I am so frustrated with the state of this game

Ghaleb

Jaraal wrote: »

They stated that raising the floor was one of their objectives with U35. But how does nerfing low end players damage and healing by 20-40% improve accessibility to end game content?

As others have already stated. It simply doesn't work like that. Marto also had a thread in the PTS forum here in which he expressed opinions not shared by the majority of replies.

Taking this post now into account I don't understand what opinion he/she now really has. In the post linked by me, Marto asks why the community is so up in arms over a 2% nerf to damage. Marto seemingly came to the conclusion that all adjustments on the PTS only amount to a 2% nerf. Of course disregrding all tests done by other players, sharing data and concluding a 10-fold higher loss of DPS.

And now we get a post from Marto explaining that the nerf to DPS and nerf to boss health are not connected (they are, as already outlined by Mumbles_the_Tank) and it is simply a long-term goal of ZoS to adjust endgame accessibility (how, with lowering mid- and low-end player DPS).

But if according to his own logic, we only face a 2% DPS nerf, why should health of bosses then be nerfed by 10%?

I have a hard time following the displayed logic.

Marto

Ph1p wrote: »

Also, look at your graphs showing the current state and what U35 accomplishes. Even taking them at face value, didn't you notice how you actually highlighted a key issue? It's not about how entry-level player power stacks up against entry-level game difficulty. It's about taking the step to the next level and how much you need to improve to get there. And you inadvertently showed that inexperienced players now face a steeper curve to get to the mid-level.

Yeah, that's a fair analysis. You could argue U35 does make that hill a bit steeper. Which I don't think is necessarily a bad thing.

I should clarify that what I mean by Low-End is killing mudcrabs in the overworld, delves, quest bosses, and some easy 'tutorial' dungeons like normal Fungal Grotto. The sort of content that even level 3 players are too powerful for.

Mid-end is normal group dungeons, vanilla-game veteran dungeons, normal arenas, normal trials, and maybe some easier vtrials like the Craglorn ones.

And High-end refers to DLC dungeon veteran mode, all veteran arenas, and nearly veteran trials.

The hill we are concerned about is the massive gap between Mid-end and High-end. Going from rushing through a dungeon in 15 minutes and skipping mechanics in a normal dungeon, to wiping for 4 hours straight against a trial boss.

Ph1p wrote: »

How does all this help with the stated objective? And what's the point of the fifth graph showing the target end state, if this is only coming after another patch or two? In fact, you could get to practically the same end state by adjusting only the high-end difficulty content and raising the low and mid tier player power in a targeted fashion.

On the short term, yes. But that would exacerbate power creep. This is the approach that ZOS has been following for the past few years, with things like the new CP system, and buffs to the base stats of the players.

It's clearly not working. It has made the early and mid game ridiculously easy, and even raised the ceiling a fair bit, making the end-game even more inaccessible.

Ghaleb wrote: »

Taking this post now into account I don't understand what opinion he/she now really has. In the post linked by me, Marto asks why the community is so up in arms over a 2% nerf to damage. Marto seemingly came to the conclusion that all adjustments on the PTS only amount to a 2% nerf. Of course disregrding all tests done by other players, sharing data and concluding a 10-fold higher loss of DPS.

What I said is that most patches in ESO result in a 2-5% damage nerf. Those are the the "constant game-changing patches every 3 months" that the community gets up in arms about. U35 is a bigger change, the biggest in years. But smaller than people realize. That's the way multiplicative bonuses work. A 20% nerf on the damage of an effect can lead to a <1% effect on DPS.

And either way, the point of that thread is that the only reason why even 2-5% changes feel so drastic is because the ceiling is so dang high. When the ceiling is high, small changes have a bigger impact.

I was talking about the fundamental state of ESO's balance, not about any patch in particular. I was talking about the game design behind it all. It has created a vicious cycle, with a community that gets extremely upset over 2% nerfs, and a developer that desperately needs (but is unwilling) to make 10-20% nerfs to even approach some semblance of balance.

Ghaleb wrote: »

And now we get a post from Marto explaining that the nerf to DPS and nerf to boss health are not connected

That's not what I said. I said the two changes are intrinsically related. One is meant to lead to the other.

Finn, the dungeon lead, confirmed on twitter that U36 was intended to have a lot of boss adjustments. Obviously, he and his team can't start to work on that until they know if players will deal 50k, 100k, or 600k DPS.

I think ZOS' original intention was to leave the end-game unplayably hard for September-November, and then adjust end-game content difficulty down. Hopefully leading to higher difficulty for low and mid, and equal difficulty for high-end. With a less dramatic slope overall.

It seems what we're getting in U35 is a very rough, unfinished, and rushed version of those U36 changes.

Ghaleb wrote: »

But if according to his own logic, we only face a 2% DPS nerf, why should health of bosses then be nerfed by 10%?

Power creep is called that because it creeps. It gradually grows, in even imperceptible ways. Each patch increases damage very slightly. Repeat that enough times, and the numbers add up.

"But you just said each patch reduces dps by 2%" Correct. And then new item sets, and players "adapting" by optimizing DPS result in a net DPS increase. That's why ZOS nerfs so much. Because ESO's power creep is so ridiculous, that even constant nerfs can't keep it in check.

Making the slope between low-end and high-end less dramatic increases accessibility. And I think that's ZOS goal. To make the slope less steep.

There's two ways to make that slope flatter. Increase low-end damage (aka raise the floor), or decrease high-end damage (aka lower the ceiling)

Like I showed, giving low-end players more power is not a good solution. It makes the game too easy, and just makes power creep issues worse. So the only option left is to massively lower the ceiling.

shadyjane62

I'm not low end or high end I am the player squished in the middle.

My Templar now has no place in game.

Ghaleb

Marto wrote: »

Yeah, that's a fair analysis. You could argue U35 does make that hill a bit steeper. Which I don't think is necessarily a bad thing.

I think the general consensus, proven with parses, test-runs in dungeons, trials (by few) and so on is, that it does not make this hill a bit steeper. But rather substantially steeper. Moving content a lot further away from a good amount of players.

Your arguments regularly revolve around this item. But things don't become true by repetition. Else Candyman would slaughter clueless teens or some imaginary god would have smitten the heathens.

Marto wrote: »

What I said is that most patches in ESO result in a 2-5% damage nerf. Those are the the "constant game-changing patches every 3 months" that the community gets up in arms about. U35 is a bigger change, the biggest in years.

Quoting your post in the other thread to give readers context:

Marto wrote: »

Most patches ESO receives attempt to reduce the damage of an ability or setup by 2-5%. The devs said Update 35 aimed for 10-15%, and in some testing, it had as much as 25% impact in some very specific cases. [...]

Does this not seem ridiculous to you? Does this not look like a huge over-reaction? Why is the ESO community so upset over 2% changes?

You indeed talk about 10-15% nerf to damage, highlight a loss of as much as 25% and then turn around and ask why people are up in arms over a 2% change.

And again, disregarding the tests done by others and a poll on the PTS forum, resulting in 75% of voters stating that their loss is 20%+. With the majority being 20-25%, a good amount being 25-30% and a few even above. Is the poll representative with 30 replies? Of course not. Is it a good enough indicator? I think yes, considering the amount of data provided by testers.

Marto wrote: »

But smaller than people realize. That's the way multiplicative bonuses work. A 20% nerf on the damage of an effect can lead to a <1% effect on DPS.

And again you indicate that the overall loss to DPS is smaller than people think it is. You see what I mean with, that this "blind-spot" in your argumentation weaves through all your posts like a red thread? Even when you could verify the data yourself by reading the parse info, checking videos, parsing yourself or doing content yourself with e.g. cmx active.

Marto wrote: »

And either way, the point of that thread is that the only reason why even 2-5% changes feel so drastic is because the ceiling is so dang high. When the ceiling is high, small changes have a bigger impact.

