Update 35 General Consensus Poll.

Jofootballo

I've been seeing a lot of comments lately dismissing peoples opinions on the patch because they're "part of the loud minority". I know this isn't going to be 100% accurate, but I made a poll on reddit to try and determine what the general consensus is when it comes to Update 35: reddit.com/r/elderscrollsonline/comments/wlbknm/update_35_positive_or_negative/

Feel free to vote and/or discuss, thanks for reading!

VaranisArano

It's less than 300 players responding when I looked at it. So that's a major caveat when it comes to drawing conclusions as if this was representative of the playerbase.

With that in mind, I'll note that it's only a rough 1/3rd of respondents who see nothing positive. Roughly 50% of respondents don't know/don't care or think it's good/mostly good. Which honestly seems about right, maybe even a little low for the Live playerbase, which may not pay attention to any fan site or forum.

Of that 1/3rd who see nothing positive, we can safely assume that only a portion of those are cancelling subs and even fewer are actually going to quit for real.

So while I expect the feedback on Update 35 on the forums to remain pretty negative, it's worth keeping in mind that a LOT of players are in the "don't know/don't care or see something positive" camp.

The players who are canceling subs and quitting are a loud minority. That's not to say that ZOS shouldn't listen to the message they send or that losing a sizeable enough minority of players isn't a big deal, just that realistically, they aren't even close to the majority of the playerbase.

Edit: percentages obviously subject to change as more people vote.

Eira_Rosynhwyr

That is the advantage of posting the poll on Reddit. If you're in the PTS forum, chances are here because you care.

merpins

boi_anachronism_

VaranisArano wrote: »

It's less than 300 players responding when I looked at it. So that's a major caveat when it comes to drawing conclusions as if this was representative of the playerbase.

With that in mind, I'll note that it's only a rough 1/3rd of respondents who see nothing positive. Roughly 50% of respondents don't know/don't care or think it's good/mostly good. Which honestly seems about right, maybe even a little low for the Live playerbase, which may not pay attention to any fan site or forum.

Of that 1/3rd who see nothing positive, we can safely assume that only a portion of those are cancelling subs and even fewer are actually going to quit for real.

So while I expect the feedback on Update 35 on the forums to remain pretty negative, it's worth keeping in mind that a LOT of players are in the "don't know/don't care or see something positive" camp.

The players who are canceling subs and quitting are a loud minority. That's not to say that ZOS shouldn't listen to the message they send or that losing a sizeable enough minority of players isn't a big deal, just that realistically, they aren't even close to the majority of the playerbase.

Edit: percentages obviously subject to change as more people vote.

Problem with this is that this a lot of the loud minorities are people that run training guilds for new raiders. When they see there GM's throwing in the towel it has a ripple effect, it's happened in 2 of my guilds already. Time will tell but personally I'll probably take a break from raiding when 35 launches. For context I've been playing about 7 months so I'm definitely not end game, solid vet raider but that's about it.

Enundr

VaranisArano wrote: »

It's less than 300 players responding when I looked at it. So that's a major caveat when it comes to drawing conclusions as if this was representative of the playerbase.

With that in mind, I'll note that it's only a rough 1/3rd of respondents who see nothing positive. Roughly 50% of respondents don't know/don't care or think it's good/mostly good. Which honestly seems about right, maybe even a little low for the Live playerbase, which may not pay attention to any fan site or forum.

Of that 1/3rd who see nothing positive, we can safely assume that only a portion of those are cancelling subs and even fewer are actually going to quit for real.

So while I expect the feedback on Update 35 on the forums to remain pretty negative, it's worth keeping in mind that a LOT of players are in the "don't know/don't care or see something positive" camp.

The players who are canceling subs and quitting are a loud minority. That's not to say that ZOS shouldn't listen to the message they send or that losing a sizeable enough minority of players isn't a big deal, just that realistically, they aren't even close to the majority of the playerbase.

Edit: percentages obviously subject to change as more people vote.

current results , its now up to 384 say the vast majority of the update is bad , and 457 dont know or care. that gap closed fast , and always remember just because they "dont know" doesnt necesarily mean they wont care and just may change that opinion to saying the update is hot garbage.

Bodycounter

The game has millions of players and the best polls being shown here struggle to get one thousand votes. You can't really believe that these polls do reflect the community.

Firstmep

Bodycounter wrote: »

The game has millions of players and the best polls being shown here struggle to get one thousand votes. You can't really believe that these polls do reflect the community.

