Why isn't the high quality QA team raiding with the stream team?

karekiz

I was watching the VDSR challenge run and realized that the devs had NO part of it. To spice it up wouldn't it be WAY more fun why didn't we get to see the super highly qualified QA team compete vs the players or even just join them and share DPS with hodors? Why is it when any endgame content is shown the devs shy away and never show it themselves?

With all the drama over the devs not knowing the game it would have gone LEAPS AND BOUNDS to help that.

ZOS_Kevin

Going to answer this really fast. The dev teams job is not to "show themselves". They are working on content and don't always have the time to participate in community activations like this. QuakeCon has always been a community forward event. And the challenge run programming is embracing that.

The challenge run is meant to be a fun activity for the community, not a test of what our dev team is capable of.

lonnml

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Going to answer this really fast. The dev teams job is not to "show themselves". They are working on content and don't always have the time to participate in community activations like this. QuakeCon has always been a community forward event. And the challenge run programming is embracing that.

The challenge run is meant to be a fun activity for the community, not a test of what our dev team is capable of.

I for one would love to see the dev team stream end-game content! I've only ever seen Gilliam PVP because we were put in the same BG together.

Destai

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Going to answer this really fast. The dev teams job is not to "show themselves". They are working on content and don't always have the time to participate in community activations like this. QuakeCon has always been a community forward event. And the challenge run programming is embracing that.

The challenge run is meant to be a fun activity for the community, not a test of what our dev team is capable of.

It'd be appreciated if they baked in time for community activities in the future. It'd help humanize the developers, show they're in touch with how the game feels, and demonstrate changes from their perspectives. Plus some live play by developers would be fun; I've enjoyed hearing Gilliam and Wheeler talk. I know you guys are all busy, sprints are packed, but hopefully that'll be considered - especially given the reception of U35.

Also, it'd be cool if you were in the some of the events too man! See that Stamplar of yours in action!

ZOS_Kevin

We will pass this feedback along for the future! For context, members of the community team (myself included) plan and have goals for these kind of events. So it's nice to know that there is some interest in seeing dev team members engage in this way.

Also please note that some team members are shy. So we don't want them uncomfortable either. But for those comfortable, we will consider this for next time.

Drammanoth

@ZOS_Kevin sure we are interested in seeing you guys! And no, it is NOT to whip you, gloating "look how BAAAAAD the game looks" - nah, nope, no.

More like "there, you designed something, and now you have the opportunity to see for yourself" - not just relying on ESO Stream Team and others' feedback from PTS.

This 'dehumanise' is something that hurts - some people believe that devs just come up with something off the top of their head, implement it without giving it a second though and e voila! A recipe for ruin. No.

As to those shy ones, no one must force them to be shown - but I believe the community would definitely appreciate some of you showing up. Hehe -->

then, they would not be able to say 'u no play ur game' XD - hard evidence that you do

.

acastanza_ESO

100% agree that we should be seeing the combat dev team livestream vet trial runs (+HMs) on the PTS builds regularly but this is not what QuakeCon is for and the challenge run they did with prominent ESO content creators was definitely the correct way to go for that event.

#MoreHotSauceFor @ZOS_GinaBruno

renne

I'd definitely love to see the people who build the HM content play the HM content.

Karminathevamp

Rich Lambert, ESO Creative director, used to play and stream the game almost every night, but we all know what happened last January. So, after this excessively publicized awful experience with some viewers, I doubt ESO devs would want to take a chance on streaming again.

VaranisArano

Karminathevamp wrote: »

Rich Lambert, ESO Creative director, used to play and stream the game almost every night, but we all know what happened last January. So, after this excessively publicized awful experience with some viewers, I doubt ESO devs would want to take a chance on streaming again.

I'd like to think it'd be different at an official event where ZOS can moderate the chat. The Devs who wanted to participate would be doing so in a professional capacity at a sponsored event, and so hopefully the lines between private and professional personas would be less blurry.

p00tx

Here's my take on this. Think about how long it's taken all of us to get to where we are in the game, with all of the countless hours parsing and running content over and over. Then, think about the number of hours you put into your job each week. How many of us would like to spend several additional hours at work just to show our customers that we can expertly use the stuff we manufacture/sell/develop?

I don't expect the people who spend 8+ hours a day working on this game to be able to play to the same caliber that many players who put in up to 8 hours a day playing the game do. I would just hope that they'd listen to the people who have that experience in the game and take them seriously when they have valuable data or input.

