks. So much for improved communication with the playerbase. Disgraceful.

They even banned multiple people & deleted comments on Twitch Bethesda streams asking about vma weapons, so I'm not surprised they aren't replying about this. That's fine, there's lots of other games to play until they sort out their multiple performance problems and janky bugs. I'll wait for next patch to see if these combat changes & Greymoor nerfs were worth doing and not just disrespecting longtime players' past time & effort.

Thogard

This is unconscionable.

They nerfed them. Now they’re rebuffing them... just not for the people who had them nerfed.

The fact that ZOS tried to morally justify this is actually hilarious.

daemonios

mav1234 wrote: »

If they want us to regrind veteran arenas... okay... but can we get a rationale? An explanation?

What explanation do you expect? You play more hours, they don't have to develop new content. End of rationale.

Fvh09NL

Probably mentioned many times before, but I think this is quite unfair. Even if VMA is easy for me after doing it many times before transmute crystals were there, I did spent a lot of time gathering them all for all my different characters. I would have to do this all over again... AND I have basically lost all my gold mats (you spent 8 en you'll likely get 1 back for each you deconstruct), and I have to farm transmute crystals for the new ones.

I think it's bs that they do not care for the time we already spent in there. They should upgrade the existing ones, and add new ones to normal.

InfaM

They're too lazy to create new content with new weapons, so they prefer to f*** up what their customers already achieved in old contents by recycling old arenas and not upgrading their already earned veteran rewards, thinking that it's a good move to motivate us to got back revive those old places...

As most upset players here , I feel fooled and I'm not planning to put any more money in that game to support that lazy developper team.

xF1REFL1x

Fortunately the new Maelstrom Inferno Staff wont be needed for pve... the extra spell pen it will give will most likely put you over the spell pen cap. Glad to hear as I will not need to put any time into getting it.

mairwen85

mav1234 wrote: »

If they want us to regrind veteran arenas... okay... but can we get a rationale? An explanation?

Aparently not.

Thogard wrote: »

This is unconscionable.

They nerfed them. Now they’re rebuffing them... just not for the people who had them nerfed.

The fact that ZOS tried to morally justify this is actually hilarious.

But... uhm... they haven't. Not once. No justification whatsoever. Not sure how I feel on that anymore. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so damned frustrating.

Fvh09NL wrote: »

I think it's bs that they do not care for the time we already spent in there. They should upgrade the existing ones, and add new ones to normal.

Stone walled silence and such short time left before release -- this is a done deal now.

HankTwo

ZOS opend an ugly can of worms with this one. Especially in the case with Maelstrom weapons. The following is pretty much the timeline of what happened:

1) Give nice weapons with major weapon altering effects and minor stat boosts as reward for veteran content
2) Remove the minor stat boosts from the weapons
3) Introduce the same weapons without the minor stat boosts as 2) for normal, and the unnerfed version with the minor stat boosts as 1) for veteran, but don't buff the previously nerfed versions that people already earned in veteran

I mean think about it, if we ingore the time in between those changes (because it isn't all that relevant), what ZOS basically did was remove the minor stat boosts from the weapons we already had and then say 'you have to do the same content again to get the stat boosts back that we just took away from you'.

But even in case of master weapons I find this behavior very alarming. Because in the end they introduced the same old reward just in better for the same old content. This opens up the way for potentially endless grinds, which fo me personally would definitely be a reason to quit the game. Imagine them starting to do this with dungeon sets. They could basically just do the same and introduce perfected dungeon sets with additional 5 piece minor stat boosts for every single veteran dungeon in the game, just to keep players grinding old content without ZOS having to spend an ounce of work for new content.

So to make a long story short: I'm also very unhappy with this change and pretty worried about the direction this game goes.

