Update 35 PTS Combat Feedback & Upcoming Changes
-
Rust_in_Peace✭✭✭✭✭Two steps backward and one step forward.
Why does PTS feedback always feel like the players are defending themselves in court and pleading for a lesser sentence?
Sigh.41 -
peacenote✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭My first impressions:
1- Response is appreciated, thank you!
2- Avoidance of direct comments about how the stated changes don't seem to align with the goals strike me as- similar to AwA as there is a "real" underlying reason we aren't being given (probably performance)
- a little like an engineer reading the survey results of what people want in a car, and completely just not processing statements like "smooth ride" "luxury feel" or "I want to feel value for my money" as too esoteric and focusing in on the "we improved acceleration by 2% because people wanted to go faster."
Might be a mix of both. Not "getting" that the larger WHY is something a lot of people want to hear because of the contradictory nature of stated goals vs. results, and/or dismissing the big picture as irrelevant. We aren't necessarily entitled as clients to always hear the reasons for every little thing, and of course it depends on the strategy of the company and how they wish to communicate, but I would like to see ALL communications be as thorough as explaining "why" as they did with the megaserver performance problems. While we are not necessarily owed an explanation, I think ZOS sets up this expectation with the way they solicit feedback from us, the details that tend to be included in the patch notes, and how they rely on our testing. Consistently addressing the why would go a long way towards building trust.
That said, I'm not picking up on any attitude at all in the post, but a genuine effort to address feedback. It's just that the feedback is being viewed through possibly too narrow a lens. Also, the bigger picture was mentioned (emphasis mine):The sheer amount of data and in-game application has helped us tremendously to hone in on the problem spaces that the larger sentiments have pointed out
However it was glossed over and statement jumped straight to the themes they are focusing on improving. I feel much more optimistic that our feedback is being considered than with AwA but still think we're missing a direct "we heard you about the accessibility of content and how these changes seem at odds with our goals, but this is why we think it will help..." confirmation/explanation.
I'm glad for some of the reversals but I am not sure I love the whole doubling down on standardization of sticky vs. static as a new way to categorize abilities. Instinctively I'm more in the "wait and/or start over" camps but, I'm not a theorycrafter. I need to mentally process it more and maybe hop on PTS, but it would be best if the same testers tried the same scenarios again after the changes drop.
Lastly, while I appreciate the consideration of the feedback, I really think what's missing is prioritizing what's FUN. This quote is the best quote in this thread:Stop. Looking. At. Spreadsheets.
Start. Listening. To. Your. Players.
WE. DON'T. WANT. THESE. CHANGES.
So often changes pushed through the game feel like if anyone was listening to feedback, they honed in on ONE perspective only and put blinders on to all of the other aspects of the game. The vampire changes felt like that, the AwA changes felt like that, and these combat changes definitely feel like that. Please, please listen to EVERYONE and roll out changes that are inclusive to as broad of the player base as you can. And that includes the fact that overwhelmingly what people want most of all is more stability and less frequent changes. Especially right after we were told "no major changes are coming."
Thank you to whoever is reading and continuing to consider our feedback.16 -
Valenor✭✭✭Really happy to read you Gilliam. Thanks for sharing some info before monday patchnotes hit the pts. More testing on the way to, hopefully, make this patch an interesting step for the game.1 -
Valenor✭✭✭Will content balance be looked at? Not asking for a fat nerf to everything but some HMs are going to ge a bit overboard without tuning first.3
-
Cyber10✭✭✭✭After review, we have removed a handful of posts that were bashing and/or non-constructive. While we understand that players and members can be upset about the PTS Combat Update 35, we do ask that all posts be kept civil, constructive, and within the guidelines of the rules that we have in place. If there may be any questions in regards to the rules, please feel free to review them here.
Thank you for your understanding.
