So whatever happened to that Q&A?

FluffWit

Happy New Year! We got a date for this yet? I checked all the social media channels and couldnt find anything ☹

spartaxoxo

FluffWit wrote: »

Happy New Year! We got a date for this yet? I checked all the social media channels and couldnt find anything ☹

They officially cancelled it and instead did a "deep dive" on their combat philosophy.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Hi everyone. We know everyone has been asking about the Q&A related to combat. After internal conversations with the team, we have decided to shift from a Q&A. Instead, we've gone through the questions many have been asking and taken those back to the combat team to address the core themes we saw asked across the community. With that, the combat team has drafted an ESO Combat Vision statement, designed to give the community a clearer picture around the goals the combat team has always strived for and will continue to strive for. You can find the statement here for the forum discussion link. While we know the Q&A was initially proposed, we hope the statement helps to clarify some questions around the vision for ESO combat. Thanks for your patience around this topic.

blktauna

a thing which did not answer any questions that anyone had, nor actually even explain the 'vision'. what they did talk about they don't even do...

sad really

Oakenaxe

At the end of the day, they killed the Q&A and this marvelous meme topic

Jaraal

Oakenaxe wrote: »

At the end of the day, they killed the Q&A and this marvelous meme topic

Oh, it's not dead. It's a permanent part of their reputation now.

robofly

blktauna wrote: »

a thing which did not answer any questions that anyone had, nor actually even explain the 'vision'. what they did talk about they don't even do...

And worse still, they've been ignoring that thread as well since the day it was posted, only 3 staff posts there, and all on page 1, so still no real communication, not like we expected much anyways.

Ghaleb

Probably a smart thing to do.

Why explain your reasoning for U35 when you are going to contradict your reasoning for U35 with the changes in U37?
Alone the "deep dive", which IMHO was a shallow paddling on a puddle at best, sparked so many questions, when you started to reflect on, e.g., U35 and how that fit into their combat values / philosophy...

The "deep dive" was

• neither an answer to questions around U35,
• nor was it adressing player sentiment,
• nor was it creating / rebuilding trust
• and it definitely was not timely

And considering the density - or lack thereof - in the "deep dive", I am seriously surprised that it took so long to put together.
I read the "deep dive" the day it was published and didn't even comment on it. Simply flabbergasted. And I think ZOS should be as well, considering that the vast amount of comments in that thread were a lot but not grateful or postive feedback.

My motivation to play at all barely survived U35. I am still playing, mainly due to the people I am playing with. I am dreading U37 and currently simply assume, that this will be another 20% hit on the player numbers (taking Steam as a reference*)

*) Please do not again fire up a discussion about Steam not being a valid trend indicator as there are other platforms. This discussion had been had a billion times and up to this day, I am waiting for a sound and "scientific" reply, explaining why a platform with >10k players shall not suffice as a general trend indicator for the general player number development of a game

Jaraal

Ghaleb wrote: »

Why explain your reasoning for U35 when you are going to contradict your reasoning for U35 with the changes in U37?

Actually, they contradicted their reasoning for U35 with the release of U35. And that's why everyone was looking for explanation from the Q&A.

Ragnarok0130

spartaxoxo wrote: »

FluffWit wrote: »

Happy New Year! We got a date for this yet? I checked all the social media channels and couldnt find anything ☹

They officially cancelled it and instead did a "deep dive" on their combat philosophy.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Hi everyone. We know everyone has been asking about the Q&A related to combat. After internal conversations with the team, we have decided to shift from a Q&A. Instead, we've gone through the questions many have been asking and taken those back to the combat team to address the core themes we saw asked across the community. With that, the combat team has drafted an ESO Combat Vision statement, designed to give the community a clearer picture around the goals the combat team has always strived for and will continue to strive for. You can find the statement here for the forum discussion link. While we know the Q&A was initially proposed, we hope the statement helps to clarify some questions around the vision for ESO combat. Thanks for your patience around this topic.

Just don’t dive into Brian’s “deep dive” as one’s liable to break one’s neck due to its actual depth.

Ghaleb

Jaraal wrote: »

Ghaleb wrote: »

Why explain your reasoning for U35 when you are going to contradict your reasoning for U35 with the changes in U37?

Actually, they contradicted their reasoning for U35 with the release of U35. And that's why everyone was looking for explanation from the Q&A.