Disagree here. 2-5% implies a relative change. Of course this can be an awful lot in absolutes. E.g. if Elon Musk looses 5% of his total assets that will be a lot. Mine? Yeah, less so.

But all participants use relatives as comparison. So it doesn't matter how high the ceiling. It is around 20-25% of the majority of players. If you only light attack with a single spell sprinkled in for 15k DPS in the past. Or are pummeling bosses with a whopping 130k DPS. You lose 20-25%.

Marto wrote: »

I was talking about the fundamental state of ESO's balance, not about any patch in particular. I was talking about the game design behind it all. It has created a vicious cycle, with a community that gets extremely upset over 2% nerfs, and a developer that desperately needs (but is unwilling) to make 10-20% nerfs to even approach some semblance of balance.

Nobody gets upset about a 2% nerf. Some weird people might do. But rationally it doesn't matter in the big picture. But again (repetition much?), we are not talking about 2% here. ZoS is showing full committment to do a 20% nerf across the board in the name of "accessibility".

Ghaleb wrote: »

And now we get a post from Marto explaining that the nerf to DPS and nerf to boss health are not connected

Marto wrote: »

That's not what I said. I said the two changes are intrinsically related. One is meant to lead to the other.

Finn, the dungeon lead, confirmed on twitter that U36 was intended to have a lot of boss adjustments. Obviously, he and his team can't start to work on that until they know if players will deal 50k, 100k, or 600k DPS.

The team knows what damage players make. They run the servers. If they don't know, I am not surprised about the "quality" of U35.

What we now got was a mission statement in the light of accessibility and then getting our asses handed to us with the dps nerf-hammer. That doesn't play out as a lot of forum members have written. There is simply no connection between what they have said and what they are doing. And here I do not care about things you might think they want to do or what not, as this doesn't substitute official communication.

As they have all info available and do not first need to nerf and then adjust, here is what they could have done:
1. Publish a 1 year roadmap prior to High Isle, outlining in detail what content and changes will be delivered with High Isle and the following quarterly changes
2. Assess combat changes and trial / dungeon changes based on data after High Isle release, as they have all data at hand and can plan for U37-U38 to include all related combat changes
3. Deliver U35 with overall new content and small adjustments
4. Deliver U36 similarly
5. With delivery of U36, provide substantial data and information to player base, outlining observations and background, describing the overall issue with concerns, highlight options, describe decisions taken and reasons for that and explain applied and upcomming changes for U37
6. If changes are substantial, give more time on the PTS, as we are playing with a lot of established core mechanics of the game
7. Fine-tune U37 and release

Witht that the players would have had a vision, early information about concerns from the developers, an idea when it will come, time to read up on the thoughts of ZoS on the applied changes and understand their views and perspective and last but not least, a bit more time to check for changes.

Would it have been a celebrating event? Nope. Would it be a *** of epic proportions like now? Nope again.

Marto

I'm not trying to be contrarian. I'm not trying to "shill for ZOS". I'm simply trying to understand why changes are being made, and what effects they will have on the game on the long term.

I think my opinions are so different from the rest, because I don't see U35 as "a good game that was ruined by out of touch developers"

...Because I don't think ESO is a good game. In it's current state, I think it's pretty damn awful.

"Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game" says the common game design mantra. ESO is way past that point. And something needs to change.

Ghaleb wrote: »

Nobody gets upset about a 2% nerf. Some weird people might do. But rationally it doesn't matter in the big picture

If this was true, we wouldn't see a deluge of "Why does ZOS make game-changing patches every 3 months" threads.
(Yes, I know U35 is a lot bigger than a 2% change. I'm not talking about U35. I'm talking about U34, 33, 30, 27, 22, 15 etc.)

People get extremely upset over 2% nerfs. That's a fact.

And I'm not trying to dismiss that. I'm not saying it as a "hurr durr look at how dumb endgame players are making a big fuss over 2%"
It's understandable why people are upset. But we have to understand where that discomfort comes from if we want to fix it.



Statements like this are true. I'm not going to argue with that.

In my other thread I'm only trying to invite people to ask why. Why are statements like this true? Should statements like this be true? Would the game be better if statements like this were not true?

Ghaleb wrote: »

Disagree here. 2-5% implies a relative change. Of course this can be an awful lot in absolutes. E.g. if Elon Musk looses 5% of his total assets that will be a lot. Mine? Yeah, less so.

And... yeah. You just explained why people get upset over 2% changes. Because the ceiling is so high, even 2% feels huge. If the ceiling was lower, 2% wouldn't feel like a big deal. Which is why I think lowering the ceiling would lead to less frustration, and balance changes that feel less "game breaking"

Ghaleb wrote: »

The team knows what damage players make. They run the servers. If they don't know, I am not surprised about the "quality" of U35.

You can't expect the dungeon team to work on boss adjustments during June-August, based on the meta of September. They can't see the future.

The dungeon team did not know what sort of damage players will do in U35. How can they know, if U35 has not even released? Right now they have a rough idea. Which is why they gave us a rough adjustment.

-

I one hundred percent agree ZOS needs to be clearer with their long term goals.

To me, this patch has very clear direction and design. ZOS intention was never to directly raise the floor. They wanted to indirectly raise the floor by reducing the power and difficulty slope.

Does that mean their initial statement was a disingenuous? Sort of, yeah. It's PR. It's player psychology.

It's easier to tell people "We'll reduce high end damage and make the game more accessible" than it is to tell them "We'll reduce high-end damage, reduce low-end damage, and reduce the overall damage delta for a less steep curve that allows for easier development and balance of future content. While simultaneously increasing the difficulty of overland and introductory group content."

Things like this are not as straightforward as "more damage = more accessible, less damage = less accessible". It's a lot more nuanced. It might seem paradoxical, but it's just math.

Destai

Destai wrote: »

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

@Faltasë Thanks for your feedback here. We felt it was important to address the commentary around "anecdotal feedback" quote as this was specifically mentioned in official communication.

Faltasë wrote: »

I know this may seem like a moot point to make but could we get some communication from the team on the antagonistic acknowledgments from the developers? Like, it does seem relatively bad that forum moderators are able to tell us to not bait, be disrespectful... Gilliam (saying that they don't consider anecdotal feedback, and where the tone of that specific post was passive aggressive in its own right)

(Abbreviated to highlight core comment being referenced)

The comment was not meant to be antagonistic. It was meant to clarify what feedback would be helpful for the dev team and nothing more. So for example, feedback with player data from PTS or clearly explaining situations in which combat changes would positively or negatively impact play experience are what the team was looking for.

Other feedback like (and this is just a mock example), "These changes are garbage and do you even play the game?", are not what the dev team is looking for when asking for feedback. While that kind of feedback expresses player sentiment, it does not help the team in providing feedback they can work off of to address concerns. So the note on anecdotal feedback was more so to address comments like that. Not to antagonize anyone. However, given the feedback around the rhetoric, we will keep that in mind as a team going forward in communication.

Lastly, we want to touch on this line here:

Faltasë wrote: »

Like, it does seem relatively bad that forum moderators are able to tell us to not bait, be disrespectful...does the exact same thing with no consequences and indirectly causing a good chunk of the player base to devalue solid criticisms with "whining children".

(Abbreviated to complete core sentence without the quotes referenced.)

As Forum Manager, I feel obligated to answer this one specifically for moderation purposes. First, I want to make it clear that we do not perceive you as "whiny children".

Second, I understand the comment was perceived as being antagonistic, however trying to match the perceived antagonizing commentary with additional antagonizing commentary does not help general communication. I understand the community concern around the U35 combat changes but we will not tolerate baiting or bashing, especially to the dev team, as a player response to deal a consequence. Certainly not on the forum.

So where does this leave us? I encourage you to question or ask for clarification when you see something as antagonistic, much like @Faltasë has. This was a respectful way to question and ask for motivation around word usage and general commentary. So thank you for asking the question. Most of the time, these situations can be cleared up though general questions rather than acting on the assumption of ill intent. There are ways to be critical of choices without berating members of the team. That will also aid in avoiding getting actioned on the forum. The whole point is to create an open place where positive and negative sentiment can be shared and communication can be had. As noted earlier, we will be more vigilant with our rhetoric as well to help this point.

