In the future, maybe ask your players for more ideas about things?

Kesstryl

Shawn_PT wrote: »

I wish I could give multiple "Agrees" with this post. Seriously.

Whenever I see an update and zos states that it's something players have been requesting for a long time, I think.... Who? Who has requested this? Not me for sure. I don't remember being asked my opinion on (insert random change). I also don't think the vocal members of the forums actually amount to a significant portion of the population so that what they ask for is actually what the community wants.

I see people on my guilds saying they'd want to post on the forums but don't have an account here so they can't, and ask someone who does. I can probably count with the fingers of one hand the names from my guilds who also regularly appear in the forums. And I'm on several 400+ guilds.

And this last change with the account-wide achievements? I can safely say not one person in my endgame guild finds this change good, or welcome. And I'm talking about people who have pretty much the game completed. The common arguments are:

"What's the point of having more than one character now?"

"Why should I keep playing now, after having completed every achievement in the game? I am certainly not going to start a second character now or join other prog groups since it will literally have no meaning."

"I'm afraid of logging into my alts now, since a lot of achievements may now be permanently registered as being first unlocked by "MuleMaster" instead of my main." (Particularly those like Black Market Mogul and the such).

"This is probably going to break the game so badly, I'll take a couple of weeks break from ESO just so I don't risk losing anything..."



Personally, I abhor this idea. I enjoyed hunting for monster trophies on my alts. I enjoyed fishing on my alts. Or clearing every delve on a map, or every skyshard... I got a little bit of happy chemicals each time that flag popped up for ACHIEVEMENT COMPLETE. Now I'll seldom see it again. All the time I've spent chasing that high will mean nothing. Since the announcement dropped, I find myself logging in and just forcing myself to do something random, or just wander around with not much will to work on anything. Trying to convince myself that deep down, it may not be that bad. Then look at my achievement lists and realize I'm just lying to myself. There's zero incentive to log into my templar. Or my sorc. Or my necro. Or my warden...... Why should I anyway? Nothing they have now will mean anything in a few weeks, neither will there be an interest in chasing achievements on them that my main already has because.... Oh yeah. They won't even be achievements anymore!

Should have started by consolidating those achievements that are actually the reason why people might want this, such as trifectas, instead of loading them all into the same bag. Then depending on reception, work from there. But for the love of Talos ask the players, not just scan the forums for what's being whined about before making this sort of change. Somehow, I am finding it extremely hard to accept that checking a database for achievements is such a huge burden that performance will suddenly be that much better when this change drops.

I did not want this, I did not ask for this, and this will severely hinder my ability to enjoy the game and keep coming back.


(Have you noticed how people seem so much more interested/troubled with the achievement change than with the whole new chapter and its card game gimmick? Makes a person think.)

Great feedback, make sure you post this in their feedback thread for Account Wide Achievements. Not that there's any sign we are being heard, but that's where they are looking for our feedback.

Kesstryl

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

@Kesstryl Thanks again for responding and sharing more player perspective. As noted earlier, we'll share this with the team regarding communication.

One last point on moderation, as we don't want to steer off-course of the original topic. Generally discussing moderation practice is against community rules, as those conversations are more helpful when addressed in a one-on-one capacity. However, for threads closed down, mods generally share their justification related to community guidelines. However, there's always room to discuss mod action and have it adjusted. Many of you have also reached out when threads are closed via DM and we work to resolve those. If you have concerns about a specific action taken, please submit an appeal ticket via help.elderscrollsonline.com and we would be happy to review it with you.

We are reviewing the conversations here related to communication, so please continue to share your thoughts and ideas. Thank you @Kesstryl for your insightful post and spinning this conversation up.

Hello @ZOS_Kevin would you be willing to ask your bosses if it would be possible to have some of our anxiety riddled questions answered about the AwA change, such as, was it intended for NPCs to react to all of our alts who never did quests, or even new characters, as if they were the ones who saved the world (did the main quest in a zone when they did not) if one of our characters got the achievements for those zone quests? Not sure that first question made sense, let me know if it does not. Was it intended for certain quests that trigger from achievements to only ever be done on one character, such as Taking Up The Mantle? Will there be a fix for how NPCs react to our alts and making achievement quests available to all of our alts, such as decoupling NPC reactions and quests from achievements and moving those into our quest logs? Finally, if all of this was intended and there are no plans to fix these things, do your bosses understand how this will utterly destroy the game for so many of us who like to role play our alts and want to have the game world coherent for them? Thank you for your time and much appreciation if you could pass this along to those higher up.

Shawn_PT

Kesstryl wrote: »

Great feedback, make sure you post this in their feedback thread for Account Wide Achievements. Not that there's any sign we are being heard, but that's where they are looking for our feedback.

Thanks. I have posted there before. They read. But somehow, I doubt they really care.

Xebov

Kesstryl wrote: »

Not just a yes or no answer, like would you like Account Wide Achievements (duh), but asking HOW we would like to see things implemented.

Whats the point? You get endless discussions between ppl and, like its already, ppl get mad when their way is not used. Besides that options come with technical limitations or implications that most ppl dont understand.

From a dev perspective the way they handle this situation is exactly the right one and i would not handle it any differently. The feedback was that ppl would like to get account based achievments. There was also a lot of strain on the database and the request gave an opportunity to do exactly that. End result is a system that works exactly like originally requested.

Ppl are mad about it now because they dont like the change, so the table has turned. But in the past where the feature was requested a common goal to combine both and get a clear request going was never done. So thats how it is now.

Kesstryl wrote: »

Trust us a little more?

As a software dev i can tell you that my trust in customers is nearly zero. They are often incapable of saying exactly what they want and since they are mostly not from a tech background they often have no idea how things work.

Fennwitty

Xebov wrote: »

Kesstryl wrote: »

Not just a yes or no answer, like would you like Account Wide Achievements (duh), but asking HOW we would like to see things implemented.