Keep in mind most of the playerbase probably doesnt care for game balance, and most of the changes are specifically for end game.

Ofc people who only do quests and such wont care if trial goers now have to medium weave.

ApoAlaia

Firstmep wrote: »

Bodycounter wrote: »

The game has millions of players and the best polls being shown here struggle to get one thousand votes. You can't really believe that these polls do reflect the community.

Keep in mind most of the playerbase probably doesnt care for game balance, and most of the changes are specifically for end game.

Ofc people who only do quests and such wont care if trial goers now have to medium weave.

If people voting on that poll are at least somewhat basing their vote on how they feel about U35 it would seem that you are correct in your assessment.

Which I find... well, sad.

I strongly disagree with the work the combat team has done on this patch but at least I care enough about their work - and how it reflects in my experience - to disagree.

However the majority of the players simply don't care. I guess within the niche - when it comes to gaming - that is MMOs those of us expressing ourselves in this forum are just but a niche subset.

At least is a sobering realisation.

Firstmep

ApoAlaia wrote: »

Firstmep wrote: »

Bodycounter wrote: »

The game has millions of players and the best polls being shown here struggle to get one thousand votes. You can't really believe that these polls do reflect the community.

Keep in mind most of the playerbase probably doesnt care for game balance, and most of the changes are specifically for end game.

Ofc people who only do quests and such wont care if trial goers now have to medium weave.

If people voting on that poll are at least somewhat basing their vote on how they feel about U35 it would seem that you are correct in your assessment.

Which I find... well, sad.

I strongly disagree with the work the combat team has done on this patch but at least I care enough about their work - and how it reflects in my experience - to disagree.

However the majority of the players simply don't care. I guess within the niche - when it comes to gaming - that is MMOs those of us expressing ourselves in this forum are just but a niche subset.

At least is a sobering realisation.

Eso is pretty unique, in that a lot of players just treat it as an extension to the Elder Scrolls series, rather than an mmo.
But frankly when the very players the devs are trying to help with the changes are just as unhappy if not more than those on top, then they really should reconsider.

Jaimeh

Firstmep wrote: »

Bodycounter wrote: »

The game has millions of players and the best polls being shown here struggle to get one thousand votes. You can't really believe that these polls do reflect the community.

Keep in mind most of the playerbase probably doesnt care for game balance, and most of the changes are specifically for end game.

Ofc people who only do quests and such wont care if trial goers now have to medium weave.

This ^ Not to mention that the majority doesn't visit the forums. It's the reason why the changes will go through: the outcry is from a small % of the population, it won't make a dent in their revenue (sadly). If it threatened revenue then it'd be a different story.

IZZEFlameLash

Some people need to learn the concept of sample size and what it means for stats instead of just claiming 'too few people, not representative enough'. Sampling is a thing in stats and it is used to draw rather accurate general consensus on how people think on an issue as long as the data isn't corrupted by questions that force answers to the likings of person/entity that conducts the poll and that sample was chosen holistically, not people those who are likely to give you the answer you like.

So, assuming that none of the taints are there, if majority of people in forums that participated in the poll didn't like the patch, there's a high likelihood that majority of player base feels the same way in around same percentages once they become aware of these changes.

VaranisArano

Enundr wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

It's less than 300 players responding when I looked at it. So that's a major caveat when it comes to drawing conclusions as if this was representative of the playerbase.

With that in mind, I'll note that it's only a rough 1/3rd of respondents who see nothing positive. Roughly 50% of respondents don't know/don't care or think it's good/mostly good. Which honestly seems about right, maybe even a little low for the Live playerbase, which may not pay attention to any fan site or forum.

Of that 1/3rd who see nothing positive, we can safely assume that only a portion of those are cancelling subs and even fewer are actually going to quit for real.

So while I expect the feedback on Update 35 on the forums to remain pretty negative, it's worth keeping in mind that a LOT of players are in the "don't know/don't care or see something positive" camp.

The players who are canceling subs and quitting are a loud minority. That's not to say that ZOS shouldn't listen to the message they send or that losing a sizeable enough minority of players isn't a big deal, just that realistically, they aren't even close to the majority of the playerbase.

Edit: percentages obviously subject to change as more people vote.

current results , its now up to 384 say the vast majority of the update is bad , and 457 dont know or care. that gap closed fast , and always remember just because they "dont know" doesnt necesarily mean they wont care and just may change that opinion to saying the update is hot garbage.