This is absolutely correct. But I think I would have lost some users, if I had written something along the way of:



But maybe I am wrong.

Charon_on_Vacation

if they would have done the Q&A, they would have been exposed.
of course they didn't do one.

Alinhbo_Tyaka

The "deep dive" is no different than the Studio Director's letter. A bunch of fluff ZOS has said before that they never followed through on and that doesn't really answer the questions being asked. All the letter did is reinforce that I made the right decision cancelling my ESO+ after U33 and only logging in long enough to acquire event items that interest me. Both letters reaffirm my belief that ZOS is not willing to make the cultural changes required to turn the game around.

peacenote

Well, I just caught up on the thread and the linked combat philosophy statement...

Honestly, I think they DID technically answer almost anything that could have come from any Q&A in this statement:

Outside of some outstanding combat bugs, we believe taking all these into account has now gotten combat in a better place, where ESO is more enjoyable for a variety of playstyles. Much of the work we’ve done over the past few years – such as updating the Champion Point system and the hybridization work – has vastly improved build options, gameplay variety and build equality, which supports several of our values.

Any question we might have about why something was done in U35, whether something might be adjusted or changed, what might they do to address issue xyz that arose from U35, whether they are happy with the results, and (unfortunately) many folks who have quit but are watching the forums wondering if xyz from U35 might be reversed because then they might be interested in returning... all has been answered.

They believe combat is in a better place and is supporting the combat values.

Doesn't that pretty much say everything we needed to know?

By extension I would take this to mean that, from their perspective, U35 was a success and current directions will continue. This was not "we've heard you about change fatigue, we didn't quite meet our goal with U35..." it was the polar opposite of a message like that. Exactly what they are valuing most highly and how that's being measured is not explained in enough detail to determine why there is a gap between a portion of the community's happiness with U35 and ZOS's satisfaction with it, but I think it is pretty clear that ZOS is staying true to its culture of doubling down on decisions that have been made, regardless of how loudly the community might object. Whether it is because they don't want to lose face or whether it is because the concerns being raised on the forums aren't a high priority compared to what they are trying to accomplish internally (and they are truly happy with where the game is at) I guess we may never know.

It is nice that they closed the loop. I really was starting to assume that this would be like the character map progress topic, which got unstickied and never answered after being temporarily acknowledged. I would rather this response than nothing, so thank you for that to whoever ensured the message delivery.

One thing that I think would be extremely helpful is if ZOS defined what they mean when they say things like "a variety of playstyles." What is a playstyle, to them? Over the years I have lost a lot of flexibility in playstyles I enjoyed... for example, for many years I loved that I had the option to be a vampire and be competitive as a healer... now it has no benefit except making me less effective for my team and thus cured on all my characters. Necro healers brought something unique to a raid but now they really aren't needed. I enjoyed the play style of starting an alt and being able to play through the game as a brand new experience and now I can't even track my unique travels through the map! (Or would this be a loss in gameplay variety as opposed to a playstyle?) Many, many people lost the beloved playstyle of a bosmer skilled in stealth a while back. I'm sure many of you have other memories of builds, playstyles, etc. that you used to do but no longer exist or aren't viable. So what varied playstyles have we gained that we didn't have before? Are we talking mythics, here?

Just one example of how they say something that may mean one thing to us but may mean something different to them, and this, as a result, may be part of why there is the scenario of there are complaints both with silence or if there is a response. Which, of course, is why we were hoping for a more detailed Q&A to begin with... so we could stop making so many assumptions to try and fill in the gaps of information we didn't have and becoming discontent with conclusions drawn from those assumptions.

Anyway, ZOS, ty for closing the loop but I personally wish you had addressed some of the finer points more directly and with more detail, as I don't feel the results you describe in my own in-game experiences, so the statement has not given me answers so much as more questions. My opinion, of course, which everyone may not share.

Ghaleb

peacenote wrote: »

Well, I just caught up on the thread and the linked combat philosophy statement...

Honestly, I think they DID technically answer almost anything that could have come from any Q&A in this statement:

Outside of some outstanding combat bugs, we believe taking all these into account has now gotten combat in a better place, where ESO is more enjoyable for a variety of playstyles. Much of the work we’ve done over the past few years – such as updating the Champion Point system and the hybridization work – has vastly improved build options, gameplay variety and build equality, which supports several of our values.