Whats the point? You get endless discussions between ppl and, like its already, ppl get mad when their way is not used. Besides that options come with technical limitations or implications that most ppl dont understand.

From a dev perspective the way they handle this situation is exactly the right one and i would not handle it any differently. The feedback was that ppl would like to get account based achievments. There was also a lot of strain on the database and the request gave an opportunity to do exactly that. End result is a system that works exactly like originally requested.

Ppl are mad about it now because they dont like the change, so the table has turned. But in the past where the feature was requested a common goal to combine both and get a clear request going was never done. So thats how it is now.

Kesstryl wrote: »

Trust us a little more?

As a software dev i can tell you that my trust in customers is nearly zero. They are often incapable of saying exactly what they want and since they are mostly not from a tech background they often have no idea how things work.

You don't take customers literally but they're the ultimate consumers.

The point is ZoS heard the user requirement "Players want Accountwide Achievements" and instead of doing any kind of critical thinking (that we can tell, as they won't even tell us they considered other options) is that they decided to implement Accountwide Achievements at the expense of cutting out an existing feature.

Not once in my life working tech have I ever interpreted as customer saying, "I want X" to mean "Take away Y or any other feature to make X happen" unless we have had that conversation very explicitly.

Customers are 'greedy', they want more options and ideally love to keep all their old ones also.

Finding a solution is cost-benefit discussion WITH the customers if both aren't feasible.

In this case though, I can't imagine a world where both wouldn't be technically feasible. So if it's not feasible for ZoS, it's down to how much time and money they're willing to put into having both achievement options available.

Tandor

Xebov wrote: »

Kesstryl wrote: »

Not just a yes or no answer, like would you like Account Wide Achievements (duh), but asking HOW we would like to see things implemented.

Whats the point? You get endless discussions between ppl and, like its already, ppl get mad when their way is not used. Besides that options come with technical limitations or implications that most ppl dont understand.

From a dev perspective the way they handle this situation is exactly the right one and i would not handle it any differently. The feedback was that ppl would like to get account based achievments. There was also a lot of strain on the database and the request gave an opportunity to do exactly that. End result is a system that works exactly like originally requested.

Ppl are mad about it now because they dont like the change, so the table has turned. But in the past where the feature was requested a common goal to combine both and get a clear request going was never done. So thats how it is now.

Kesstryl wrote: »

Trust us a little more?

As a software dev i can tell you that my trust in customers is nearly zero. They are often incapable of saying exactly what they want and since they are mostly not from a tech background they often have no idea how things work.

You start by saying the customers were given exactly what they said they wanted, and finish by saying that customers are often incapable of saying exactly what they want and have no idea how things work.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the decision which you say you wouldn't have handled any differently.

deleted221106-002999

nightstrike wrote: »

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Lastly, to a few points made regarding the silencing or burying of posts. This is not happening. If players break community guidelines while trying to express their thoughts, posts will be edited or removed. Not in an effort to silence, but because guidelines were broken.

I respectfully, but completely, disagree. You have an Orwellian system here where just talking about how bad it is results in censorship.

Couldn't agree more and this is exactly as I and others have experienced and described it. It's a closed system, without apparent external oversight, where even evidenced 'appeals' are summarily rejected accompanied by canned responses where they haven't even bothered to adjust the standard reply to reflect the actual issue.

Trust has been eroded over years. Experience demonstrates we have been promised 'better' communication or 'improved performance' or whatever without tangible results. Eventually you just read these 'edicts' for what they are and try to keep your own forced-newspeak responses 'conformant' to the vagaries of the Thought Police, while wondering what innocent observation, remark, joke or satirical quip will result in censure.

The Q&A, superbly synchronised with the 'news' discussion thread release regarding account-wide achievements, was just another soulless edict from the ivory tower. The timing itself implied that concerns raised were never seriously considered or reflected on and its content failed utterly to answer the real questions asked.

This thread is the first instance of an attempt at actual dialogue I have seen.

kudos @ZOS_Kevin for trying.

p00tx

Xebov wrote: »

The feedback was that ppl would like to get account based achievments.

That's not actually what I heard. There was apparently a player (who shall remain unnamed to avoid censorship) who actually intensely spammed Zos's feeds non-stop with requests for account wide achievements. The guy harassed them in every way possible with this request, and is allegedly the reason this goofy change was even put up for consideration. This is how things normally go on here. One person who is either loud, influential, or both makes a lot of noise about something, and that gets interpreted as "the community asked for...", rather than "One persistent person asked for...".

newtinmpls

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Lastly, to a few points made regarding the silencing or burying of posts. This is not happening.

I've seen posts, and then come back to the same thread and they are gone. Sometimes no explanation, not snipped or edited, just gone.

Then there are thread shutdowns - an older one was "Thread for PC users"; no explanation, no reason, just some sort of "we think this thread has run it's course" kind of thing - and this happens to some threads that contain very interesting and thought provoking discussions.

I do agree with @Shawn_PT in that sometimes the patch notes or other ZoS'ly comments will note that people requested this or that.

I second the question: which people?

karekiz

If ZoS only followed what players said they wanted it would be like this: "I'll take a whole YEAR of no new content with just bug fixes".

Followed by 6 months of bug fixes/introductions: "Where is the content". "I am bored and my entire team is quitting because of X reason! We did everything!"

Players be like that.

Xarc

OP said something very important about asking to the community, not a question "yes or no" something but "how to".
It is very important.

VaxtinTheWolf

I stopped getting involved in the PTS long go because I felt it was just wasting my time, and mostly appeared to be a glorified preview of the upcoming content rather than being an actual test space where you are able to voice opinions about a disliked mechanic or to give input on further desired changes and actually have those concerns adjusted in a meaningful way. It felt as though much feedback was cherry-picked on what they wanted to work on and largely many ideas seemed passed by.

