Literally no proposed feedback has been considered

Red99

what's the point of the pts section?

Wuuffyy

Free bug testing. Feedback is routinely disregarded it seems, unfortunately.

alternatelder

Week 2 and 4 are always a small patch. If there are any changes made from week 1, they are implemented in week 3 and 5. You need to give them more than a week to consider making any changes.

ForumBully

alternatelder wrote: »

Week 2 and 4 are always a small patch. If there are any changes made from week 1, they are implemented in week 3 and 5. You need to give them more than a week to consider making any changes.

Read the updates. Doesn't sound like it's a matter of time

danthemann5

What were you expecting? I mean, come on, people should know better by now. It's not like there isn't a history or pattern here.

alternatelder

ForumBully wrote: »

alternatelder wrote: »

Week 2 and 4 are always a small patch. If there are any changes made from week 1, they are implemented in week 3 and 5. You need to give them more than a week to consider making any changes.

Read the updates. Doesn't sound like it's a matter of time

No, it literally is....?

Red99

alternatelder wrote: »

Week 2 and 4 are always a small patch. If there are any changes made from week 1, they are implemented in week 3 and 5. You need to give them more than a week to consider making any changes.

They need more time? we have been giving feedback about templar, magsorc, mara's balm for months

acastanza_ESO

The comment today is direct confirmation that ZOS is playing favorites with classes, and are perfectly comfortable with both doing that, and acknowledging it despite our feedback.

This is a massive slap in the face. The combat team needs to take a serious step back and reconsider their position here because this is not it.

The one, single, bright spot is that they might, someday do something for non-pet sorcs. But nothing firm at all.

jaws343

Week 1: First Update, all the details
Week 2: Minor adjustments, usually things that were caught before PTS launch that couldn't make it into the week 1 PTS. Rarely things that were quick fixes from week 1 feedback

Week 3: Major adjustments based on feedback/testing in week 1
Week 4: Minor adjustments for things from week 1 and maybe 2 that couldn't make it into week 3
Week 5: Remaining adjustments from weeks 1-3 feedback/testing

This is the PTS schedule that has happened 4 times per year for the entirety of the 6 years I have played the game. So, 24 times now, this cycle has happened in this exact way. 24 times in those 6 years. Nothing is changing with the cycle. Week 2 and Week 4 will almost never contain anything of major substance. We have 24+ separate occasions of this as evidence even going outside of the 6 years I have played.

ForumBully

jaws343 wrote: »

Week 1: First Update, all the details
Week 2: Minor adjustments, usually things that were caught before PTS launch that couldn't make it into the week 1 PTS. Rarely things that were quick fixes from week 1 feedback

Week 3: Major adjustments based on feedback/testing in week 1
Week 4: Minor adjustments for things from week 1 and maybe 2 that couldn't make it into week 3
Week 5: Remaining adjustments from weeks 1-3 feedback/testing

This is the PTS schedule that has happened 4 times per year for the entirety of the 6 years I have played the game. So, 24 times now, this cycle has happened in this exact way. 24 times in those 6 years. Nothing is changing with the cycle. Week 2 and Week 4 will almost never contain anything of major substance. We have 24+ separate occasions of this as evidence even going outside of the 6 years I have played.

But last week was nothing and the updates we've seen so far indicate that next week will be nothing too.

TechMaybeHic

It's not surprising, but its depressing. You can hope for ZOS to make adjustments or for the next great MMO to show up. Either way, you will be disappointed way more often than not.

tincanman

stuff on pts is pretty much done. the only feedback they're really interested in comes from their own feedback threads, maybe rarely, some other stuff.

I think a lot of players just use pts for checking builds or looking around the new offerings in new chapter or dlc. not much point in anything else really.

Melivar

Feedback good or bad, ranting, pleading, begging, cursing is just that it's feedback that I would hope they look at but may or may not fit what they have in mind. If you don't give it then there is zero chance to be heard but at the same time expecting a response etc may not come for an update or two.

In a way it almost seems like each class takes a turn being favored and or hated every now and then. 2 or 3 patches later your favored class may go from top of the mountain, tumbling down but none are ever broken neglected for too long from what I see.

For the longest time I thought Zos's had it in for my nightblade as they were adjusted patch after patch. Now I still main the nightblade for the majority of the game but I also have a templar, necromancer and now sorcerer that I can use when I don't enjoy something on the nightblade. If it wasn't for pvp ranks at this point I wouldn't really even care much but someday I would like to make it to at least a 1 star if not 5 star.

Maybe it's Zos's way of getting people to try new things, maybe it's simply a delayed reaction from the community adjusting to the good or bad that causes the lengthy periods or time for change only they know.