Any question we might have about why something was done in U35, whether something might be adjusted or changed, what might they do to address issue xyz that arose from U35, whether they are happy with the results, and (unfortunately) many folks who have quit but are watching the forums wondering if xyz from U35 might be reversed because then they might be interested in returning... all has been answered.

I disagree. Let's see what the community questions towards U35 were, shall we (excerpt from questions I found)?

@Destai wanted to know:
1. Did you see an uptick in end-game participation following U35?
2. Was U35 part of a larger endeavor, and if so, what are other milestones in that development effort?
3. What would final state of combat look like, if possible?

@Agenericname wanted to know:
4. Can we have a detailed roadmap? And what would it look like?

@mandricus wanted to know:
5. You modified Templar Jabs to better line up the skill's timing with weaving (after 8 years). On the very same patch, you nerfed significantly light attacks damage. Doesn't it seem a bit contradictory? Can you please explain better your thought process behind that decision?
6. One of the states goals of the changes was to improve accessibility. Do you think that the game is more accessible today compared to what it was pre-u35? Can you please also tell us the target audience that you had in mind? New players, low level players, mid-tier players or everyone?

@VaranisArano wanted to know:
7. How are balance changes to combat and content tested prior to going on the PTS? Parsing, in-house progression teams, etc.?
8. How do the Devs define or talk about "accessibility" from a development perspective? What do the Devs consider the "floor" and the "ceiling" when it comes to targeted balance changes? By what metrics is this being measured and evaluated for success?
9. Did the final U35 patch changes successfully hit the metrics for accessibility and raising the floor/lowering the ceiling now that they've been Live for over three months?

@heaven13 wanted to know:
10. Why were animations changed, especially with the policy of never changing existing assets (we were told this is why Timbercrow diaper wouldn’t be changed as well as the Seafaring hair which darkens hair by about 5 shades). Why was it okay to do this with animations, particularly like jabs that has been integral to an entire class since launch?

@Billium813 wanted to know:
11. How does the team determine when to make class and weapon skill changes, specifically for "balancing reasons" (community data? internal testing?)? How do you compare builds to determine something is over / under performing (dummy parsing? internal testing? dedicated trials groups?)?

@VampirateV wanted to know:
12. How does zos define "accessibility"? Many players are still confused about whether it means the abstract accessibility of content, or the more concrete features to improve access to the game for folks with disabilities. And if it's the latter, are the devs currently (or open to) consulting players with disabilities to help create useful and meaningful features?

I'll stop here. A good amount of these questions has not been answered. Most importantly not the question about how they connect their announcment (reduction of obscene (original quote from the initial announcement) damage from top tier players) with the substantial nerf of mostly mid- to low-level players. If you belong to the last two categories and want to run Vet Raids, your only remaining option is a HA-Build. So much to the build variety they achieved, hm?

peacenote wrote: »

They believe combat is in a better place and is supporting the combat values.

Doesn't that pretty much say everything we needed to know?

There are a good amount of people on this planet believing in an all-knowing, all-loving, all-planning god / allah / whatever. Good for them. But this is nothing I would base a factual conversation on. I also believe I deserve a pay raise. If the metrics / numbers speak another language, my believe is off (obviously). And ZOS having a meeting with all Stream Team Members, asking questions around status of ESO, direction, current community opinion, etc, let's me assume, that their metrics don't look good or as good as they could / should.

peacenote wrote: »

By extension I would take this to mean that, from their perspective, U35 was a success and current directions will continue. This was not "we've heard you about change fatigue, we didn't quite meet our goal with U35..." it was the polar opposite of a message like that. Exactly what they are valuing most highly and how that's being measured is not explained in enough detail to determine why there is a gap between a portion of the community's happiness with U35 and ZOS's satisfaction with it, but I think it is pretty clear that ZOS is staying true to its culture of doubling down on decisions that have been made, regardless of how loudly the community might object. Whether it is because they don't want to lose face or whether it is because the concerns being raised on the forums aren't a high priority compared to what they are trying to accomplish internally (and they are truly happy with where the game is at) I guess we may never know.

I have the impression that they internally don't think that U35 was a success. Else the Stream Team Member meeting would have had a different trajectory. But they are not going to admit it and will double down. Unfortunate, but I think also one of the many reasons why ESO struggles to retain players. People dislike such behaviour.

peacenote wrote: »

It is nice that they closed the loop. I really was starting to assume that this would be like the character map progress topic, which got unstickied and never answered after being temporarily acknowledged. I would rather this response than nothing, so thank you for that to whoever ensured the message delivery.