Maulkin

HankTwo wrote: »

ZOS opend an ugly can of worms with this one. Especially in the case with Maelstrom weapons. The following is pretty much the timeline of what happened:

1) Give nice weapons with major weapon altering effects and minor stat boosts as reward for veteran content
2) Remove the minor stat boosts from the weapons
3) Introduce the same weapons without the minor stat boosts as 2) for normal, and the unnerfed version with the minor stat boosts as 1) for veteran, but don't buff the previously nerfed versions that people already earned in veteran

I mean think about it, if we ingore the time in between those changes (because it isn't all that relevant), what ZOS basically did was remove the minor stat boosts from the weapons we already had and then say 'you have to do the same content again to get the stat boosts back that we just took away from you'.

The only part that isn't technically true is that before the first round of changes to those weapons, the buffs were enchantments. Meaning you would get a minor stat boost and modify a skill but you couldn't proc other enchants from your front vDSA or backbar vMA weapons.

An infused backbar maelstro bow or staff is 450 base spell/weapon damage with ~100% uptime. That wasn't possible with version 1 of those weapons and it's obviously not to be sniffed at. Perfected vMA and vDSA weapons are stronger than they ever were before, that's beyond any reasonable doubt.

That said, I obviously don't agree with the decision to downgrade our veteran drops to normal content drops.

HankTwo

Maulkin wrote: »

HankTwo wrote: »

ZOS opend an ugly can of worms with this one. Especially in the case with Maelstrom weapons. The following is pretty much the timeline of what happened:

1) Give nice weapons with major weapon altering effects and minor stat boosts as reward for veteran content
2) Remove the minor stat boosts from the weapons
3) Introduce the same weapons without the minor stat boosts as 2) for normal, and the unnerfed version with the minor stat boosts as 1) for veteran, but don't buff the previously nerfed versions that people already earned in veteran

I mean think about it, if we ingore the time in between those changes (because it isn't all that relevant), what ZOS basically did was remove the minor stat boosts from the weapons we already had and then say 'you have to do the same content again to get the stat boosts back that we just took away from you'.

The only part that isn't technically true is that before the first round of changes to those weapons, the buffs were enchantments. Meaning you would get a minor stat boost and modify a skill but you couldn't proc other enchants from your front vDSA or backbar vMA weapons.

An infused backbar maelstro bow or staff is 450 base spell/weapon damage with ~100% uptime. That wasn't possible with version 1 of those weapons and it's obviously not to be sniffed at. Perfected vMA and vDSA weapons are stronger than they ever were before, that's beyond any reasonable doubt.

That said, I obviously don't agree with the decision to downgrade our veteran drops to normal content drops.

Ah yes, your are right, the special effects were enchantments back then. Seems my memory is a little bit iffy. Game overall was much more different, with two handed weapons not counting as two set pieces for example (which was a plus for arena weapons back then, but isn't now anymore), so the comparison is definitely not perfect. My bad. Still unhappy though xP

ralphylauren

xaraan wrote: »

Maulkin wrote: »

angelncelestine wrote: »

HllCntryHrrcane wrote: »

I love this game and love the combat. I have refrained from commenting on this because I felt it would be addressed, but it looks like it may not. I like having so many set options to mix and match. I love the idea of a vMA and a Perfected vMA weapon. Same for vDSA. That being said, I think it is a terrible decision by ZOS to not upgrade all existing vMA and vDSA weapons that were earned in the same combat level that the new perfected weapons will drop in. All existing weapons should be upgraded...period. I will not enjoy farming for perfected versions under the current proposed conditions. I will be sour and likely will not do it. Also there is little incentive to battle through through Vet Arenas for the little gain that perfected is going to give. There should be more difference between the versions.

1. All existing weapons should be upgraded given that the arena difficultly is not being altered from which they were won
2. Perfect and normal weapons should have a higher difference as the difficulty of doing the content is not proportional to the gains in they give
3. if you ignore my previous 2 comments, a completion of the Arena content should allow for a choice in weapon reward...maybe not the trait but at least in the weapon type (i.e. destro staff, DW, 2H, Resto Staff, S&B)...whether you receive an ax or sword or infused or sharpened can still be random if you like but give some better incentive to doing the hard content

@ZOS_BrianWheeler @ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_GinaBruno @xynode

I have also been lurking hoping for some sort of communication. It sadly doesn’t look like we will be getting any. I found it interesting that you tagged a streamer. I sure hope that they aren’t making this stupid decision to not upgrade our vet weapons because some streamer wanted a reason to run vMA again.