The community is trying to tell you that the changes are not good and will hurt the game. Instead of worrying about removing posts maybe ZOS should take the time to listen instead of ignoring the community. I am sure you will remove this since that seems to be the concern instead of listening to the concerned community.14 -
Cyber10✭✭✭✭Halcyon_Kismet wrote: »Please for the love of divines just scrap all combat changes and just release the dungeons.
The combat on live is in a good spot and just needs a few tweaks to some overperformers... not a complete slaughter of the game so many of us love and invested untold hours into...
This!!10 -
Cyber10✭✭✭✭Sandman929 wrote: »Here we go with the excessive moderation. Classic ZOS when everything is suddenly beneath the constructive comment cutoff. Maybe if the update was being well received this wouldn't be necessary, but as always, the lesson that should be learned will be easier to simply dodge.
Exactly! If they cannot handle the bad feedback maybe they should not destroy the game with a terrible patch.11 -
Cyber10✭✭✭✭Dalsinthus wrote: »I appreciate the communication.
Unfortunately, this really misses the mark. You've had volumes of feedback to filter through and the message from players has been remarkably consistent. Around 80% of players oppose the changes. You are creating giant class disparities (i.e., Nightblade >>>> Sorcerer and Warden). You are lowering the floor and the ceiling. You're nerfing accessible build options like oaken soul and lightning heavy attacks. You're upending the game and not achieving any of your stated goals.
Please slow down, change less. Bring the game to a place of stability. Give us a roadmap of where we're going with all these changes.
Well said!3 -
prof_doom✭✭✭✭✭
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvjr0R4V4Zo&ab_channel=SkinnyCheeks
SkinnyCheeks's commentary on this.
He essentially says: good start, needs more.13 -
Elsonso✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭MindOfTheSwarm wrote: »One step in the right direction but a couple more needed.
This is what I suggest based on community feedback:
1. Have the sticky DoT’s increase their damage over time if they are going to last this long. So at the very least they feel impactful.
I would go the opposite. I think all DoTs should expend half of their damage almost immediately, then parcel out the residual damage over the remainder of the time. This gives the action a bang.MindOfTheSwarm wrote: »3. Stop with the standardisation nonsense. It’s not wanted.
I have been against homogenization from the start. It is a concept that, if they wanted to do it, should have been baked into the design from the start. Once that cake is baked, it is rather silly to try to make it into a pie by squirting filling into the middle, like they are doing here.
At best, they should be limiting themselves to swapping out the frosting.
Now I am hungry.
6 -
Draxys✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭“Anecdotal” is a slur used to ignore people who have been playing this game for years and know it inside and out. Some of the highly experienced players know this game better than you guys do, and you toss out their feedback because it doesn’t fit nicely into your spreadsheet. This is why people are quitting, myself included.2013
rip decibel23 -
Gnesnig✭✭✭ZOS_Gilliam wrote: »A friendly reminder that providing data always helps us far more than anecdotal feedback, though both are still welcome.
In general product development, these are called quantitative and qualitive data. They help you both, depending on the things you try to measure. And more often then not, quantitative can be useless or not found and we naturally then ignore the qualitative, being all noble about "we appreciate hard data".
But...you should be hearing the qualitative data point that class skills are undervalued and your quantitative data should easily confirm or deny this hypothesis by looking at the skill bars of players at different levels.
It is harder to test a hypothesis that reduction in class identity will hurt the game. But this is where risk management comes in. Can you afford to be wrong on your own hypothesis that it will attract more new players and it instead will allienate a substantial portion of the customer base? What hard data do you have that supports homogenization will lead to more net signups? Is it really that strong? I find that hard to believe - as a newbie to this game, but veteran RPG gamer.
So it's definitely not smart to classify anecdotal feedback as less important, as they are the basis for the hypothesis you need to form and test with hard data. And if you can't or don't have the hard data to test, you need to come with a risk assessment model.