See above. I think, they didn't close the loop. Looking at the substantial feedback on that posting alone also tells me, that the majority of posters don't think they closed the loop.

I don't think that we will get something more substantial. I think this is a disgrace, as I consider a regular exchange (not streaming and not answering questions, or posting blog posts, or making announcements on the forum where nobody then follows up) relevant for every company. Especially one, where direct feedback is easily possible.

There is more but the topic gets exhausting. So I'll stop here.

DemonicGoat

@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_MattFiror

I dont expect you to respond to Ghaleb but I hope you see it.

peacenote

Ghaleb wrote: »

peacenote wrote: »

Well, I just caught up on the thread and the linked combat philosophy statement...

Honestly, I think they DID technically answer almost anything that could have come from any Q&A in this statement:

Outside of some outstanding combat bugs, we believe taking all these into account has now gotten combat in a better place, where ESO is more enjoyable for a variety of playstyles. Much of the work we’ve done over the past few years – such as updating the Champion Point system and the hybridization work – has vastly improved build options, gameplay variety and build equality, which supports several of our values.

Any question we might have about why something was done in U35, whether something might be adjusted or changed, what might they do to address issue xyz that arose from U35, whether they are happy with the results, and (unfortunately) many folks who have quit but are watching the forums wondering if xyz from U35 might be reversed because then they might be interested in returning... all has been answered.

I disagree. Let's see what the community questions towards U35 were, shall we (excerpt from questions I found)?

@Destai wanted to know:
1. Did you see an uptick in end-game participation following U35?
2. Was U35 part of a larger endeavor, and if so, what are other milestones in that development effort?
3. What would final state of combat look like, if possible?

@Agenericname wanted to know:
4. Can we have a detailed roadmap? And what would it look like?

@mandricus wanted to know:
5. You modified Templar Jabs to better line up the skill's timing with weaving (after 8 years). On the very same patch, you nerfed significantly light attacks damage. Doesn't it seem a bit contradictory? Can you please explain better your thought process behind that decision?
6. One of the states goals of the changes was to improve accessibility. Do you think that the game is more accessible today compared to what it was pre-u35? Can you please also tell us the target audience that you had in mind? New players, low level players, mid-tier players or everyone?

@VaranisArano wanted to know:
7. How are balance changes to combat and content tested prior to going on the PTS? Parsing, in-house progression teams, etc.?
8. How do the Devs define or talk about "accessibility" from a development perspective? What do the Devs consider the "floor" and the "ceiling" when it comes to targeted balance changes? By what metrics is this being measured and evaluated for success?
9. Did the final U35 patch changes successfully hit the metrics for accessibility and raising the floor/lowering the ceiling now that they've been Live for over three months?

@heaven13 wanted to know:
10. Why were animations changed, especially with the policy of never changing existing assets (we were told this is why Timbercrow diaper wouldn’t be changed as well as the Seafaring hair which darkens hair by about 5 shades). Why was it okay to do this with animations, particularly like jabs that has been integral to an entire class since launch?

@Billium813 wanted to know:
11. How does the team determine when to make class and weapon skill changes, specifically for "balancing reasons" (community data? internal testing?)? How do you compare builds to determine something is over / under performing (dummy parsing? internal testing? dedicated trials groups?)?

@VampirateV wanted to know:
12. How does zos define "accessibility"? Many players are still confused about whether it means the abstract accessibility of content, or the more concrete features to improve access to the game for folks with disabilities. And if it's the latter, are the devs currently (or open to) consulting players with disabilities to help create useful and meaningful features?

I'll stop here. A good amount of these questions has not been answered. Most importantly not the question about how they connect their announcment (reduction of obscene (original quote from the initial announcement) damage from top tier players) with the substantial nerf of mostly mid- to low-level players. If you belong to the last two categories and want to run Vet Raids, your only remaining option is a HA-Build. So much to the build variety they achieved, hm?

peacenote wrote: »

They believe combat is in a better place and is supporting the combat values.

Doesn't that pretty much say everything we needed to know?

