So whatever happened to that Q&A?

FluffyBird

I, for one, am not going to wait anymore. Not after the flop that this season was. They promised it to be a deep dive in the Breton lore - it wasn't. They promised it to be a political intrigue - it wasn't. They promised to do better - and didn't. They hecking promised UTC times in announcement articles - and even that they couldn't manage.
What comes out is sloppy quality, bland reskins, empty promises and a handful of cool things completely eclipsed by aforementioned issues.
Maybe I'm just burned out and salty (salty I am), but I see no point in Q&A from these people anymore.

Edit: I take back UTC part - they actually do have GMT on non-US English version of ESO Live article at least. And EST on RU version, lol.

INM

Lack of Q&A just shows lack of solid reasons, goals and grand vision behind the changes. If they had it, it would be released before U35 appeared on the live servers.

spartaxoxo

FluffyBird wrote: »

They hecking promised UTC times in announcement - and even that they couldn't manage.

Oh I missed that one? Do you remember when they said that?

Wolfkeks

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. That post was written in haste but we can absolutely include UTC in future messaging (and will even edit the existing one for clarity).

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/617006/time-zones-in-announcements/p2

@spartaxoxo I think they meant this quote from Gina, at least that is the only one I remember talking about including UTC. ^^

spartaxoxo

@Wolfkeks

Oh thanks for the link 🙏 I actually just saw a thread on this the other day. I went back to check on it and someone posted that if you look at the GB version of the forums, it is listed in UTC. Interesting!.

ETA

tomofhyrule wrote: »

The time zones are shown in whichever language you have the page set to.

If you're on the US homepage, it's in Eastern because that's where the servers are. If you want GMT, they're listed as such on the GB version of the site: https://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-gb/news
And the GB forums: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en-gb/

Jaraal

INM wrote: »

Lack of Q&A just shows lack of solid reasons, goals and grand vision behind the changes. If they had it, it would be released before U35 appeared on the live servers.

Agreed. If you have confidence in your product, and in why you've made it the way you have, then there should be no hesitation in being able to explain it. Especially when you say an explanation is forthcoming.... but never occurs.

tmbrinks

Jaraal wrote: »

INM wrote: »

Lack of Q&A just shows lack of solid reasons, goals and grand vision behind the changes. If they had it, it would be released before U35 appeared on the live servers.

Agreed. If you have confidence in your product, and in why you've made it the way you have, then there should be no hesitation in being able to explain it. Especially when you say an explanation is forthcoming.... but never occurs.

[snip] I wish I could be surprised that there are those in here still defending these actions (or lack thereof), but that seems to be par for the course in today's world.

[edited for bashing]

LesserCircle

I know what we need guys, we need the ESO 2014 launch experience. Hear me out.

When the game released everyone tried it and it was in a very rough state, the overall public reception was horrible and everyone knew about it, even people that never played the game.

Right now the game is in a horrible state again, we don't get quality PvE content and no content at all for PvP, we have constant changes to the game combat and performance is terrible as well.

But this time there is no one out there big enough to let everyone know, we are confined here in the ESO Forums where they can silence us and it doesn't even matter what we say, it won't get out there and thus, there are no consequences for them.

We need big content creators that can reach a big audience to look into the game and let everyone know the current state of this game, nothing will change with our "big" forum posts, they will just ignore us like they always do.

Hurbster

Well it's only so long until the snake finishes eating itself, ya?

FluffyBird

LesserCircle wrote: »

We need big content creators that can reach a big audience to look into the game and let everyone know the current state of this game, nothing will change with our "big" forum posts, they will just ignore us like they always do.

Streamers that I watch (not naming names here) seem to be happy both with story and combat and I don't recall them voicing any dissatisfaction lately. But maybe that has something to do with a certain Eastnor Castle or being friends with devs. Maybe! ESO isn't a bad game so it's absolutely possible that people genuinely enjoy it.

blktauna

FluffyBird wrote: »

LesserCircle wrote: »

We need big content creators that can reach a big audience to look into the game and let everyone know the current state of this game, nothing will change with our "big" forum posts, they will just ignore us like they always do.

