Literally no proposed feedback has been considered

propertyOfUndefined

While I'm frustrated that nothing was done this patch to address necromancers' effectiveness in pvp, I appreciate that we're at least given acknowledgment that the feedback was received. Thank you, @ZOS_Kevin !

I hope the combat team can continue to look at the feedback, and that positive changes make their way into the product backlog sooner rather than later...

seventyfive

I appreciate zenimax for not only relying on people confirming eachothers viewpoints that their classes are somehow far worse in many ways, while that's clearly not backed up by statistics, judging from recent comments. Statistics are sometimes portrayed as the devils work in this forum, which I think is very unfortunate. I can't help but wonder how well people with that view are doing outside of eso.

AdamLAD

@ZOS_Kevin Glad we have you here to communicate. From the PvP aspect of the game, as you are well aware, we are all frustrated. However, regardless, we all in full support of you for communicating with us. No idea If this will reach the Dev team, but I'd like them to be reminded that, whilst concerns about templar are very much valid and the overpowerment of DK and NB is also, Magicka Sorcerer has NOT received any significant buff in over 5 years. The last time we had anything remotely powerful was when runecage was a thing and Shields were viable/strong. For over 5 years we have received nothing and have actually been nerfed for 5 years. If you have spare time relay that information to the team and ask them what they want the class to actually be. Do they have a direction for the class ? I'd like to know what they think of it after all these years. It's now underperforming in PvE and PvP due to this fact according to the community. Thanks anyways Kevin.

Caribou77

"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)"

But this is not accurate. 99% of the posts on this specific point "wanted chains to lose Major Berserk." Many of them DK mains.

Everyone understands that DK is already uniquely overpowered, by such an amount that it makes gameplay significantly less dynamic and less enjoyable.

Everyone (go ahead and check) gave clear, direct feedback that this specific change would exacerbate the existing lack of class balance.

Not "some."

The vast majority gave clear feedback.

FantasticFreddie

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

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.

The point that the devs seem to be continually missing is that buffing a single skill, regardless of how "underutilized" it is, on an already overpowered class, is bad for the game.
You have entire underutilized classes! Templar and sorc are currently bad at everything. Necro is still strong in pve, not nearly as strong as dk, but strong enough, but completely falls apart in pvp, and that was before the proposed changes in update 37.

Just.... there were SO many things you could have done differently to boost the classes that actually needed it. You could have put major berserk on empowering grasp for necro, a nice group buff for a support cro to run. You could have given templar... anything, literally anything. You could have given sorc some damage or sustain or hell even some healing.

But no. You gave the top class in the game, the best in pvp and pve alike, a formidable tank, damage dealer and healer, another buff.

Come on now.

System_Data

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.

I think everyone appreciates the sentiment of buffing an underused skill. I don't think the community would have reacted this way if it wasn't Major Berserk being attached on the skill, considering there is precedent.

There is "Bird of Prey" from Warden's Animal Companions skill line. As well as "Ambush" from Nightblade's Assassination skill line with Minor Berserk. Both used for gapclosing/mobility purposes just like Dragonknight's Chains.

I suggest changing the Major Berserk to Minor Berserk on Dragonknight's Chains and return the duration to 10 seconds, similar to Nightblades. It's still a buff to the skill, but a pain point of Chains is the slow animation and the awkward positioning after arriving from the pull which contributes to its lack of usage.

AdamLAD

There's a lot of underused skills on underperforming classes. Why buff an already good class further ? I don't mind at all buffs to underperforming skills. It's just the principle of buffing a good class and neglecting a bad one. It just seems a bit illogical

axi

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.

While I understand and appreciate the idea of buffing underperforming abilities I have one concern with how it was handled when it comes to chains. It seems like there was no investigation that would help devs to understand why this ability is barely used which resulted with a change that doesn't adress the core issue, which is chains being the slowest, most cluncky and unreliable out of all gap closers in the game. Adding major berserk wont change that.

At the end of the day we ended up with the situation that creates more issues than it solves because chains will still not be used as a gap closer but rather as a major berserk prebuff (for example in some AoE burst setups wearing rushing agony set) and lots of people is still unhappy because DK which is already strong recived acces to potent buff while other classes which are struggling and also have underutilised abilities were left with nothing or close to nothing. So while it's nice that dev team is buffing underutilised abilities it would be even nicer if these changes would be more thoughtful.

Making abilities "more usable" just by adding strong buffs to them doesn't seem like universally the best way to handle the issue of said abilities being underutilised. It looks more like a quick fix without much thought and concern for what these newly achieved strong buffs will do for the class balance.

master_vanargand

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

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.