28 -
imno007b14_ESO✭✭✭It's a step in the right direction, but not enough to bring me back to the game right now. They started out talking about the nerf to lights attacks and that was bad enough, but most people would have likely concluded it was reasonable and got on with things, but no, of course they had to go completely overboard, and it's been obvious all along to most long-term players that many or most of their changes were not tested internally AT ALL to determine whether or not they were a good idea. I think that's the thing that's most galling to most of us who are opposed to these changes: if you're going to to introduce sweeping changes like this, you should at least be privately testing it first by playing actual content in your own game before announcing it to the community - and THEN you put it up on the PTS for further testing after you've determined what definitely does not work.
Personally, I need to see many more changes back in the opposite direction before I'm tempted to play again. A good deal of the single target abilities need to be at least LESS nerfed. And if I even get a whiff of them talking about doing major nerfs to most of the proc sets, I'm likely never coming back to the game.
Edited by imno007b14_ESO on July 23, 2022 4:09PM4 -
Casdha✭✭✭✭✭
✭xxxvodnikxxx wrote: »[snip]
I have a feeling you might enjoy seeing this, A screenshot of my main character just prior to game launch and the Psijic Beta group being released from the NDA. This is what stat numbers looked like at the time.
Could you imagine how little gap manipulation there would be if stat numbers were still in this range?
[edited to remove quote]Edited by ZOS_Icy on July 23, 2022 4:29PMProud member of the Psijic Order - The first wave - The 0.016%5 -
Sandman929✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭xxxvodnikxxx wrote: »[snip]
I have a feeling you might enjoy seeing this, A screenshot of my main character just prior to game launch and the Psijic Beta group being released from the NDA. This is what stat numbers looked like at the time.
Could you imagine how little gap manipulation there would be if stat numbers were still in this range?
Before all that out-of-blue, nobodies-fault-especially-not-ZOS "power creep" magically happened.
[edited to remove quote]Edited by ZOS_Icy on July 23, 2022 4:29PM5 -
Jazraena✭✭✭✭✭
✭xxxvodnikxxx wrote: »[snip]
These 140k DPS people might get excluded from high end achievements. They'll still complete normal veteran trials.
The people just barely completing veteran trials no longer will.
The people just barely completing veteran DLCs no longer will.
The people just barely soloing normal world bosses no longer will.
This patch does not hurt 140k DPS people, it hurts everyone. And chances are, it will hurt the lower end, off-meta people a lot more, especially those at the verge of getting access to more difficult content. Some by 40-50%.
[snip]
[edited for flaming & to remove quote]Edited by ZOS_Icy on July 23, 2022 4:30PM13 -
Sandman929✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭xxxvodnikxxx wrote: »[snip]
Very short sighted. This will hurt those underperforming more than those overperforming.
An across the board damage nerf make content less accessible if it isn't accompanied by revising the content itself.
[edited to remove quote]Edited by ZOS_Icy on July 23, 2022 4:31PM6 -
Casdha✭✭✭✭✭
✭xxxvodnikxxx wrote: »[snip]
These 140k DPS people might get excluded from high end achievements. They'll still complete normal veteran trials.
The people just barely completing veteran trials no longer will.
The people just barely completing veteran DLCs no longer will.
The people just barely soloing normal world bosses no longer will.
This patch does not hurt 140k DPS people, it hurts everyone. And chances are, it will hurt the lower end, off-meta people a lot more, especially those at the verge of getting access to more difficult content. Some by 40-50%.
[snip]
and if you watch my video elsewhere on the forums, where someone challenged me to Solo test this on a Vet Dungeon you can see that mechanics can still be used in place of DPS a lot of times if you take the time to learn them. (I've never chased DPS, at least not more than is required to complete content).
[edited to remove quote]Edited by ZOS_Icy on July 23, 2022 4:31PMProud member of the Psijic Order - The first wave - The 0.016%0 -
peacenote✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭xxxvodnikxxx wrote: »[snip]
I'm so sorry that you've had such a bad experience with skilled players. I have not had the experience you describe. Perhaps you need a better guild or something. I have found many skilled players happy to help others, train up newer folks, and also I see most of the skilled players not complaining about their own DPS, but raising concerns about accessibility of the content for mid-tier and newer end game players. Lastly, I see way more skipping of mechanics in dungeons and overland, than I do in trials.