Streamers that I watch (not naming names here) seem to be happy both with story and combat and I don't recall them voicing any dissatisfaction lately. But maybe that has something to do with a certain Eastnor Castle or being friends with devs. Maybe! ESO isn't a bad game so it's absolutely possible that people genuinely enjoy it.

I love this game and still play regularly. It's not a bad game at all. That's not the issue. People are concerned because we'd all like to see it remain that way, but the last few updates have not been very encouraging on that front.

Actual game performance has degraded. We get ever more broken updates that take longer and longer to fix. Especially since most of the things that are broken get pointed out by players in PTS, yet they still appear in the update. Half finished hybridisation and yo yo combat changes make it hard to just come in and actually play. Having to relearn combat every 3 months for no actual reason is irritating. if you want to 'keep it fresh" then have a little, yes little, shakeup once a year or so , not quarterly... It's maddening. I can't get on with the content I actually like because of these stupid changes that force me to rearrange, re-gear and relearn my combat. That's not fun and not why I play. I want to adventure and take part in all the cool stuff the game offers, not flail around for several weeks to redo everything to get it back to where I was, just to have maybe a month of actually being able to actually play before they drop in more upheaval.

That's why many folks are not happy.

Billium813

blktauna wrote: »

I love this game and still play regularly. It's not a bad game at all. That's not the issue. People are concerned because we'd all like to see it remain that way, but the last few updates have not been very encouraging on that front.

I completely agree.

It seems like people post a lot of doom and gloom on the forums about the absolutely terrible state of the game. They make it sound like ALL IS LOST because the crown store has some cool mounts they want or there were a handful of bugs recently. I don't deny that the game is in a rough spot and the last couple updates HAVE been bad. I put ALOT of blame on the wet fart that is High Isle and the changes in U35 that no one seemed to be asking for. However, the game is far from over.

I would call myself an "end game" player. After U35 (which I believe was misguided and terrible), I was very down on the game and still am as I notice several disconcerting design trends. However, after playing with some "new players" again, I have come to appreciate just how much content this game really has! Slowing down and playing from a new player perspective really helps illuminate all the things there is to do and the paths to get through those things. I think we as players complete so much the game has to offer and then tend to forget just how much there really is that is good.

But this is what makes it even more disappointing with the last couple updates! The game has sooooo much existing content to work with! ... and so many missed opportunities in design. So many mechanical loose ends... So much of the content recently feels skin deep; a reskin of old content we are already familiar with! It's safe design, but it's also boring to existing players. This is why players are crying out for a new class or a new skill line or new PvP content. These are familiar, fundamental pieces of the game! These are part of ESO's main gameplay loop and players want THAT to be built up more rather than some new mechanic that just bloats the game more.

TLDR; The game has so much promise that it hurts that much more to see large swaths of the game lay neglected and unfulfilled. Then, we get updates that only bloat the game and don't seem to add anything back into the main gameplay loop! Or we get updates that no one wanted in the first place. It's disappointing.

Jaraal

Billium813 wrote: »

So much of the content recently feels skin deep; a reskin of old content we are already familiar with!

I literally laughed out loud when I first saw that a Crown Gem only mount (Blazeborn Wolf) had been repurposed as an enemy in The Deadlands. And that ice wraiths had somehow been reskinned into fire wraiths! It's just so shortcut-y and disappointing. So much of the new content (including the quests) is just a different twist on the old stuff. And I don't imagine that that will change, as long as the aggressive development schedule of cranking out something new every three months continues.

Billium813

Jaraal wrote: »

Billium813 wrote: »

So much of the content recently feels skin deep; a reskin of old content we are already familiar with!

I literally laughed out loud when I first saw that a Crown Gem only mount (Blazeborn Wolf) had been repurposed as an enemy in The Deadlands. And that ice wraiths had somehow been reskinned into fire wraiths! It's just so shortcut-y and disappointing. So much of the new content (including the quests) is just a different twist on the old stuff. And I don't imagine that that will change, as long as the aggressive development schedule of cranking out something new every three months continues.

Ya, the longer you play, the more you become accustom to the copy/paste design. I do start to wonder how much of that is force on development by console... but we may never know. Could be a good Community questions concerning ESO question to ask!

Now, I completely understand some copy-paste design like reusing some model and just changing color/size... I don't expect EVERY MODEL to be unique! But I really hate when they are reused without seemingly any thought about the situation.

