So whatever happened to that Q&A?

DemonicGoat

FluffyBird wrote: »

DemonicGoat wrote: »

FluffyBird wrote: »

BTW, do they mute "Q&A" in chat on streams yet? I heard they do that with "PVP"

No, they just tell you how good u35 actually is.

I meant official ESO streams. As for Maty - I don't want to go into details, but I have some ideas why he would defend U35 or devs in general. Also, it seems he's adapted, he's having a blast with his frost warden, so why complain?

Well he has a reason to adapt, it pays his bills,.. pretty much the same idea you are alluding to as why he would defend it,..

Im not complaining,.. 132k dps is the kind of accessibility we need for endgame stream team streamers
Help me understand where the accessibility is for mid tier and casual or below players is?

If we had that Q&A I might better understand ZOS,..

blktauna

Ragnarok0130 wrote: »

A concrete visions that we can all understand and support is what is needed here.

This.

Lay it out and follow through. Then trust will be returned. Otherwise...

ProudMary

Wandering aimlessly in oblivion? I'm pretty sure the aforementioned Q&A isn't happening. They've moved on. We're just spinning our wheels to even bring it up...not that we shouldn't bring it up.

FluffyBird

ProudMary wrote: »

Wandering aimlessly in oblivion?

A relaxing peaceful stroll

Destai

FluffyBird wrote: »

BTW, do they mute "Q&A" in chat on streams yet? I heard they do that with "PVP"

I was thinking the exact same thing. @ZOS_Kevin has “q&a” become a no-no word for future streams?

Malkiv

Destai wrote: »

FluffyBird wrote: »

BTW, do they mute "Q&A" in chat on streams yet? I heard they do that with "PVP"

I was thinking the exact same thing. @ZOS_Kevin has “q&a” become a no-no word for future streams?

"Community feedback" is the real no-no word. I 100% trust that Kevin has a vision; that vision simply does not include reality.

Elsonso

FluffyBird wrote: »

DemonicGoat wrote: »

FluffyBird wrote: »

BTW, do they mute "Q&A" in chat on streams yet? I heard they do that with "PVP"

No, they just tell you how good u35 actually is.

I meant official ESO streams. As for Maty - I don't want to go into details, but I have some ideas why he would defend U35 or devs in general. Also, it seems he's adapted, he's having a blast with his frost warden, so why complain?

If someone is willing to sit down each major combat change and adapt, even that SWG change that MATY talked about could be considered just another opportunity to adapt. The problem with adapting, and I did this for years in ESO, is that it just gets really really old for a game that is as mature as ESO. It is especially old when the stated goals and observed changes don't exactly line up, and the stated reasons for the changes are not as clear as they could be. I see streamers roll out the "ZOS translation" following each release, and that is just wrong.

Jaraal

DemonicGoat wrote: »

[ Im not complaining,.. 132k dps is the kind of accessibility we need for endgame stream team streamers
Help me understand where the accessibility is for mid tier and casual or below players is?

If we had that Q&A I might better understand ZOS,..

Yeah, it's a good thing they nerfed damage across the board to "quell some of the obscene damage production at the high end," isn't it? I still want to know why only the "high end" boss targets were nerfed by reducing health, while the average Joe just got nerfed, period.

Jaraal

Malkiv wrote: »

Destai wrote: »

FluffyBird wrote: »

BTW, do they mute "Q&A" in chat on streams yet? I heard they do that with "PVP"

I was thinking the exact same thing. @ZOS_Kevin has “q&a” become a no-no word for future streams?

"Community feedback" is the real no-no word. I 100% trust that Kevin has a vision; that vision simply does not include reality.

To be fair, I believe that Kevin is the designated spokesperson. It's logical to assume that he's telling us what the management is telling him to say. If I'm wrong, please correct me with facts.

peacenote

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I personally think communication could be improved in the sense of making it easier to find. But, I actually do think the communication actually is generally comprehensive. And that often times, it's not that ZoS isn't communicating but rather that they are slow to fix issues, and they tend to solve things in ways that players don't really like. This results in their fixes needing to be fixed too.