Why would a streamer want to re-run vMA and why do you think that would matter to ZOS? That’s a helluva lot of unbased suspicion. Tinfoil hat-like.

I don't know that he'd want to re-run it, but I can tell you this: I got put in his stream by a raid once and it didn't take him long to start talking about the subject. He was all for it for some reason and not only that, but I said in comments that I did not like the change at all and did not agree with it and he (or one of his mods) deleted my post and timed me out while he went on a five minute rant about how elitists just didn't want more players having access to the weapons. Times someone out so they can't speak up for themselves (I was not rude or trolling) and starts creating an argument to argue against using things no one said in order to have a point because he really didn't have one based off what I said. When I asked a mod why I was timed out for not being rude or trolling they said he didn't want to talk about the subject and "I was cool" even though he's the one that started the topic and continued on it for another five minutes. It's his house, if that's the way they run things, it's on him, but I'm not going to contribute to that sort thing, so I found a different stream that wasn't so toxic. Maybe he was dealing with someone before I got put in the raid and was already pissy about it, but that's on him.

I can also tell you that when people get access to devs and other company people their views tend to change, a bias creeps in that you don't even notice. I saw among staff when I wrote for a site (we covered games but mainly comics and geek stuff) and as we got into various things like E3, SDCC, and other cons and had more and more interactions with writers, artists, editors, etc. in interviews or even informal stuff like parties, lunches, dinners, etc. that bias starts to creep in because you don't want to lose access. These guys consider some of the zos staff friends and that's fine if you go into it knowing that fact, but if you look at a streamer expecting unbiased news or views of the game, you are looking in the wrong place. The couple I've seen that dislike the change barely mention it in passing, but the guys in support of it will go on rants about why it's fine. You can't tell me they just don't want to 'care' or 'rant' that much about a topic when they are willing to do it on the zos side of the argument. If it was really about not caring to get that involved in a topic they wouldn't get that involved either way.

And zos is more concerned with that perception/promotion than they are with ticking off small groups of players that don't have a big enough voice to influence new players. You don't think that these guys with access to devs and being able to private message staff and also get info on coming changes aren't prepped about changes and what zos hopes to accomplish with them ahead of time? I can tell you for a fact that the LA/HA changes that they rolled out and some of the Greymoor first looks went to stream team even before it went to class reps (unless they were part of both). So that tells you their #1 concern is controlling the message, not getting the message right. They didn't go to class reps about a huge change for feedback before rolling it out and getting streamers on message first. And there were streamers testing it day one and lying about the results of the changes, saying there was only 1-2k change of dps for LA rotations when it was more like 10k+ loss.

I don't think we should inflate it much past zos trying to control their message/promotions like any company would, even if it comes off a bit shady sometimes or streamers having bias (sometimes without realizing it) and not wanting to lose access to something that's providing a living for them. You don't have to go into tin-foil hat territory to see that's fairly probable.

3000% agree with this post, I’d like to add it’s also a shame the amount of favoritism these people receive, you’d think these people pay a extra monthly fee or something. Hard to respect any streamer tbh when you know ZOS pampers them (never forget the one who admitted he cried when meeting the ZOS staff irl) you think a person like this will give you a fair an honest opinion on anything in the game?

oh wait without name dropping there is ONE streamer who is openly critical about the game and he says he doesn’t get all the shiny perks other streamers get from ZOS... funny how that works 🤣

Kadoozy

Turelus wrote: »

SidraWillowsky wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

mairwen85 wrote: »

It's an Id in a data table, just like when they nerfed it, they updated the base item which affected all instances of it.

Elsonso wrote: »

I guess my first question is whether it is even realistic, from the game/server perspective, to upgrade them? Is it even something that they could do, and get it right? I mean, I can see the "no soup for you" coming from them, but there might be more to it than just an arbitrary "no" decision.

Just clone the existing Id for non perfected, update the original to perfected. 5minute job for a grad developer on pittance pay.