ForzaRammer

How about op stop blaming technical people for the decisions likely made by people who don’t even code?

BahometZ

I hate that Rich has pulled back from streaming due to what some might call indelicate moments. He should be free to say and do what he wants, and let the player base react. I say let the monkeys howl (I am one of those monkeys).

Would love to see devs engage with content, even if it's just doing random normals and shooting the breeze. Would be nice to know that employees enjoy the fruits of their labour, like a vintner drinking their wine.

Ratzkifal

It was always totally understandable that vet content would simply take too much time. I think Gina even said as much during one of those streams. But when you only see the developers complete the normal versions of everything and Rich mostly hanging out in vMA you can't help but feel that maybe the devs are too busy with making the updates to actually play the game and get a good sense of what it's actually like.
Glad to hear that events like these are being planned! I'm looking forward to seeing that!

opalcity

ForzaRammer wrote: »

How about op stop blaming technical people for the decisions likely made by people who don’t even code?

This. All the complaining and whining being directed at devs, forum mods, programmers et al, is like going to McDonald's and complaining at the drive-thru operator because your apple pie is now slightly smaller, as if it was their decision.

These people are just trying to do their jobs within the constraints put upon them by people in offices who only look at profit margins and care little else about anything else.

Stop hassling the wrong people.

Aardappelboom

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

We will pass this feedback along for the future! For context, members of the community team (myself included) plan and have goals for these kind of events. So it's nice to know that there is some interest in seeing dev team members engage in this way.

@ZOS_Kevin since this is being discussed, I'd like to add that while showing the team is definetly a good thing I'm a lot more interested to just see you guys talking about the vision of the game, the ideas you have, the plans you guys have in mind.

Just throw some stuff at us, don't be afraid to get some feedback on these conversations and test how hot the water is for certain ideas or features.

I'd rather see and hear about that than just seeing people playing the game they create, and to be frank, this question stems from the fact that U35 is quite a hot topic and while there's definitely some valid points about humanizing the dev team by seeing them play their game, it has also, more or less been suggested in the past in the hopes the dev team struggles to complete certain challenges so they can further improve upon some of the decisions made.

I don't agree on that entire idea, I just want to hear what you guys are planning, have some dev insights, find out about how some decisions are made and what drives those decision etc...

I loved the stuff you put on the website on how blackwood was created, I wouldn't mind seeing more people of the company do the same thing on a stream, it would often help prevent negative feedback in the future since we'll be in the know about some of the dilemma's you're facing througout development.

Just a thought though, might be interesting to take into consideration.

Destai

p00tx wrote: »

Here's my take on this. Think about how long it's taken all of us to get to where we are in the game, with all of the countless hours parsing and running content over and over. Then, think about the number of hours you put into your job each week. How many of us would like to spend several additional hours at work just to show our customers that we can expertly use the stuff we manufacture/sell/develop?

I don't expect the people who spend 8+ hours a day working on this game to be able to play to the same caliber that many players who put in up to 8 hours a day playing the game do. I would just hope that they'd listen to the people who have that experience in the game and take them seriously when they have valuable data or input.

I work in software development. Often times, myself and the teams I manage have to do weekly demos and are subject to constant client feedback. If I hop on a demo and don't know how to use my system, what confidence would my clients have in my solution? Especially since they're the ones pushing the need for U35, it's only fair that they demonstrate why these changes are good. If I push for a feature to the business, I have to show why it's a good idea. Should be no different here.

BahometZ wrote: »

I hate that Rich has pulled back from streaming due to what some might call indelicate moments. He should be free to say and do what he wants, and let the player base react. I say let the monkeys howl (I am one of those monkeys).

Would love to see devs engage with content, even if it's just doing random normals and shooting the breeze. Would be nice to know that employees enjoy the fruits of their labour, like a vintner drinking their wine.

I don't, his brash responses were not a good look. I have no interest in seeing someone get defiant in the face of an overwhelmingly disapproved move - like WW scrolls or whatever. And I agree, enough with the stream moderators, let people talk, especially since they can't seem to apply moderation fairly. It just causes animosity and makes ZOS look bad.