My most recent laugh moment was in the Fauns' Thicket delve in Galen. All these two legged Spriggan Senche and Ravagers are standing around like guards... they all have the "soldier NPC" emote pack where they stomp on the ground and make threatening gestures like crossing their arms/pointing, or crouching down with torches looking for... tracks? Why are they not hiding in the bushes or posing as trees? They are non-human Spriggans and you have them holding torches and just standing there like bouncers at a club? Some variety would be nice.

I'll admit that many of these are totally nit-picks and pedantic! But... they build up more and more and players start to notice them. [snip]

[edited for bashing]

Living_Tribunal

You know, if I make a mistake of say something wrong, I own up to it. If the devs aren't gonna do a q/a just say hey we aren't gonna do one. I don't get why they've been so silent about this.

James-Wayne

Faulgor wrote: »

In retrospect, it's especially hilarious that Rich's first response to the Update 35 complaints was to ask the players to trust ZOS, when we basically can't even trust them to finish a conversation.

I wouldn't put it past them to ghost us mid sen

I think you'll find Rich knows what's coming he has the plan for the next 2 to 3 years so sees the bigger picture.

Unfortunately players don't and base opinions on what they know not what they don't which is why ZoS needs to communicate more to players about the road map ahead.

Captain_Devildog

Q&A what a joke..they don't care..

Vulkunne

Maybe 2 or 3 years ago, yeah I can understand people really wanting Q&A.

But today? Nah man they've given you their answer and from what I'm seeing I would surmise Q&A doesn't mean much. Not with some of the really strange changes they are making now regardless of how we like or don't like them.

Old ESO was about being creative and doing new and cool things which included PvP. [snip]

[edited for bashing]

Marto

There is no point in a Q&A if the community is not willing to accept that accessibility is not as simple as "More damage = More accessible, Less Damage = Less Accessible."

Update 35 probably featured the most communication about any patch so far. They explained their reasoning, their goals, and how each change can address that.

Yet people in this thread keep asking the same questions they already answered over and over. So why bother?

Yeah, I'm sure ZOS could make an effort to word it in a better way, or be a bit more specific about the logic behind some of the math, or tell us how it connects to the 2023 updates. [snip]

[edited for baiting]

Ghaleb

Marto wrote: »

[snip]

This is an interesting way to turn around „blame“? For raising our voice in this forum, devoid of any sincere exchange between devs and customer, we are the ones making sure that a Q&A will never happen? Interesting.

If they provide the Q&A and would elaborate on (some / all) of the questions, as e.g., gathered in this thread and in a separate one end of last week, it would potentially facilitate understanding.

If they”d lay out their much highlighted vision from the announcement, the playerbase would eventually understand what their logic was to nerf damage by 15-30% across the board. Maybe there is a perfectly reasonable idea behind it. Who knows? We at least don’t. And as they want us(!) to stick around and not the other way around, it is a very reasonable expectation to receive some kind of outline, Q&A on something what created such an uproar.

As I said earlier in this thread. If I tell you I have my homework ready and you ask for it and I push the days to weeks to months, showing it to you, there might be no homework to start with. And you would be rightfully annoyed and eventually stop buying in to my topics / development / whatever.

I might not like what they state as replies in the Q&A as my wishes eventually deviate from their ideas. That would be a bummer but fine. I and many others would then have clarity and could take a decision. Stay, leave, exchange ideas with the devs in a good format to foster a new influx of developments which might put ESO on a better trajectory than it currently is?

Heck, even simply engagig more in communication, and that regularly, be it here in the forums or in a real open kind of ask the devs format would be helpful.

When a new player currently opens the forums to investigate on the health of ESO, what is he/she seeing?

Threads about performance issues, long freaking bug-fix times for core mechanics, a playerbase heavily (and IMHO rightfully) criticising the developers and a black hole (slightly exaggerated) where a healthy communication and exchange between devs and playerbase should be.

That will not help to stop the downward trajectory of this game. And most, if not all, people currently criticising ZOS state that they want the game to be good and thrive.

[edited to remove quote]

VaranisArano

Marto wrote: »

There is no point in a Q&A if the community is not willing to accept that accessibility is not as simple as "More damage = More accessible, Less Damage = Less Accessible."