A good example is the jabs change. We DID get communication on that, but they left the commentary pretty much buried in a pretty long patch note and didn't respond to any of the many threads. They also didn't give the community back old jabs. However, they explicitly did state why it was changed. The wanted to support weaving with jabs so they changed the attack cadence, and then they needed to change the animation to match it. It might not be what people would like to hear, but there was a specific concrete reason communicated to us.

I personally think they actually gave us a lot of communication surrounding U35, the problem with U35 to me is it's a bad patch. I hope U37 fixes it. And I am hoping that they either give us the Q&A soon, or just let people know an estimated time frame of when they'll be willing to talk about it. My guess would be around U37, but who knows. That's kind of just partially wishful thinking on my part since U36 had barely anything.

This reminds me that I think what people really want is engagement, not just communication. Yes, they often give answers as to why something was done, and probably honestly believe in some cases that it's sufficient. I can just HEAR some folks internally saying "well, we can't win. When we explain it is never good enough but when we are silent we are also criticized."

This is because when the community makes good, helpful points they want to feel that those points might be incorporated, if not immediately but at least in the future. And certainly directly acknowledged.

For example even though my character data is gone I still would like to see some of the assumed unintended consequences from AwA addressed, for the good of the game.

This to me is what is missing. They communicate often in great detail but rarely if ever directly acknowledge responses to those communications. So we are being communicated AT, as opposed to WITH, with a two-way back and forth. One-way communication is not engagement.

Then there is the other, tougher piece which is that what the community enjoys may not be the vision for the game. If the community would, say, prefer old jabs vs. easier weaving, due to nostalgia or animation quality or whatever, engagement would mean responses that clearly state the things we are feeling as a loss just aren't a priority. Difficult conversation but so much better than being outright ignored. Right now we get solutions that seem to ignore some sentiments, and some scenarios where more people's views COULD be incorporated into implementation but are not, and we have no idea of it is due to lack of resources or misalignment with vision or mistakes or what.

Destai

Jaraal wrote: »

Malkiv wrote: »

Destai wrote: »

FluffyBird wrote: »

BTW, do they mute "Q&A" in chat on streams yet? I heard they do that with "PVP"

I was thinking the exact same thing. @ZOS_Kevin has “q&a” become a no-no word for future streams?

"Community feedback" is the real no-no word. I 100% trust that Kevin has a vision; that vision simply does not include reality.

To be fair, I believe that Kevin is the designated spokesperson. It's logical to assume that he's telling us what the management is telling him to say. If I'm wrong, please correct me with facts.

I think that’s something to come from Kevin. He can tell us what’s in scope for his job, seems like a reasonable request.

Destai

peacenote wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I personally think communication could be improved in the sense of making it easier to find. But, I actually do think the communication actually is generally comprehensive. And that often times, it's not that ZoS isn't communicating but rather that they are slow to fix issues, and they tend to solve things in ways that players don't really like. This results in their fixes needing to be fixed too.

A good example is the jabs change. We DID get communication on that, but they left the commentary pretty much buried in a pretty long patch note and didn't respond to any of the many threads. They also didn't give the community back old jabs. However, they explicitly did state why it was changed. The wanted to support weaving with jabs so they changed the attack cadence, and then they needed to change the animation to match it. It might not be what people would like to hear, but there was a specific concrete reason communicated to us.

I personally think they actually gave us a lot of communication surrounding U35, the problem with U35 to me is it's a bad patch. I hope U37 fixes it. And I am hoping that they either give us the Q&A soon, or just let people know an estimated time frame of when they'll be willing to talk about it. My guess would be around U37, but who knows. That's kind of just partially wishful thinking on my part since U36 had barely anything.

This reminds me that I think what people really want is engagement, not just communication. Yes, they often give answers as to why something was done, and probably honestly believe in some cases that it's sufficient. I can just HEAR some folks internally saying "well, we can't win. When we explain it is never good enough but when we are silent we are also criticized."

This is because when the community makes good, helpful points they want to feel that those points might be incorporated, if not immediately but at least in the future. And certainly directly acknowledged.

For example even though my character data is gone I still would like to see some of the assumed unintended consequences from AwA addressed, for the good of the game.