There was a stream a while back with Nefas, Gilliam, and Finn, that I thought was a good format. I think streamers like him and Fragmansaul articulate things well. ZOS should leverage them more, especially given how close they are to the pulse of the community and how game mechanics feel. Dialogue between them and devs would be really valuable.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

We will pass this feedback along for the future! For context, members of the community team (myself included) plan and have goals for these kind of events. So it's nice to know that there is some interest in seeing dev team members engage in this way.

Also please note that some team members are shy. So we don't want them uncomfortable either. But for those comfortable, we will consider this for next time.

There always has been interest in that. I think whoever streams though, give them coaching first. I'd hope ZOS learned that tone is really important, especially after what happened on Rich's streams. I addressed this point in an earlier post. When players offer criticism, it's because they care, even if it's worded poorly. Responding brashly and defensively escalates situations, that - to be fair - ZOS creates (U35, etc.). You guys know enough that major updates are contentious, as evidenced here, so Community Management should do streams each patch. Or at the very least, not go on the defensive.

And if you or other ZOS people have plans for events, tell us. Fish for ideas, tell us what your goals are for a given event. We keep telling you guys this, but honestly - share stuff with us. We'll eat it up. You're celebrated moreso than some other ZOS folks because of the candor and respectful tone you take with us; you don't hide. There are others at ZOS who don't have that admiration, and I think events and disclosure would help repair those images. That'll go way further than seeing Twitch moderation - again.

Agenericname

Destai wrote: »

p00tx wrote: »

Here's my take on this. Think about how long it's taken all of us to get to where we are in the game, with all of the countless hours parsing and running content over and over. Then, think about the number of hours you put into your job each week. How many of us would like to spend several additional hours at work just to show our customers that we can expertly use the stuff we manufacture/sell/develop?

I don't expect the people who spend 8+ hours a day working on this game to be able to play to the same caliber that many players who put in up to 8 hours a day playing the game do. I would just hope that they'd listen to the people who have that experience in the game and take them seriously when they have valuable data or input.

I work in software development. Often times, myself and the teams I manage have to do weekly demos and subject to constant client feedback. If I hop on a demo, don't know how to use my system, what confidence would my clients have in my solution? Especially since they're the ones pushing the need for U35, it's only fair that they demonstrate why these changes are good. If I drive a feature over the business, I have to show why it's a good idea. Should be no different here.

BahometZ wrote: »

I hate that Rich has pulled back from streaming due to what some might call indelicate moments. He should be free to say and do what he wants, and let the player base react. I say let the monkeys howl (I am one of those monkeys).

Would love to see devs engage with content, even if it's just doing random normals and shooting the breeze. Would be nice to know that employees enjoy the fruits of their labour, like a vintner drinking their wine.

I don't, his brash responses were not a good look. I have no interest in seeing someone get defiant in the face of an overwhelmingly disapproved move - like WW scrolls or whatever. And I agree, enough with the stream moderators, let people talk, especially since they can't seem to apply moderation fairly. It just causes animosity and makes ZOS look bad.

There was a stream a while back with Nefas, Gilliam, and Finn, that I thought was a good format. I think streamers like him and Fragmansaul articulate things well. ZOS should leverage them more, especially given how close they are to the pulse of the community and how game mechanics feel. Dialogue between them and devs would be really valuable.

If this were any system other than entertainment I would agree. If they couldn't perform the actions or use the controls, format, etc, then it would be an issue. If they cant play at the same level as some of the teams that devote their time to clearing vet content, or they can, I dont really care. I assume that they can, but ultimately what matters more to me is that I enjoy it. Their ability to compete in it is irrelevant to me.

I run a lot of dungeons. When we are going for an achievement, we use a premade, for obvious reasons. When we arent, we PUG. We PUG random vets, vet DLCs, or help people with challengers. The numbers paint a picture of whats happening on the high end, but doesnt say much about the game that I play, which is in the middle of all of that. We dont play in the sterile environment that these changes were birthed in.

I assume that they have a plan. I hope that they have a plan. The questions that I have for the devs cant be answered by them playing. Id like to know what that plan is. Can we have a roadmap? Where is this going to land? Do they understand just how much some of us despise the changes, not just U35, but all around? Do they plan to drag this on and on?

Its not that I wouldnt want to see them play, but asking them to run the content seems like its more of an affirmation of a process that I dont entirely agree with in the first place. There needs to be standards, but this seems like its adhering to a spreadsheet formula more and more with less focus on whats actually happening in the content.

If it were a choice, and I dont know if it is or if isnt, I'd rather them interact with us by letting us know what their vision is, where this is all going, and have a reasonable road map to how they're going to take us there.

