So, we got a confirmation that we weren't heard

Elsonso

RBAP28 wrote: »

Is everyone forgetting the 95 page PTS 33 feedback thread for AwA? This going live was something I didn't think would happen. Even from a business point of view, taking away customers play time? So if history repeats, they nerf us into the ground now, then buff us back up (just in time) for next years release.

This is a strange year for ESO.

I am very interested in what is driving all of the... interesting... decision making we are seeing in this year's content.

Is 4Q going to be the next shoe to drop in this year's exciting rollout train, or are they done messing with us? Will 2023 see more positive, player friendly, game building content?

starkerealm

Ingenon wrote: »

TPishek wrote: »

renne wrote: »

Can't wait for U36 when they revert everything in a desperate effort to bribe everyone back to the game with a hangdog notes app apology.

And then Update 37 will be "We took a long break since the last big combat overhaul, but we still have to finish our work" and we'll see something even more draconian and asinine.

^ This. Both of these.

Oh, and the PTS week 3 changes? DOT duration will be adjusted to 19 seconds, instead of 20 seconds that was in PTS week 1. Or maybe they will double down on their changes, and make DOT duration longer than 20 seconds ...

• We have realized players were clearing content we did not intend them to. As a result, we have removed Damage Over Time Effects.
• We have realized that players were still playing healers, in spite of our attempts to guide them away from this. As a result, all heals will instead, now deal damage to the player who activated them.
• Due to consistent whining from NPCs, we have given all monsters in the game the ability to interrupt any of your attacks.
• NPCs now understand to intentionally step out of your AoEs, and will not remain in them, even ignoring taunt.

Faulgor

Elsonso wrote: »

RBAP28 wrote: »

Is everyone forgetting the 95 page PTS 33 feedback thread for AwA? This going live was something I didn't think would happen. Even from a business point of view, taking away customers play time? So if history repeats, they nerf us into the ground now, then buff us back up (just in time) for next years release.

This is a strange year for ESO.

I am very interested in what is driving all of the... interesting... decision making we are seeing in this year's content.

Is 4Q going to be the next shoe to drop in this year's exciting rollout train, or are they done messing with us? Will 2023 see more positive, player friendly, game building content?

What still puzzles me is them saying, I believe it was during the ESO live before PTS, that we have to keep in mind how planned additions/changes to the game will affect Update 35 changes. I.e., trust us, it will all make sense later.

Since then I have this nagging question in the back of my mind what could possibly justify these changes.

Mr_Stach

Faulgor wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

RBAP28 wrote: »

Is everyone forgetting the 95 page PTS 33 feedback thread for AwA? This going live was something I didn't think would happen. Even from a business point of view, taking away customers play time? So if history repeats, they nerf us into the ground now, then buff us back up (just in time) for next years release.

This is a strange year for ESO.

I am very interested in what is driving all of the... interesting... decision making we are seeing in this year's content.

Is 4Q going to be the next shoe to drop in this year's exciting rollout train, or are they done messing with us? Will 2023 see more positive, player friendly, game building content?

What still puzzles me is them saying, I believe it was during the ESO live before PTS, that we have to keep in mind how planned additions/changes to the game will affect Update 35 changes. I.e., trust us, it will all make sense later.

Since then I have this nagging question in the back of my mind what could possibly justify these changes.

That's the real issue is it's all vague, look at the Roadmap:


"Combat Adjustments"
"Accessibility Improvements"

We really don't get a sneak behind the curtain until it's in our face.

If something is coming down the rail in Q4, say "in Q4 we are introducing X which will improve Y, with the current Balance AoE and Single Target DoTs and HoTs will get even more powerful, to prepare for this we will be ramping back their Power, but with the introduction of X, it will all balance out to a Better Spot"

Elsonso

Mr_Stach wrote: »

If something is coming down the rail in Q4, say "in Q4 we are introducing X which will improve Y, with the current Balance AoE and Single Target DoTs and HoTs will get even more powerful, to prepare for this we will be ramping back their Power, but with the introduction of X, it will all balance out to a Better Spot"

In my experience, looking back over the years, this is not how ZOS thinks. This requires a type of planning and project management that I do not expect from them. I think of them as being very conservative and reactionary. If the above were the case, my expectation is that the Update 35 changes would have been delayed to Update 36.