Update 35 probably featured the most communication about any patch so far. They explained their reasoning, their goals, and how each change can address that.

Yet people in this thread keep asking the same questions they already answered over and over. So why bother?

Yeah, I'm sure ZOS could make an effort to word it in a better way, or be a bit more specific about the logic behind some of the math, or tell us how it connects to the 2023 updates. [snip]

Accessibility is generally more complicated than More Damage = More Accessibility, which is why in the past when ZOS has nerfed Vet Content we saw a slew of tweaks and changes to content that's targeted at pain points where players were struggling to complete it.

Here's an example of such detailed adjustments explictly for Accessibility in the Halls of Fabrication trial: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/513128/pc-mac-patch-notes-v5-3-4-harrowstorm-update-25

But let's compare and contrast that to the Accessibility changes we got in Update 35, which targeted players primarily, not content. In fact, the following content changes only received a few weeks of testing and didn't end up addressing some of the pain points that players pointed out.



I DO understand that content Accessibility is more complicated than More Damage = More Accessibility. I also understand what adjusting content to create Accessibility looks like, because I've seen ZOS do it with painstaking care for pain points.

Looking at the above, do you see why I keep asking ZOS if the U35 changes succeeded in creating the Accessibility they desired?

[edited to remove quote]

Elsonso

Marto wrote: »

Update 35 probably featured the most communication about any patch so far. They explained their reasoning, their goals, and how each change can address that.

Yet people in this thread keep asking the same questions they already answered over and over. So why bother?

ZOS may have communicated, but they left gaps. They held something back. There is a basic aspect of this that has meaning that was not shared, either because they don't want to share that information or because it is something they did not feel needed to be said. Players, lacking that information, can't see things in the same way ZOS does. ZOS silence does nothing to bridge that gap.

It does not matter how much ZOS says on the subject if they cannot bridge that gap. Quantity does not equal quality.

Varanis pointed out the difference in trial patch notes, and that difference is very disappointing. They made a significant change to the game and left the details up to the players to discover. That might fly in a beta when final numbers might change, but this is a finished product with paying customers that wants to be a AAA title. They couldn't even be bothered to put in a number. Not cool.

FluffyBird

VaranisArano wrote: »

But let's compare and contrast

Mora's slimy tentacles, that comparison looks sad. I wish I could call that a nitpicking

VaranisArano

FluffyBird wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

But let's compare and contrast

Mora's slimy tentacles, that comparison looks sad. I wish I could call that a nitpicking

In the interest of fairness to ZOS, they have a habit of nerfing Vet content about a year or so after release in a detailed manner. I assume (hopefully reasonably) that the reason is as stated in those Patch Notes - they need that Live data from a variety of groups to identify the pain points where groups get stuck and then adjust them appropriately.

U35, in contrast, was a mid-PTS adjustment in response to end-game players pointing out some problems. Even if the Devs wanted to do an in-depth evaluation, they wouldn't have had the Live data to do so. (Which is one reason why there were calls for them to hold off U35 until they had more PTS data to let them evaluate content changes in more depth, but the Devs didn't, so that's a road not taken.)

What I don't know -

-and its the reason I keep asking this sort of question -

-is whether or not the blanket 10% nerf to boss/bannermen health was sufficient to meet ZOS' goals along with all the other accessibility changes now that ZOS presumably has some Live data to evaluate the effects on a variety of groups.

If it was sufficient, then maybe what currently looks like a slap-dash change actually wasn't as bad as it looks at face value from that straight comparison. Maybe that 10% tweak hit the nail on the head. I dunno.

If it wasn't sufficient, then what's the plan for rebalancing Vet content and doing it right, this time? Are we waiting on a year of Live data to identify those factors under the new combat changes? I dunno.

One of the broad criticisms of U35 was that the Devs (on ESO Live) made reference to there being a long term plan/vision that all these changes were a part of, while players felt like they were asked to hurry up and wait, putting up with nerfs and pain points now in anticipation of future changes that haven't been shared with us.

I'd like to know if it worked. If it did, great!

spartaxoxo

Marto wrote: »

There is no point in a Q&A if the community is not willing to accept that accessibility is not as simple as "More damage = More accessible, Less Damage = Less Accessible."