To close, sorry for the long answer, but hopefully this helps to provide some context regarding the "anecdotal feedback" quote. Thanks all for the continued feedback.

Appreciate the feedback, Kevin. Seeing actual candor is a pleasant surprise. My thoughts are as follows.

Part 1: Regarding your mock-up statement.
First - the comment you mocked up is still important feedback, and very likely how many people feel right now. What do you expect from players when we keep saying one thing and you guys keep doing the opposite? With this update it's not about numbers. It's about an overwhelmingly unwanted change being forced through a 5 week PTS cycle. I appreciate that Gilliam needs data to make better decisions, but the whole effort seems to be contrary to what the community is saying en masse - we don't want it.

Second - asking if a developer plays their game is an important question, too. Especially if their approach is based on data rather than how a change feels. If a developer comes out the gate with a baffling change, how are we not supposed to feel like there's a disconnect? How can we respectfully say someone (or their idea) is out of touch, especially when it needs to be said? Sometimes people get lost in their own ideas and they need to be shown that.

Third - Sweeping changes need more time so we can better test it against whatever the stated goal is - if it's stated at all. And if you guys can't articulate what your goals actually are beyond something vague like "increase accessibility", how are we supposed to feel like it's anything but your mock-up comment? You guys are making massive changes, we want to see them played by you before it impacts the game we all love. If it's so great, and absolutely must launch, then show us. Play test it. Do a vet trial with your changes in front of the community. We deserve that at the very least.

Part 2: ZOS's Rhetoric and Reception
I'm happy you guys are considering how your comments land. I just hope it goes beyond Gilliam, because I feel like it's deeper. While Gilliam's quote was a little off-mark, I don't think it's as bad as the antagonism I've seen from Rich. This whole PTS cycle started on a sour note - the tweet from Rich - sardonically asking us for trust only for us to be right and you guys having to backtrack on half the changes proposed. That tweet cemented that he views us as "whiny children". I know his directives impact how the forum is managed because he's said as much on his streams. So while you say we're not seen that way, the evidence is quite the opposite. To date, ZOS has done nothing that directly addressed the fallout from that tweet. You've stated yourself that responding in kind to antagonism doesn't help the conversation - so why is that coming from Rich at the start of this PTS? That did nothing but prime us to be upset by something like what Gilliam said.

I get that ZOS devs don't want to feel disrespected but ZOS can't lead with ambiguous announcements, sardonic tweets, "we see your feedback but we're moving ahead anyways", couple that with radio silence on major threads, and then edit our words and not expect people to not be absolutely fuming mad. You guys are creating that cycle.

ZOS needs to be more responsive and reflective in general. Case in point, this thread here. Players are asking Gina to follow up on a thread she's already commented on, and we're not getting any clarification on what seems to be a major gap. So even when we do follow your advice, the result is the same - crickets. Her as a community manager especially, should anticipate that a one-liner is going to generate more questions than answers. It's hard to not infer ill-intent or negligence. We'd all love to give ZOS the benefit of the doubt, but we can't anymore.

Part 3: Closing thoughts:
Can you elaborate on what ZOS is doing to make these forums more welcoming and meaningful for the people here? Why would I come here vs Reddit? I think the general expectation is that there's a chance for development interaction, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Hoping you can clear that up.

I hope you take the time to answer the hard questions I've asked here Kevin. I do appreciate some of the changes made in response to some PTS feedback. I just wish there were more dialogue other than damage control here.

@ZOS_Kevin Can you respond to my points please? I've bolded the points I'm still looking for answers on.

psychotrip

Destai wrote: »

Destai wrote: »

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

@Faltasë Thanks for your feedback here. We felt it was important to address the commentary around "anecdotal feedback" quote as this was specifically mentioned in official communication.

Faltasë wrote: »

I know this may seem like a moot point to make but could we get some communication from the team on the antagonistic acknowledgments from the developers? Like, it does seem relatively bad that forum moderators are able to tell us to not bait, be disrespectful... Gilliam (saying that they don't consider anecdotal feedback, and where the tone of that specific post was passive aggressive in its own right)

(Abbreviated to highlight core comment being referenced)

The comment was not meant to be antagonistic. It was meant to clarify what feedback would be helpful for the dev team and nothing more. So for example, feedback with player data from PTS or clearly explaining situations in which combat changes would positively or negatively impact play experience are what the team was looking for.

Other feedback like (and this is just a mock example), "These changes are garbage and do you even play the game?", are not what the dev team is looking for when asking for feedback. While that kind of feedback expresses player sentiment, it does not help the team in providing feedback they can work off of to address concerns. So the note on anecdotal feedback was more so to address comments like that. Not to antagonize anyone. However, given the feedback around the rhetoric, we will keep that in mind as a team going forward in communication.

Lastly, we want to touch on this line here:

Faltasë wrote: »

Like, it does seem relatively bad that forum moderators are able to tell us to not bait, be disrespectful...does the exact same thing with no consequences and indirectly causing a good chunk of the player base to devalue solid criticisms with "whining children".

(Abbreviated to complete core sentence without the quotes referenced.)

As Forum Manager, I feel obligated to answer this one specifically for moderation purposes. First, I want to make it clear that we do not perceive you as "whiny children".

Second, I understand the comment was perceived as being antagonistic, however trying to match the perceived antagonizing commentary with additional antagonizing commentary does not help general communication. I understand the community concern around the U35 combat changes but we will not tolerate baiting or bashing, especially to the dev team, as a player response to deal a consequence. Certainly not on the forum.

So where does this leave us? I encourage you to question or ask for clarification when you see something as antagonistic, much like @Faltasë has. This was a respectful way to question and ask for motivation around word usage and general commentary. So thank you for asking the question. Most of the time, these situations can be cleared up though general questions rather than acting on the assumption of ill intent. There are ways to be critical of choices without berating members of the team. That will also aid in avoiding getting actioned on the forum. The whole point is to create an open place where positive and negative sentiment can be shared and communication can be had. As noted earlier, we will be more vigilant with our rhetoric as well to help this point.

To close, sorry for the long answer, but hopefully this helps to provide some context regarding the "anecdotal feedback" quote. Thanks all for the continued feedback.

Appreciate the feedback, Kevin. Seeing actual candor is a pleasant surprise. My thoughts are as follows.

Part 1: Regarding your mock-up statement.
First - the comment you mocked up is still important feedback, and very likely how many people feel right now. What do you expect from players when we keep saying one thing and you guys keep doing the opposite? With this update it's not about numbers. It's about an overwhelmingly unwanted change being forced through a 5 week PTS cycle. I appreciate that Gilliam needs data to make better decisions, but the whole effort seems to be contrary to what the community is saying en masse - we don't want it.

Second - asking if a developer plays their game is an important question, too. Especially if their approach is based on data rather than how a change feels. If a developer comes out the gate with a baffling change, how are we not supposed to feel like there's a disconnect? How can we respectfully say someone (or their idea) is out of touch, especially when it needs to be said? Sometimes people get lost in their own ideas and they need to be shown that.

Third - Sweeping changes need more time so we can better test it against whatever the stated goal is - if it's stated at all. And if you guys can't articulate what your goals actually are beyond something vague like "increase accessibility", how are we supposed to feel like it's anything but your mock-up comment? You guys are making massive changes, we want to see them played by you before it impacts the game we all love. If it's so great, and absolutely must launch, then show us. Play test it. Do a vet trial with your changes in front of the community. We deserve that at the very least.