Why are you ignoring Nightblade's opinion?
I think all game creators should look at the PTS feedbacks without going through you.

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.

No, it's a perfect failure.

New chain have "Major Berserk 4sec" and "increasing your Movement Speed by 30% for 4sec" and "Reduce the enemy's Movement Speed by 30% for 3sec" and "This attack cannot be dodged or reflected".
Perfect? What are you talking about?

We told DK not to need "Major Berserk".
"Major Berserk" should have been changed to "Minor Berserk".
A perfect example of ignoring player opinion in my opinion.

UnassumingNoob

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

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.

Hi Kevin,

To me this seems unnecessarily sycophantic. Do the devs have such thin skin that they can’t accept honest feedback on their product? Why does everything need to be glazed with a little praise and a dash of critique.

Templars, sorcs and to a lesser extent necros are in the shitter. To me, and I’m sure, countless others this situation needs to be remedied.

Open and honest communication behooves you. The rest is for the snowflakes.

Cheers.

francesinhalover

Jaimeh wrote: »

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...

Same here man. I just gave up its pointless. Every game has a big flaw. This is esos.

Amottica

TechMaybeHic wrote: »

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.

The only MMORPGs actively in production are crowd-sourced. None are at a point where we can say they will be decent games.

The only one that has a real chance of hitting the level of a top MMORPG is in the very early stages of planning which means there is still a big chance it will never see the day of light. Though it does have the backing of one of the largest entertainment companies out there and is part of an IP that has significantly wider exposure than TES has. Granted, I will not say the name here but I dropped enough hits that it should be obvious to a serious gamer or at least narrowed down a bit.

Billium813

UnassumingNoob wrote: »

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

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.

Hi Kevin,

To me this seems unnecessarily sycophantic. Do the devs have such thin skin that they can’t accept honest feedback on their product. Why does everything need to be glazed with a little praise and a dash of critique.

Templars sorcs and to a lesser extent necros are in the shitter. To me and I’m sure countless others this situation needs to be remedied.

Open and honest communication behooves you. The rest are for the snowflakes.

Cheers.

It seemed like a perfectly diplomatic response to me. Considering @ZOS_Kevin interfaces directly with forum users, who on average are treated as irate customers because lets face it, that's how most forum users portray themselves, you have to expect responses are overly courteous and often little vague.

My take away from the response is that hopefully a note was passed onto the development team that future balancing could be more evenly distributed to all the classes, where appropriate. I think that would help satisfy players in some small way, and at the end of the day it isn't my game so ANY positive influence I can have is a win in my book. I think players just want to be heard and this response let me know I was. Pretty simple really; I think you're reading too much into it.

Billium813

master_vanargand wrote: »

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

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.

Why are you ignoring Nightblade's opinion?
I think all game creators should look at the PTS feedbacks without going through you.

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.

No, it's a perfect failure.

New chain have "Major Berserk 4sec" and "increasing your Movement Speed by 30% for 4sec" and "Reduce the enemy's Movement Speed by 30% for 3sec" and "This attack cannot be dodged or reflected".
Perfect? What are you talking about?

We told DK not to need "Major Berserk".
"Major Berserk" should have been changed to "Minor Berserk".
A perfect example of ignoring player opinion in my opinion.

90% of player feedback is trash... I mean, we all have to honestly admit that, right? Take a step back and realize none of us are Dagoth Ur. I mean, he was a literal God and even then he ended up losing. No one is perfect.

What has to be understood is that changes will be made, regardless of 100% player satisfaction. There's never going to be 100% satisfaction. Someone will always have some issue with some change; it's inevitable. You can yell and scream all you want, but its the dev team that has the final say. When the dev team decides to make a change, all you can do is offer a suggestion, with a mild argument, and hope you are heard. The argument for a full reversal is never an option because they automatically veto that response; they want to make a change.
We got Major Berserk reduced to 4 seconds so that it's not incredibly easy to keep up. Now DK has to work really hard to keep it up in parses and even then, most can't seem to with the sustain being so bad; it's not worth it. It may be annoying in PvP, but let's see I guess.

