Stinkyremy wrote: »"do the devs ever" or have they in the past?
Implemented changes that people wanted or reverse poorly received changes?
Right now everyone seems to be crying about the high antiquity lead drop RNG, and the Templar jabs changes "nerfs"
....
Stinkyremy wrote: »"do the devs ever" or have they in the past?
Implemented changes that people wanted or reverse poorly received changes?
Right now everyone seems to be crying about the high antiquity lead drop RNG, and the Templar jabs changes "nerfs"
....
If really 'everyone' would be crying, they would probably change it. There are a lot more players than forum poster, forum poster just make more noise.
VaranisArano wrote: »Oh boy.
Yes, Transmutation was begged for by players. Please remember that we did not have any way to change item trait. So back in the day, you'd be running Vet Maelstrom dozens if not hundreds of times looking for your Inferno staff or Bow in the correct trait.
Yes, One Tamriel was done in response to a host of problems. Players complained that they couldn't explore, and were instead railroaded through zones in a very not TES fashion. Players complained that they couldn't easily group with their friends due to alliance and quest instancing. Players complained that Vet zones were too hard, and they rarely saw other players. Players complained that Craglorn was empty. (Now, players may not have be asking for the results of One Tamriel, but they certainly wanted changes.)
ZOS also ended the subscription model because console players would have to pay a double subscription to ESO and their console provider. So, yeah, it was asked for.
With those three examples alone, I'd suggest that you aren't remembering the full context of some of these decisions by ZOS.
Here's a list of other things ZOS implemented in response to player feedback. It's by no means exhaustive.
Separate Imperial City Campaigns
Alliance Change Tokens (They worked on this one for years before it was ready)
Purchasable skill lines and skyshards
Mythic Aetherial Ambrosia
Endeavors
Tales of Tribute
Legacy of the Bretons (there were lots of requests for Breton Lore and a politically-focused storyline like Orsinium)
Necromancer Class
Account-wide Achievements
Respec Shrines changing individual skills/morphs
Multicrafting
Armory
Armory in Cyrodiil
Companions
Sacred Hourglass
In-game earnable mounts i.e. indriks
Zone Story Guide
Furnishing Envelopes giving ways to buy plans
Storage Chests
Battlegrounds
Jewelrycrafting
Notable Reversions:
PVP campaigns started out Alliance-locked. In response to issues and feedback, ZOS made them non-Alliance-locked. In response to about a year or so of feedback, ZOS made some campaigns Alliance-locked and some open.
Scalebreaker introduced a DOT heavy meta. Due to feedback, it was promptly reverted in Dragonhold.
In PVP, there's been a number of changes that ZOS has tried in response to community feedback and then reverted due to community feedback, including: increased siege damage, group-only healing, CP Battlegrounds, changing up the Battlegrounds queues.
On PTS: during Murkmire, ZOS started out adding cast times to shields, then reverted it due to feedback. We saw numerous examples of changes during the U35 PTS. You might not care for where they ended up, but we certainly saw adjustments from Week 1 to Live.
I will leave it to you and the other readers to decide if those are "actual real times" the Devs made changes and responded to community feedback.
Stinkyremy wrote: »"do the devs ever" or have they in the past?
Implemented changes that people wanted or reverse poorly received changes?
Right now everyone seems to be crying about the high antiquity lead drop RNG, and the Templar jabs changes "nerfs"
....
If really 'everyone' would be crying, they would probably change it. There are a lot more players than forum poster, forum poster just make more noise.
Forum posters also tend to make big posts that say "This change is bad, this is what you should have done" that no sane person would want to read and get upset when they don't see their idea acknowledged or implemented.
VaranisArano wrote: »
Groupfinder has been substantially reworked over the years. Used to be that DLC dungeons had no level requirements, so level 10 players with ESO+ had a 50% chance of getting a DLC dungeons.
VaranisArano wrote: »In PVP
group-only healing
Stinkyremy wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »
Groupfinder has been substantially reworked over the years. Used to be that DLC dungeons had no level requirements, so level 10 players with ESO+ had a 50% chance of getting a DLC dungeons.