This to me is what is missing. They communicate often in great detail but rarely if ever directly acknowledge responses to those communications. So we are being communicated AT, as opposed to WITH, with a two-way back and forth. One-way communication is not engagement.

Then there is the other, tougher piece which is that what the community enjoys may not be the vision for the game. If the community would, say, prefer old jabs vs. easier weaving, due to nostalgia or animation quality or whatever, engagement would mean responses that clearly state the things we are feeling as a loss just aren't a priority. Difficult conversation but so much better than being outright ignored. Right now we get solutions that seem to ignore some sentiments, and some scenarios where more people's views COULD be incorporated into implementation but are not, and we have no idea of it is due to lack of resources or misalignment with vision or mistakes or what.

You’re completely right, engagement is what’s required.

One of the common constructive criticisms I’ve offered the CMs is they start or join threads and then disappear after one or two comments. So then all the follow up questions they have are unanswered and then this results in people getting upset, which results in ZOS feeling like they can’t win.

If only we had someone combing through threads, ready for actual discussion, I think that’d be a major pain point resolved.

At best, we have an occasional messenger who is probably getting told to ignore certain topics. Right now it seems like forum management is focused on posting links, which I am not sure how that would take away from actual engagement, but it seems like that is the case.

“We see but can’t always respond” is what I have been told, which isn’t acceptable from a company with an army of moderators and an endless litany of promos to share.

Bouldercleave

Mr_Stach wrote: »

Mr_Stach wrote: »

Did we miss that or did that happen outside of the Official ESO Forums, much like the announcement that Empower was only going to affect Fully Charged Heavies via Discord?

LOL The one thing that you all failed to realize:


If you read the statement, they never NEVER stated that the Q&A would be with the community.....


For all we know is that the Q&A was internal because they can't even figure it out amongst themselves...

Cadbury

Bouldercleave wrote: »

Mr_Stach wrote: »

Mr_Stach wrote: »

Did we miss that or did that happen outside of the Official ESO Forums, much like the announcement that Empower was only going to affect Fully Charged Heavies via Discord?

LOL The one thing that you all failed to realize:


If you read the statement, they never NEVER stated that the Q&A would be with the community.....


For all we know is that the Q&A was internal because they can't even figure it out amongst themselves...

Honestly, that'd be pretty funny if they just came out and said "We DID have a Q&A. It was at an internal meeting between the devs. We did keep our promise, see?"

Bouldercleave

Cadbury wrote: »

Bouldercleave wrote: »

Mr_Stach wrote: »

Mr_Stach wrote: »

Did we miss that or did that happen outside of the Official ESO Forums, much like the announcement that Empower was only going to affect Fully Charged Heavies via Discord?

LOL The one thing that you all failed to realize:


If you read the statement, they never NEVER stated that the Q&A would be with the community.....


For all we know is that the Q&A was internal because they can't even figure it out amongst themselves...

Honestly, that'd be pretty funny if they just came out and said "We DID have a Q&A. It was at an internal meeting between the devs. We did keep our promise, see?"

Can you just imagine the entire community's collective heads exploding in unison? It would be biblical!

Pepegrillos

I have seen the lead dev in WoW engage with some of its harshest critics directly, in relatively open interviews. See, for example, the latest Preach's video from Blizzard headquarters, or Asmongold's interview to Ion.

Here, by contrast, we can't even get a highly vetted, entirely controlled Q&A between some of the combat devs and a set of extremely general questions selected by the community management team.

Destai

Pepegrillos wrote: »

I have seen the lead dev in WoW engage with some of its harshest critics directly, in relatively open interviews. See, for example, the latest Preach's video from Blizzard headquarters, or Asmongold's interview to Ion.

Here, by contrast, we can't even get a highly vetted, entirely controlled Q&A between some of the combat devs and a set of extremely general questions selected by the community management team.

I enjoyed watching Nefas’s chats with Finn. I think if we could have more of that, and some more direct challenging of monetization, change fatigue, and QoL updates, that would be a good look.