I don't know how it is currently, I don't follow very closely anymore and don't play much myself, but its just my experiences with it when I was.

Xebov

Fennwitty wrote: »

The point is ZoS heard the user requirement "Players want Accountwide Achievements" and instead of doing any kind of critical thinking (that we can tell, as they won't even tell us they considered other options) is that they decided to implement Accountwide Achievements at the expense of cutting out an existing feature.

They explained exactly that a reson behind the change is the reduction in database space. In that case they decided that the reduction in space is long term better than having mixed mechanics, which would have increased database requirements btw.

Tandor wrote: »

Xebov wrote: »

Kesstryl wrote: »

Not just a yes or no answer, like would you like Account Wide Achievements (duh), but asking HOW we would like to see things implemented.

Whats the point? You get endless discussions between ppl and, like its already, ppl get mad when their way is not used. Besides that options come with technical limitations or implications that most ppl dont understand.

From a dev perspective the way they handle this situation is exactly the right one and i would not handle it any differently. The feedback was that ppl would like to get account based achievments. There was also a lot of strain on the database and the request gave an opportunity to do exactly that. End result is a system that works exactly like originally requested.

Ppl are mad about it now because they dont like the change, so the table has turned. But in the past where the feature was requested a common goal to combine both and get a clear request going was never done. So thats how it is now.

Kesstryl wrote: »

Trust us a little more?

As a software dev i can tell you that my trust in customers is nearly zero. They are often incapable of saying exactly what they want and since they are mostly not from a tech background they often have no idea how things work.

You start by saying the customers were given exactly what they said they wanted, and finish by saying that customers are often incapable of saying exactly what they want and have no idea how things work.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the decision which you say you wouldn't have handled any differently.

[snip]
Players said they want account based achievments and players said that they want to keep character based achievments. The majority of players choose exactly one of these 2 options. The choice of having both at the same time was not taken by many and countered by some players that liked character based only with various reasons. So tehre was a majority for one of the absolut choices.
As a resault there where enought players supporting account based achievments, but nearly noone supporting the middle ground of having both. Now the players come and dislike the option choosen because they couldnt bother accepting or supporting a middle ground solution earlier. And here we are with "the customers got exactly what they wanted" which is account based achivments and "they where incapable of saying what they realy want" which would have been a mixed system.

p00tx wrote: »

Xebov wrote: »

The feedback was that ppl would like to get account based achievments.

That's not actually what I heard. There was apparently a player (who shall remain unnamed to avoid censorship) who actually intensely spammed Zos's feeds non-stop with requests for account wide achievements. The guy harassed them in every way possible with this request, and is allegedly the reason this goofy change was even put up for consideration. This is how things normally go on here. One person who is either loud, influential, or both makes a lot of noise about something, and that gets interpreted as "the community asked for...", rather than "One persistent person asked for...".

[snip]

[Minor edit for bait.]

Kesstryl

Xebov wrote: »

Fennwitty wrote: »

The point is ZoS heard the user requirement "Players want Accountwide Achievements" and instead of doing any kind of critical thinking (that we can tell, as they won't even tell us they considered other options) is that they decided to implement Accountwide Achievements at the expense of cutting out an existing feature.

They explained exactly that a reson behind the change is the reduction in database space. In that case they decided that the reduction in space is long term better than having mixed mechanics, which would have increased database requirements btw.

Tandor wrote: »

Xebov wrote: »

Kesstryl wrote: »

Not just a yes or no answer, like would you like Account Wide Achievements (duh), but asking HOW we would like to see things implemented.

Whats the point? You get endless discussions between ppl and, like its already, ppl get mad when their way is not used. Besides that options come with technical limitations or implications that most ppl dont understand.

From a dev perspective the way they handle this situation is exactly the right one and i would not handle it any differently. The feedback was that ppl would like to get account based achievments. There was also a lot of strain on the database and the request gave an opportunity to do exactly that. End result is a system that works exactly like originally requested.

Ppl are mad about it now because they dont like the change, so the table has turned. But in the past where the feature was requested a common goal to combine both and get a clear request going was never done. So thats how it is now.

Kesstryl wrote: »

Trust us a little more?

As a software dev i can tell you that my trust in customers is nearly zero. They are often incapable of saying exactly what they want and since they are mostly not from a tech background they often have no idea how things work.

You start by saying the customers were given exactly what they said they wanted, and finish by saying that customers are often incapable of saying exactly what they want and have no idea how things work.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the decision which you say you wouldn't have handled any differently.

[snip]
Players said they want account based achievments and players said that they want to keep character based achievments. The majority of players choose exactly one of these 2 options. The choice of having both at the same time was not taken by many and countered by some players that liked character based only with various reasons. So tehre was a majority for one of the absolut choices.
As a resault there where enought players supporting account based achievments, but nearly noone supporting the middle ground of having both. Now the players come and dislike the option choosen because they couldnt bother accepting or supporting a middle ground solution earlier. And here we are with "the customers got exactly what they wanted" which is account based achivments and "they where incapable of saying what they realy want" which would have been a mixed system.

p00tx wrote: »

Xebov wrote: »

The feedback was that ppl would like to get account based achievments.

That's not actually what I heard. There was apparently a player (who shall remain unnamed to avoid censorship) who actually intensely spammed Zos's feeds non-stop with requests for account wide achievements. The guy harassed them in every way possible with this request, and is allegedly the reason this goofy change was even put up for consideration. This is how things normally go on here. One person who is either loud, influential, or both makes a lot of noise about something, and that gets interpreted as "the community asked for...", rather than "One persistent person asked for...".

[snip]

[Minor edit for bait.]

Xebov wrote: »

Fennwitty wrote: »

The point is ZoS heard the user requirement "Players want Accountwide Achievements" and instead of doing any kind of critical thinking (that we can tell, as they won't even tell us they considered other options) is that they decided to implement Accountwide Achievements at the expense of cutting out an existing feature.