This is a massive issue the other way around. if you are high CP but rolling a new char you cannot even queue for most of the dungeons until X level.
That is just normal base game dungeons that you can steam roll, not including normal DLC dungeons.
I level my chars by doing pub and group dungeons, getting skill points, levelling undaunted while I level the character.
Now when I make a new char I have to grind overland or 1 pub dungeon for ages just to get to a level where I can do tempest island or whatever. I still cannot do DLC dungeons until 50.
Before that change I would have done every normal dungeon and every pub dungeon group event as I level while queuing for daily randoms, by the time I finished every dungeon i would be 50+, all skill points I needed.
Now it is more of an actual grind!VaranisArano wrote: »In PVP
group-only healing
So they actually got rid of this, healers can heal anyone?
i don't play PVP often so idk.
VaranisArano wrote: »Oh boy.
Yes, Transmutation was begged for by players. Please remember that we did not have any way to change item trait. So back in the day, you'd be running Vet Maelstrom dozens if not hundreds of times looking for your Inferno staff or Bow in the correct trait.
Yes, One Tamriel was done in response to a host of problems. Players complained that they couldn't explore, and were instead railroaded through zones in a very not TES fashion. Players complained that they couldn't easily group with their friends due to alliance and quest instancing. Players complained that Vet zones were too hard, and they rarely saw other players. Players complained that Craglorn was empty. (Now, players may not have be asking for the results of One Tamriel, but they certainly wanted changes.)
ZOS also ended the subscription model because console players would have to pay a double subscription to ESO and their console provider. So, yeah, it was asked for.
With those three examples alone, I'd suggest that you aren't remembering the full context of some of these decisions by ZOS.
Here's a list of other things ZOS implemented in response to player feedback. It's by no means exhaustive.
Separate Imperial City Campaigns
Alliance Change Tokens (They worked on this one for years before it was ready)
Purchasable skill lines and skyshards
Mythic Aetherial Ambrosia
Endeavors
Tales of Tribute
Legacy of the Bretons (there were lots of requests for Breton Lore and a politically-focused storyline like Orsinium)
Necromancer Class
Account-wide Achievements
Respec Shrines changing individual skills/morphs
Multicrafting
Armory
Armory in Cyrodiil
Companions
Sacred Hourglass
In-game earnable mounts i.e. indriks
Zone Story Guide
Furnishing Envelopes giving ways to buy plans
Storage Chests
Battlegrounds
Jewelrycrafting
Level Up & Skills Advisor
New Tutorial allowing players to pick their starting location
Multi-bidding
Notable Reversions:
PVP campaigns started out Alliance-locked. In response to issues and feedback, ZOS made them non-Alliance-locked. In response to about a year or so of feedback, ZOS made some campaigns Alliance-locked and some open.
Scalebreaker introduced a DOT heavy meta. Due to feedback, it was promptly reverted in Dragonhold.
Groupfinder has been substantially reworked over the years. Used to be that DLC dungeons had no level requirements, so level 10 players with ESO+ had a 50% chance of getting a DLC dungeons.
In PVP, there's been a number of changes that ZOS has tried in response to community feedback and then reverted due to community feedback, including: increased siege damage, group-only healing, CP Battlegrounds, changing up the Battlegrounds queues.
On PTS: during Murkmire, ZOS started out adding cast times to shields, then reverted it due to feedback. We saw numerous examples of changes during the U35 PTS. You might not care for where they ended up, but we certainly saw adjustments from Week 1 to Live.
I will leave it to you and the other readers to decide if those are "actual real times" the Devs made changes and responded to community feedback.
As others have noted, I think sometimes people forget that this forum is not, actually, "the community" but a small subset of it with which the broader player base may strongly disagree.
Eg the reaction on here to account wide achievements was strongly one of "oh my god they've killed my firstborn". On fora like reddit and steam it was noticeably weighted to "why would you have more than one character who cares".
SilverBride wrote: »I believe that U35 was partly in response to end game players complaining that the game was too easy, which can be seen in the pinned Overland Content thread. So to deal with power creep and overly powerful players they lowered the ceiling.