Currently up to 1791 votes.

Still roughly 30% of voters who see nothing positive at all.

Still roughly 50% of voters who are mostly positive or don't know/don't care.

Sure, that's not to say that the 50% won't change their minds when it goes Live. I'm expecting a pretty large influx of players to the forums after August 22nd and when it launches on Console going "What happened?'

But if forum posters are banking on a huge swath of ESO+ cancellations and quitting players to force ZOS to play ball, its wise to keep in mind that IF this poll is representative, then only a portion of that frustrated 30% is going to cancel subs and even fewer are going to quit.

This is a "loud minority" situation. It's just a more sizeable minority than usual. Moreover, it's a minority comprised of more of the end-game community than usual.

If nothing else, it goes to show why ZOS is banking on the Live rollout going less disastrously than the PTS rollout, and hoping they can retain most of their negative playerbase by fixing the worst pain points in three-six months.

KrawatteKamm961

Bodycounter wrote: »

The game has millions of players and the best polls being shown here struggle to get one thousand votes. You can't really believe that these polls do reflect the community.

Millions of registered players maybe.

ApoAlaia

VaranisArano wrote: »

Enundr wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

It's less than 300 players responding when I looked at it. So that's a major caveat when it comes to drawing conclusions as if this was representative of the playerbase.

With that in mind, I'll note that it's only a rough 1/3rd of respondents who see nothing positive. Roughly 50% of respondents don't know/don't care or think it's good/mostly good. Which honestly seems about right, maybe even a little low for the Live playerbase, which may not pay attention to any fan site or forum.

Of that 1/3rd who see nothing positive, we can safely assume that only a portion of those are cancelling subs and even fewer are actually going to quit for real.

So while I expect the feedback on Update 35 on the forums to remain pretty negative, it's worth keeping in mind that a LOT of players are in the "don't know/don't care or see something positive" camp.

The players who are canceling subs and quitting are a loud minority. That's not to say that ZOS shouldn't listen to the message they send or that losing a sizeable enough minority of players isn't a big deal, just that realistically, they aren't even close to the majority of the playerbase.

Edit: percentages obviously subject to change as more people vote.

current results , its now up to 384 say the vast majority of the update is bad , and 457 dont know or care. that gap closed fast , and always remember just because they "dont know" doesnt necesarily mean they wont care and just may change that opinion to saying the update is hot garbage.

Currently up to 1791 votes.

Still roughly 30% of voters who see nothing positive at all.

Still roughly 50% of voters who are mostly positive or don't know/don't care.

Sure, that's not to say that the 50% won't change their minds when it goes Live. I'm expecting a pretty large influx of players to the forums after August 22nd and when it launches on Console going "What happened?'

But if forum posters are banking on a huge swath of ESO+ cancellations and quitting players to force ZOS to play ball, its wise to keep in mind that IF this poll is representative, then only a portion of that frustrated 30% is going to cancel subs and even fewer are going to quit.

This is a "loud minority" situation. It's just a more sizeable minority than usual. Moreover, it's a minority comprised of more of the end-game community than usual.

If nothing else, it goes to show why ZOS is banking on the Live rollout going less disastrously than the PTS rollout, and hoping they can retain most of their negative playerbase by fixing the worst pain points in three-six months.

That's pretty much my takeaway from the poll too.

However to me it seems particularly insidious - and makes me feel too selfish for comfort - because it overwhelmingly targets the players I rely upon for help, advice and addons.

This is potentially going to compound my personal loss of efficacy.

It just doesn't look good from where I stand...

gariondavey

KrawatteKamm961 wrote: »

Bodycounter wrote: »

The game has millions of players and the best polls being shown here struggle to get one thousand votes. You can't really believe that these polls do reflect the community.

Millions of registered players maybe.

Yeah, exactly. I believe the numbers are about 400,000 active users

mpicklesster

IZZEFlameLash wrote: »

Some people need to learn the concept of sample size and what it means for stats instead of just claiming 'too few people, not representative enough'. Sampling is a thing in stats and it is used to draw rather accurate general consensus on how people think on an issue as long as the data isn't corrupted by questions that force answers to the likings of person/entity that conducts the poll and that sample was chosen holistically, not people those who are likely to give you the answer you like.

So, assuming that none of the taints are there, if majority of people in forums that participated in the poll didn't like the patch, there's a high likelihood that majority of player base feels the same way in around same percentages once they become aware of these changes.