If no one ever tests or gives both positive and negative feedback things, you may have issues with would definitely change much slower, so we just have to keep trying.

Dr_Con

Red_Feather

I don't know what to say. We don't get paid to test and in the end we kind of just get disappointment for our time spent. The people who stick around here basically just love the game even if it means little. I just don't know what else to say.

ZOS_Kevin

Going to follow up here because it's important to mention here. There has been feedback taken this cycle that has either been implemented to some degree or we've stated that we will continue to observe for future changes, based on feedback and player behavior. We've had several meetings with the combat team to go over feedback and respond accordingly.

Having said that, we do understand when there are specific changes player(s) wants that either were not addressed this go-around or not implemented in the way players wanted. We will continue to take your feedback to the dev team and work toward solutions for issues going forward. Your feedback is an important step in the evaluation process for our various teams making changes.

Lastly, we do want to highlight that sometimes player expectation does not line up with dev implementation, as there are a multitude of consideration factors at play. That is okay and we understand this will lead to some being frustrated at times, as you are allowed to be as a player. We try to explain those implementations to the best of our ability in patch notes and through the change in communication this PTS cycle. So we preface all of that to say feedback is always considered. Even if the change you are looking for is not currently present or implemented in the desired way, there is room in the future for changes to occur.

We will also take the feedback here on PTS overall and pass that on to our teams.

ForumBully

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Going to follow up here because it's important to mention here. There has been feedback taken this cycle that has either been implemented to some degree or we've stated that we will continue to observe for future changes, based on feedback and player behavior. We've had several meetings with the combat team to go over feedback and respond accordingly.

Having said that, we do understand when there are specific changes player(s) wants that either were not addressed this go-around or not implemented in the way players wanted. We will continue to take your feedback to the dev team and work toward solutions for issues going forward. Your feedback is an important step in the evaluation process for our various teams making changes.

Lastly, we do want to highlight that sometimes player expectation does not line up with dev implementation, as there are a multitude of consideration factors at play. That is okay and we understand this will lead to some being frustrated at times, as you are allowed to be as a player. We try to explain those implementations to the best of our ability in patch notes and through the change in communication this PTS cycle. So we preface all of that to say feedback is always considered. Even if the change you are looking for is not currently present or implemented in the desired way, there is room in the future for changes to occur.

We will also take the feedback here on PTS overall and pass that on to our teams.

Well the cadence of changes, particularly with problems that make the game thoroughly unenjoyable (broken sets, lackluster classes, etc) is more than a little frustrating. It's a declaration that the game will remain unenjoyable for 3 months, minimum.

GetAgrippa

Major Berserk left on chains (and I say that as a dk main) even if it's for 4 seconds, and zero adjustments to templars for PvP (and I don't even play templar) make this statement seem very empty.

jaws343

GetAgrippa wrote: »

Major Berserk left on chains (and I say that as a dk main) even if it's for 4 seconds, and zero adjustments to templars for PvP (and I don't even play templar) make this statement seem very empty.

Like, I agree on both those points, and others. There are some things that can and should be adjusted. And I haven given my feedback on those things and I have spoken against things that I think may harm things in the game as well.

But, I really don't understand where the misconception comes from that feedback must lead to implementation. Not all feedback is good, not all feedback is agreed on, and not all feedback fits within the developer vision of the game. For that matter, not all feedback provides solutions that can even be applied to the game. I mean, just look at the buff sorc threads. I agree on a lot of the points there. But, whose feedback do they implement? They can't implement it all, because there are conflicting ideas. There are also comments pushing back on that feedback, who say sorc is in a good spot and doesn't need changes.

The idea that, I gave feedback and if that feedback isn't immediately in the game then clearly no one is listening to the feedback, is ridiculously flawed. Changes are, it was just bad feedback. They listened, and found it offered nothing positive to the direction they intended to take the game. Or, as with the myriad other things in the game, the feedback was divisive and they had to weigh angering one group of players over keeping the status quo.

At the end of the day, they reviewed our feedback, and decided we were wrong in places. But that is part of the point of feedback, and now they have that discontent in mind going forward, at the very least.

GetAgrippa

Allow me to explain. We think these changes being implemented as well as past changes being left untouched are harmful to gameplay.

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

gariondavey

Red99 wrote: »

alternatelder wrote: »

Week 2 and 4 are always a small patch. If there are any changes made from week 1, they are implemented in week 3 and 5. You need to give them more than a week to consider making any changes.