Part 2: ZOS's Rhetoric and Reception
I'm happy you guys are considering how your comments land. I just hope it goes beyond Gilliam, because I feel like it's deeper. While Gilliam's quote was a little off-mark, I don't think it's as bad as the antagonism I've seen from Rich. This whole PTS cycle started on a sour note - the tweet from Rich - sardonically asking us for trust only for us to be right and you guys having to backtrack on half the changes proposed. That tweet cemented that he views us as "whiny children". I know his directives impact how the forum is managed because he's said as much on his streams. So while you say we're not seen that way, the evidence is quite the opposite. To date, ZOS has done nothing that directly addressed the fallout from that tweet. You've stated yourself that responding in kind to antagonism doesn't help the conversation - so why is that coming from Rich at the start of this PTS? That did nothing but prime us to be upset by something like what Gilliam said.

I get that ZOS devs don't want to feel disrespected but ZOS can't lead with ambiguous announcements, sardonic tweets, "we see your feedback but we're moving ahead anyways", couple that with radio silence on major threads, and then edit our words and not expect people to not be absolutely fuming mad. You guys are creating that cycle.

ZOS needs to be more responsive and reflective in general. Case in point, this thread here. Players are asking Gina to follow up on a thread she's already commented on, and we're not getting any clarification on what seems to be a major gap. So even when we do follow your advice, the result is the same - crickets. Her as a community manager especially, should anticipate that a one-liner is going to generate more questions than answers. It's hard to not infer ill-intent or negligence. We'd all love to give ZOS the benefit of the doubt, but we can't anymore.

Part 3: Closing thoughts:
Can you elaborate on what ZOS is doing to make these forums more welcoming and meaningful for the people here? Why would I come here vs Reddit? I think the general expectation is that there's a chance for development interaction, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Hoping you can clear that up.

I hope you take the time to answer the hard questions I've asked here Kevin. I do appreciate some of the changes made in response to some PTS feedback. I just wish there were more dialogue other than damage control here.

@ZOS_Kevin Can you respond to my points please? I've bolded the points I'm still looking for answers on.

...Do you really expect him to?

YandereGirlfriend

BahometZ wrote: »

Power creep has always been under zenimax's control if they so wished. It's been going up for years, and they continue to release broken sets (to lure purchase of dlc) allowing organised groups to do what they do.

Its not as though its suddenly such an urgent problem, they've mentioned it in previous patches. Why didn't they at any point in the last couple of years just cap damage output to 100k dps and scale everything from there. They could've set the line at any time, and chose not to.

Quite right.

Like, super easy examples of power-creep over the last two years or so just via itemization and skill adjustments:

1. Why does Z'ens even exist? Could re-itemize this set into something else since all it achieved was to increase power-creep in a way that's slanted toward very organized groups.
2. Why does Martial Knowledge even exist? Ditto as above.
3. Why does Encratis' Behemoth even exist? Ditto as above.
4. Why does Elemental Catalyst even exist? Ditto as above.
5. Why was Stone Fist get re-worked to do what it does rather than making it into an actual spammable? Only skilled tanks can persistently keep up the stacks.
6. Why does Empowering Grasp do what it does? It's been a wonky meme of a skill since the very beginning and it could easily serve a more useful purpose.
7. Why does Minor Brittle even exist (and now Major Brittle)? The goal was to give Frost Wardens something unique but it was immediately co-opted by supports and now exists only as a tool for... power-creep.

These are all like extremely obvious examples of power-creep that willfully ZOS introduced. And then they turn around and complain about the power-creep. Like, what?!

Necrotech_Master

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

BahometZ wrote: »

Power creep has always been under zenimax's control if they so wished. It's been going up for years, and they continue to release broken sets (to lure purchase of dlc) allowing organised groups to do what they do.

Its not as though its suddenly such an urgent problem, they've mentioned it in previous patches. Why didn't they at any point in the last couple of years just cap damage output to 100k dps and scale everything from there. They could've set the line at any time, and chose not to.

Quite right.

Like, super easy examples of power-creep over the last two years or so just via itemization and skill adjustments:

1. Why does Z'ens even exist? Could re-itemize this set into something else since all it achieved was to increase power-creep in a way that's slanted toward very organized groups.
2. Why does Martial Knowledge even exist? Ditto as above.
3. Why does Encratis' Behemoth even exist? Ditto as above.
4. Why does Elemental Catalyst even exist? Ditto as above.
5. Why was Stone Fist get re-worked to do what it does rather than making it into an actual spammable? Only skilled tanks can persistently keep up the stacks.
6. Why does Empowering Grasp do what it does? It's been a wonky meme of a skill since the very beginning and it could easily serve a more useful purpose.
7. Why does Minor Brittle even exist (and now Major Brittle)? The goal was to give Frost Wardens something unique but it was immediately co-opted by supports and now exists only as a tool for... power-creep.

These are all like extremely obvious examples of power-creep that willfully ZOS introduced. And then they turn around and complain about the power-creep. Like, what?!

could add to that when they changed the numbers to all be much larger, remember way back during the launch of the game where 3000 hp was "higher" about the same as about 30,000 today? lol

or just them adding the trial dummy to make parses look higher even though people were probably already hitting those numbers before hand (i remember back in the day when 30-35k dps was considered "high")

FlopsyPrince

Someone said they thought making the learning curve steeper was good. How so?

Making it steeper would certainly not make it more accessible.

Though I have found in many MMOs that those who are really good often think it should take a lot of work to get there, but that is the opposite of making it accessible for many of us.

shadyjane62

Youyouz06 wrote: »

[snip]

Wrong. I have been stuck in combat for years and I coped. But my main Templar has only been under attack since Update 35.

[edited to remove quote]

Jaraal

Ghaleb wrote: »

What we now got was a mission statement in the light of accessibility and then getting our asses handed to us with the dps nerf-hammer. That doesn't play out as a lot of forum members have written. There is simply no connection between what they have said and what they are doing. And here I do not care about things you might think they want to do or what not, as this doesn't substitute official communication.

The only thing actually accessibility related was the supposed "standardization" of light attacks all doing the same damage and DOTs being on the same timers.... but both of those changes got quickly walked back, and actually changed to be even less accessible by requiring medium attack weaving, as well as doubling the effort of DOT tracking by making two separate "classes" of DOTs. Not to mention now needing to stare at buff icons even more to see which ones are being stripped by Nocturnal's Ploy.

Bottom line: with attack timing becoming more critical, buff and DOT monitoring made more complicated, overall damage nerfed 20-40% (depending on what newly nerfed class you play), buffs and expensive potions being rendered useless by Nocturnal's, players made unkillable by Mara's Balm, and low end players being hammered the hardest since they will be fighting 100% strength mobs while the "obscene damage number" crew got a gift with trial and HM bosses having 10% less health.... you could call this the Inacessibility Patch.

Going to be ugly when this one drops, folks. Hold on to your hats, it's gonna be a rough ride.

Agenericname

Marto wrote: »

I'm not trying to be contrarian. I'm not trying to "shill for ZOS". I'm simply trying to understand why changes are being made, and what effects they will have on the game on the long term.

I think my opinions are so different from the rest, because I don't see U35 as "a good game that was ruined by out of touch developers"

...Because I don't think ESO is a good game. In it's current state, I think it's pretty damn awful.

"Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game" says the common game design mantra. ESO is way past that point. And something needs to change.

Ghaleb wrote: »

Nobody gets upset about a 2% nerf. Some weird people might do. But rationally it doesn't matter in the big picture

If this was true, we wouldn't see a deluge of "Why does ZOS make game-changing patches every 3 months" threads.
(Yes, I know U35 is a lot bigger than a 2% change. I'm not talking about U35. I'm talking about U34, 33, 30, 27, 22, 15 etc.)

People get extremely upset over 2% nerfs. That's a fact.

And I'm not trying to dismiss that. I'm not saying it as a "hurr durr look at how dumb endgame players are making a big fuss over 2%"
It's understandable why people are upset. But we have to understand where that discomfort comes from if we want to fix it.



Statements like this are true. I'm not going to argue with that.

In my other thread I'm only trying to invite people to ask why. Why are statements like this true? Should statements like this be true? Would the game be better if statements like this were not true?