Another extremely common misconception about sample size is that you need thousands of people to make an inference. When, in reality, it actually takes far fewer.

For example, the minimum recommended sample size for using the Z-test (one of the most robust statistical tests) is just 30 people. At that level, your sampling distribution will at least approximate the Normal Distribution. If you have 300 people, then your sampling distribution will almost perfectly conform to the Normal Distribution.

And not to mention, some of the most accurate presidential election polls (i.e., the ones that most accurately predict outcomes) sample just 1500 people! That's far more than you need to use most conventional statistical tools, but probably far fewer than what a layperson thinks is necessary.

TL; DR: What the general public thinks is too small of a sample size is actually more than sufficient in the vast majority of cases. The problem is that most people don't know how things like sampling distributions (or the Central Limit Theorem) work. Source: I taught stats for 7 years (5 in grad school, 2 after).

Edit: P.S. Ultimately, the primary determinant of your minimum sample size is the effect size you expect to see. For example, if you expect to detect a large effect like a strong correlation (i.e., about .7 or higher), then a small sample of about a dozen people will suffice. If, however, you expect to detect a small effect like a weak correlation (i.e., about .3 or lower), then you might need a sample size of about 80 people or more. Here's a table of critical value thresholds for the curious: https://www.statisticssolutions.com/free-resources/directory-of-statistical-analyses/pearsons-correlation-coefficient/table-of-critical-values-pearson-correlation/

Tyrobag

@ZOS_GinaBruno
This:

merpins wrote: »

If you haven't already please, please please pass on/reiterate the vastness of the negative feedback (which has only grown with 8.1.4).

Rimskjegg

The sample in that poll comes from Reddit and the forums, which probably skews the sample in favour of people who have strong opinions and care enough to even read patch notes. Yet the plurality of the answers is STILL "don't know/don't care". And that's exactly why this patch should NOT go live. Most players just don't care about PTS or don't know what's coming. By treating them all as guinea pigs, ZoS is taking a huge risk because it's not at all certain they'll stay in the "don't care" column once they start to notice the changes. The durations on most skills have changed. If they had a rotation, that has now been completely overturned. For Templars. Jabs look and feel completely different from before. MagDKs suddenly run out of Stamina because Whip suddenly costs Stamina now? I fear @Aldoss may have sketched the experience those players are in for in this comment: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/7686607#Comment_7686607

IZZEFlameLash

mpicklesster wrote: »

IZZEFlameLash wrote: »

Some people need to learn the concept of sample size and what it means for stats instead of just claiming 'too few people, not representative enough'. Sampling is a thing in stats and it is used to draw rather accurate general consensus on how people think on an issue as long as the data isn't corrupted by questions that force answers to the likings of person/entity that conducts the poll and that sample was chosen holistically, not people those who are likely to give you the answer you like.

So, assuming that none of the taints are there, if majority of people in forums that participated in the poll didn't like the patch, there's a high likelihood that majority of player base feels the same way in around same percentages once they become aware of these changes.

Another extremely common misconception about sample size is that you need thousands of people to make an inference. When, in reality, it actually takes far fewer.

For example, the minimum recommended sample size for using the Z-test (one of the most robust statistical tests) is just 30 people. At that level, your sampling distribution will at least approximate the Normal Distribution. If you have 300 people, then your sampling distribution will almost perfectly conform to the Normal Distribution.

And not to mention, some of the most accurate presidential election polls (i.e., the ones that most accurately predict outcomes) sample just 1500 people! That's far more than you need to use most conventional statistical tools, but probably far fewer than what a layperson thinks is necessary.

TL; DR: What the general public thinks is too small of a sample size is actually more than sufficient in the vast majority of cases. The problem is that most people don't know how things like sampling distributions (or the Central Limit Theorem) work. Source: I taught stats for 7 years (5 in grad school, 2 after).

Edit: P.S. Ultimately, the primary determinant of your minimum sample size is the effect size you expect to see. For example, if you expect to detect a large effect like a strong correlation (i.e., about .7 or higher), then a small sample of about a dozen people will suffice. If, however, you expect to detect a small effect like a weak correlation (i.e., about .3 or lower), then you might need a sample size of about 80 people or more. Here's a table of critical value thresholds for the curious: https://www.statisticssolutions.com/free-resources/directory-of-statistical-analyses/pearsons-correlation-coefficient/table-of-critical-values-pearson-correlation/

Thanks for more detailed misconception debunking!

sharquez

I mean I voted don't know/care in a reddit poll because I don't have the mental or emotional energy to follow the rollercoaster and just have a persistent melancholy as a result of the flipping flopping and feed back and flip outs and I'm just tired and done, and I don't think I'm the only one.

