Do the devs ever listen to the community feedback and implement or reverse changes.

Stinkyremy

"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"
Have the devs ever reversed anything that they implemented and was hated by the community?
If not, why even bother complaining about, or giving feedback on any changes.

Sticker book, transmog and transmute were all added for benefit of the players (though at the detriment of crafters FML) but I do not ever remember a large vocal group asking for this to be implemented, as well as that these things are a logical step for MMOs.

I do remember at launch a massive complaint from most people that there were no crime systems in the game, which is a staple of TES games. This would have been implemented post launch anyway bit was clearly lower on the list of things to do than getting the game out of the door.
I also remember before launch they said there was no first person mode which the anticipated community was very vocal about, so vocal they quickly sorted that out and made it a base game launch mechanic. Again something that is a staple for TES games.
Other than these I cannot think of anything significant that was ever added or changed.

So does anyone have any actual real times the devs made changes or added something the community at large was asking for or crying about?

[snip]
i also don't remember anyone asking for them to destroy overland zones and make everything so damn easy and boring when they made 1T.
Yet the devs made these changes of their own volition (I assume)

[Minor edit for bait.]

INM

I remember that they reverted cast times on shields. And that all.

Meiox

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.

Dr_Con

Meiox wrote: »

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 [snip] person would want to read and get upset when they don't see their idea acknowledged or implemented.

[Minor edit for Bait.]

VaranisArano

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.

Destai

I think devs tend to notice broader strokes within the community. If there's a high-level request - like companions or something, I think they have a good track record of noticing and reacting. I do think there's some blindsides when it comes to PTS changes being implemented. A lot of bugs make it live, despite being reported early on in the PTS cycle. It's not to say they don't make changes based on PTS feedback - they certainly did with U35 - but I feel like that's more of an exception.

I also think a lot of the QoL changes fly under their radar - like surveys or something. It's fine if there's one or two posts that get overlooked, but there are several QoL adjustments people have been asking for for years that have gone largely unacknowledged.

People want to get into the details with ZOS, understandably so, and ZOS won't meet them there. That creates the impression they're not listening, as does the obvious lack of actual developer posts here. The core problem is the constant changes and devs/CMs not taking the time to explain why some contentious changes are needed. People expect details in those circumstances and they routinely are unable to deliver that.

Molydeus

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.

This is an amazing post. I had no idea, thank you.

Bouldercleave

The simple answer is "yes, they do".

As posted, there are many instances where they have reverted, modified, added, or implemented things based on community feedback.

They have also added many UI, inventory, and map modifications based on user mods that hey liked.

Meiox

Dr_Con wrote: »

Meiox wrote: »

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.

or the classic "we can all agree to....", where most of the time I don't agree ^^

WhiteCoatSyndrome

There was also noise about being able to change the colors of enemy attack zones for accessibility reasons, which ZOS eventually implemented.

jecks33

INM wrote: »

I remember that they reverted cast times on shields. And that all.

cast time on shields was clearly a diversion to justify the subsequent 50%- 60% nerf

kargen27

The Dark Convergence fiasco comes to mind.

blktauna

And no one asked for Tales of Tribute, it was asked that there be a quick tavern crd game. Tales is not that.

Dark Convergence is so useful on overland and so awful in PVP.... No one is happy there. Same for Oakensoul. I remember the dots... that was interesting. Then there was the switching of the light and heavy attacks. To be fair though they said up front that was only temporary and an experiment.

There needs to be more proactive work on bugs though. Stuff gets reported week one in PTS and still goes live. That's really not a good look.

Still, they follow their priorities and the priorities of the suits, even if we can't fathom what those are.

AinSoph

Implement, yes. Reverse? Very rarely.

SaffronCitrusflower

They didn't listen on the two occasions that mattered the most to me and those on my friends list. They went ahead with Account Wide Achievements and U35 essentially unchanged. They also are not giving a very significant bug, the block bug anywhere near the priority they should be, and it's hurting the end game community enormously.

francesinhalover

Not really no.
unless it's small stuff.

gamma71

[snip] U35 was the straw that broke the camel's back for a lot of us.

[edited for bait]

peacenote

In my opinion, ZOS listens to feedback in that they clearly try to add features that have been requested. In fact they are great at this. A+

They try to listen to feedback regarding balance issues, performance, etc. but with mixed results because they often break one thing when they fix another AND often don't really fix the root cause of the feedback in the first place. I would say C- for this.