There are a good amount of people on this planet believing in an all-knowing, all-loving, all-planning god / allah / whatever. Good for them. But this is nothing I would base a factual conversation on. I also believe I deserve a pay raise. If the metrics / numbers speak another language, my believe is off (obviously). And ZOS having a meeting with all Stream Team Members, asking questions around status of ESO, direction, current community opinion, etc, let's me assume, that their metrics don't look good or as good as they could / should.

peacenote wrote: »

By extension I would take this to mean that, from their perspective, U35 was a success and current directions will continue. This was not "we've heard you about change fatigue, we didn't quite meet our goal with U35..." it was the polar opposite of a message like that. Exactly what they are valuing most highly and how that's being measured is not explained in enough detail to determine why there is a gap between a portion of the community's happiness with U35 and ZOS's satisfaction with it, but I think it is pretty clear that ZOS is staying true to its culture of doubling down on decisions that have been made, regardless of how loudly the community might object. Whether it is because they don't want to lose face or whether it is because the concerns being raised on the forums aren't a high priority compared to what they are trying to accomplish internally (and they are truly happy with where the game is at) I guess we may never know.

I have the impression that they internally don't think that U35 was a success. Else the Stream Team Member meeting would have had a different trajectory. But they are not going to admit it and will double down. Unfortunate, but I think also one of the many reasons why ESO struggles to retain players. People dislike such behaviour.

peacenote wrote: »

It is nice that they closed the loop. I really was starting to assume that this would be like the character map progress topic, which got unstickied and never answered after being temporarily acknowledged. I would rather this response than nothing, so thank you for that to whoever ensured the message delivery.

See above. I think, they didn't close the loop. Looking at the substantial feedback on that posting alone also tells me, that the majority of posters don't think they closed the loop.

I don't think that we will get something more substantial. I think this is a disgrace, as I consider a regular exchange (not streaming and not answering questions, or posting blog posts, or making announcements on the forum where nobody then follows up) relevant for every company. Especially one, where direct feedback is easily possible.

There is more but the topic gets exhausting. So I'll stop here.

I think we are not as far apart as our two posts would seem, but I'm not sure you completely got my point. Or it's possible I wasn't clear. Basically, I was building on what someone else said (I think it was Varanos) about how it is a bit of a double-edged sword for ZOS if we, as the community, refuse to accept answers when we don't like them. Then they might as well stay silent.

So when I say close the loop, my bar was low: I meant literally come back and acknowledge that the promised Q&A was never going to come, as opposed to letting this thread go on until it died or there was JUUUUST enough of a gap so a zealous mod could close it as old and say we needed a new topic, where momentum would cease. We wanted to know if we were ever getting the promised Q&A and we got a response: no, ZOS decided to do something else instead. And finally acknowledged it. When the "something else" was ready to be released.

I did not mean that they closed the loop on all open questions.

When I say that their statement about combat technically answers all of our questions, I'm coming from a place that assumes ZOS isn't going to give us detailed success metrics and process data. While I'm not saying that the questions were answered to the level of detail we would like, that's technically different than a non-answer. This is what I mean:

Example, Fake Q&A

Did the final U35 patch changes successfully hit the metrics for accessibility and raising the floor/lowering the ceiling now that they've been Live for over three months? Yes, based on the data we've seen, we believe combat in a much better place, where ESO is more enjoyable for a variety of playstyles.

How does the team determine when to make class and weapon skill changes, specifically for "balancing reasons" (community data? internal testing?)? How do you compare builds to determine something is over / under performing (dummy parsing? internal testing? dedicated trials groups?)? We use a variety of data to determine what we adjust, based on whether the outcomes of the classes, weapon skills, and builds are aligning with our core values for combat.

What would final state of combat look like, if possible? If we could get to a place where nothing in combat was in conflict with our core combat philosophy and values, we'd be done tweaking!

Why were animations changed? This was necessary to stay true to our combat philosophy and direction, such that we made an exception to rule of not changing assets. We try our best to adhere to all of our goals for ESO but sometimes they conflict and one has to take precedence over the other.

Now, don't get me wrong -- I would love to for everyone to have all of their questions answered in great detail... and some of them are fantastic questions that would be very interesting to learn about. I'm just saying that if you extrapolate the conversations and assume there are many details we won't get, many questions really are covered by ZOS saying "Based on the data we see and our combat philosophy, we believe that thing about which you are asking is in a better place, although we will continue to monitor this for future improvements." I'm not saying I am happy with the outcome; I'm just making the point that, in many cases, it's not that they didn't answer the questions but that they didn't give the details requested.