Animar111

It’s a process as far as I understand some ideas and suggestions will be looked at by the developers of that particular request this doesn’t mean that it will be addressed immediately it just means any adjustments could or will be implemented if the developer thinks that the requested feedback and information is needed at that particular stage of development and if the idea or suggestion could be improved upon it all takes time one person’s idea could be implemented in future updates within an order of priority.@ZOS_Kevin “Rome wasn’t built in a day”

IncultaWolf

What is necro supposed to do in pvp for damage now? It's the least played class right now, and it's considered a meme/clown by a large portion of the player base and streamers. Only class without an on-demand stun or source of major brutality built in the toolkit, no unique group buffs, major vulnerability is sourced through tanks and multiple sets now. It honestly feels worse to play than templar, at least they have an execute. The skeletal archer/arcanist damage is laughable in pvp, it's not even considered damage over time, so the rapid rot passive does nothing for it.. Devs said the intended scope of play for necromancers was not bombing, so what is it, and why did it take 3 years for the combat devs to say/decide necromancer shouldn't use harmony?

Cloudrest

I literally would just like to be able to play Templar in PvP right now without it being relegated solely to a beam-spamming healbot.

Seems like I'll have to wait 3-4 months for that though, at the least. I sincerely doubt the devs will even change anything. Thanks for the communication though, @ZOS_Kevin. I'm not gonna shoot the messenger as you've been doing a great job trying to relay stuff to the team, but I'm disappointed in the combat team immensely for not addressing the glaring issues with Templar, Sorc, and Necromancer in this PTS cycle. I'll be pleasantly surprised if there's any changes planned for Week 5.

We shouldn't have to wait months for basic balance changes.

Turtle_Bot

Cloudrest wrote: »

I literally would just like to be able to play Templar in PvP right now without it being relegated solely to a beam-spamming healbot.

Seems like I'll have to wait 3-4 months for that though, at the least. I sincerely doubt the devs will even change anything. Thanks for the communication though, @ZOS_Kevin. I'm not gonna shoot the messenger as you've been doing a great job trying to relay stuff to the team, but I'm disappointed in the combat team immensely for not addressing the glaring issues with Templar, Sorc, and Necromancer in this PTS cycle. I'll be pleasantly surprised if there's any changes planned for Week 5.

We shouldn't have to wait months for basic balance changes.

Well said.

Aces-High-82

Just throw some money and pre-order arcanist already XD

master_vanargand

History repeats itself, and Arcanist will be a monster beyond DK.
Considering that, the game balance is unlikely to improve forever.
When something starts to get better, we screw it up with new classes and sets.
There are limits to this business model, and they are at their limits right now.

mmtaniac

Yup templar feedback are considered but only this with nerfs. This with changes are ignored.

Deter1UK

Cloudrest wrote: »

We shouldn't have to wait months for basic balance changes.

I'm retired now but a lifeime of work experience would indicate that:

Having an Idea
Mulling over the idea
Mooting the idea
Generating interest in the idea
Having numberless meetings about the idea
Putting the Idea together
Testing the Idea
Having more meetings about the testing
Getting some sort of agreement about the Idea
Putting the package together
Getting it signed off by all interested departments and officers
Implementing the Idea

-- Can take years not months (and that did not include software)

You'll be lucky!

(EDIT) Player feedback is probably stage 3 - or 4 if you are lucky.

SaffronCitrusflower

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.

The feedback regarding the changes to templar jabs animation was totally ignored and is still being ignored to this day. And there was a ton of feedback about how bad the animation change was, and nobody asked for it.

Amottica

Billium813 wrote: »

UnassumingNoob wrote: »

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

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.

Hi Kevin,

To me this seems unnecessarily sycophantic. Do the devs have such thin skin that they can’t accept honest feedback on their product. Why does everything need to be glazed with a little praise and a dash of critique.

Templars sorcs and to a lesser extent necros are in the shitter. To me and I’m sure countless others this situation needs to be remedied.

Open and honest communication behooves you. The rest are for the snowflakes.

Cheers.

It seemed like a perfectly diplomatic response to me. Considering @ZOS_Kevin interfaces directly with forum users, who on average are treated as irate customers because lets face it, that's how most forum users portray themselves, you have to expect responses are overly courteous and often little vague.

My take away from the response is that hopefully a note was passed onto the development team that future balancing could be more evenly distributed to all the classes, where appropriate. I think that would help satisfy players in some small way, and at the end of the day it isn't my game so ANY positive influence I can have is a win in my book. I think players just want to be heard and this response let me know I was. Pretty simple really; I think you're reading too much into it.

+1 and well worded.

Adding that the devs seem much more interested in constructive feedback vs bull in the china shop type of posts.

ForumBully

Amottica wrote: »

Billium813 wrote: »

UnassumingNoob wrote: »

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

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.

Hi Kevin,

To me this seems unnecessarily sycophantic. Do the devs have such thin skin that they can’t accept honest feedback on their product. Why does everything need to be glazed with a little praise and a dash of critique.

Templars sorcs and to a lesser extent necros are in the shitter. To me and I’m sure countless others this situation needs to be remedied.