They explained exactly that a reson behind the change is the reduction in database space. In that case they decided that the reduction in space is long term better than having mixed mechanics, which would have increased database requirements btw.

Tandor wrote: »

Xebov wrote: »

Kesstryl wrote: »

Not just a yes or no answer, like would you like Account Wide Achievements (duh), but asking HOW we would like to see things implemented.

Whats the point? You get endless discussions between ppl and, like its already, ppl get mad when their way is not used. Besides that options come with technical limitations or implications that most ppl dont understand.

From a dev perspective the way they handle this situation is exactly the right one and i would not handle it any differently. The feedback was that ppl would like to get account based achievments. There was also a lot of strain on the database and the request gave an opportunity to do exactly that. End result is a system that works exactly like originally requested.

Ppl are mad about it now because they dont like the change, so the table has turned. But in the past where the feature was requested a common goal to combine both and get a clear request going was never done. So thats how it is now.

Kesstryl wrote: »

Trust us a little more?

As a software dev i can tell you that my trust in customers is nearly zero. They are often incapable of saying exactly what they want and since they are mostly not from a tech background they often have no idea how things work.

You start by saying the customers were given exactly what they said they wanted, and finish by saying that customers are often incapable of saying exactly what they want and have no idea how things work.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the decision which you say you wouldn't have handled any differently.

[snip]
Players said they want account based achievments and players said that they want to keep character based achievments. The majority of players choose exactly one of these 2 options. The choice of having both at the same time was not taken by many and countered by some players that liked character based only with various reasons. So tehre was a majority for one of the absolut choices.
As a resault there where enought players supporting account based achievments, but nearly noone supporting the middle ground of having both. Now the players come and dislike the option choosen because they couldnt bother accepting or supporting a middle ground solution earlier. And here we are with "the customers got exactly what they wanted" which is account based achivments and "they where incapable of saying what they realy want" which would have been a mixed system.

p00tx wrote: »

Xebov wrote: »

The feedback was that ppl would like to get account based achievments.

That's not actually what I heard. There was apparently a player (who shall remain unnamed to avoid censorship) who actually intensely spammed Zos's feeds non-stop with requests for account wide achievements. The guy harassed them in every way possible with this request, and is allegedly the reason this goofy change was even put up for consideration. This is how things normally go on here. One person who is either loud, influential, or both makes a lot of noise about something, and that gets interpreted as "the community asked for...", rather than "One persistent person asked for...".

[snip]

[Minor edit for bait.]

Where exactly did you get your information that players wanted one of two choices but not both? I'd like to see this poll.

kind_hero

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Along with that, the development process is a complicated one. One with many moving parts and your feedback is one important part of that process. The dev team uses a variety of tools and metrics along with user feedback to make choices that are beneficial to the long-term success of ESO. Some of this info is not available to players as they are internal metrics and tools. This disconnect can sometimes cause friction between player expectation and dev implementation. Again, this does circle back to how we communicate information around systems/features and we will continue to work on that process.

Regarding AwA, does the dev team need a metric to see that 81+ pages in the AwA thread is something that should be taken seriously? How is feedback an "important part of the process" if there most of the concerns posted in that thread were dismissed? If feedback would be "important", then this mega thread should at least make the devs consider postponing this feature, while engaging more with the community on the topic for a solution that would make both sides win. Don't you want happy customers?

ajkb78

Raevenglass wrote: »

@ZOS_Kevin Thank you for that response! I think this is the type of communication the community is craving in this thread in particular.

I think it's clear that AwA is going to happen, and some of the conversations here have helped me see where some really want this. I understand the desire for having the dyes. busts, titles across an account. Will I judge you if your level 2 character is supporting the "Godslayer" title, maaayyyybbbbeee a little. But I'll get over it.

The point is - I can see what those in favor of AwA are excited about. And most of it, I can live with.

What I am still feeling real pain over is the fact I am going to lose my immersion part of the game that I so enjoy. I still don't understand why I have to lose the gameplay of having alts that are "new" to the world and not viewed by Tamriel as a seasoned veteran.

Do the developers understand what we are upset about? Do they see our points? Is there a solution that might work?

Basically - are we being heard?

Thanks.

I get the desire some have for shared achievements. I've kind of resigned mysrlf to it, and there are a few positives. But the problem is the way it's been implemented damages so much else apart from achievements. I have lots of toons that haven't done much questing, just been levelled so they can play a role for vet content. At some point I might have liked to flesh them out, but the discovery that logging in to one now just renders the maps as "completed", with no indication of which delves, world bosses etc. that specific toon has cleared or not cleared, is hugely problematic. I doubt I'll bother repeating that character building aspect of the game now honestly, and the side effect is that I'll be spending much less time just running around zones and helping out random players with world bosses etc. AWA is nice for the shared titles, and for easing frustration with some specific achievements like monster trophies, but those aspects could have been addressed in a different and much more effective way without the.huge damage to replayability that next patch will bring.

Xebov

Kesstryl wrote: »

Xebov wrote: »

Fennwitty wrote: »

The point is ZoS heard the user requirement "Players want Accountwide Achievements" and instead of doing any kind of critical thinking (that we can tell, as they won't even tell us they considered other options) is that they decided to implement Accountwide Achievements at the expense of cutting out an existing feature.

They explained exactly that a reson behind the change is the reduction in database space. In that case they decided that the reduction in space is long term better than having mixed mechanics, which would have increased database requirements btw.

Tandor wrote: »

Xebov wrote: »

Kesstryl wrote: »

Not just a yes or no answer, like would you like Account Wide Achievements (duh), but asking HOW we would like to see things implemented.

Whats the point? You get endless discussions between ppl and, like its already, ppl get mad when their way is not used. Besides that options come with technical limitations or implications that most ppl dont understand.