The other point I'm making is that I think we may be asking the wrong questions. Perhaps asking for more information about how ZOS defines playstyles, accessibility, and some of the other items they state are their goals might be the best way to take this conversation, because at times there's misinterpretation on both sides. And also, maybe more directly asking things like "are you aware of the struggle with getting into trial groups beyond Craglorn pugs that some of us have seen, especially since the combat changes, or do you need more information about it?" because THOSE types of questions would be easier for ZOS to answer than things like "please tell us what you consider the ceiling and the floor."

I agree with you 100% that we should get something more substantial, and that it is disappointing we did not. I believe this not just for U35 but also for U33, where we received no follow up or acknowledgement to basic questions like "Does ZOS still support the alt playstyle?" and "Will the map exploration per character be fixed?" They actually made a stickied topic and then unstickied it with no comment and no resolution in the forum! Literally we still don't know if more per-character features are on the chopping block as a game direction or ZOS is still supportive of giving us options for playing alts and some of the things we lost were collateral damage or unintended consequences. At least with U35 we know what they were trying to accomplish. I'm as frustrated as anyone about the lack of engagement and follow up communication but expecting ZOS to release success metrics around accessibility and exactly how they identify and test changes before they get to PTS.... I don't know. I wouldn't have expected an answer to those questions even if we got a live, un-moderated Q&A.

Some more detail about where the game is going so we can feel better about the fact that ESO will grow but not completely change from the game we know and love... given all the chaos that seems like a very reasonable thing for us as a community to want to know. Another thing that really would be nice is acknowledgement that certain points that have been made by many were heard, even if there is no solution on the roadmap to date, or even agreement within ZOS that the point needs a solution. That's the kind of substance I feel is needed in future communications. We shouldn't need to now how the sausage is made, but we need reassurance that the end product will still be a sausage! Anyway that's my take on it.

Tornaad

What I want to know is this, what is your long-term vision for ESO? Specifically, when you are sitting down to make changes to combat, what guides your decision-making process? To put it another way, if in 5 years you could be guaranteed to get combat exactly where you want it to be, what would that look like?

GreatGildersleeve

I guess we have our answer on why U35 happened. They had to nerf everything in sight to make the new class super OP and sell lots of copies of Necrom. Once it releases (U38?) they can start to bring stuff back up to revert some of the U35 pain.

Jaraal

GreatGildersleeve wrote: »

I guess we have our answer on why U35 happened. They had to nerf everything in sight to make the new class super OP and sell lots of copies of Necrom. Once it releases (U38?) they can start to bring stuff back up to revert some of the U35 pain.

I don't see them reverting any of the U35 changes. Even though the "ceiling" wasn't brought down, they need to keep the floor dwellers in check, so that we're not all ceiling Khajiits.

colossalvoids

They just messed up. Not first time, not the last time. But I'm pretty sure actual "before new class comes" nerfing hasn't started yet, Monday will for sure have some of insights of what we can expect going forward.

Sure there was a significant reason to not make a combat preview apart from some of the people telling them it's not working out as expected. Hoping to be wrong but expect the worst is better strategy here.

Yamenstein

Zos don’t wanna talk to their players lol the questions I have seen on this thread aren’t even rude. Players deserve more than what zos has been offering.

Just freaking communicate with us. The deep dives are not the answer!

BretonMage

I'd been very patiently waiting, but I'm still no closer to understanding what they intend to do with regard to accessibility. Is it still on the cards? Do they still want to raise the floor, lower the ceiling? Will this be on the PTS notes?

merpins

They did release a Q&A though. It just wasn't a Q&A but was labeled as one.

U35 was a bomb shell that no one wanted. I'm guessing that it was a decision made by someone higher up in the company, but still involved in the actual game development, probably somewhere around the director level if not slightly higher, and they couldn't go back on their decision making lest it make them seem in the wrong for making such a decision.