Casul

I need to wait until U36 before I know if it's truly a good idea.

chessalavakia_ESO

Interesting results. Reddit does slant a bit more towards the more competitive sections of game so the bad for the game is likely inflated a bit as the competitive section leans more towards that side.

Still, the numbers don't look great on the positive front when you consider it's running under 20%. Generally speaking, you've got a percentage of gamers that think passion is magic and like almost anything developers put out. (It's hilarious when you have a player suggest an idea and get massively bashed and then when the developers implement the idea months later you can see the same people that were bashing it suddenly like the idea.)

I think one of the interesting areas to watch the reactions will definitely be the Templars. One the one hand, they are getting freed from sweeps jail. On the other hand do they want to be freed from sweeps jail?

My Templar doesn't come out much and I primarily use it when I'm being lazy. It looks like against single targets I'll be losing around 1/5th of my current damage and around 1/3rd of my current healing as the damage scales with healing and I'd likely need to seriously consider if I wanted to keep the skill at all as you'd have better single target options, better healing options, and better AOE options.

boi_anachronism_

Bodycounter wrote: »

The game has millions of players and the best polls being shown here struggle to get one thousand votes. You can't really believe that these polls do reflect the community.

Millions? Sure. Active players? No where close. Those millions include folks that played for a week and quit. They refuse to release daily log in numbers for a reason. Steam is the most used platform. Check out where they clock eso on daily play.

Jofootballo

Bodycounter wrote: »

The game has millions of players and the best polls being shown here struggle to get one thousand votes. You can't really believe that these polls do reflect the community.

Yeah, nowhere close to millions. I'd wager aside from events and big dlc releases, ESO is probably hovering around 300,000 concurrent players over all of their platforms, maybe 4 or 5 when there's a popular event going on.

danno8

mpicklesster wrote: »

IZZEFlameLash wrote: »

Some people need to learn the concept of sample size and what it means for stats instead of just claiming 'too few people, not representative enough'. Sampling is a thing in stats and it is used to draw rather accurate general consensus on how people think on an issue as long as the data isn't corrupted by questions that force answers to the likings of person/entity that conducts the poll and that sample was chosen holistically, not people those who are likely to give you the answer you like.

So, assuming that none of the taints are there, if majority of people in forums that participated in the poll didn't like the patch, there's a high likelihood that majority of player base feels the same way in around same percentages once they become aware of these changes.

Another extremely common misconception about sample size is that you need thousands of people to make an inference. When, in reality, it actually takes far fewer.

For example, the minimum recommended sample size for using the Z-test (one of the most robust statistical tests) is just 30 people. At that level, your sampling distribution will at least approximate the Normal Distribution. If you have 300 people, then your sampling distribution will almost perfectly conform to the Normal Distribution.

And not to mention, some of the most accurate presidential election polls (i.e., the ones that most accurately predict outcomes) sample just 1500 people! That's far more than you need to use most conventional statistical tools, but probably far fewer than what a layperson thinks is necessary.

TL; DR: What the general public thinks is too small of a sample size is actually more than sufficient in the vast majority of cases. The problem is that most people don't know how things like sampling distributions (or the Central Limit Theorem) work. Source: I taught stats for 7 years (5 in grad school, 2 after).

Edit: P.S. Ultimately, the primary determinant of your minimum sample size is the effect size you expect to see. For example, if you expect to detect a large effect like a strong correlation (i.e., about .7 or higher), then a small sample of about a dozen people will suffice. If, however, you expect to detect a small effect like a weak correlation (i.e., about .3 or lower), then you might need a sample size of about 80 people or more. Here's a table of critical value thresholds for the curious: https://www.statisticssolutions.com/free-resources/directory-of-statistical-analyses/pearsons-correlation-coefficient/table-of-critical-values-pearson-correlation/

Of course, you need a good random sampling as well, or at least to be aware of bias in your random sampling technique if it exists.

francesinhalover

gariondavey wrote: »

KrawatteKamm961 wrote: »

Bodycounter wrote: »

The game has millions of players and the best polls being shown here struggle to get one thousand votes. You can't really believe that these polls do reflect the community.

Millions of registered players maybe.

Yeah, exactly. I believe the numbers are about 400,000 active users

Steam has like 14k daily users...