From a dev perspective the way they handle this situation is exactly the right one and i would not handle it any differently. The feedback was that ppl would like to get account based achievments. There was also a lot of strain on the database and the request gave an opportunity to do exactly that. End result is a system that works exactly like originally requested.

Ppl are mad about it now because they dont like the change, so the table has turned. But in the past where the feature was requested a common goal to combine both and get a clear request going was never done. So thats how it is now.

Kesstryl wrote: »

Trust us a little more?

As a software dev i can tell you that my trust in customers is nearly zero. They are often incapable of saying exactly what they want and since they are mostly not from a tech background they often have no idea how things work.

You start by saying the customers were given exactly what they said they wanted, and finish by saying that customers are often incapable of saying exactly what they want and have no idea how things work.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the decision which you say you wouldn't have handled any differently.

[snip]
Players said they want account based achievments and players said that they want to keep character based achievments. The majority of players choose exactly one of these 2 options. The choice of having both at the same time was not taken by many and countered by some players that liked character based only with various reasons. So tehre was a majority for one of the absolut choices.
As a resault there where enought players supporting account based achievments, but nearly noone supporting the middle ground of having both. Now the players come and dislike the option choosen because they couldnt bother accepting or supporting a middle ground solution earlier. And here we are with "the customers got exactly what they wanted" which is account based achivments and "they where incapable of saying what they realy want" which would have been a mixed system.

p00tx wrote: »

Xebov wrote: »

The feedback was that ppl would like to get account based achievments.

That's not actually what I heard. There was apparently a player (who shall remain unnamed to avoid censorship) who actually intensely spammed Zos's feeds non-stop with requests for account wide achievements. The guy harassed them in every way possible with this request, and is allegedly the reason this goofy change was even put up for consideration. This is how things normally go on here. One person who is either loud, influential, or both makes a lot of noise about something, and that gets interpreted as "the community asked for...", rather than "One persistent person asked for...".

[snip]

[Minor edit for bait.]

Xebov wrote: »

Fennwitty wrote: »

The point is ZoS heard the user requirement "Players want Accountwide Achievements" and instead of doing any kind of critical thinking (that we can tell, as they won't even tell us they considered other options) is that they decided to implement Accountwide Achievements at the expense of cutting out an existing feature.

They explained exactly that a reson behind the change is the reduction in database space. In that case they decided that the reduction in space is long term better than having mixed mechanics, which would have increased database requirements btw.

Tandor wrote: »

Xebov wrote: »

Kesstryl wrote: »

Not just a yes or no answer, like would you like Account Wide Achievements (duh), but asking HOW we would like to see things implemented.

Whats the point? You get endless discussions between ppl and, like its already, ppl get mad when their way is not used. Besides that options come with technical limitations or implications that most ppl dont understand.

From a dev perspective the way they handle this situation is exactly the right one and i would not handle it any differently. The feedback was that ppl would like to get account based achievments. There was also a lot of strain on the database and the request gave an opportunity to do exactly that. End result is a system that works exactly like originally requested.

Ppl are mad about it now because they dont like the change, so the table has turned. But in the past where the feature was requested a common goal to combine both and get a clear request going was never done. So thats how it is now.

Kesstryl wrote: »

Trust us a little more?

As a software dev i can tell you that my trust in customers is nearly zero. They are often incapable of saying exactly what they want and since they are mostly not from a tech background they often have no idea how things work.

You start by saying the customers were given exactly what they said they wanted, and finish by saying that customers are often incapable of saying exactly what they want and have no idea how things work.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the decision which you say you wouldn't have handled any differently.

[snip]
Players said they want account based achievments and players said that they want to keep character based achievments. The majority of players choose exactly one of these 2 options. The choice of having both at the same time was not taken by many and countered by some players that liked character based only with various reasons. So tehre was a majority for one of the absolut choices.
As a resault there where enought players supporting account based achievments, but nearly noone supporting the middle ground of having both. Now the players come and dislike the option choosen because they couldnt bother accepting or supporting a middle ground solution earlier. And here we are with "the customers got exactly what they wanted" which is account based achivments and "they where incapable of saying what they realy want" which would have been a mixed system.

p00tx wrote: »

Xebov wrote: »

The feedback was that ppl would like to get account based achievments.

That's not actually what I heard. There was apparently a player (who shall remain unnamed to avoid censorship) who actually intensely spammed Zos's feeds non-stop with requests for account wide achievements. The guy harassed them in every way possible with this request, and is allegedly the reason this goofy change was even put up for consideration. This is how things normally go on here. One person who is either loud, influential, or both makes a lot of noise about something, and that gets interpreted as "the community asked for...", rather than "One persistent person asked for...".

[snip]

[Minor edit for bait.]

Where exactly did you get your information that players wanted one of two choices but not both? I'd like to see this poll.

You just have to read all the threads about it. They where mostly one sided. Players either layed out they like account based achievments because they like to play on various characters or they said they want to keep character based achievments because they see characters as entitites. A small number of players mentioned a hybrid system, but that was dismissed by some character based players because tehy realy did not want to get titles account based. There where countless of tehse threads over time.

Fennwitty

Xebov wrote: »

Fennwitty wrote: »

The point is ZoS heard the user requirement "Players want Accountwide Achievements" and instead of doing any kind of critical thinking (that we can tell, as they won't even tell us they considered other options) is that they decided to implement Accountwide Achievements at the expense of cutting out an existing feature.

They explained exactly that a reson behind the change is the reduction in database space. In that case they decided that the reduction in space is long term better than having mixed mechanics, which would have increased database requirements btw.

With all due respect, you say their motivation is database performance in one reply, but then saying they're simply giving customers what they wanted in the next. The company is coming across as disingenuous.

There are three reasonable scenarios:

1. The company primarily wanted to reduce the data footprint, and getting to say they're implementing a 'feature' of accountwide achievements is icing.