They need more time? we have been giving feedback about templar, magsorc, mara's balm for months

Yup

Jaimeh

I stopped giving pts feedback a few updates ago when I reached the same conclusion. It kind pained me because I love this game and want to help if I can, but it seemed like a huge waste of time, and like someone said, free bug testing. The thing is the less people test upcoming stuff, the more biased and limited opinions will be, because everyone has an agenda, so it is important to have a lot of players on the pts, if only zos didn't make it such a thankless and often pointless task...

ZOS_Kevin

GetAgrippa wrote: »

Major Berserk left on chains (and I say that as a dk main) even if it's for 4 seconds, and zero adjustments to templars for PvP (and I don't even play templar) make this statement seem very empty.

So yes, Chains still have Major Berserk. The duration was adjusted based on player feedback, but still applied because of dev desire to make Chains a more useable skill (since it was underperforming). This is a perfect example of player expectation versus dev implementation.

Player expectation: Some wanted chains to lose Major Berserk. As they note the class is overpowered* and chains is adding to the problem. (in its original implementation PTS 1)

Dev implementation: Reduce the time of Major Berserk on Chains to 4sec and make it so DK as to work and use resources to keep up chains in their rotation if they choose. A change made because of player feedback on DK getting Major Berserk, without compromising the team's intent on adding major berserk as an incentive to use the previously underutilized Chains.

The point being made here is that these changes are being made based in player feedback, but player feedback is not the only thing dictating how changes get implemented. And that also does not mean that these are locked forever, never to be changed again. It is a process. Again, this is being said with the full understanding that you do not have to agree. But we wanted to highlight the point here that PTS is very helpful to us to get your feedback. It is being considered at all times and it is dictating end results. Sometimes the end result just doesn't look like what players expected.

*We also passed this feedback on DK to the team.

TechMaybeHic

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Going to follow up here because it's important to mention here. There has been feedback taken this cycle that has either been implemented to some degree or we've stated that we will continue to observe for future changes, based on feedback and player behavior. We've had several meetings with the combat team to go over feedback and respond accordingly.

Having said that, we do understand when there are specific changes player(s) wants that either were not addressed this go-around or not implemented in the way players wanted. We will continue to take your feedback to the dev team and work toward solutions for issues going forward. Your feedback is an important step in the evaluation process for our various teams making changes.

Lastly, we do want to highlight that sometimes player expectation does not line up with dev implementation, as there are a multitude of consideration factors at play. That is okay and we understand this will lead to some being frustrated at times, as you are allowed to be as a player. We try to explain those implementations to the best of our ability in patch notes and through the change in communication this PTS cycle. So we preface all of that to say feedback is always considered. Even if the change you are looking for is not currently present or implemented in the desired way, there is room in the future for changes to occur.

We will also take the feedback here on PTS overall and pass that on to our teams.

It's not that changes were not done how we want. It's more that we talked about why/how things are wrong and the answer was "we looked at the numbers and that's why the adjustments were made before" or "all classes should have strengths and weaknesses". So in essence, it feels like just telling people that their problems are not real, and if they are; well they are meant to be a problem just for ease. Especially when some classes do seem to have it all already and get obscure abilities tweaked in an effort to make them have yet even more usable items.

Its confusing to give stuff to some ability and say because that class "struggles to fill a role with the goal of play as you want" and then the next breath say "Oh. Classes should have strengths and weaknesses."

acastanza_ESO

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Going to follow up here because it's important to mention here. There has been feedback taken this cycle that has either been implemented to some degree or we've stated that we will continue to observe for future changes, based on feedback and player behavior. We've had several meetings with the combat team to go over feedback and respond accordingly.

Having said that, we do understand when there are specific changes player(s) wants that either were not addressed this go-around or not implemented in the way players wanted. We will continue to take your feedback to the dev team and work toward solutions for issues going forward. Your feedback is an important step in the evaluation process for our various teams making changes.

Lastly, we do want to highlight that sometimes player expectation does not line up with dev implementation, as there are a multitude of consideration factors at play. That is okay and we understand this will lead to some being frustrated at times, as you are allowed to be as a player. We try to explain those implementations to the best of our ability in patch notes and through the change in communication this PTS cycle. So we preface all of that to say feedback is always considered. Even if the change you are looking for is not currently present or implemented in the desired way, there is room in the future for changes to occur.

We will also take the feedback here on PTS overall and pass that on to our teams.

Sorry Kevin, but this is continuing the completely miss the mark.
The combat team has doubled down on bad changes and ignored multitudes of feedback in favor of seemingly balancing off of a spreadsheet that doesn't actually reflect the reality of the game. It is not "okay".
The response has been tone-deaf to say the least.

acastanza_ESO

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

GetAgrippa wrote: »

Major Berserk left on chains (and I say that as a dk main) even if it's for 4 seconds, and zero adjustments to templars for PvP (and I don't even play templar) make this statement seem very empty.