The thing is that these people are not stupid, and they are not blind to what players want. If it was simply a matter that a grad student could have done in 5 minutes, then I would expect that they would be doing it. They are not evil, and they are not deliberately mean. If we start to assume that they are doing this for no good reason, or just to be mean, or just because they don't listen, we might as well blame it on 5G cell towers.

Now, I could be wrong. I am not an insider. It just seems implausible that this is just some arbitrary decision to avoid "5 minutes of work".

This is an MMO... they're designed to be as grind-y and addictive as possible. They have teams of analysts and even psychologists whose job it is to ensure that people are playing as much as possible.

This is absolutely intentional from that standpoint. They make tweaks/nerfs/buffs to sets all the time that are applied to existing sets during patches- remember Ravager, Veiled Heritance, Elemental Succession, Iceheart, etc etc etc. There is zero chance that there's no way to change existing vMA weaps to their perfected versions during this update.

They want people to keep playing/grinding, pure and simple.

What I don't understand (and I have no coding/design knowledge) is why can't all the current items in the game have their info update to say perfect and keep their values, vet arenas keep dropping those items.
Then create a whole new item/database entry for the new standard version.

They can. And it really wouldn't take much work. This change is intentional to make us grind all of the content we already have over the years. Anyone arguing otherwise has no programming experience to understand how simple of a change this would be.

Deathanubis

ralphylauren wrote: »

xaraan wrote: »

Maulkin wrote: »

angelncelestine wrote: »

HllCntryHrrcane wrote: »

I love this game and love the combat. I have refrained from commenting on this because I felt it would be addressed, but it looks like it may not. I like having so many set options to mix and match. I love the idea of a vMA and a Perfected vMA weapon. Same for vDSA. That being said, I think it is a terrible decision by ZOS to not upgrade all existing vMA and vDSA weapons that were earned in the same combat level that the new perfected weapons will drop in. All existing weapons should be upgraded...period. I will not enjoy farming for perfected versions under the current proposed conditions. I will be sour and likely will not do it. Also there is little incentive to battle through through Vet Arenas for the little gain that perfected is going to give. There should be more difference between the versions.

1. All existing weapons should be upgraded given that the arena difficultly is not being altered from which they were won
2. Perfect and normal weapons should have a higher difference as the difficulty of doing the content is not proportional to the gains in they give
3. if you ignore my previous 2 comments, a completion of the Arena content should allow for a choice in weapon reward...maybe not the trait but at least in the weapon type (i.e. destro staff, DW, 2H, Resto Staff, S&B)...whether you receive an ax or sword or infused or sharpened can still be random if you like but give some better incentive to doing the hard content

@ZOS_BrianWheeler @ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_GinaBruno @xynode

I have also been lurking hoping for some sort of communication. It sadly doesn’t look like we will be getting any. I found it interesting that you tagged a streamer. I sure hope that they aren’t making this stupid decision to not upgrade our vet weapons because some streamer wanted a reason to run vMA again.

Why would a streamer want to re-run vMA and why do you think that would matter to ZOS? That’s a helluva lot of unbased suspicion. Tinfoil hat-like.

I don't know that he'd want to re-run it, but I can tell you this: I got put in his stream by a raid once and it didn't take him long to start talking about the subject. He was all for it for some reason and not only that, but I said in comments that I did not like the change at all and did not agree with it and he (or one of his mods) deleted my post and timed me out while he went on a five minute rant about how elitists just didn't want more players having access to the weapons. Times someone out so they can't speak up for themselves (I was not rude or trolling) and starts creating an argument to argue against using things no one said in order to have a point because he really didn't have one based off what I said. When I asked a mod why I was timed out for not being rude or trolling they said he didn't want to talk about the subject and "I was cool" even though he's the one that started the topic and continued on it for another five minutes. It's his house, if that's the way they run things, it's on him, but I'm not going to contribute to that sort thing, so I found a different stream that wasn't so toxic. Maybe he was dealing with someone before I got put in the raid and was already pissy about it, but that's on him.