ToRelax

Destai wrote: »

p00tx wrote: »

Here's my take on this. Think about how long it's taken all of us to get to where we are in the game, with all of the countless hours parsing and running content over and over. Then, think about the number of hours you put into your job each week. How many of us would like to spend several additional hours at work just to show our customers that we can expertly use the stuff we manufacture/sell/develop?

I don't expect the people who spend 8+ hours a day working on this game to be able to play to the same caliber that many players who put in up to 8 hours a day playing the game do. I would just hope that they'd listen to the people who have that experience in the game and take them seriously when they have valuable data or input.

I work in software development. Often times, myself and the teams I manage have to do weekly demos and are subject to constant client feedback. If I hop on a demo and don't know how to use my system, what confidence would my clients have in my solution? Especially since they're the ones pushing the need for U35, it's only fair that they demonstrate why these changes are good. If I push for a feature to the business, I have to show why it's a good idea. Should be no different here.

I'm pretty sure whatever software you're showcasing is meant to be as easy to use effectively as is feasible. Or does it come with a "hard mode", which raises the challenge of using it for the sake of it, and you show potential customers that you can still operate your software where many of them will fail should they buy it?

ZOS_Kevin

Hi All. Just wanted to circle back here. Thanks for your feedback regarding QuakeCon programming and what you would like to see in the future. We are sharing this thread and feedback with the rest of the team for future consideration, particularly the interest in general dev interaction with the community. Appreciate everyone taking the time to share thoughts here. This will help all of us on the community team as we work toward planning future events.

YandereGirlfriend

ForzaRammer wrote: »

How about op stop blaming technical people for the decisions likely made by people who don’t even code?

Nobody on the combat team is a programmer. So that's a big red herring argument.

And as much as I would like to buy into the idea that these changes aren't coming from the combat team, I just can't buy it. For example, nobody in the executive suite is telling anyone to "Nerf Deep Fissure by 25% and make it delayed by 9 seconds" or "Nerf Bound Armaments by 45%". That is pure combat team.

Certain changes are likely motivated by fiscal considerations, such as the over-buff and subsequent nerf of Oakensoul (because High Isle needs something spicy to drive sales...) but the sort of "mundane" balance changes to core skills and abilities such as those mentioned above are, unfortunately, coming from those directly responsible for driving the bus on combat.

Agenericname wrote: »

Destai wrote: »

p00tx wrote: »

Here's my take on this. Think about how long it's taken all of us to get to where we are in the game, with all of the countless hours parsing and running content over and over. Then, think about the number of hours you put into your job each week. How many of us would like to spend several additional hours at work just to show our customers that we can expertly use the stuff we manufacture/sell/develop?

I don't expect the people who spend 8+ hours a day working on this game to be able to play to the same caliber that many players who put in up to 8 hours a day playing the game do. I would just hope that they'd listen to the people who have that experience in the game and take them seriously when they have valuable data or input.

I work in software development. Often times, myself and the teams I manage have to do weekly demos and subject to constant client feedback. If I hop on a demo, don't know how to use my system, what confidence would my clients have in my solution? Especially since they're the ones pushing the need for U35, it's only fair that they demonstrate why these changes are good. If I drive a feature over the business, I have to show why it's a good idea. Should be no different here.

BahometZ wrote: »

I hate that Rich has pulled back from streaming due to what some might call indelicate moments. He should be free to say and do what he wants, and let the player base react. I say let the monkeys howl (I am one of those monkeys).

Would love to see devs engage with content, even if it's just doing random normals and shooting the breeze. Would be nice to know that employees enjoy the fruits of their labour, like a vintner drinking their wine.

I don't, his brash responses were not a good look. I have no interest in seeing someone get defiant in the face of an overwhelmingly disapproved move - like WW scrolls or whatever. And I agree, enough with the stream moderators, let people talk, especially since they can't seem to apply moderation fairly. It just causes animosity and makes ZOS look bad.

There was a stream a while back with Nefas, Gilliam, and Finn, that I thought was a good format. I think streamers like him and Fragmansaul articulate things well. ZOS should leverage them more, especially given how close they are to the pulse of the community and how game mechanics feel. Dialogue between them and devs would be really valuable.