Open and honest communication behooves you. The rest are for the snowflakes.

Cheers.

It seemed like a perfectly diplomatic response to me. Considering @ZOS_Kevin interfaces directly with forum users, who on average are treated as irate customers because lets face it, that's how most forum users portray themselves, you have to expect responses are overly courteous and often little vague.

My take away from the response is that hopefully a note was passed onto the development team that future balancing could be more evenly distributed to all the classes, where appropriate. I think that would help satisfy players in some small way, and at the end of the day it isn't my game so ANY positive influence I can have is a win in my book. I think players just want to be heard and this response let me know I was. Pretty simple really; I think you're reading too much into it.

+1 and well worded.

Adding that the devs seem much more interested in constructive feedback vs bull in the china shop type of posts.

There's been constructive feedback...still no action, so I'm not seeing the "interest" unless you count the "still gonna look at it" promises.

Billium813

> Players on the forums repeatedly yell for Templar buffs
> Nothing happens

It's 1 of 2 things:

1. They aren't listening
2. They don't think Templar needs buffs

Considering @ZOS_Kevin communication recently, it feels like we are being heard. The sheer amount of complaining on the forums is basically unmistakable and I have NO doubt the devs read PTS posts looking for bugs with their latest changes.

That really only leaves #2. Especially in PvP, it may just be that the dev team internally doesn't feel Templar is out of step with the rest of the classes. Yelling "make Templar great again" doesn't help anything if the dev team doesn't have an idea why players feel Templar isn't that good. Devs need a place to start and IMO, we focus way too much on 2-3 Templar abilities (PotL, Jabs, Living Dark). Templar has more stuff that has been neglected for a long time. I say we work to bring other skills into the mix rather than repeatedly harp on the same stuff over and over.

What the dev team needs is hard facts, numbers even. Post builds, explain what is lacking about specific skills, compare them to other similar skills damage-wise, get specific. Throwing out vague complaints doesn't help cause it seems like the dev team doesn't agree, so we need to explain the pain points more specifically.

I main Templar, I have off and on for 9 years. I participate in every piece of content, save Trials (it's just not for me). I run around in IC, Cyrodiil, queue for dungeons and BGs almost daily. Is Templar in a bad way? Templar definitely doesn't do the damage it used it. Most of the time, I can't even hurt anything in PvP and just seem to be a nuisance of stuns and unblockable spears; they just stand there and take it. The same burst rotation that used to drop most people 2 years ago now doesn't even get them below 50%.

Is it Mara's Balm? Not sure. Is it DK? Well, I mostly see DK hitting the hardest, and being the most likely to go 1vX, by far.

What is Templar good at? I'd say we are pretty survivable! I hardly ever die 1v1 and I don't even run Mara's. I may not be doing much damage, but I can often stand my ground. Templars biggest weakness there is that our best Heals are static. Good players draw us out and make us ahve to repeatedly rebuild the heal house, which gets expensive and reduces our damage output. We have to spend lots of actions to maintain a strong heal defense, but then sets like Mara's seem to effortlessly match our HPS while their user can focus entirely on damage.

Living Dark is amazing. Cleansing Ritual feels a bit expensive for the mobile environment of PvP, but it's incredibly useful and good for PvE, so I can't see it getting cheaper just for PvP. Unstable Core, Blazing Shield, Dark Flare. I'd like to see these 3 skills buffed to be more relevant in PvP. I think Defile has been neutered too much and should become more of a major part of Templar's identity in PvP (no real relevance in more pve-centric skills). Templar should be the masters of heals, both mine, my allies, and my foes.

ForumBully

Billium813 wrote: »

> Players on the forums repeatedly yell for Templar buffs
> Nothing happens

It's 1 of 2 things:

1. They aren't listening
2. They don't think Templar needs buffs

Considering @ZOS_Kevin communication recently, it feels like we are being heard. The sheer amount of complaining on the forums is basically unmistakable and I have NO doubt the devs read PTS posts looking for bugs with their latest changes.

That really only leaves #2. Especially in PvP, it may just be that the dev team internally doesn't feel Templar is out of step with the rest of the classes. Yelling "make Templar great again" doesn't help anything if the dev team doesn't have an idea why players feel Templar isn't that good. Devs need a place to start and IMO, we focus way too much on 2-3 Templar abilities (PotL, Jabs, Living Dark). Templar has more stuff that has been neglected for a long time. I say we work to bring other skills into the mix rather than repeatedly harp on the same stuff over and over.

What the dev team needs is hard facts, numbers even. Post builds, explain what is lacking about specific skills, compare them to other similar skills damage-wise, get specific. Throwing out vague complaints doesn't help cause it seems like the dev team doesn't agree, so we need to explain the pain points more specifically.