I can also tell you that when people get access to devs and other company people their views tend to change, a bias creeps in that you don't even notice. I saw among staff when I wrote for a site (we covered games but mainly comics and geek stuff) and as we got into various things like E3, SDCC, and other cons and had more and more interactions with writers, artists, editors, etc. in interviews or even informal stuff like parties, lunches, dinners, etc. that bias starts to creep in because you don't want to lose access. These guys consider some of the zos staff friends and that's fine if you go into it knowing that fact, but if you look at a streamer expecting unbiased news or views of the game, you are looking in the wrong place. The couple I've seen that dislike the change barely mention it in passing, but the guys in support of it will go on rants about why it's fine. You can't tell me they just don't want to 'care' or 'rant' that much about a topic when they are willing to do it on the zos side of the argument. If it was really about not caring to get that involved in a topic they wouldn't get that involved either way.

And zos is more concerned with that perception/promotion than they are with ticking off small groups of players that don't have a big enough voice to influence new players. You don't think that these guys with access to devs and being able to private message staff and also get info on coming changes aren't prepped about changes and what zos hopes to accomplish with them ahead of time? I can tell you for a fact that the LA/HA changes that they rolled out and some of the Greymoor first looks went to stream team even before it went to class reps (unless they were part of both). So that tells you their #1 concern is controlling the message, not getting the message right. They didn't go to class reps about a huge change for feedback before rolling it out and getting streamers on message first. And there were streamers testing it day one and lying about the results of the changes, saying there was only 1-2k change of dps for LA rotations when it was more like 10k+ loss.

I don't think we should inflate it much past zos trying to control their message/promotions like any company would, even if it comes off a bit shady sometimes or streamers having bias (sometimes without realizing it) and not wanting to lose access to something that's providing a living for them. You don't have to go into tin-foil hat territory to see that's fairly probable.

3000% agree with this post, I’d like to add it’s also a shame the amount of favoritism these people receive, you’d think these people pay a extra monthly fee or something. Hard to respect any streamer tbh when you know ZOS pampers them (never forget the one who admitted he cried when meeting the ZOS staff irl) you think a person like this will give you a fair an honest opinion on anything in the game?

oh wait without name dropping there is ONE streamer who is openly critical about the game and he says he doesn’t get all the shiny perks other streamers get from ZOS... funny how that works 🤣

Also I think streamers also forgot that not everyone has the luxury to play games for hours a day for every single day. Same as you want to be appreciated for streaming and effort you put in. For random or casual players who have put their effort in, it should be heard, considered and respected.

Moose_Scout

Still waiting on a response

mav1234

Moose_Scout wrote: »

Still waiting on a response

The response was we won't get upgrades. It would be nice to get an explanation, but ZOS doesn't make a habit of explaining their rationale. At least we got direct developer response there, even if it isn't what I want/think is the right decision.

I do think ZOS needs to work a bit on the appearance that they don't care at all about the current crop of endgame players. The last few actions - even though the LA/HA changes didn't go through - have been proposed or worded in a way that explicitly details ways in which the game the current endgame players know and love has to change to bring the floor up. And while I can be sympathetic to that, things like this arena weapon change don't help the case that they really do care about endgame players past efforts - they only seem to care about what future endgame players, once the game is changed to have a much lower floor and ceiling, will be able to accomplish.

Elsonso

ralphylauren wrote: »

xaraan wrote: »

I can also tell you that when people get access to devs and other company people their views tend to change, a bias creeps in that you don't even notice. I saw among staff when I wrote for a site (we covered games but mainly comics and geek stuff) and as we got into various things like E3, SDCC, and other cons and had more and more interactions with writers, artists, editors, etc. in interviews or even informal stuff like parties, lunches, dinners, etc. that bias starts to creep in because you don't want to lose access. These guys consider some of the zos staff friends and that's fine if you go into it knowing that fact, but if you look at a streamer expecting unbiased news or views of the game, you are looking in the wrong place. The couple I've seen that dislike the change barely mention it in passing, but the guys in support of it will go on rants about why it's fine. You can't tell me they just don't want to 'care' or 'rant' that much about a topic when they are willing to do it on the zos side of the argument. If it was really about not caring to get that involved in a topic they wouldn't get that involved either way.