2. The company primarily wanted to do accountwide achievements, and improving database performance is the icing.

3. The company wanted to give both accountwide and specific achievements, truly couldn't do both, and acted on the belief more players would be happy with accountwide in the long run. Improving database performance is the icing.

Under no scenarios did the customers ask for 'please get rid of character-specific achievements.' That was not a user requirement.

I would love to believe it was number 3, but that's not what the Q&A says. The Q&A vacillates between 1 and 2. This is eroding trust.

heaven13

Xebov wrote: »

Kesstryl wrote: »

Xebov wrote: »

Fennwitty wrote: »

The point is ZoS heard the user requirement "Players want Accountwide Achievements" and instead of doing any kind of critical thinking (that we can tell, as they won't even tell us they considered other options) is that they decided to implement Accountwide Achievements at the expense of cutting out an existing feature.

They explained exactly that a reson behind the change is the reduction in database space. In that case they decided that the reduction in space is long term better than having mixed mechanics, which would have increased database requirements btw.

Tandor wrote: »

Xebov wrote: »

Kesstryl wrote: »

Not just a yes or no answer, like would you like Account Wide Achievements (duh), but asking HOW we would like to see things implemented.

Whats the point? You get endless discussions between ppl and, like its already, ppl get mad when their way is not used. Besides that options come with technical limitations or implications that most ppl dont understand.

From a dev perspective the way they handle this situation is exactly the right one and i would not handle it any differently. The feedback was that ppl would like to get account based achievments. There was also a lot of strain on the database and the request gave an opportunity to do exactly that. End result is a system that works exactly like originally requested.

Ppl are mad about it now because they dont like the change, so the table has turned. But in the past where the feature was requested a common goal to combine both and get a clear request going was never done. So thats how it is now.

Kesstryl wrote: »

Trust us a little more?

As a software dev i can tell you that my trust in customers is nearly zero. They are often incapable of saying exactly what they want and since they are mostly not from a tech background they often have no idea how things work.

You start by saying the customers were given exactly what they said they wanted, and finish by saying that customers are often incapable of saying exactly what they want and have no idea how things work.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the decision which you say you wouldn't have handled any differently.

[snip]
Players said they want account based achievments and players said that they want to keep character based achievments. The majority of players choose exactly one of these 2 options. The choice of having both at the same time was not taken by many and countered by some players that liked character based only with various reasons. So tehre was a majority for one of the absolut choices.
As a resault there where enought players supporting account based achievments, but nearly noone supporting the middle ground of having both. Now the players come and dislike the option choosen because they couldnt bother accepting or supporting a middle ground solution earlier. And here we are with "the customers got exactly what they wanted" which is account based achivments and "they where incapable of saying what they realy want" which would have been a mixed system.

p00tx wrote: »

Xebov wrote: »

The feedback was that ppl would like to get account based achievments.

That's not actually what I heard. There was apparently a player (who shall remain unnamed to avoid censorship) who actually intensely spammed Zos's feeds non-stop with requests for account wide achievements. The guy harassed them in every way possible with this request, and is allegedly the reason this goofy change was even put up for consideration. This is how things normally go on here. One person who is either loud, influential, or both makes a lot of noise about something, and that gets interpreted as "the community asked for...", rather than "One persistent person asked for...".

[snip]

[Minor edit for bait.]

Xebov wrote: »

Fennwitty wrote: »

The point is ZoS heard the user requirement "Players want Accountwide Achievements" and instead of doing any kind of critical thinking (that we can tell, as they won't even tell us they considered other options) is that they decided to implement Accountwide Achievements at the expense of cutting out an existing feature.

They explained exactly that a reson behind the change is the reduction in database space. In that case they decided that the reduction in space is long term better than having mixed mechanics, which would have increased database requirements btw.

Tandor wrote: »

Xebov wrote: »

Kesstryl wrote: »

Not just a yes or no answer, like would you like Account Wide Achievements (duh), but asking HOW we would like to see things implemented.

Whats the point? You get endless discussions between ppl and, like its already, ppl get mad when their way is not used. Besides that options come with technical limitations or implications that most ppl dont understand.

From a dev perspective the way they handle this situation is exactly the right one and i would not handle it any differently. The feedback was that ppl would like to get account based achievments. There was also a lot of strain on the database and the request gave an opportunity to do exactly that. End result is a system that works exactly like originally requested.

Ppl are mad about it now because they dont like the change, so the table has turned. But in the past where the feature was requested a common goal to combine both and get a clear request going was never done. So thats how it is now.

Kesstryl wrote: »

Trust us a little more?

As a software dev i can tell you that my trust in customers is nearly zero. They are often incapable of saying exactly what they want and since they are mostly not from a tech background they often have no idea how things work.

You start by saying the customers were given exactly what they said they wanted, and finish by saying that customers are often incapable of saying exactly what they want and have no idea how things work.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the decision which you say you wouldn't have handled any differently.

[snip]
Players said they want account based achievments and players said that they want to keep character based achievments. The majority of players choose exactly one of these 2 options. The choice of having both at the same time was not taken by many and countered by some players that liked character based only with various reasons. So tehre was a majority for one of the absolut choices.
As a resault there where enought players supporting account based achievments, but nearly noone supporting the middle ground of having both. Now the players come and dislike the option choosen because they couldnt bother accepting or supporting a middle ground solution earlier. And here we are with "the customers got exactly what they wanted" which is account based achivments and "they where incapable of saying what they realy want" which would have been a mixed system.

p00tx wrote: »

Xebov wrote: »

The feedback was that ppl would like to get account based achievments.

That's not actually what I heard. There was apparently a player (who shall remain unnamed to avoid censorship) who actually intensely spammed Zos's feeds non-stop with requests for account wide achievements. The guy harassed them in every way possible with this request, and is allegedly the reason this goofy change was even put up for consideration. This is how things normally go on here. One person who is either loud, influential, or both makes a lot of noise about something, and that gets interpreted as "the community asked for...", rather than "One persistent person asked for...".