Update 35 probably featured the most communication about any patch so far. They explained their reasoning, their goals, and how each change can address that.

Yet people in this thread keep asking the same questions they already answered over and over. So why bother?

I tend to agree that U35 had a lot of communication, and that claims that it didn't are exaggerating because the patch was bad. Sometimes I think they shouldn't bother with that level of communication again, because it doesn't seem to me that it does anything. Sometimes I think it would be helpful because it would improve things at least a little for some people.

But, there are outstanding questions that could benefit from a Q&A. And that's the reason they wanted to hold one. Some of the questions that were repeated were basically answered and people just want to nitpick further. But, many of them aren't. For example, the issue of whether or not this patch actually increased accessibility.

More damage= more accessibility isn't the whole of the answer, but it absolutely is part of it. And they took away damage..

In addition, they did not target nerf any dungeon, trial, or arena to address any issues that prevent accessibility, especially in light of the damage they took away.

So, this patch seems like it's conflicting goals likely decreased accessibility not increased it.

Whether or not the patch was successful in it's goal, and if they have any plans to further address this issue is legitimately an outstanding question a Q&A would benefit from.

Elsonso

spartaxoxo wrote: »

More damage= more accessibility isn't the whole of the answer, but it absolutely is part of it. And they took away damage..

In addition, they did not target nerf any dungeon, trial, or arena to address any issues that prevent accessibility, especially in light of the damage they took away.

So, this patch seems like it's conflicting goals likely decreased accessibility not increased it.

Whether or not the patch was successful in it's goal, and if they have any plans to further address this issue is legitimately an outstanding question a Q&A would benefit from.

The strange thing about Update 35 is the inequality. I remember several people talking about how top level players were not impacted as much as the main stream and lower end. Perceived problems and difficulties seemed to be alleviated by more advanced and higher level play. It is like adding "accessible ramps" to a building, but making people climb three flights of steps before they can use them.

Jaraal

Elsonso wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

More damage= more accessibility isn't the whole of the answer, but it absolutely is part of it. And they took away damage..

In addition, they did not target nerf any dungeon, trial, or arena to address any issues that prevent accessibility, especially in light of the damage they took away.

So, this patch seems like it's conflicting goals likely decreased accessibility not increased it.

Whether or not the patch was successful in it's goal, and if they have any plans to further address this issue is legitimately an outstanding question a Q&A would benefit from.

The strange thing about Update 35 is the inequality. I remember several people talking about how top level players were not impacted as much as the main stream and lower end. Perceived problems and difficulties seemed to be alleviated by more advanced and higher level play. It is like adding "accessible ramps" to a building, but making people climb three flights of steps before they can use them.

Yes, the "obscene damage numbers" were not nerfed (especially since the top damage targets (vet bosses) were made 10% easier), the "floor" was not raised, and the skill gap only got wider. And making DOT numbers all over the place made them harder to track, reducing accessibility. Plus, buffing heavy attacks while nerfing light attacks and healing did nothing for mobile PvPers who can easily avoid and block.

So.... what was the benefit of U35? We want to hear it from the devs.

xthrshx

spartaxoxo wrote: »

If the intent is to fix the issues caused by U35, it is actually a months long tricky fix process. U35 caused a lot of problems and revealed that their entire design plan long term had a fundamental problem of designing around two conflicting goals. They literally have to go back to the drawing board and re-examine their larger plan entirely and then work to fix several issues without compromising their most important goals. That's not a quick fix.

Except they never communicated that. Nothing ZOS has said has given any indication they are trying to fix issues caused by U35. Their public communication has continued to defend U35 and disparage customer feedback about the issues it has caused. A simple Q&A that acknowledged the fact U35 was a massive failure would take less than an afternoon to arrange. And it’s been many months.

Fixing the issues may take longer (although simply undoing U35 would be a step in the right direction), but that’s not the point. The point is they have given absolutely zero information on their intentions. And that communication takes minutes, not months, to put together.

Luke_Flamesword

I wonder if there will be some Q&A about missing Q&A?

rexagamemnon

merevie wrote: »

Apparently some people have gotten feedback surveys emailed to them. But many, many more have not...

I did not get one of those surveys.
Those surveys should have been emailed out to everyone