If this were any system other than entertainment I would agree. If they couldn't perform the actions or use the controls, format, etc, then it would be an issue. If they cant play at the same level as some of the teams that devote their time to clearing vet content, or they can, I dont really care. I assume that they can, but ultimately what matters more to me is that I enjoy it. Their ability to compete in it is irrelevant to me.

I run a lot of dungeons. When we are going for an achievement, we use a premade, for obvious reasons. When we arent, we PUG. We PUG random vets, vet DLCs, or help people with challengers. The numbers paint a picture of whats happening on the high end, but doesnt say much about the game that I play, which is in the middle of all of that. We dont play in the sterile environment that these changes were birthed in.

I assume that they have a plan. I hope that they have a plan. The questions that I have for the devs cant be answered by them playing. Id like to know what that plan is. Can we have a roadmap? Where is this going to land? Do they understand just how much some of us despise the changes, not just U35, but all around? Do they plan to drag this on and on?

Its not that I wouldnt want to see them play, but asking them to run the content seems like its more of an affirmation of a process that I dont entirely agree with in the first place. There needs to be standards, but this seems like its adhering to a spreadsheet formula more and more with less focus on whats actually happening in the content.

If it were a choice, and I dont know if it is or if isnt, I'd rather them interact with us by letting us know what their vision is, where this is all going, and have a reasonable road map to how they're going to take us there.

I'm not sure why an entertainment product would be exempted in your mind. Are we somehow less deserving of a well-designed product because we are buying/supporting a game?

It is basically a tautology that if you're in charge of balancing a system then you should have an extremely keen apprehension of said system holistically and across every relevant context.

In the case of U35, the only context considered appears to be high-end dummy parsing. Ignored contexts appear to be: performance in actual high-end content, the impact on low- and mid-level players, the impact on PvP, the impact on sets and class abilities (that are impacted by things such as DoT/HoT tick rate), etc.

Being completely frank, I would expect those whose full-time job it is to work on these systems to display a more complete mastery of these topics than is displayed in the patch notes of any edition of the current PTS. Those responsible for balance routinely fail to anticipate the downstream effects of their changes (even when PTS players point them out), which is why we are forever repeating this cycle of whiplash balancing, where patches are cleaning up the messes made by previous patches.

Which all circles back around to being good - across multiple contexts - at the game that you're working on. Clearing content on stream isn't an end in itself but is instead a proxy for being attuned to the issues present in that context of the game.

This is also why I would love to see developers playing high-level PvP - as it is the suspicion of many PvP players that those responsible for balance don't participate in that facet of the game (which is why we see very odd changes like the proposed super-buff of Plaguebreak in the original PTS or the establishment of a completely non-viable 9-second delay on Deep Fissure).

CGPsaint

renne wrote: »

I'd definitely love to see the people who build the HM content play the HM content.

I would definitely pay to watch them run Hardmodes in Stone Garden, Coral Aerie, and Shipwright's Regret.

Agenericname

@YandereGirlfriend
I don't mean at all that we arent deserving of a good product. In fact, the opposite is what Im saying, but this is a product where our how we feel while playing it takes up a lot of space. Functionality is still important, but isnt the only metric.

After the first iteration of the PTS we would have longer buffs which means more spammables. Even if the damage remained functionally the same, I still dont want that. I dont want to go from 12/20 - 15/20 spammables. Even if the developers can make that work and clear content with it, I still dont want it.

I think that putting the emphasis solely on what can be done is a mistake. The game needs quantitative feedback, I wouldn't argue that it doesn't, but ZOS needs to take how the players feel about the changes into account as well. To do that, ZOS needs to communicate with the players. Maybe instead of asking for them to show us what can be done, they play with us and see it that way.

Yes, I agree that they arent seeing the ripple effects that Im expecting to see. I could also be wrong. Its hard to say because they havent happened yet. Would they be more likely to see that playing in a sterile environment and/or competing against eso's endgamers, or communicating with us other ways? Thats my point. There's a lot of the game that they're not seeing if they're fixated on this.

Destai

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Hi All. Just wanted to circle back here. Thanks for your feedback regarding QuakeCon programming and what you would like to see in the future. We are sharing this thread and feedback with the rest of the team for future consideration, particularly the interest in general dev interaction with the community. Appreciate everyone taking the time to share thoughts here. This will help all of us on the community team as we work toward planning future events.