[snip]

[Minor edit for bait.]

Where exactly did you get your information that players wanted one of two choices but not both? I'd like to see this poll.

You just have to read all the threads about it. They where mostly one sided. Players either layed out they like account based achievments because they like to play on various characters or they said they want to keep character based achievments because they see characters as entitites. A small number of players mentioned a hybrid system, but that was dismissed by some character based players because tehy realy did not want to get titles account based. There where countless of tehse threads over time.

Pull up any number of those previous threads asking for AwA and read through them. Actually read them. Lots of people, even back then, offered suggestions on how to have both systems and what things they’d like to see if such a system went live including achievements that were account only, like do the main quest line on all classes, etc.

Additionally, as has already been pointed out, people didn’t think asking for one thing would come at the cost of the other. Can you imagine if ZoS had said “we’re giving you a craft bag so now that you have that, you can no longer store mats in your bank”. “We’re adding sky shards to the crown store and removing them from overland so you don’t have to go collect them anymore”.

Seminolegirl1992

Fennwitty wrote: »

Xebov wrote: »

Fennwitty wrote: »

The point is ZoS heard the user requirement "Players want Accountwide Achievements" and instead of doing any kind of critical thinking (that we can tell, as they won't even tell us they considered other options) is that they decided to implement Accountwide Achievements at the expense of cutting out an existing feature.

They explained exactly that a reson behind the change is the reduction in database space. In that case they decided that the reduction in space is long term better than having mixed mechanics, which would have increased database requirements btw.

With all due respect, you say their motivation is database performance in one reply, but then saying they're simply giving customers what they wanted in the next. The company is coming across as disingenuous.

There are three reasonable scenarios:

1. The company primarily wanted to reduce the data footprint, and getting to say they're implementing a 'feature' of accountwide achievements is icing.

2. The company primarily wanted to do accountwide achievements, and improving database performance is the icing.

3. The company wanted to give both accountwide and specific achievements, truly couldn't do both, and acted on the belief more players would be happy with accountwide in the long run. Improving database performance is the icing.

Under no scenarios did the customers ask for 'please get rid of character-specific achievements.' That was not a user requirement.

I would love to believe it was number 3, but that's not what the Q&A says. The Q&A vacillates between 1 and 2. This is eroding trust.

It's number 1 I think. They're not going to do anything in game that would increase the data footprint, i.e. implementing account wide achievements *in addition to* the achievement tab we have now, which is actually what people wanted (basically, we wanted AWA as a way to see what our characters have done while on a different character, without having to guess who did what and when...not essentially erase individual progress). Their goal here is to reduce the data footprint and cross their fingers that it has a real impact, because they're not sure what the heck else to do, so they're willing to try just about any incremental reduction in hopes they will add up. Same can be said for player housing. Increasing limits reduces performance. Etc.

wenchmore420b14_ESO

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

Fennwitty wrote: »

Xebov wrote: »

Fennwitty wrote: »

The point is ZoS heard the user requirement "Players want Accountwide Achievements" and instead of doing any kind of critical thinking (that we can tell, as they won't even tell us they considered other options) is that they decided to implement Accountwide Achievements at the expense of cutting out an existing feature.

They explained exactly that a reson behind the change is the reduction in database space. In that case they decided that the reduction in space is long term better than having mixed mechanics, which would have increased database requirements btw.

With all due respect, you say their motivation is database performance in one reply, but then saying they're simply giving customers what they wanted in the next. The company is coming across as disingenuous.

There are three reasonable scenarios:

1. The company primarily wanted to reduce the data footprint, and getting to say they're implementing a 'feature' of accountwide achievements is icing.

2. The company primarily wanted to do accountwide achievements, and improving database performance is the icing.

3. The company wanted to give both accountwide and specific achievements, truly couldn't do both, and acted on the belief more players would be happy with accountwide in the long run. Improving database performance is the icing.

Under no scenarios did the customers ask for 'please get rid of character-specific achievements.' That was not a user requirement.

I would love to believe it was number 3, but that's not what the Q&A says. The Q&A vacillates between 1 and 2. This is eroding trust.

It's number 1 I think. They're not going to do anything in game that would increase the data footprint, i.e. implementing account wide achievements *in addition to* the achievement tab we have now, which is actually what people wanted (basically, we wanted AWA as a way to see what our characters have done while on a different character, without having to guess who did what and when...not essentially erase individual progress). Their goal here is to reduce the data footprint and cross their fingers that it has a real impact, because they're not sure what the heck else to do, so they're willing to try just about any incremental reduction in hopes they will add up. Same can be said for player housing. Increasing limits reduces performance. Etc.

So won't adding a new card game with achievements and 4 decks of cards to each player add data?
Are we removing character individuality to make room for the CCG?

Tannus15

wenchmore420b14_ESO wrote: »

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

Fennwitty wrote: »

Xebov wrote: »

Fennwitty wrote: »

The point is ZoS heard the user requirement "Players want Accountwide Achievements" and instead of doing any kind of critical thinking (that we can tell, as they won't even tell us they considered other options) is that they decided to implement Accountwide Achievements at the expense of cutting out an existing feature.

They explained exactly that a reson behind the change is the reduction in database space. In that case they decided that the reduction in space is long term better than having mixed mechanics, which would have increased database requirements btw.

With all due respect, you say their motivation is database performance in one reply, but then saying they're simply giving customers what they wanted in the next. The company is coming across as disingenuous.

There are three reasonable scenarios:

1. The company primarily wanted to reduce the data footprint, and getting to say they're implementing a 'feature' of accountwide achievements is icing.

2. The company primarily wanted to do accountwide achievements, and improving database performance is the icing.

3. The company wanted to give both accountwide and specific achievements, truly couldn't do both, and acted on the belief more players would be happy with accountwide in the long run. Improving database performance is the icing.