Mr_Stach

Elsonso wrote: »

Mr_Stach wrote: »

If something is coming down the rail in Q4, say "in Q4 we are introducing X which will improve Y, with the current Balance AoE and Single Target DoTs and HoTs will get even more powerful, to prepare for this we will be ramping back their Power, but with the introduction of X, it will all balance out to a Better Spot"

In my experience, looking back over the years, this is not how ZOS thinks. This requires a type of planning and project management that I do not expect from them. I think of them as being very conservative and reactionary. If the above were the case, my expectation is that the Update 35 changes would have been delayed to Update 36.

Yeah I agree.

I work for a Financial Institution, one of our core values is "Think Forward", this idea can be interpreted many ways, I personally use it to make sure people aren't taken by surprises when changes happen (I work with our companies Investors, lots of changes happen constantly).

I think that Zos could Benefit from this mindset of "Thinking Forward", which would mean they would need an actual vision so they can instill that in their customers.

p00tx

divnyi wrote: »

Adjustments to U35? On PTS3, so no further feedback is possible?

We don't need any adjustments to U35. U35 is a failure from top to bottom - in the concepts, in the changes, in the new sets. You won't be able to fix it.

I think they're just acknowledging that they heard us and they're taking our findings into account. This is a good announcement. That said, keep testing and offering constructively critical feedback. More data is never a bad thing.

JustAGoodPlayer

Current PTS version have so many bugs, that the only way to fix it if it starts from 3-rd week is delete it )

Other way all this buged ... thing ... goes life.

Ingenon

Faulgor wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

RBAP28 wrote: »

Is everyone forgetting the 95 page PTS 33 feedback thread for AwA? This going live was something I didn't think would happen. Even from a business point of view, taking away customers play time? So if history repeats, they nerf us into the ground now, then buff us back up (just in time) for next years release.

This is a strange year for ESO.

I am very interested in what is driving all of the... interesting... decision making we are seeing in this year's content.

Is 4Q going to be the next shoe to drop in this year's exciting rollout train, or are they done messing with us? Will 2023 see more positive, player friendly, game building content?

What still puzzles me is them saying, I believe it was during the ESO live before PTS, that we have to keep in mind how planned additions/changes to the game will affect Update 35 changes. I.e., trust us, it will all make sense later.

Since then I have this nagging question in the back of my mind what could possibly justify these changes.

They said they tested these changes for about 80 hours. I play on console, so I've never played with Gilliam. But I understand that he is an excellent player. Folks like Nefas have tested on PTS and say that excellent players can modify their play and not be badly affected by these changes. However, folks like Nefas say that average and below average players are badly affected by these changes.

So, ZOS believes they have adequately internally tested these changes. And their internal testing is not seeing the problem. And I believe that they will push these changes out. And then be surprised with the customer backlash, once the changes go live. Because I believe that most players are average (or below average), and if folks posting on PTS are correct, these changes will hurt most players.

Mr_Stach

Ingenon wrote: »

Faulgor wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

RBAP28 wrote: »

Is everyone forgetting the 95 page PTS 33 feedback thread for AwA? This going live was something I didn't think would happen. Even from a business point of view, taking away customers play time? So if history repeats, they nerf us into the ground now, then buff us back up (just in time) for next years release.

This is a strange year for ESO.

I am very interested in what is driving all of the... interesting... decision making we are seeing in this year's content.

Is 4Q going to be the next shoe to drop in this year's exciting rollout train, or are they done messing with us? Will 2023 see more positive, player friendly, game building content?

What still puzzles me is them saying, I believe it was during the ESO live before PTS, that we have to keep in mind how planned additions/changes to the game will affect Update 35 changes. I.e., trust us, it will all make sense later.