If you read all the feedback, one of the larger growing concerns is the effectiveness of heals based on these changes, which is telling as people worried about heals are definitely playing the content as designed.
Anyway, why do you take enjoyment from others being unhappy? Wouldn't it be better if all of the community members enjoyed the game?
[edited to remove quote]Edited by ZOS_Icy on July 23, 2022 4:32PM9 -
Jazraena✭✭✭✭✭
✭xxxvodnikxxx wrote: »[snip]
These 140k DPS people might get excluded from high end achievements. They'll still complete normal veteran trials.
The people just barely completing veteran trials no longer will.
The people just barely completing veteran DLCs no longer will.
The people just barely soloing normal world bosses no longer will.
This patch does not hurt 140k DPS people, it hurts everyone. And chances are, it will hurt the lower end, off-meta people a lot more, especially those at the verge of getting access to more difficult content. Some by 40-50%.
[snip]
and if you watch my video elsewhere on the forums, where someone challenged me to Solo test this on a Vet Dungeon you can see that mechanics can still be used in place of DPS a lot of times if you take the time to learn them. (I've never chased DPS, at least not more than is required, to complete content).
I do challenging content in non-optimized premades or complete random groups, so I am really the wrong address for any 'just do mechanics' commentary. And irrespective of mechanics, I do have several characters that are pushed below viability for that content.
Don't presume people are complaining because they can't skip stuff through DPS. They're complaining because they can't complete the content. Whether that content is the dungeon / trial / encounter entirely or specific achievements for it is another matter.
[edited to remove quote]Edited by ZOS_Icy on July 23, 2022 4:34PM8 -
Casdha✭✭✭✭✭
✭xxxvodnikxxx wrote: »[snip]
These 140k DPS people might get excluded from high end achievements. They'll still complete normal veteran trials.
The people just barely completing veteran trials no longer will.
The people just barely completing veteran DLCs no longer will.
The people just barely soloing normal world bosses no longer will.
This patch does not hurt 140k DPS people, it hurts everyone. And chances are, it will hurt the lower end, off-meta people a lot more, especially those at the verge of getting access to more difficult content. Some by 40-50%.
[snip]
and if you watch my video elsewhere on the forums, where someone challenged me to Solo test this on a Vet Dungeon you can see that mechanics can still be used in place of DPS a lot of times if you take the time to learn them. (I've never chased DPS, at least not more than is required, to complete content).
Don't presume people are complaining because they can't skip stuff through DPS. They're complaining because they can't complete the content. Whether that content is the dungeon / trial / encounter entirely or specific achievements for it is another matter.
I don't, I've chimed in on that as well in other threads. I was very close to not being here at all this year. If it were not for it being Breton content I wouldn't have been. All I'm saying is that if someone cares as little as I do about how you look to others then these changes don't amount to a hill of beans compared to some of the other changes that have been made over the years (I've went over a year without playing before because I was unhappy with ZOS's direction). I've tried this update (before this next set of changes hit) and it made very little difference in how I play this game,,, if at all.
I will admit that all of this uproar is what made me decide to try it for myself to see if it would affect me as much as every says it will, and it didn't. When I stated so I was challenged to try something harder so I picked one of the harder things I had done solo and tried it and that didn't change much either, so for now I'm happy with how it plays (at least for myself).
As for how I play (I've given up on chasing all of these changes) next years content will decide whether I play it or not and as for now how it plays still has no affect on me, at least not yet.
Edit: So just to keep my comments in context I Believe the game would run better if players were forced to focus on Mechanics and not using DPS as a means of skipping them.
[edited to remove quote]Edited by Casdha on July 23, 2022 4:46PMProud member of the Psijic Order - The first wave - The 0.016%0 -
Baconlad✭✭✭✭✭
✭Why don't they just present the players with the issues they are seeing. And let the players solve the issues for them. I have more confidence in our players than these devs.