Thanks for circling back. Can we get more regular updates as to where these things are in a few weeks, months, etc.? We'd like to know what's discussed, what Dev teams fears/concerns/apprehensions are, and help you guys get past that. Feels like when you guys are planning to talk to us, it doesn't involve us very much - it's just taking our feedback, coming back some time later, and giving us a scripted event. That's fine for some things - like QuakeCon - but the overall development cycles need more conversation.

Destai

ToRelax wrote: »

Destai wrote: »

p00tx wrote: »

Here's my take on this. Think about how long it's taken all of us to get to where we are in the game, with all of the countless hours parsing and running content over and over. Then, think about the number of hours you put into your job each week. How many of us would like to spend several additional hours at work just to show our customers that we can expertly use the stuff we manufacture/sell/develop?

I don't expect the people who spend 8+ hours a day working on this game to be able to play to the same caliber that many players who put in up to 8 hours a day playing the game do. I would just hope that they'd listen to the people who have that experience in the game and take them seriously when they have valuable data or input.

I work in software development. Often times, myself and the teams I manage have to do weekly demos and are subject to constant client feedback. If I hop on a demo and don't know how to use my system, what confidence would my clients have in my solution? Especially since they're the ones pushing the need for U35, it's only fair that they demonstrate why these changes are good. If I push for a feature to the business, I have to show why it's a good idea. Should be no different here.

I'm pretty sure whatever software you're showcasing is meant to be as easy to use effectively as is feasible. Or does it come with a "hard mode", which raises the challenge of using it for the sake of it, and you show potential customers that you can still operate your software where many of them will fail should they buy it?

No, it's financial software. If I make mistakes, people don't get paid. So I have to design my applications around ease of use to ensure less technical people don't need a guide for how to use my platform. It's software at the end of the day, still an implementation resting on user feedback and satisfaction.

I sympathize with the noble goal of making the game - or any software for that matter - more accessible. In my experience, understanding what accessibility means is an exploration of people experiencing the same things differently. My concern has always been they're considering what accessibility means for them, based on how they experience the system. They experience it as developers, and I know all to well how that drown out the qualitative feedback from an end user who's just irritated something's not working or is counterintuitive.

I appreciate they need metrics, and they can balance it on a spreadsheet, but if players get more irritated, then their efforts weren't really worth it IMO.

Ragnarok0130

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

The challenge run is meant to be a fun activity for the community, not a test of what our dev team is capable of.

I think the bold part is exactly why it doesn't happen. In another AAA game that I play the devs play with the community every Friday night and it pays large dividends both from a developer functional knowledge point of how the game plays "in the wild" outside of the studio's test environment where the devs have a confirmation bias on how the content is "supposed to be played", and from a community standpoint where the devs and players build relationships with one another and it eases communication because the "players" and the "devs" are not just faceless masses to be mad at or ridiculed.

If the devs demonstrated their prowess in the game to the community once in a while I feel there would be far fewer questions on if the devs actually play and understand the game they work on when they release bizarre patches like U35 that contradict their stated goals.

Ragnarok0130

p00tx wrote: »

Here's my take on this. Think about how long it's taken all of us to get to where we are in the game, with all of the countless hours parsing and running content over and over. Then, think about the number of hours you put into your job each week. How many of us would like to spend several additional hours at work just to show our customers that we can expertly use the stuff we manufacture/sell/develop?

I don't expect the people who spend 8+ hours a day working on this game to be able to play to the same caliber that many players who put in up to 8 hours a day playing the game do. I would just hope that they'd listen to the people who have that experience in the game and take them seriously when they have valuable data or input.

I can empathize with this position, however many professionals in other industries do just that on their personal time to become an SME in their chosen field or prepare for promotion etc. Since part of the dev teams duties include dealing with customers and establishing rapport and communication this would be a boon overall unless someone unwisely pops off with some spicy comments again.

I know a dev who works on SWTOR, and he works all day on the game and then plays the game for another 3-5 hours every night on his personal account at home because he's actually that passionate about the game who works on. If there are devs at ZoS who genuinely play the game for enjoyment then I'd recommend those guys be asked to do official streams once in a while with some of the content creators for important events like Quakecon. It's always better to leverage organic in house assets to show the player base that devs can can raid at the end game level. Seeing that would help a lot in the long run in future patch reception and update change dialog.

Celephantsylvius_Bornasfinmo

Hopefully their contracts with subsidiaries are coming to an end and they'll be able to go full creativity mode again.

That's what I hope for. Then perhaps, devs will want to play/get into it more than before.