Since then I have this nagging question in the back of my mind what could possibly justify these changes.

They said they tested these changes for about 80 hours. I play on console, so I've never played with Gilliam. But I understand that he is an excellent player. Folks like Nefas have tested on PTS and say that excellent players can modify their play and not be badly affected by these changes. However, folks like Nefas say that average and below average players are badly affected by these changes.

So, ZOS believes they have adequately internally tested these changes. And their internal testing is not seeing the problem. And I believe that they will push these changes out. And then be surprised with the customer backlash, once the changes go live. Because I believe that most players are average (or below average), and if folks posting on PTS are correct, these changes will hurt most players.

1 day of external testing is months of internal testing. I don't think any amount of Internal testing is good enough and we don't the parameters of their testing, what they were testing for.

Also it's like a chef testing his own cooking to see if it tastes good, you need to test against other palettes that are not biased to the flavor.

Elsonso

Ingenon wrote: »

So, ZOS believes they have adequately internally tested these changes. And their internal testing is not seeing the problem. And I believe that they will push these changes out. And then be surprised with the customer backlash, once the changes go live. Because I believe that most players are average (or below average), and if folks posting on PTS are correct, these changes will hurt most players.

My expectation is that they view the discord here as a vocal minority that is blowing things out of proportion and that the majority will just align themselves with the changes. If the part of the community that really disagrees is chased away, there is a larger part of the community that will just stick with it, and a whole pool of new players that don't care either way.

For ZOS, this is good, because they have stuff on the line and this probably has to go out the door to meet whatever goals they have that are driving it. There are always goals, and they are always driving things. It is what goals do. Whatever those goal are, they are the ones that determine whether this goes out, not what is said in here.

Edit: That said... if they can make changes within the parameters of the goal, then they will certainly entertain such and consider it. Or... so I believe.

peacenote

p00tx wrote: »

divnyi wrote: »

Adjustments to U35? On PTS3, so no further feedback is possible?

We don't need any adjustments to U35. U35 is a failure from top to bottom - in the concepts, in the changes, in the new sets. You won't be able to fix it.

I think they're just acknowledging that they heard us and they're taking our findings into account. This is a good announcement. That said, keep testing and offering constructively critical feedback. More data is never a bad thing.

I hope you're right. I SO WANT to believe that you're right.

But in my experience, once we're to the point where the stance is "adjustments for PTS," it really means they're going ahead with the premise, and using our tests to make adjustment to some internal markers they're watching, but that's it.

• I truly believed that ZOS didn't understand the difference between the broad sentiment of "I don't want to be forced to be a vampire just for a passive" and the more militant belief of "vampire needs to be extremely niche" because of all of the loud feedback.
• I truly believed ZOS was so focused on performance they didn't understand how making healers less mobile, with the inability to place multiple healing springs, was limiting the role. (I will only list one healing change though I could go on and on.)
• I truly believed that something as minor as a Bosmer passive (from an ESO-wide gameplay standpoint) would be restored to a previous state in the face of overwhelming and passionate community feedback.
• I truly believed one person's zeal for vMA caused the community's feedback about re-earning weapons to be overlooked.
• I truly believed, right up until the end, that ZOS hadn't realized the nuances of AwA and the impact it had on certain playstyles, and that if we gave ENOUGH clear, logical feedback, they'd tweak the proposal.
• I truly believed that ZOS wasn't aware of the fact that HA builds were a more accessible option for many players, each time they were nerfed.
• I truly believed that the extremely disruptive "experiments" in Cyrodiil would produce significant performance improvements within a decade of when they were performed.

I believe no more. Not because some of the changes weren't reversed, which I could understand for a myriad of reasons, but because ZOS chose to ignore, as opposed to address, large amounts of feedback on these topics. They solicited feedback and then talked "in between" the landslide of feedback, deftly avoiding some very valid points.