They ALMOST NEVER reverse proposed changes which are new ideas when the community expresses concern, no matter how loudly and no matter how logical and well-considered the feedback is. They love their own ideas and seem unable to let go when they land flat... even things that would be dead easy to reverse like the Bosmer passive change. They are stubborn beyond belief here, at the detriment to their own game and community. I have very few memories of something being simply... reversed/removed wholesale. At best it is tweaked (rarely, as a compromise) in future updates but then the whole trajectory of the feature/area is still based on a flawed idea few if any people wanted. D- on this, maybe F. Depends on if I want to give them any benefit of the doubt for effort. They will never say "oh you aren't a fan of this idea? We will drop it completely." Closest thing I recall was the off-cycle HA/LA reversal which tbh I think we got the "tweaks" of in U35.

If something has been implemented that was requested by no one and met with loud objections on PTS, you can bet it is making it to live, permanently.

Stinkyremy

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

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.

I'd like to point out that you can still have problems with how ZOS changed something AND still admit that ZOS was addressing legitimate problems when they made changes.

Take Groupfinder:

At the time, it was a problem that low level players with ESO+ were getting disproportionately pushed into harder dungeons, as though Fungal Grotto 1, Banished Cells 2, and Imperial City Prison were all equal in difficulty. Neither the low level players nor the higher level players grouped with them enjoyed that.

ZOS didn't just jump blindly from that into the current system, either. In Update 16/Clockwork City, they changed the "II" dungeons and the DLC dungeons to have a level 45 requirement on Normal difficulty. Then in the next update 17/Dragonbones, they introduced the Level Up Advisor which spaced out the remaining normal dungeons for leveling players. So there was time both for players to give their feedback and for ZOS to gather the Live data on dungeon runs to inform how the new system would work.

The new system of unlocking dungeons through the Level Up Advisor may spark new complaints (like yours) but it effectively addresses the old problem of underleveled players ending up in way too difficult dungeons.


And yes, ZOS did revert the group-only healing game play after initially stating they liked it for behavioral reasons and then listening to player feedback. I don't have a link to the ESO Live where they discussed it and specifically called out that players didn't like being unable to heal the person fighting next to them.
Starting group-only healing gameplay: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/7011952/#Comment_7011952
Reverting it: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/561180/feb-15-cyrodiil-test-details/p1

Cundu_Ertur

I play Bosmer. Or I would if this game had any, which it doesn't.

You can guess my opinion.

Psiion

Greetings all,

As we have had to remove and edit some posts from this thread, we'd like to remind everyone to keep discussion respectful and appropriate. The ESO Forum's are intended to be a welcoming place for all members of the community to share their thoughts and opinions on all things ESO, and we ask that everyone participating on the forums keep that in mind. Using insulting terms or names for other members/groups in the community, or anyone else for that matter, is both disrespectful and falls under Rude and Insulting Comments in the Community Rules.

Please keep the Rules in mind moving forward.

Jammy420

In the entire time of the game, I think they reverted one change, and one proposed change. That is it.

Hvíthákarl

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.

What a thourough post. Some of these changes, I didn't even notice myself (and I've been playing for years now)
Thanks for the input, very thoughtful of you!

I actually think that the level of engagement with the community is actually good, but still can be improved. Both statements can be true at the same time, and after having been in games with way worse devs, I actually appreciate them more. Which doesn't mean I don't have any criticisms :P

Starpulsechic

They do read feedback and implement changes however in my own view is there there is a high volume of players posting countless amount of feedback, ideas, issues (whether that be constructive or not) across multiple platforms (forums, reddit, twitter, youtube). A lot of posters have no idea if the feedback given was considered or not. ZOS go on twitch live and say "we hear you", but largely the community doesn't just only want to be heard they want acknowledgment on a more consistent level and a two way conversation.

If they invested in prescribing a better way of capturing ideas, concerns and feedback on a public level then this original post wouldn’t even be necessarily a point of question.

ADarklore

IMO, I think the only reason they even made changes to U35 was because of the overwhelming and very public negative reaction. Most updates don't receive much negative fanfare from streamers and gaming sites, but U35 was overwhelmingly spread across the internet in a negative way so I think it forced them to reconsider some things. Had it not been for that, IMO, I don't believe they would have made any changes.

Northwold

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".

ADarklore

Northwold wrote: »

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".

But even then, the overall streamers and gaming sites really didn't have much negative to say about it... it was pretty much accepted. However, U35 was extremely different as it was universally received negatively across ALL media and sites.

Kingsindarkness

Just because they don't step and fetch for the Vet end game community doesn't mean they aren't listening to anyone.

SilverBride

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.

Parasaurolophus

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.

This is absolutely not true. This was an attempt to make combat easier for non-high-end players and to curb large bursts of damage.