Ghaleb wrote: »

Disagree here. 2-5% implies a relative change. Of course this can be an awful lot in absolutes. E.g. if Elon Musk looses 5% of his total assets that will be a lot. Mine? Yeah, less so.

And... yeah. You just explained why people get upset over 2% changes. Because the ceiling is so high, even 2% feels huge. If the ceiling was lower, 2% wouldn't feel like a big deal. Which is why I think lowering the ceiling would lead to less frustration, and balance changes that feel less "game breaking"

Ghaleb wrote: »

The team knows what damage players make. They run the servers. If they don't know, I am not surprised about the "quality" of U35.

You can't expect the dungeon team to work on boss adjustments during June-August, based on the meta of September. They can't see the future.

The dungeon team did not know what sort of damage players will do in U35. How can they know, if U35 has not even released? Right now they have a rough idea. Which is why they gave us a rough adjustment.

-

I one hundred percent agree ZOS needs to be clearer with their long term goals.

To me, this patch has very clear direction and design. ZOS intention was never to directly raise the floor. They wanted to indirectly raise the floor by reducing the power and difficulty slope.

Does that mean their initial statement was a disingenuous? Sort of, yeah. It's PR. It's player psychology.

It's easier to tell people "We'll reduce high end damage and make the game more accessible" than it is to tell them "We'll reduce high-end damage, reduce low-end damage, and reduce the overall damage delta for a less steep curve that allows for easier development and balance of future content. While simultaneously increasing the difficulty of overland and introductory group content."

Things like this are not as straightforward as "more damage = more accessible, less damage = less accessible". It's a lot more nuanced. It might seem paradoxical, but it's just math.

I dont think that the devs are out of touch. I would probably think more highly of them if I thought that were true.

2% changes aren't made in a vacuum and the player base doesn't react to them in a vacuum. When these changes are made, we often don't just accept that we do 2% less damage and move on. It changes something and we change with it. The end result is 2% and its typically not negative, but in each case we, the players, need to change something. The change was never 2%. It was larger and player reacted reducing it from -x% to 2%. Its that process that many seem to be unhappy with. I know I am. I just want to play. I don't want to reinvent the wheel periodically because ZOS decided that I need that to be engaged. So yes, I don't think that many people are necessarily bothered by a simple 2%. I'm sure some are, but I don't think everyone complaining is mad about 2% as much as turning it back into 2%. And what does this patch promise? More of the same for the foreseeable future.

If ZOS is going to drop a patch that nerfs damage across the board and the other team is gong to use that next patch as an evaluation period where they can then make the adjustments that allow players to continue playing the content they were prior, what they have effectively done is make it a 90 day PTS cycle that escaped to live. They did change that, but only because of the backlash they got from the community. Its hard to fault the community for their criticism when you can see that its exactly what ZOS originally intended to do. I'm not sure that I understand how anyone could think that's a good idea. I understand how they think that it could be necessary, but still not a good one.

If the dungeon team cant possibly know what we are going to do in damage and need an entire patch to adjust, then the adjustment was too large. If its going to disrupt the game, the progression that players have already been working toward, and stall them out for 90 days, assuming that they wait that long, then the change is too big. If they plan on making adjustments throughout, then they need to communicate that to the players, preferably ahead of time.

Let's assume that it was necessary for a moment. I personally don't feel that an adjustment is unwarranted, but how they did this is odd. A good bit of the power creep exists in the sets we use. Strong players can clear content. Strong players with optimized group buffs can trivialize content. If they wanted to lower the ceiling without wreaking havoc across the board, they could have targeted that. Do we not want players to clear content or do we not want them to trivialize it?

heaven13

Marto wrote: »

I'm not trying to be contrarian. I'm not trying to "shill for ZOS". I'm simply trying to understand why changes are being made, and what effects they will have on the game on the long term.

I think my opinions are so different from the rest, because I don't see U35 as "a good game that was ruined by out of touch developers"

...Because I don't think ESO is a good game. In it's current state, I think it's pretty damn awful.

"Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game" says the common game design mantra. ESO is way past that point. And something needs to change.

Ghaleb wrote: »

Nobody gets upset about a 2% nerf. Some weird people might do. But rationally it doesn't matter in the big picture

If this was true, we wouldn't see a deluge of "Why does ZOS make game-changing patches every 3 months" threads.
(Yes, I know U35 is a lot bigger than a 2% change. I'm not talking about U35. I'm talking about U34, 33, 30, 27, 22, 15 etc.)

People get extremely upset over 2% nerfs. That's a fact.

And I'm not trying to dismiss that. I'm not saying it as a "hurr durr look at how dumb endgame players are making a big fuss over 2%"
It's understandable why people are upset. But we have to understand where that discomfort comes from if we want to fix it.



Statements like this are true. I'm not going to argue with that.

In my other thread I'm only trying to invite people to ask why. Why are statements like this true? Should statements like this be true? Would the game be better if statements like this were not true?

Ghaleb wrote: »

Disagree here. 2-5% implies a relative change. Of course this can be an awful lot in absolutes. E.g. if Elon Musk looses 5% of his total assets that will be a lot. Mine? Yeah, less so.

And... yeah. You just explained why people get upset over 2% changes. Because the ceiling is so high, even 2% feels huge. If the ceiling was lower, 2% wouldn't feel like a big deal. Which is why I think lowering the ceiling would lead to less frustration, and balance changes that feel less "game breaking"

Ghaleb wrote: »

The team knows what damage players make. They run the servers. If they don't know, I am not surprised about the "quality" of U35.

You can't expect the dungeon team to work on boss adjustments during June-August, based on the meta of September. They can't see the future.

The dungeon team did not know what sort of damage players will do in U35. How can they know, if U35 has not even released? Right now they have a rough idea. Which is why they gave us a rough adjustment.

-

I one hundred percent agree ZOS needs to be clearer with their long term goals.

To me, this patch has very clear direction and design. ZOS intention was never to directly raise the floor. They wanted to indirectly raise the floor by reducing the power and difficulty slope.

Does that mean their initial statement was a disingenuous? Sort of, yeah. It's PR. It's player psychology.

It's easier to tell people "We'll reduce high end damage and make the game more accessible" than it is to tell them "We'll reduce high-end damage, reduce low-end damage, and reduce the overall damage delta for a less steep curve that allows for easier development and balance of future content. While simultaneously increasing the difficulty of overland and introductory group content."

Things like this are not as straightforward as "more damage = more accessible, less damage = less accessible". It's a lot more nuanced. It might seem paradoxical, but it's just math.

People don't get upset with just 2% nerfs. They get tired of combat completely changing every single patch so they need to completely refarm to be near as effective as they were. Year of the Dragon comes to mind. DoT meta for one patch cycle (which people warned was a bad idea on PTS) that was practically completely reverted next patch cycle. Stam spent forever farming Lokke weapons/jewels in Sunspire, then needed to swap to shoulders/helmet because next patch it was better to double use arena weapons. Had to refarm because it was before sticker book and almost no one had kept shoulders/head pieces.

Every other patch it's like we need to completely relearn the game. People. Are. TIRED. Swinging balance like this is not good. It makes the game feel like a job if you want to be involved in competitive content. If you take a break, you really need to learn to replay because things completely change. I left before hybridization and I have no idea how I'd run any of my effective characters these days (not that it matters because it's changing, again). It makes coming back, if I planned on doing so in some kind of competitive way even more daunting and less likely. For a game this old, this should NOT be happening and especially not so often.

That's why people are upset.

baltic1284

heaven13 wrote: »

Marto wrote: »

I'm not trying to be contrarian. I'm not trying to "shill for ZOS". I'm simply trying to understand why changes are being made, and what effects they will have on the game on the long term.

I think my opinions are so different from the rest, because I don't see U35 as "a good game that was ruined by out of touch developers"

...Because I don't think ESO is a good game. In it's current state, I think it's pretty damn awful.

"Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game" says the common game design mantra. ESO is way past that point. And something needs to change.

Ghaleb wrote: »

Nobody gets upset about a 2% nerf. Some weird people might do. But rationally it doesn't matter in the big picture

If this was true, we wouldn't see a deluge of "Why does ZOS make game-changing patches every 3 months" threads.
(Yes, I know U35 is a lot bigger than a 2% change. I'm not talking about U35. I'm talking about U34, 33, 30, 27, 22, 15 etc.)

People get extremely upset over 2% nerfs. That's a fact.

And I'm not trying to dismiss that. I'm not saying it as a "hurr durr look at how dumb endgame players are making a big fuss over 2%"
It's understandable why people are upset. But we have to understand where that discomfort comes from if we want to fix it.



Statements like this are true. I'm not going to argue with that.

In my other thread I'm only trying to invite people to ask why. Why are statements like this true? Should statements like this be true? Would the game be better if statements like this were not true?

Ghaleb wrote: »

Disagree here. 2-5% implies a relative change. Of course this can be an awful lot in absolutes. E.g. if Elon Musk looses 5% of his total assets that will be a lot. Mine? Yeah, less so.

And... yeah. You just explained why people get upset over 2% changes. Because the ceiling is so high, even 2% feels huge. If the ceiling was lower, 2% wouldn't feel like a big deal. Which is why I think lowering the ceiling would lead to less frustration, and balance changes that feel less "game breaking"

Ghaleb wrote: »

The team knows what damage players make. They run the servers. If they don't know, I am not surprised about the "quality" of U35.

You can't expect the dungeon team to work on boss adjustments during June-August, based on the meta of September. They can't see the future.

The dungeon team did not know what sort of damage players will do in U35. How can they know, if U35 has not even released? Right now they have a rough idea. Which is why they gave us a rough adjustment.

-

I one hundred percent agree ZOS needs to be clearer with their long term goals.

To me, this patch has very clear direction and design. ZOS intention was never to directly raise the floor. They wanted to indirectly raise the floor by reducing the power and difficulty slope.

Does that mean their initial statement was a disingenuous? Sort of, yeah. It's PR. It's player psychology.

It's easier to tell people "We'll reduce high end damage and make the game more accessible" than it is to tell them "We'll reduce high-end damage, reduce low-end damage, and reduce the overall damage delta for a less steep curve that allows for easier development and balance of future content. While simultaneously increasing the difficulty of overland and introductory group content."

Things like this are not as straightforward as "more damage = more accessible, less damage = less accessible". It's a lot more nuanced. It might seem paradoxical, but it's just math.

People don't get upset with just 2% nerfs. They get tired of combat completely changing every single patch so they need to completely refarm to be near as effective as they were. Year of the Dragon comes to mind. DoT meta for one patch cycle (which people warned was a bad idea on PTS) that was practically completely reverted next patch cycle. Stam spent forever farming Lokke weapons/jewels in Sunspire, then needed to swap to shoulders/helmet because next patch it was better to double use arena weapons. Had to refarm because it was before sticker book and almost no one had kept shoulders/head pieces.

Every other patch it's like we need to completely relearn the game. People. Are. TIRED. Swinging balance like this is not good. It makes the game feel like a job if you want to be involved in competitive content. If you take a break, you really need to learn to replay because things completely change. I left before hybridization and I have no idea how I'd run any of my effective characters these days (not that it matters because it's changing, again). It makes coming back, if I planned on doing so in some kind of competitive way even more daunting and less likely. For a game this old, this should NOT be happening and especially not so often.

That's why people are upset.

Although you do bring up some good points many of the changes that are coming and the constant swing back and forth every other patch is addressing issues they long ignored for so long over the years. If they had addressed the issues right away and ASAP years back, then yeah things be more stable but at that time they were more concerned with other things and ignored obvious ones sadly. Don't get me wrong I'm just as frustrated with the constant changes as everyone but at the same time i can also see why they are doing it as certain abilities are still way overpowered to make any competitive aspect or PVP aspect fun when a single player can hit two keys and kill everyone, they see fit against 6 or more enemy players. Trust me i am in Imperial city and just watch it happen playing my Daggerfall Imperial and watched a single Aldmeri player kill 12 Ebonehart Pact players in 3 moves they arrived did a spin attack to em all then did a special spin and boom they were all dead.
So, changes do need to be made to bring balance into the game with this make learning a challenge yes but still needs be done it should have been far earlier in the game's life though and not years after fact. Along with server work to make the game less laggy when those PvP matches do happen, as that is probably the second most angering event and content lock away in maps and items due to certain members of the community forcing to be that way.

Marto

You just said "People don't get upset with just 2% nerfs.", and then proceeded to describe what I would define as a 2% nerf. So yeah, you are upset over a 2% nerf.

heaven13 wrote: »

They get tired of combat completely changing every single patch

You're right, that would be tiring. But what exactly is your definition of "combat completely changing"?

Did update 23 rework light attacks to work on a hitbox based system? Did update 19 combine all types of staff into one? Did update 31 introduce a cooldown system? Did update 24 make dual wield a tanking weapon?

The combat is not completely changing every patch. Would IGN look at the average ESO update and make articles about how big and gamechanging the update is? No, not really.

There's occasional big changes, like U35 increasing DoT and AoE timers, or the Year of the Dragon patches encouraging more DoT stacking, or the introduction of Frost staves as a tanking weapon. But those come every couple years. Not every couple months.

heaven13 wrote: »

...so they need to completely refarm to be near as effective as they were.

So your definition of a "combat completely changed" patch is one in which you need to refarm all of your gear for your build to remain viable and competitive. That too would be understandable.

But that's also not what's happening.

During update 25, what was the DPS of your item build, post-nerf? And what was the DPS on the build you were farming towards? What was the difference? What about update 31? 29? I'm willing to bet most of them were fairly minor, and easily adjusted for.

You do not need to refarm your gear with such dramatic urgency. You can safely use a build that lands you on 99.7 percentile for a few weeks or months until you get that 99.8 percentile build.

Switching 1 or 2 sets doesn't require you to relearn the game.

You're treating every situation that's "My build is X% less effective than before" as "I need to relearn the game", Even when that X percentage is so small, that any player slightly more skilled than you could get higher DPS with your "unuseable" build, and any player slightly less skilled than you could get lower DPS with your "entirely new meta" build

If you define terms so strictly, every single patch is going to feel disruptive to you, no matter what. What would you like, then? A patch where no changes are made whatsoever, so your build that deals 120K remains at 120K, instad of a patch where you drop down to 100K, and need to get 1 different set to get 110K?

Even if ZOS followed every single one of your preferred suggestions and solutions to the problems you see with the game, that would still lead to some builds and some playstyles experiencing "swings" just as big, or even bigger than the ones you're talking about.

heaven13

Marto wrote: »

You just said "People don't get upset with just 2% nerfs.", and then proceeded to describe what I would define as a 2% nerf. So yeah, you are upset over a 2% nerf.

heaven13 wrote: »

They get tired of combat completely changing every single patch

You're right, that would be tiring. But what exactly is your definition of "combat completely changing"?

Did update 23 rework light attacks to work on a hitbox based system? Did update 19 combine all types of staff into one? Did update 31 introduce a cooldown system? Did update 24 make dual wield a tanking weapon?

The combat is not completely changing every patch. Would IGN look at the average ESO update and make articles about how big and gamechanging the update is? No, not really.

There's occasional big changes, like U35 increasing DoT and AoE timers, or the Year of the Dragon patches encouraging more DoT stacking, or the introduction of Frost staves as a tanking weapon. But those come every couple years. Not every couple months.

heaven13 wrote: »

...so they need to completely refarm to be near as effective as they were.

So your definition of a "combat completely changed" patch is one in which you need to refarm all of your gear for your build to remain viable and competitive. That too would be understandable.

But that's also not what's happening.