In the meantime, fun for many was sacrificed with each stubborn stance, and players were left with the feeling that their time wasn't respected.

I do feel extremely sympathetic for anyone on the dev team who is trying to make a difference, and implement good changes, and listen to the community. I know those folks are there. But there have been too many major, disruptive changes alienating areas of the player base for what seems like no good reason for me to be able to share your sentiment. But for everyone's sake, I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

IZZEFlameLash

p00tx wrote: »

divnyi wrote: »

Adjustments to U35? On PTS3, so no further feedback is possible?

We don't need any adjustments to U35. U35 is a failure from top to bottom - in the concepts, in the changes, in the new sets. You won't be able to fix it.

I think they're just acknowledging that they heard us and they're taking our findings into account. This is a good announcement. That said, keep testing and offering constructively critical feedback. More data is never a bad thing.

It is just a standard PR language unless they show it with action. Until they actually show that they do listen, I won't believe them.

pklemming

Ingenon wrote: »

Faulgor wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

RBAP28 wrote: »

Is everyone forgetting the 95 page PTS 33 feedback thread for AwA? This going live was something I didn't think would happen. Even from a business point of view, taking away customers play time? So if history repeats, they nerf us into the ground now, then buff us back up (just in time) for next years release.

This is a strange year for ESO.

I am very interested in what is driving all of the... interesting... decision making we are seeing in this year's content.

Is 4Q going to be the next shoe to drop in this year's exciting rollout train, or are they done messing with us? Will 2023 see more positive, player friendly, game building content?

What still puzzles me is them saying, I believe it was during the ESO live before PTS, that we have to keep in mind how planned additions/changes to the game will affect Update 35 changes. I.e., trust us, it will all make sense later.

Since then I have this nagging question in the back of my mind what could possibly justify these changes.

They said they tested these changes for about 80 hours. I play on console, so I've never played with Gilliam. But I understand that he is an excellent player. Folks like Nefas have tested on PTS and say that excellent players can modify their play and not be badly affected by these changes. However, folks like Nefas say that average and below average players are badly affected by these changes.

So, ZOS believes they have adequately internally tested these changes. And their internal testing is not seeing the problem. And I believe that they will push these changes out. And then be surprised with the customer backlash, once the changes go live. Because I believe that most players are average (or below average), and if folks posting on PTS are correct, these changes will hurt most players.

80 hours is nothing for testing, considering we are talking about multiple classes.

Ask those people that actually parse, 80 hours is kind of laughable. I am not sure the healing was even tested in challenging content.

There are changes that have put in especially for PVP too, without considering the ramifications for PVE.. This often happens both ways around.

The only people currently thinking this is good are the people that have not tested it on PTS and the devs who are blinkered by their own work.

The whole thing is ill-considered and will probably be pushed through despite the harm because it is someone's baby and they refuse to admit that it isn't a baby but some kind of evil hellspawn that needs to be thrown back in to pit from whence it came.

shadyjane62

p00tx wrote: »

divnyi wrote: »

Adjustments to U35? On PTS3, so no further feedback is possible?

We don't need any adjustments to U35. U35 is a failure from top to bottom - in the concepts, in the changes, in the new sets. You won't be able to fix it.

I think they're just acknowledging that they heard us and they're taking our findings into account. This is a good announcement. That said, keep testing and offering constructively critical feedback. More data is never a bad thing.

p00tx wrote: »

divnyi wrote: »

Adjustments to U35? On PTS3, so no further feedback is possible?

We don't need any adjustments to U35. U35 is a failure from top to bottom - in the concepts, in the changes, in the new sets. You won't be able to fix it.

I think they're just acknowledging that they heard us and they're taking our findings into account. This is a good announcement. That said, keep testing and offering constructively critical feedback. More data is never a bad thing.

I did the PTS for the AWA change that ruined the way I play with alts. I ended by deleting 17 alts as my main had done it all.