3000% agree with this post, I’d like to add it’s also a shame the amount of favoritism these people receive, you’d think these people pay a extra monthly fee or something. Hard to respect any streamer tbh when you know ZOS pampers them (never forget the one who admitted he cried when meeting the ZOS staff irl) you think a person like this will give you a fair an honest opinion on anything in the game?

The problem here is that, while there is certainly such a thing as bias from access, what also comes with it is understanding, some clarity, and a lot of perspective.

Out here in the social media zone, we are all "Food Critics", and most of us have no practical experience. We get the whole range of critical responses. Some people don't even bother and just repeat what someone else said. Some others might look at the menu, but not even try the food. At the other extreme, we get the people who were there when the food was prepared and have tried it. This latter group is the "biased" group referred to above.

It is a rather dangerous path to assume that everyone with "access" who speaks positively, and against the "popular" negative view, is not fair and honest and is not worthy of respect. Once on this path, the only trusted sources end up being only those who support the popular, typically anti-developer, views. That is, in itself, a bias just as bad as what is mentioned above.

mairwen85

Elsonso wrote: »

ralphylauren wrote: »

xaraan wrote: »

I can also tell you that when people get access to devs and other company people their views tend to change, a bias creeps in that you don't even notice. I saw among staff when I wrote for a site (we covered games but mainly comics and geek stuff) and as we got into various things like E3, SDCC, and other cons and had more and more interactions with writers, artists, editors, etc. in interviews or even informal stuff like parties, lunches, dinners, etc. that bias starts to creep in because you don't want to lose access. These guys consider some of the zos staff friends and that's fine if you go into it knowing that fact, but if you look at a streamer expecting unbiased news or views of the game, you are looking in the wrong place. The couple I've seen that dislike the change barely mention it in passing, but the guys in support of it will go on rants about why it's fine. You can't tell me they just don't want to 'care' or 'rant' that much about a topic when they are willing to do it on the zos side of the argument. If it was really about not caring to get that involved in a topic they wouldn't get that involved either way.

3000% agree with this post, I’d like to add it’s also a shame the amount of favoritism these people receive, you’d think these people pay a extra monthly fee or something. Hard to respect any streamer tbh when you know ZOS pampers them (never forget the one who admitted he cried when meeting the ZOS staff irl) you think a person like this will give you a fair an honest opinion on anything in the game?

The problem here is that, while there is certainly such a thing as bias from access, what also comes with it is understanding, some clarity, and a lot of perspective.

Out here in the social media zone, we are all "Food Critics", and most of us have no practical experience. We get the whole range of critical responses. Some people don't even bother and just repeat what someone else said. Some others might look at the menu, but not even try the food. At the other extreme, we get the people who were there when the food was prepared and have tried it. This latter group is the "biased" group referred to above.

It is a rather dangerous path to assume that everyone with "access" who speaks positively, and against the "popular" negative view, is not fair and honest and is not worthy of respect. Once on this path, the only trusted sources end up being only those who support the popular, typically anti-developer, views. That is, in itself, a bias just as bad as what is mentioned above.

What you’re describing is the foundations for an echo chamber. While this silence continues, it is ZOS who are enabling,creating,and enforcing it, not the player base. Regardless of their views.

Casul

Does anyone else feel a complete loss of motivation to do vet content?

ralphylauren

Elsonso wrote: »

ralphylauren wrote: »

xaraan wrote: »

I can also tell you that when people get access to devs and other company people their views tend to change, a bias creeps in that you don't even notice. I saw among staff when I wrote for a site (we covered games but mainly comics and geek stuff) and as we got into various things like E3, SDCC, and other cons and had more and more interactions with writers, artists, editors, etc. in interviews or even informal stuff like parties, lunches, dinners, etc. that bias starts to creep in because you don't want to lose access. These guys consider some of the zos staff friends and that's fine if you go into it knowing that fact, but if you look at a streamer expecting unbiased news or views of the game, you are looking in the wrong place. The couple I've seen that dislike the change barely mention it in passing, but the guys in support of it will go on rants about why it's fine. You can't tell me they just don't want to 'care' or 'rant' that much about a topic when they are willing to do it on the zos side of the argument. If it was really about not caring to get that involved in a topic they wouldn't get that involved either way.