During update 25, what was the DPS of your item build, post-nerf? And what was the DPS on the build you were farming towards? What was the difference? What about update 31? 29? I'm willing to bet most of them were fairly minor, and easily adjusted for.

You do not need to refarm your gear with such dramatic urgency. You can safely use a build that lands you on 99.7 percentile for a few weeks or months until you get that 99.8 percentile build.

Switching 1 or 2 sets doesn't require you to relearn the game.

You're treating every situation that's "My build is X% less effective than before" as "I need to relearn the game", Even when that X percentage is so small, that any player slightly more skilled than you could get higher DPS with your "unuseable" build, and any player slightly less skilled than you could get lower DPS with your "entirely new meta" build

If you define terms so strictly, every single patch is going to feel disruptive to you, no matter what. What would you like, then? A patch where no changes are made whatsoever, so your build that deals 120K remains at 120K, instad of a patch where you drop down to 100K, and need to get 1 different set to get 110K?

Even if ZOS followed every single one of your preferred suggestions and solutions to the problems you see with the game, that would still lead to some builds and some playstyles experiencing "swings" just as big, or even bigger than the ones you're talking about.

You say you’re not determined to be contrary but that’s all I’m hearing.

I’m not a top-ceiling player. I didn’t swap gear every patch (never farmed Bahsei, for example). But when I need to switch to dual wield to be more effective (leveling an entire skill line and farming daggers on a magicka character that usually gave them away…that’s definitely different) and that was before hybridization.

From what I’ve read regarding the changes to warden this patch, the entire rhythm of their rotation has been altered. For someone that has played warden in endgame HM trials, I’m familiar with that cadence, and would need to completely relearn a rotation. You build muscle memory and it’s hard to break that. It takes a lot of time and practice, hence my comment that it starts to feel more like a job.

If you want to cherry pick my statements and try to read between nonexistent lines to make your points, by all means. But you’re not actually comprehending what I and plenty of other much better worded and knowledgeable players are telling you.

Jazraena

If they completely change the functionality of a set, a build may fall apart.
If they completely change the functionality of a skill, a build may fall apart.
If they change seemingly harmless things like damage tick frequency, it can absolutely shatter builds relying on number of damage sources.

'Constant sweeping changes' isn't about damage numbers except for the top end of players - where these 2% do in fact matter. For the rest of us where it doesn't matter, those changes still murder builds at random because some niche setup was fundamentally changed and no longer does what you need it to, or because of seemingly harmless interaction drops your damage not by 2%, but 40%.

Suggesting 'but those changes aren't that bad' is insulting to all of us who have been continually refarming gear to keep our characters fun and viable for the content we enjoy, no matter what content that may be.

Vetixio

People are just getting tired of the constant changes and patch fatigue. Many of us just wish they listened to some of the player bases’ feedback once in a while.

baltic1284

Vetixio wrote: »

People are just getting tired of the constant changes and patch fatigue. Many of us just wish they listened to some of the player bases’ feedback once in a while.

This of but just things that as happened and are just two things and issues right now that need to change. There is more than that at this point that needs to be addressed in the game and staff. Most of it unfortunately was never dealt with early on and is now getting to the point that it is at right now.

Celephantsylvius_Bornasfinmo

shadyjane62 wrote: »

Youyouz06 wrote: »

[snip]

Wrong. I have been stuck in combat for years and I coped. But my main Templar has only been under attack since Update 35.

Son *puts feet on the table* This isn't the first time *opens classified Templar nerfs over the years*

[edited to remove quote]

shadyjane62

Youyouz06 wrote: »

shadyjane62 wrote: »

Youyouz06 wrote: »

[snip]

Wrong. I have been stuck in combat for years and I coped. But my main Templar has only been under attack since Update 35.

Son *puts feet on the table* This isn't the first time *opens classified Templar nerfs over the years*

Yes, you are right, but they were nerfs I could deal with and adapt to. The Pool Noodle is not one of those nerfs.

[edited to remove quote]

Ph1p

Marto wrote: »

People get extremely upset over 2% nerfs. That's a fact.

No, some people get extremely upset over 2% nerfs. With a player base numbering in the millions, there will always be someone complaining about something. There is a judgment call to deprioritize those complaints that aren't constructive or relevant. But as many players have argued, demonstrated, and proven again and again, the current situation is miles away from people overreacting to inconsequential changes. This patch isn't a targeted 2% nerf - that's a fact - so let's stop dwelling on this.

Marto wrote: »

Finn, the dungeon lead, confirmed on twitter that U36 was intended to have a lot of boss adjustments. Obviously, he and his team can't start to work on that until they know if players will deal 50k, 100k, or 600k DPS. I think ZOS' original intention was to leave the end-game unplayably hard for September-November, and then adjust end-game content difficulty down.

How is this an appropriate plan for a game that's been released 8 years ago? We're not in a pre-release alpha where it's ok to temporarily break something to fix a larger issue. People have paid and are paying to play this game, not be beta testers. If the changes are so broad that the internal content team doesn't know how to adjust balancing any more, despite all the data at their disposal, all the more reason not to rush U35. Make some smaller adjustments, but keep testing the bigger ones on the PTS and release them as part of a coherent and consistent U36.

Marto wrote: »

It's easier to tell people "We'll reduce high end damage and make the game more accessible" than it is to tell them "We'll reduce high-end damage, reduce low-end damage, and reduce the overall damage delta for a less steep curve that allows for easier development and balance of future content. While simultaneously increasing the difficulty of overland and introductory group content."

The only thing that's easier is writing the initial announcement, where they save maybe a few hours in drafting. Now compare that to managing the fallout from this miscommunication, including the lack of clear direction and the frustration from customers because they hear ZOS say one thing and do another. Compare it to managing the long-term loss of trust from customers. Still think it's easier?

Marto

Ph1p wrote: »

Marto wrote: »

Finn, the dungeon lead, confirmed on twitter that U36 was intended to have a lot of boss adjustments. Obviously, he and his team can't start to work on that until they know if players will deal 50k, 100k, or 600k DPS. I think ZOS' original intention was to leave the end-game unplayably hard for September-November, and then adjust end-game content difficulty down.

How is this an appropriate plan for a game that's been released 8 years ago? We're not in a pre-release alpha where it's ok to temporarily break something to fix a larger issue. People have paid and are paying to play this game, not be beta testers. If the changes are so broad that the internal content team doesn't know how to adjust balancing any more, despite all the data at their disposal, all the more reason not to rush U35. Make some smaller adjustments, but keep testing the bigger ones on the PTS and release them as part of a coherent and consistent U36.

Oh you can definitely argue it's a terrible plan. It's definitely a very flawed one. But I'm also not entirely sure they had better options.

ZOS could have made this DPS nerf and consequent boss adjustment a PTS only thing. Test it for 3-9 months, to allow time for the community to see all the nuance, and allow time for the devs to actually finish the work. It's clear that 1 month is not enough.

But if they were to do that, they'd only get feedback from dedicated, veteran players with lots of knowledge and experience with the game mechanics. That feedback is valuable, but it's NOT the only feedback they want. They need to know how the change will affect newer, more casual players. Those with level 20 characters, roaming around with the overworld, doing quests, and maybe going into Fungal Grotto with a friend.

If the game they experience is not fun, because of things like mind-numbingly easy enemies, or ability timers so short they strain their hands trying to recast things... then what's the point of the endgame being "good"?

ZOS came to the conclusion that it's better to have well a tuned overworld, nDungeons, nArenas, nTrials, and poorly tuned vTrials and Trifectas, than it is to have the entire game be poorly tuned for the sake of content only 0.001% of the playerbase can finish.

Sadly, there is a massive disconnect between PTS and forum users, and the average ESO player. That makes PTS feedback inherently incomplete.

ThirdEye_PULSE

Marto wrote: »

Ph1p wrote: »

Marto wrote: »

Finn, the dungeon lead, confirmed on twitter that U36 was intended to have a lot of boss adjustments. Obviously, he and his team can't start to work on that until they know if players will deal 50k, 100k, or 600k DPS. I think ZOS' original intention was to leave the end-game unplayably hard for September-November, and then adjust end-game content difficulty down.