HOW MANY DEVELOPERS WATCHED THE NEW JABS ANIMATION AND THOUGHT IT LOOKED GOOD? how does the jabs animation go through so many developers and everyone just thinks...yeah that'll ship9 -
Casdha✭✭✭✭✭
✭Why don't they just present the players with the issues they are seeing. And let the players solve the issues for them. I have more confidence in our players than these devs.
HOW MANY DEVELOPERS WATCHED THE NEW JABS ANIMATION AND THOUGHT IT LOOKED GOOD? how does the jabs animation go through so many developers and everyone just thinks...yeah that'll ship
I'm holding out hope that animations take longer to work on than just changing a few numbers in a file to see if it works as intended first.Proud member of the Psijic Order - The first wave - The 0.016%1 -
anvilbert✭✭✭The future of ESO , sabatiged so bad it is no longer profitable enough for Sony to carry. After they break off contract Microsoft reboots as PC and XBOX exclusive better than before to boost console sales. Microsoft has done this same marketing strategy in the past with its own older systems to boost sales of newer ones. If this post gets deleted you know I just hit the nail on the head. This new nerf is not about making better it's about a marketing strategy. I have seen many company do just this in my 60 yrs of observance. Good luck to us all, I'm done talking.3
-
Aldoss✭✭✭✭✭
✭Disappointed that Warden won't be addressed this week. Monday marks halfway through the PTS cycle. It takes two weeks for information being shared in a PTS patch to get to the devs, get processed, and eventually deployed.
That means whatever you deliver, presumably week 4 at the earliest, will have no time to get processed and deployed in a way that will allow us to give more feedback. You've proven time and time again that you don't give Wardens what they're asking for and never has a dev come by to explain why we can't have what we need to be a true competitor in this game.
In my experience, ZOS makes changes (typically horribly off base), players (Warden mains) decry them and ask for better, then either NOTHING gets done and the changes go live anyway, or completely different changes get deployed that no one asked for.
It's too late now. I have no faith in what you'll give us before changes go live.2 -
MindOfTheSwarm✭✭✭✭✭With all the people deriding standardization here I'd just like to mention that standards aren't bad - it means you get multiple different options to the same end result. Preferably I'd want secondary effects to round out my choices so each has it's niche, but even having visually distinct but mechanically similar options helps maintaining theme and power fantasy for a character.
The crux however is that this Sticky vs Static differentiation is the opposite of standardization. Long duration weak stickies vs strong short duration statics just means everyone will gravitate towards the latter; doubly so considering you need at least one of them for the backbar enchant anyway. People will use strong skills over weak skills.
That's not standardization, that's making one set of skills objectively better than another set of skills unless you actually give those weaker skills their own niche that you would realistically sacrifice damage for.
Pro-Tip: The duration on it's own isn't it.
This is why I suggested that long sticky Dot's increase in damage each tick over their duration. This way they have a function that differs and would be appealing for some players.0 -
siddique✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭xxxvodnikxxx wrote: »[snip]
These 140k DPS people might get excluded from high end achievements. They'll still complete normal veteran trials.
The people just barely completing veteran trials no longer will.
The people just barely completing veteran DLCs no longer will.
The people just barely soloing normal world bosses no longer will.
This patch does not hurt 140k DPS people, it hurts everyone. And chances are, it will hurt the lower end, off-meta people a lot more, especially those at the verge of getting access to more difficult content. Some by 40-50%.
[snip]
and if you watch my video elsewhere on the forums, where someone challenged me to Solo test this on a Vet Dungeon you can see that mechanics can still be used in place of DPS a lot of times if you take the time to learn them. (I've never chased DPS, at least not more than is required, to complete content).
Don't presume people are complaining because they can't skip stuff through DPS. They're complaining because they can't complete the content. Whether that content is the dungeon / trial / encounter entirely or specific achievements for it is another matter.