3000% agree with this post, I’d like to add it’s also a shame the amount of favoritism these people receive, you’d think these people pay a extra monthly fee or something. Hard to respect any streamer tbh when you know ZOS pampers them (never forget the one who admitted he cried when meeting the ZOS staff irl) you think a person like this will give you a fair an honest opinion on anything in the game?

The problem here is that, while there is certainly such a thing as bias from access, what also comes with it is understanding, some clarity, and a lot of perspective.

Out here in the social media zone, we are all "Food Critics", and most of us have no practical experience. We get the whole range of critical responses. Some people don't even bother and just repeat what someone else said. Some others might look at the menu, but not even try the food. At the other extreme, we get the people who were there when the food was prepared and have tried it. This latter group is the "biased" group referred to above.

It is a rather dangerous path to assume that everyone with "access" who speaks positively, and against the "popular" negative view, is not fair and honest and is not worthy of respect. Once on this path, the only trusted sources end up being only those who support the popular, typically anti-developer, views. That is, in itself, a bias just as bad as what is mentioned above.

When a streamer says “well the bonuses aren’t that big of a dps gain, you don’t have to technically farm for it” when the problem at hand is our time being devalued. That’s called deflection but the change doesn’t hurt these streamers because at the end of the day more content for them to stream. We all don’t have the luxury to play ESO 8 hours plus daily.

Don’t understand how thinking like this is dangerous 🤷‍♂️

jecks33

BuildMan wrote: »

Does anyone else feel a complete loss of motivation to do vet content?

Me, since Zos wasted my 400+ vma runs, trials are full of bugs and pvp is a lag fest.

Casul

jecks33 wrote: »

BuildMan wrote: »

Does anyone else feel a complete loss of motivation to do vet content?

Me, since Zos wasted my 400+ vma runs, trials are full of bugs and pvp is a lag fest.

Ok just checking to make sure it wasn't just me.

Elsonso

mairwen85 wrote: »

What you’re describing is the foundations for an echo chamber. While this silence continues, it is ZOS who are enabling,creating,and enforcing it, not the player base. Regardless of their views.

It isn't just a foundation. They have decorated it, added a few rooms, and painted it several times.

ralphylauren wrote: »

When a streamer says “well the bonuses aren’t that big of a dps gain, you don’t have to technically farm for it” when the problem at hand is our time being devalued. That’s called deflection but the change doesn’t hurt these streamers because at the end of the day more content for them to stream. We all don’t have the luxury to play ESO 8 hours plus daily.

It isn't just "a streamer" that says that. I am sure a lot of people look at it like that, probably including some people who have those weapons.

starkerealm

ralphylauren wrote: »

xaraan wrote: »

Maulkin wrote: »

angelncelestine wrote: »

HllCntryHrrcane wrote: »

I love this game and love the combat. I have refrained from commenting on this because I felt it would be addressed, but it looks like it may not. I like having so many set options to mix and match. I love the idea of a vMA and a Perfected vMA weapon. Same for vDSA. That being said, I think it is a terrible decision by ZOS to not upgrade all existing vMA and vDSA weapons that were earned in the same combat level that the new perfected weapons will drop in. All existing weapons should be upgraded...period. I will not enjoy farming for perfected versions under the current proposed conditions. I will be sour and likely will not do it. Also there is little incentive to battle through through Vet Arenas for the little gain that perfected is going to give. There should be more difference between the versions.