So yes, Chains still have Major Berserk. The duration was adjusted based on player feedback, but still applied because of dev desire to make Chains a more useable skill (since it was underperforming). This is a perfect example of player expectation versus dev implementation.

Player expectation: Some wanted chains to lose Major Berserk. As they note the class is overpowered* and chains is adding to the problem. (in its original implementation PTS 1)

Dev implementation: Reduce the time of Major Berserk on Chains to 4sec and make it so DK as to work and use resources to keep up chains in their rotation if they choose. A change made because of player feedback on DK getting Major Berserk, without compromising the team's intent on adding major berserk as an incentive to use the previously underutilized Chains.

The point being made here is that these changes are being made based in player feedback, but player feedback is not the only thing dictating how changes get implemented. And that also does not mean that these are locked forever, never to be changed again. It is a process. Again, this is being said with the full understanding that you do not have to agree. But we wanted to highlight the point here that PTS is very helpful to us to get your feedback. It is being considered at all times and it is dictating end results. Sometimes the end result just doesn't look like what players expected.

*We also passed this feedback on DK to the team.

So the feedback from players was that this change makes and already overperforming class even more overperforming, and the response was to make an already overperforming class even more overperforming just less so than the combat team wanted to originally. Do you see why this is a real problem?
Sure, the feedback that the class is overperforming (which is backed up by hard numbers) was passed along, but literally nothing was done about it. Not to bring other classes up to the level, and not to dial it back. Instead the misguided plan to push through with a buff was forged ahead with.

ZOS_Kevin

Dekrypted wrote: »

Respectfully, @ZOS_Kevin, you asked @Cloudrest for specific examples relating to areas where Templars were underperforming and in that other thread, I linked to a thread I posted that now has over 7000 views and on the first page links to a myriad of threads expressing many different areas that the class is under preforming.

Like I get that you're the messenger, but what was the point of giving all this feedback for literally nothing to happen to even address the concerns? Are we just supposed to not play the game or something?

Hey @Dekrypted, again totally understand the frustration. We have noted Templar concerns to the team and they are aware of them. As we noted before, while no changes are coming in U37. What we should have also noted is that it doesn't mean there isn't room for future changes or improvement. We understand that doesn't help in the immediate, but we just want to highlight that the door is not closed here. We will continue to discuss and share player sentiment with the combat team, including the resources and points you sent. I have them bookmarked as reference points every time we having a class conversation.

GetAgrippa

Thank you for the reply. That's great. What's not great is Dks having easy access to Major Berserk. I don't care what the devs say, what the spreadsheets say, what the long term plan is, etc. As a DK main of several years, I know from plenty of experience that DKs do not need easy access to Major Berserk. The idea that a dk can pop Corrosive and then chain to a target with Major Berserk and adding another seething fury stack is absurd. It's an interaction I immediately considered as soon as I saw the buff. Corrosive DKs DO NOT NEED MAJOR BERSERK from a skill that also builds Seething stacks. This is OBVIOUS to anyone who fights against or plays DKs.

Billium813

@ZOS_Kevin

If I could offer the development team one piece of advice, it would be on their effort to revitalize an under utilized skill. I would recommend future efforts to buff under utilized skills be more pervasive.

Buffing Empowering Chains to be used more was a great idea and was well intentioned. However, I think the community responded so critically because it was only DK that was targeted with such an effort. All classes have under utilized skills that could do with a rework/buff. Considering the prevalence of DK atm in all aspects of the meta, it felt somewhat unfair for DK to be targeted in this way.

That being said, I think the development team did a fine job and we have seen great leaps in communication from yourself during this PTS! Hopefully we can see future changes that touch on feedback received during this PTS.

ZOS_Kevin

Billium813 wrote: »

@ZOS_Kevin

If I could offer the development team one piece of advice, it would be on their effort to revitalize an under utilized skill. I would recommend future efforts to buff under utilized skills be more pervasive.

Buffing Empowering Chains to be used more was a great idea and was well intentioned. However, I think the community responded so critically because it was only DK that was targeted with such an effort. All classes have under utilized skills that could do with a rework/buff. Considering the prevalence of DK atm in all aspects of the meta, it felt somewhat unfair for DK to be targeted in this way.

That being said, I think the development team did a fine job and we have seen great leaps in communication from yourself during this PTS! Hopefully we can see future changes that touch on feedback received during this PTS.

Thank you for the feedback, @Billium813. This is actionable for us to send to the team for consideration. We'll be sure to highlight this regarding the chains balancing and how future balancing could be addressed.

xthrshx

Templars have been sharing the same concerns since the U35 combat preview. The reason this feedback has been neglected can’t be because of time constraints.