I don't, I've chimed in on that as well in other threads. I was very close to not being here at all this year. If it were not for it being Breton content I wouldn't have been. All I'm saying is that if someone cares as little as I do about how you look to others then these changes don't amount to a hill of beans compared to some of the other changes that have been made over the years (I've went over a year without playing before because I was unhappy with ZOS's direction). I've tried this update (before this next set of changes hit) and it made very little difference in how I play this game,,, if at all.
I will admit that all of this uproar is what made me decide to try it for myself to see if it would affect me as much as every says it will, and it didn't. When I stated so I was challenged to try something harder so I picked one of the harder things I had done solo and tried it and that didn't change much either, so for now I'm happy with how it plays (at least for myself).
As for how I play (I've given up on chasing all of these changes) next years content will decide whether I play it or not and as for now how it plays still has no affect on me, at least not yet.
Edit: So just to keep my comments in context I Believe the game would run better if players were forced to focus on Mechanics and not using DPS as a means of skipping them.
[edited to remove quote]
Okay, so no offense whatsoever, but these changes and the uproar isnt about players at your level or who wish to play the game like you do.
They will also not affect the roleplayers in the Evermore Inn, for example.
These changes affect a large number of population that is at the middle of their progression. Mid tier. Forget endgame or people going for world records as well.
We are talking of people progging newer hardmode trials, thinking of trifectas after months of practice. Its those players who are pushed back with a sorry excuse of making that content more accessible to them.
So yes, you really are not the target audience here. Again, I mean it in as polite tone as possible, I understand written word's underlying tone can sound different than what is intended."Knee-jerk reactionist."
Lost Depths, 2015-2022.9 -
MindOfTheSwarm✭✭✭✭✭MindOfTheSwarm wrote: »One step in the right direction but a couple more needed.
This is what I suggest based on community feedback:
1. Have the sticky DoT’s increase their damage over time if they are going to last this long. So at the very least they feel impactful.
I would go the opposite. I think all DoTs should expend half of their damage almost immediately, then parcel out the residual damage over the remainder of the time. This gives the action a bang.MindOfTheSwarm wrote: »3. Stop with the standardisation nonsense. It’s not wanted.
I have been against homogenization from the start. It is a concept that, if they wanted to do it, should have been baked into the design from the start. Once that cake is baked, it is rather silly to try to make it into a pie by squirting filling into the middle, like they are doing here. At best, they should be limiting themselves to swapping out the frosting.
Now I am hungry.
That is an interesting way to go. Not sure that would be welcome for the sticky DoT's in PvP. Perhaps the ground DoT's, if say the first four seconds had greater damage and then it tapered off. The issue of having bursty DoT's is that they can be combined with hard hitting spammables while they are up. The only way this could be remedied is if we didn't have dedicated spammable skills at all and instead could choose our desired main skill to build around.
Perhaps if you could "mark" one of your skills as your main skill and it would receive a damage buff. But as long as we have our main DPS skills set in stone, the option for bursty sticky DoT's kind of goes out the window. It might be ok for Ground DoT's due to escapability but in this case their AoE radius would have to be reduced as well as their duration.0 -
MindOfTheSwarm✭✭✭✭✭Sigh, i have bad feeling about those adjustments...
Why cant u just leave DoTs alone? Those on live are good...
No they aren't. They are underpowered. Ground DoT's needed a buff not a nerf. Sticky DoT's should have been left alone.
Remember the DoT meta? This was a problem due to sticky DoTs and people stacking them in PvP. But no-one was complaining about ground DoT's as you could simply move out of them. So the solution ZoS implemented was a flat 60% nerf on ALL DoT's. It should have been a 40% nerf for sticky DoT's but ground DOT''s should have been left alone.
If that was done, the DoT meta would have disappeared but with dedicated DoT builds still being good in PvP. On live they are barely effective. On PTS they are useless.
Edited by MindOfTheSwarm on July 23, 2022 6:20PM6