1. All existing weapons should be upgraded given that the arena difficultly is not being altered from which they were won
2. Perfect and normal weapons should have a higher difference as the difficulty of doing the content is not proportional to the gains in they give
3. if you ignore my previous 2 comments, a completion of the Arena content should allow for a choice in weapon reward...maybe not the trait but at least in the weapon type (i.e. destro staff, DW, 2H, Resto Staff, S&B)...whether you receive an ax or sword or infused or sharpened can still be random if you like but give some better incentive to doing the hard content

@ZOS_BrianWheeler @ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_GinaBruno @xynode

I have also been lurking hoping for some sort of communication. It sadly doesn’t look like we will be getting any. I found it interesting that you tagged a streamer. I sure hope that they aren’t making this stupid decision to not upgrade our vet weapons because some streamer wanted a reason to run vMA again.

Why would a streamer want to re-run vMA and why do you think that would matter to ZOS? That’s a helluva lot of unbased suspicion. Tinfoil hat-like.

I don't know that he'd want to re-run it, but I can tell you this: I got put in his stream by a raid once and it didn't take him long to start talking about the subject. He was all for it for some reason and not only that, but I said in comments that I did not like the change at all and did not agree with it and he (or one of his mods) deleted my post and timed me out while he went on a five minute rant about how elitists just didn't want more players having access to the weapons. Times someone out so they can't speak up for themselves (I was not rude or trolling) and starts creating an argument to argue against using things no one said in order to have a point because he really didn't have one based off what I said. When I asked a mod why I was timed out for not being rude or trolling they said he didn't want to talk about the subject and "I was cool" even though he's the one that started the topic and continued on it for another five minutes. It's his house, if that's the way they run things, it's on him, but I'm not going to contribute to that sort thing, so I found a different stream that wasn't so toxic. Maybe he was dealing with someone before I got put in the raid and was already pissy about it, but that's on him.

I can also tell you that when people get access to devs and other company people their views tend to change, a bias creeps in that you don't even notice. I saw among staff when I wrote for a site (we covered games but mainly comics and geek stuff) and as we got into various things like E3, SDCC, and other cons and had more and more interactions with writers, artists, editors, etc. in interviews or even informal stuff like parties, lunches, dinners, etc. that bias starts to creep in because you don't want to lose access. These guys consider some of the zos staff friends and that's fine if you go into it knowing that fact, but if you look at a streamer expecting unbiased news or views of the game, you are looking in the wrong place. The couple I've seen that dislike the change barely mention it in passing, but the guys in support of it will go on rants about why it's fine. You can't tell me they just don't want to 'care' or 'rant' that much about a topic when they are willing to do it on the zos side of the argument. If it was really about not caring to get that involved in a topic they wouldn't get that involved either way.

And zos is more concerned with that perception/promotion than they are with ticking off small groups of players that don't have a big enough voice to influence new players. You don't think that these guys with access to devs and being able to private message staff and also get info on coming changes aren't prepped about changes and what zos hopes to accomplish with them ahead of time? I can tell you for a fact that the LA/HA changes that they rolled out and some of the Greymoor first looks went to stream team even before it went to class reps (unless they were part of both). So that tells you their #1 concern is controlling the message, not getting the message right. They didn't go to class reps about a huge change for feedback before rolling it out and getting streamers on message first. And there were streamers testing it day one and lying about the results of the changes, saying there was only 1-2k change of dps for LA rotations when it was more like 10k+ loss.

I don't think we should inflate it much past zos trying to control their message/promotions like any company would, even if it comes off a bit shady sometimes or streamers having bias (sometimes without realizing it) and not wanting to lose access to something that's providing a living for them. You don't have to go into tin-foil hat territory to see that's fairly probable.

3000% agree with this post, I’d like to add it’s also a shame the amount of favoritism these people receive, you’d think these people pay a extra monthly fee or something. Hard to respect any streamer tbh when you know ZOS pampers them (never forget the one who admitted he cried when meeting the ZOS staff irl) you think a person like this will give you a fair an honest opinion on anything in the game?

oh wait without name dropping there is ONE streamer who is openly critical about the game and he says he doesn’t get all the shiny perks other streamers get from ZOS... funny how that works 🤣

Wait, wait, wait, @FENGRUSH got booted from the stream team? I didn't know that. O.O