So many comments begging them not to do it went unheard. I cancelled my year sub then and if I could cancel it again for this monstrosity I would. If it makes it to the PTS it would take a 10.5 earthquake to dislodge it.

starkerealm

Ingenon wrote: »

Faulgor wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

RBAP28 wrote: »

Is everyone forgetting the 95 page PTS 33 feedback thread for AwA? This going live was something I didn't think would happen. Even from a business point of view, taking away customers play time? So if history repeats, they nerf us into the ground now, then buff us back up (just in time) for next years release.

This is a strange year for ESO.

I am very interested in what is driving all of the... interesting... decision making we are seeing in this year's content.

Is 4Q going to be the next shoe to drop in this year's exciting rollout train, or are they done messing with us? Will 2023 see more positive, player friendly, game building content?

What still puzzles me is them saying, I believe it was during the ESO live before PTS, that we have to keep in mind how planned additions/changes to the game will affect Update 35 changes. I.e., trust us, it will all make sense later.

Since then I have this nagging question in the back of my mind what could possibly justify these changes.

They said they tested these changes for about 80 hours. I play on console, so I've never played with Gilliam. But I understand that he is an excellent player. Folks like Nefas have tested on PTS and say that excellent players can modify their play and not be badly affected by these changes. However, folks like Nefas say that average and below average players are badly affected by these changes.

So, ZOS believes they have adequately internally tested these changes. And their internal testing is not seeing the problem. And I believe that they will push these changes out. And then be surprised with the customer backlash, once the changes go live. Because I believe that most players are average (or below average), and if folks posting on PTS are correct, these changes will hurt most players.

Yeah, so, something that happens with ESO: As you start to develop a deeper grasp of the game, you tend to branch out some. It doesn't take that long to fully kit out a character, and (realistically) less than 20 hours to really learn your rotation (practicing it until it's second nature is a different issue, and you do need to get to that point for some of the most demanding endgame content, but you get the idea.)

The result is that a lot of endgame players have multiple specs and styles that they're familiar with, and can transition to. For example, with all of the (frankly, revolting) buffs that nightblades got, if you've learned a stamblade or magblade rotation, you can immediately switch over to that, and quickly recover a lot of your lost damage that way. Part of the reason that works is, this balance pass is super inconsistent.

If you know how to run a Stamblade, your losses will be pretty marginal overall. (I suspect, with a bit of tinkering, I could probably actually see a marginal DPS gain on the PTS with my Stamblade... because their buffs are that broken.) But, if you only know how to run a StamDK, it's almost in the territory of just uninstall and find something else to play because you're not going to get decent performance out of your DK until the winds of nerf change again in the fall.

This gets even worse for players who cannot change their playstyle (which includes a lot of HA players who picked that playstyle due to limited use of their hands.) For them, this is just a huge middle finger, and the combat team telling them to kick rocks. And I really mean that, there's a kind of cruelty to these changes that is really hard to rationalize away.

Part of the issue for veteran players is, we've gotten used to having to shake up our builds every six months. It's caused some pretty serious attrition in the endgame community over the past four years. Part of what's kept me in the game this long is that I've had some perennial builds which never performed particularly well, but were pretty adept at avoiding most nerfs... and, yeah, every single one of them was dumpstered by this patch. So, that's an incentive for me to find another game that better respects my time.

starkerealm

pklemming wrote: »

80 hours is nothing for testing, considering we are talking about multiple classes.

Ask those people that actually parse, 80 hours is kind of laughable. I am not sure the healing was even tested in challenging content.

There are changes that have put in especially for PVP too, without considering the ramifications for PVE.. This often happens both ways around.

The only people currently thinking this is good are the people that have not tested it on PTS and the devs who are blinkered by their own work.

The whole thing is ill-considered and will probably be pushed through despite the harm because it is someone's baby and they refuse to admit that it isn't a baby but some kind of evil hellspawn that needs to be thrown back in to pit from whence it came.

In this case, yeah, 80 hours is, almost literally, nothing, because it was just parsing. I'll keep saying it, louder for those in the back, this time, parsing. Is. Not. The. Game.