Under no scenarios did the customers ask for 'please get rid of character-specific achievements.' That was not a user requirement.

I would love to believe it was number 3, but that's not what the Q&A says. The Q&A vacillates between 1 and 2. This is eroding trust.

It's number 1 I think. They're not going to do anything in game that would increase the data footprint, i.e. implementing account wide achievements *in addition to* the achievement tab we have now, which is actually what people wanted (basically, we wanted AWA as a way to see what our characters have done while on a different character, without having to guess who did what and when...not essentially erase individual progress). Their goal here is to reduce the data footprint and cross their fingers that it has a real impact, because they're not sure what the heck else to do, so they're willing to try just about any incremental reduction in hopes they will add up. Same can be said for player housing. Increasing limits reduces performance. Etc.

So won't adding a new card game with achievements and 4 decks of cards to each player add data?
Are we removing character individuality to make room for the CCG?

I would imagine it would only need to fetch your deck when you attempt to play a game. it's not data the game needs constantly as you walk around like it does for achievements.

CyberOnEso

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Some of that has been hindered by the pandemic. As we are not back in the office yet, it would be difficult to do some hands-on player experience with community members outside of PTS.

Flying streamers, content creators, and press people to your office, making them sign an NDA and showing them the latest chapter is not necessary for gauging player feedback. Flying people to your office to show them content is not getting feedback, it's marketing. Giving content creators early access to chapters and private servers ahead of the PTS is not getting feedback, it's marketing.

You don't need to work constantly in secrecy only sharing information with a select few people, when you are making large changes to the game, or even small changes, you can just say this is something you are planning.

Obviously you have been working on this feature for months. You could have posted a forum post when the Deadlands preview stream ended just saying

We are currently working on Accountwide Achievements. We are aiming for this feature to ship with Update 33, however, this is not at all guarenteed as the feature is still work in progress.

We expect the feature to work as follows:
When you log into a character all your achievements will be merged into one account- wide pool that will be shown across all characters.
The character that you first achieved the achievement on will be shown as tooltip when you hover over the achievement.
Not all achievements will be merged, however, due to technical reasons. These include:

• Dragonguard Daily Achievements
• Motif Achievements
• etc.

We are making this change due to performance concerns, as currently the database is storing too much achievement information which is slowing down character load.
We understand this may be a controverial change so we wanted to gauge your response so we have enough time before the Update 33 PTS to make adjustments to the system.

Thank you for your thoughts and feedback, see you all in Tamriel!

Kesstryl

CyberOnEso wrote: »

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Some of that has been hindered by the pandemic. As we are not back in the office yet, it would be difficult to do some hands-on player experience with community members outside of PTS.

Flying streamers, content creators, and press people to your office, making them sign an NDA and showing them the latest chapter is not necessary for gauging player feedback. Flying people to your office to show them content is not getting feedback, it's marketting. Giving content creators early access to chapters and private servers ahead of the PTS is not getting feedback, it's marketting.

You don't need to work constantly in secrecy only sharing information with a select few people, when you are making large changes to the game, or even small changes, you can just say this is something you are planning.

Obviously you have been working on this feature for months. You could have posted a forum post when the Deadlands preview stream ended just saying

We are currently working on Accountwide Achievements. We are aiming for this feature to ship with Update 33, however, this is not at all guarenteed as the feature is still work in progress.

We expect the feature to work as follows:
When you log into a character all your achievements will be merged into one account- wide pool that will be shown across all characters.
The character that you first achieved the achievement on will be shown as tooltip when you hover over the achievement.
Not all achievements will be merged, however, due to technical reasons. These include:

• Dragonguard Daily Achievements
• Motif Achievements
• etc.

We are making this change due to performance concerns, as currently the database is storing too much achievement information which is slowing down character load.
We understand this may be a controverial change so we wanted to gauge your response so we have enough time before the Update 33 PTS to make adjustments to the system.

Thank you for your thoughts and feedback, see you all in Tamriel!

Totally agree! Also the top streamers are not the entire community. Those who follow them tend to have a narrow view of the game as a challenge to be beat repeatedly with theory crafting and meta builds. They don't care about role play or immersion, and tend to be dismissive of those who do care about those things. While their feedback is valuable, it is only valuable to the sphere involving their part of the game. You can't rely on them to speak for the role players, the collectors, the housing enthusiasts, the questers, and the noobs here since beta who will never get God' Slayer. Thats why I said ZOS needs to get feedback from a wide range of players with different play styles. Favoring the streamers over the rest of us only further divides the community, reduces freedom for multiple play styles, disrespects multiple play styles, and creates a lot of I'll feelings towards ZOS. Get our feedback too. We also pay your salaries with our subs and role play purchases.


edited for spell check shenanigans

Ascarl

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Lastly, to a few points made regarding the silencing or burying of posts. This is not happening. If players break community guidelines while trying to express their thoughts, posts will be edited or removed. Not in an effort to silence, but because guidelines were broken. You are free to repost with content that does not break community guidelines. If anyone feels or suspects a post are being silenced or buried, please feel free to reach out to me and I will look into that personally. I will at the very least be able to provide an explanation.

Hopefully, this helps provide some context. Trust is needed on both sides for ESO to succeed and we can get there. We really do appreciate the feedback across the board. Please feel free to continue to add to the conversation.

This is only de jure correct. Yes posts will get locked because because of guidelines are broken. However it seems to me that the actual enforcement of the rule is highly dependant on how the moderators (or bots - I am still unsure if random name+ random letter are real people or bots) feel about the thread is benefiacial about their agenda.
If a thread was started a year ago and the content is not favorable to the mods, it's getting locked for high age ("outdated information") pretty soon. If this is a cheerful post, it will most likely get ignored. "top 3 about ESO" will certainly live longer than "3 most annoying ESO aspects" for sure.