Personally, all I want is the old Jabs animation back. The whole thing was hard to swallow to begin with, but basically removing my favorite skill in the game? I'd still use it if they nerfed it into the ground because of just how satisfying it was to use, animation wise. I can't even play templar anymore.

shinry

The way they did new jabs is still flummoxing. I get simplifying the channel cast time for weaving and GCD reasons. I don't think they have a good answer for why I am shoveling an "Aedric" spear different from all other spear abilities using an evil Nighthollow staff completely antithetical to the Aedra and also docking the damage so drastically to be outclassed by other spammables when it was once a Templar's distinction. I guess whoever was assigned to that task didn't really care about any of that though and they said 'whatever ship it!' and so far seems to also not care about the plethora of feedback concerning that thereafter. I feel mocked when I see Isobel still using the old jab animation. I miss doing comparable damage until execution...

I miss enjoying jabbing...

VaranisArano

I guess I got one of my questions answered. ESO's dev team is all about bringing skills up to or down to standards, so when they changed Empower mid U35 PTS, I wondered how long it would take them to realize they'd made the DK morph Empowering Chains useless in PVP and change it.

Answer: Six months.

I've said it before, but basic stuff like this is what convinced me that "balance" in ESO is less about ever reaching a final balanced product and more about making constant changes to make the game feel more dynamic over time.

The Devs changed a buff mid-PTS and couldn't be bothered to standardize all its sources before launch. It took them six months to address the fact that they made Empowering Chains' namesake buff useless for it in PVP as a direct consequence. Now, instead of a change they should have fully baked and done in one go, they've stretched out over six months, two different updates, and two changes for DK players to adapt to (and nobody wonders why players get change fatigue.)

I am less than impressed.

psychotrip

psychotrip wrote: »

Every time I get the urge to play ESO, I come back to this thread and remember how poorly the game is managed.

It's like a live-service detox. You should try it. Your wallet will thank you.

Back again. Did this QA ever happen? I was playing my PGE1 lore friendly, jungle-modded Oblivion, and I started wanting to play ESO again. So its time to check back in.

Skimming through the thread, I can see that they replaced the QA for something else, but apparently they didnt answer any queations?

Have they gotten better with communication? Are the combat issues resolved? As a bonus question: How's the story and lore these days? I dipped out when I sensed the setting was becoming far too "generic fantasy" for my tastes (around the time Summerset came out)

blktauna

Of course it didn't.

KlauthWarthog

psychotrip wrote: »

Back again. Did this QA ever happen?

Nope.

psychotrip wrote: »

Skimming through the thread, I can see that they replaced the QA for something else, but apparently they didnt answer any queations?

Correct, they replaced it with a set of bland statements loosely related to combat, and did not answer any questions.

psychotrip wrote: »

Have they gotten better with communication?

Nope.

psychotrip wrote: »

Are the combat issues resolved?

You are going to have to be a lot more specific here, there is no shortage of combat issues to choose from.

shadyjane62

shinry wrote: »

The way they did new jabs is still flummoxing. I get simplifying the channel cast time for weaving and GCD reasons. I don't think they have a good answer for why I am shoveling an "Aedric" spear different from all other spear abilities using an evil Nighthollow staff completely antithetical to the Aedra and also docking the damage so drastically to be outclassed by other spammables when it was once a Templar's distinction. I guess whoever was assigned to that task didn't really care about any of that though and they said 'whatever ship it!' and so far seems to also not care about the plethora of feedback concerning that thereafter. I feel mocked when I see Isobel still using the old jab animation. I miss doing comparable damage until execution...

I miss enjoying jabbing...

Update 35 broke me. I'm still trying to cope. Now all I seem to do is make new chars and have the perverse pleasure of playing them for a day and then deleting them.

Not a quitting post, but a never paying another penny post. I am in training now to play without craft bag.

VaranisArano

psychotrip wrote: »

psychotrip wrote: »

Every time I get the urge to play ESO, I come back to this thread and remember how poorly the game is managed.

It's like a live-service detox. You should try it. Your wallet will thank you.

Back again. Did this QA ever happen? I was playing my PGE1 lore friendly, jungle-modded Oblivion, and I started wanting to play ESO again. So its time to check back in.

Skimming through the thread, I can see that they replaced the QA for something else, but apparently they didnt answer any queations?

Have they gotten better with communication? Are the combat issues resolved? As a bonus question: How's the story and lore these days? I dipped out when I sensed the setting was becoming far too "generic fantasy" for my tastes (around the time Summerset came out)

Here's what we got as a replacement for the Q&A:
https://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/news/post/63417
Forum discussion here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/624269/eso-developer-deep-dive-core-combat-values/p1