How is this an appropriate plan for a game that's been released 8 years ago? We're not in a pre-release alpha where it's ok to temporarily break something to fix a larger issue. People have paid and are paying to play this game, not be beta testers. If the changes are so broad that the internal content team doesn't know how to adjust balancing any more, despite all the data at their disposal, all the more reason not to rush U35. Make some smaller adjustments, but keep testing the bigger ones on the PTS and release them as part of a coherent and consistent U36.

Oh you can definitely argue it's a terrible plan. It's definitely a very flawed one. But I'm also not entirely sure they had better options.

ZOS could have made this DPS nerf and consequent boss adjustment a PTS only thing. Test it for 3-9 months, to allow time for the community to see all the nuance, and allow time for the devs to actually finish the work. It's clear that 1 month is not enough.

But if they were to do that, they'd only get feedback from dedicated, veteran players with lots of knowledge and experience with the game mechanics. That feedback is valuable, but it's NOT the only feedback they want. They need to know how the change will affect newer, more casual players. Those with level 20 characters, roaming around with the overworld, doing quests, and maybe going into Fungal Grotto with a friend.

If the game they experience is not fun, because of things like mind-numbingly easy enemies, or ability timers so short they strain their hands trying to recast things... then what's the point of the endgame being "good"?

ZOS came to the conclusion that it's better to have well a tuned overworld, nDungeons, nArenas, nTrials, and poorly tuned vTrials and Trifectas, than it is to have the entire game be poorly tuned for the sake of content only 0.001% of the playerbase can finish.

Sadly, there is a massive disconnect between PTS and forum users, and the average ESO player. That makes PTS feedback inherently incomplete.

Dang. The way you summed that up makes a lot of sense actually. Im not happy with the changes but im also not the demographic that this patch is targeting as an end game pvper.

The bottom line... the greatest percentage of players. Obviously it would be best if every aspect of the game was fun... but i do think overland has gotten stupid easy since i came back after a 2 year break. I was actually suprised how much power creep happened in 2 years. Was flying through dungeons that used to be hard for PUG groups. Bosses melted that used to be tricky.

It was very obvious as a returning player that the game had become a lot easier... and i wasnt even playing my old account at 800+ cp on ps4 it was my new one i made before i took the break. All i needed to destroy overland and normal dungeons was a couple crafted sets and nothing could stop me. I imagine its the same for new players...they join a guild and get some sets made for them and suddenly the game as they know it is EZ mode one skill boom type thing.

So yeah... i can see the need to bring damage down across the board to bring challenge back. But it doesnt feel good to lose power you were given. Its a tough cookie to swallow for someone thats currently playing but i suppose new players would never know the diff.

The hardest part for me to accept is the DoT nerf to damage. I dont care about the length but the damage and frequency of ticks is what matters most to me as a pvp player.

I still wish they would have gone ahead and did the one change they said they were going to do. Make personal buffs last one minute universally or some higher amount of time. That sounded great to me!. Like yeehaw bring it man... out of my entire rotation the most unnecessary part of it is short buff timers imo. Just raising that timer would have made the gameplay feel more engaging and focused on combat.

Cirantille

Maybe it is time to patch-when everything is ready? Not bits by bits but launch it when the package is complete?

I mean, many companies redeemed themselves in the past by scrapping their products and listening to their playerbase. Two comes to my mind FFXIV and No man's sky. It was a harsh launch for FFXIV and they went back and re-released the whole game. Imagine. This is just an update we are talking about here.
No man's sky failed to delivered what they had promised but kept adding expansions. For free! Such a positive attitude and shows everyone can make mistakes but also every game can recover from such disasters.
Even New World is trying to improve their features based on the negative feedback right now.

This whole must-publish-something-every-3 months formula is not working anymore. Especially when they deliver must-change-something-every-3-months patch attached to it.

I don't know how you all feeling about it, but to me in the last few chapters, questlines/quests feel similar (Excluding this year, because I did not play it). There is always "the world is ending" rush, then you fail to save the world at first try, then on second attempt you become "Saviour of X" (X=chapter name). Even the title earned is same...

There is not much of a reward at the end of these questlines either. You get a piece of gear from the zone and some level of gold. We are talking about accessibility yet, for example the only flashy mounts you can get in the game are locked behind veteran PvE content. Maybe spread other rewards into other mods of gameplay, if the point is accessibility? Or stop changing the combat every few months so people can continue to progress?

Additionally, in the "new features" of chapters, I sense a lack of passion and love for the game in the last two years. I mean even the new templar jabs animation shows this, instead of creating a unique, more high resolution aedric spear, we got a glowy version of an already existing staff motif I feel like whoever is preparing these are pressured into coming up with a new chapter/dlc in a tight schedule. I guess this could explain why we got companions and a card-game in an MMORPG as a main feature. There was a time we got a new skilline, crafting mode, class, gameplay etc. with chapters.

Maybe if there are no more innovative ideas, time to stop and wait for inspiration for an amazing chapter/dlc instead of launching "something-that worked before" every 3 months?

Art and visuals are still superb though, can't argue with that, kudos to whoever is preparing those parts.

FlopsyPrince

MMOs (as a whole) are easier now, as it should be. The only way "most players" will play them is if they can have fun when doing so.

A few like an intense challenge, so provide for that if you can, but the masses want something to have fun with and dying a LOT is not a part of that.

Jumping puzzles are an example of that. Some will definitely persist in them until they "win", but most will simply avoid them.

Going back to the "good old days" doesn't work in MMOs anymore than it does in life. Some older principles may be better, but shifting backward is never a good idea.

SilverBride

I'm late to the thread but I want to say that I am a casual player and have no interest in end game content. It's not that I couldn't do it, I just plain don't want to.

The problem for me occurs when end game players say that the game is too easy and suggest that the difficulty needs to be increased, specifically overland which is the world I live in. I don't want my world made more difficult to accommodate a very small percentage of players.

The ceiling can be lowered without raising the floor where I am very content.

FlopsyPrince

SilverBride wrote: »

I'm late to the thread but I want to say that I am a casual player and have no interest in end game content. It's not that I couldn't do it, I just plain don't want to.

The problem for me occurs when end game players say that the game is too easy and suggest that the difficulty needs to be increased, specifically overland which is the world I live in. I don't want my world made more difficult to accommodate a very small percentage of players.

The ceiling can be lowered without raising the floor where I am very content.

I agree, yet many in the Overland Content pinned thread claimed many people wanted harder overland content.

I maintain that most do not and that is part of spreading the game out to far more players.

sbr32

Cirantille wrote: »

I mean, many companies redeemed themselves in the past by scrapping their products and listening to their playerbase. Two comes to my mind FFXIV and No man's sky. It was a harsh launch for FFXIV and they went back and re-released the whole game. Imagine. This is just an update we are talking about here.
No man's sky failed to delivered what they had promised but kept adding expansions. For free! Such a positive attitude and shows everyone can make mistakes but also every game can recover from such disasters.
Even New World is trying to improve their features based on the negative feedback right now.

ArenaNet, developer of Guild Wars 2, yesterday admitted that their "approach to balancing professions and combat in Guild Wars 2 has not been fully aligned with the needs and expectations of our community".

Furthermore -

"As we’ve been reading through your feedback ... it became clear to us that one aspect of the previous balance approach was especially problematic. Specifically, making balance adjustments to PvE builds based on their potential under unrealistic, ideal conditions – conditions that are unlikely to be met unless you’re testing against a golem, or the player is extremely skilled. While these builds can definitely be an issue in a skilled player’s hands, often times the changes have an outsized impact to unrelated builds and average players. With that in mind, we’ll be reverting the changes ...."

It's a pretty easy decision on which set of developers I am willing to give my time, energy and money.