Parsing is something you do to kill time. Parsing is a way you practice to get better. Parsing has absolutely zero relation to actually playing content. When Gil said he spent 80 hours parsing, I believe him, because that's the only way someone could put this together and think, "yeah, this will provide a fun experience for the newbies."

Elsonso

starkerealm wrote: »

Part of the issue for veteran players is, we've gotten used to having to shake up our builds every six months. It's caused some pretty serious attrition in the endgame community over the past four years. Part of what's kept me in the game this long is that I've had some perennial builds which never performed particularly well, but were pretty adept at avoiding most nerfs... and, yeah, every single one of them was dumpstered by this patch. So, that's an incentive for me to find another game that better respects my time.

What may be interesting is that I suspect that a lot of players haven't been updating their builds every update. The changes impact them, but not enough to change something that they are used to. I wonder if that changes this update as people try to figure out why it was working the week before, but now...

starkerealm

Elsonso wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Part of the issue for veteran players is, we've gotten used to having to shake up our builds every six months. It's caused some pretty serious attrition in the endgame community over the past four years. Part of what's kept me in the game this long is that I've had some perennial builds which never performed particularly well, but were pretty adept at avoiding most nerfs... and, yeah, every single one of them was dumpstered by this patch. So, that's an incentive for me to find another game that better respects my time.

What may be interesting is that I suspect that a lot of players haven't been updating their builds every update. The changes impact them, but not enough to change something that they are used to. I wonder if that changes this update as people try to figure out why it was working the week before, but now...

I suspect there's a direct correlation between the frequency of build updates, and the burnout rate. I can't prove that, because I don't have access to the data I'd need, but it tracks with what I've seen informally.

IZZEFlameLash

starkerealm wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Part of the issue for veteran players is, we've gotten used to having to shake up our builds every six months. It's caused some pretty serious attrition in the endgame community over the past four years. Part of what's kept me in the game this long is that I've had some perennial builds which never performed particularly well, but were pretty adept at avoiding most nerfs... and, yeah, every single one of them was dumpstered by this patch. So, that's an incentive for me to find another game that better respects my time.

What may be interesting is that I suspect that a lot of players haven't been updating their builds every update. The changes impact them, but not enough to change something that they are used to. I wonder if that changes this update as people try to figure out why it was working the week before, but now...

I suspect there's a direct correlation between the frequency of build updates, and the burnout rate. I can't prove that, because I don't have access to the data I'd need, but it tracks with what I've seen informally.

I for one do not change builds much when I can help it because next one I use will probably become irrelevant when next update hits.

shadyjane62

IZZEFlameLash wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Part of the issue for veteran players is, we've gotten used to having to shake up our builds every six months. It's caused some pretty serious attrition in the endgame community over the past four years. Part of what's kept me in the game this long is that I've had some perennial builds which never performed particularly well, but were pretty adept at avoiding most nerfs... and, yeah, every single one of them was dumpstered by this patch. So, that's an incentive for me to find another game that better respects my time.

What may be interesting is that I suspect that a lot of players haven't been updating their builds every update. The changes impact them, but not enough to change something that they are used to. I wonder if that changes this update as people try to figure out why it was working the week before, but now...

I suspect there's a direct correlation between the frequency of build updates, and the burnout rate. I can't prove that, because I don't have access to the data I'd need, but it tracks with what I've seen informally.

I for one do not change builds much when I can help it because next one I use will probably become irrelevant when next update hits.

I'm still wearing stuff I got to cope with the no proc nonsense.

divnyi

starkerealm wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Part of the issue for veteran players is, we've gotten used to having to shake up our builds every six months. It's caused some pretty serious attrition in the endgame community over the past four years. Part of what's kept me in the game this long is that I've had some perennial builds which never performed particularly well, but were pretty adept at avoiding most nerfs... and, yeah, every single one of them was dumpstered by this patch. So, that's an incentive for me to find another game that better respects my time.