Malkiv

Jaraal wrote: »

Malkiv wrote: »

Destai wrote: »

FluffyBird wrote: »

BTW, do they mute "Q&A" in chat on streams yet? I heard they do that with "PVP"

I was thinking the exact same thing. @ZOS_Kevin has “q&a” become a no-no word for future streams?

"Community feedback" is the real no-no word. I 100% trust that Kevin has a vision; that vision simply does not include reality.

To be fair, I believe that Kevin is the designated spokesperson. It's logical to assume that he's telling us what the management is telling him to say. If I'm wrong, please correct me with facts.

Because that's literally Jessica and Gina's position. There is your correction.

ForumBully

17 pages over a few months...this is some next level radio silence, even by ZOS's own impressively poor communication standards.

ForumBully

@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom how about just a quick "no, we're not doing that"? Can we get that much communication at least?

LesserCircle

ForumBully wrote: »

@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom how about just a quick "no, we're not doing that"? Can we get that much communication at least?

They can't do that, it wouldn't be a good look. This thread will continue for some time until a moderator comes and says it no longer serves a purpose and closes it.

Jaraal

LesserCircle wrote: »

ForumBully wrote: »

@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom how about just a quick "no, we're not doing that"? Can we get that much communication at least?

They can't do that, it wouldn't be a good look.

What would be a better look in your opinion: Stating clearly one's intentions or hiding from facts?

FeedbackOnly

Jaraal wrote: »

One question I'd like to see addressed is how the skill gap has been

DemonicGoat wrote: »

FluffyBird wrote: »

DemonicGoat wrote: »

FluffyBird wrote: »

BTW, do they mute "Q&A" in chat on streams yet? I heard they do that with "PVP"

No, they just tell you how good u35 actually is.

I meant official ESO streams. As for Maty - I don't want to go into details, but I have some ideas why he would defend U35 or devs in general. Also, it seems he's adapted, he's having a blast with his frost warden, so why complain?

Well he has a reason to adapt, it pays his bills,.. pretty much the same idea you are alluding to as why he would defend it,..

Im not complaining,.. 132k dps is the kind of accessibility we need for endgame stream team streamers
Help me understand where the accessibility is for mid tier and casual or below players is?

If we had that Q&A I might better understand ZOS,..

The worst part is people coming back not understanding how it's almost a new game in how skills work for dps.

End game adapts but the rest deserve an in game tutorial

LesserCircle

Jaraal wrote: »

LesserCircle wrote: »

ForumBully wrote: »

@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom how about just a quick "no, we're not doing that"? Can we get that much communication at least?

They can't do that, it wouldn't be a good look.

What would be a better look in your opinion: Stating clearly one's intentions or hiding from facts?

Sadly, hiding from facts is better for them. If they make a statement saying that there won't be a Q&A the entire community would be outraged, ignoring it, we all will eventually take it as a joke or even forget about it. Sad but true.

SpacemanSpiff1

maybe it'll a part of a year-end livestream

G0K4R

SpacemanSpiff1 wrote: »

maybe it'll a part of a year-end livestream

Ppl rather will get perma ban on the livestreams when mentioning "Q&A"

(Wouldnt be the first time.)

spartaxoxo

SpacemanSpiff1 wrote: »

maybe it'll a part of a year-end livestream

I wouldn't be surprised if it's part of their year end letter they always do, or just made a part of U37. I kinda don't expect anything before then because they usually do this kind of stuff during certain time periods. Hopefully it's part of a live stream, as you said, or their end of year letter. It would be better than waiting until u37.

LukosCreyden

(Takes a deep breath and inhales the rest of the copium.)

What if the reason we haven't gotten the qna is that the devs cannot adequately explain the changes without spoiling something from the next chapter? It'd match up with them suddenly becoming very concerned about datamining.

Heartrage

I’m quite disappointed with the lack of response. Weren’t we told at the beginning of the year that they were going to communicate more? And now, they want to remove rumors of the forum? The rumors mill would probably be less active if we got more information and a general idea of where the game is going…

FluffyBird

.

Heartrage wrote: »

I’m quite disappointed with the lack of response. Weren’t we told at the beginning of the year that they were going to communicate more?

We got Kevin