What may be interesting is that I suspect that a lot of players haven't been updating their builds every update. The changes impact them, but not enough to change something that they are used to. I wonder if that changes this update as people try to figure out why it was working the week before, but now...

I suspect there's a direct correlation between the frequency of build updates, and the burnout rate. I can't prove that, because I don't have access to the data I'd need, but it tracks with what I've seen informally.

I can attest there was a huge PvP population drop during bugged DC & Hrothgar era. Lots of the names didn't show up back since.

Remind you, Hrothgar did double intended damage due to a bug. It was fixed only after one month on live.
There was outcry about the sets on PTS too. Devs didn't listen ofc.

This is why major updates on PTS3 is bad. We don't know how many bugs would be there. In timeframe this short, most likely they would not be fixed during PTS. And they will just ignore player feedback again because PTS4-5 they only have time to fix minor things.

Elsonso

IZZEFlameLash wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Part of the issue for veteran players is, we've gotten used to having to shake up our builds every six months. It's caused some pretty serious attrition in the endgame community over the past four years. Part of what's kept me in the game this long is that I've had some perennial builds which never performed particularly well, but were pretty adept at avoiding most nerfs... and, yeah, every single one of them was dumpstered by this patch. So, that's an incentive for me to find another game that better respects my time.

What may be interesting is that I suspect that a lot of players haven't been updating their builds every update. The changes impact them, but not enough to change something that they are used to. I wonder if that changes this update as people try to figure out why it was working the week before, but now...

I suspect there's a direct correlation between the frequency of build updates, and the burnout rate. I can't prove that, because I don't have access to the data I'd need, but it tracks with what I've seen informally.

I for one do not change builds much when I can help it because next one I use will probably become irrelevant when next update hits.

Not only that, it's like clothing styles. If you don't swap out your skills each update, eventually, the skills you use will be OP again.

divnyi

Told ya

Wuuffyy

divnyi wrote: »

Told ya

So this is it? Week 3?

divnyi

Wolf_Watching wrote: »

divnyi wrote: »

Told ya

So this is it? Week 3?

This is it. Week4-5 are only minor bugfixes generally.

VaranisArano

Wolf_Watching wrote: »

divnyi wrote: »

Told ya

So this is it? Week 3?

Pretty much. Okay, there have been times when ZOS made further adjustments on week 4 and 5, and even one memorable time they changes some trait values for the Live patch (Horns of the Reach, IIRC). But for the most part, Week 3 is a really good indicator of how the Live patch is going to go down.

ZOS didn't budge on the light and heavy attacks for Week 3. I think we can resign ourselves to that change going Live.

FantasticFreddie

Fhritz

divnyi wrote: »

Told ya

They listened tho. I mean, it doesn't fix EVERY issue but it still fix a major complaint, and even if ZoS usually doesn't change anything in week 4-5 it doesn't mean nothing will change this time if enough feedback is provided

Carbohydrate

starkerealm wrote: »

In this case, yeah, 80 hours is, almost literally, nothing, because it was just parsing. I'll keep saying it, louder for those in the back, this time, parsing. Is. Not. The. Game.

Parsing is the game from a DPS perspective. I didn't get the new expansion with the new trial, but every other trial before it was, for the most part, stand still and parse your brains out. The higher you climbed with progression in smoother and faster fights, the less responsibility you had as a DPS. Outside of asylum, you mostly stand in place and do the almost exact rotation that you do in your sleep on a trial dummy. Sure, sometimes you have to move slightly outside of stack with hoarfrost in cloudrest, rotate 90 degrees to kill a totem in Kyne's, or move 5 meters to the side of Xalvakka if you had blob. After you deal with your trivial "mechanic", you'd move back to stack and start your dummy parse again.

Maybe if mechanics were a little more involved and had more personal responsibility forced so that they couldn't be stacked as much as possible on tanks/healers, then this wouldn't be the case, but I've yet to see that outside of some outliers.