I main Templar, I have off and on for 9 years. I participate in every piece of content, save Trials (it's just not for me). I run around in IC, Cyrodiil, queue for dungeons and BGs almost daily. Is Templar in a bad way? Templar definitely doesn't do the damage it used it. Most of the time, I can't even hurt anything in PvP and just seem to be a nuisance of stuns and unblockable spears; they just stand there and take it. The same burst rotation that used to drop most people 2 years ago now doesn't even get them below 50%.

Is it Mara's Balm? Not sure. Is it DK? Well, I mostly see DK hitting the hardest, and being the most likely to go 1vX, by far.

What is Templar good at? I'd say we are pretty survivable! I hardly ever die 1v1 and I don't even run Mara's. I may not be doing much damage, but I can often stand my ground. Templars biggest weakness there is that our best Heals are static. Good players draw us out and make us ahve to repeatedly rebuild the heal house, which gets expensive and reduces our damage output. We have to spend lots of actions to maintain a strong heal defense, but then sets like Mara's seem to effortlessly match our HPS while their user can focus entirely on damage.

Living Dark is amazing. Cleansing Ritual feels a bit expensive for the mobile environment of PvP, but it's incredibly useful and good for PvE, so I can't see it getting cheaper just for PvP. Unstable Core, Blazing Shield, Dark Flare. I'd like to see these 3 skills buffed to be more relevant in PvP. I think Defile has been neutered too much and should become more of a major part of Templar's identity in PvP (no real relevance in more pve-centric skills). Templar should be the masters of heals, both mine, my allies, and my foes.

I'd love to see some work on making Templar a better ranged caster, even more so than a return to jabs spamming. But it seems like most plars want the jabs back.
I just don't think it's going to happen, however, as clearly spamming jabs wasn't the making the devs happy.
Right now Sorc is the only class that is a serious threat at range (besides snipers)...magblade used to be good, but fell off ranged long ago. Templar has the best ranged execute, good healing...better mobiliyonce they get the new Mist Form. Just a few tweaks and they could join sorcs as a fun ranged option. Right now they're just executioners.

However, it seems like what we're getting is nothing again...not even a bugfix.

Destai

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.

This is really good feedback, thanks Kevin.

For the feedback seen this cycle, can we get an inventory of what was seen? And why does it have to wait until patch notes, does leadership feel that's helping the perception of their teams? I personally feel like seeing something in patch notes is a bit too late. When ZOS does action feedback, which to be fair they do, it seems to be done with broad strokes rather getting in the weeds with us. For a lot of issues (like AWA, Vigor, Perfect Weapons, U35, the new tutorial) there was a lot of nuance in what people were saying. I don't feel like there was much effort to find a middle ground between our suggestions and ZOS's vision. Your message here makes it sound developers are unwilling to do that. It's best to work out those subtleties with the community rather than kicking the can down the road a few blocks.

Even now, consider the feedback on the prologue quest. It doesn't take long for one to discover that the new player experience is confusing and the prologues are a huge part of that. Seems like a big pain point that could be stopped at the source, but since PTS isn't being visibly considered, it feels like that problem isn't even acknowledged. How many years of people complaining about Stuga does it take before development changes their approach on that?

Ultimately, you need to understand it's very hard to believe that ZOS considers feedback given the game's history. If nothing else, we have to rely on our personal experiences with ZOS and their team. I know I myself have given Rich and others opinions on how to improve certain features, and quite frankly, they didn't seem receptive to ideas. Were I ZOS, I'd want to combat that perception and just saying "we always see feedback" does little to help that. If anything, it feels placative and dismissive without any specifics.

Caribou77

I think a lot of the disappointment on this particular issue derives from a sense that the combat dev team is out of touch with actual gameplay dynamics; providing a significant offensive buff to DK confirmed that sense for many dedicated, knowledgeable (not trash) players.

While I agree that constructive feedback is the way to go, I also believe that it's not only okay but helpful to point out when a proposed change is a blunder.

umagon

What I would really like to know is why the bolstering darkness morph has not been changed to be more suited for nightblades fulfilling the tanking role in end game four person content; after nearly 5 years of tankblades requesting for it to be improved. And why was the dual traps on manifestation of terror really removed?

The explanation given in the notes that manifestation of terror effecting 12 targets somehow over shadowed mass hysteria when mass hysteria was changed to hit unlimited number of targets; doesn’t make much sense.

Then there was the change to dark cloak requiring the player to stand still to get the full effect. Instead of some other requirement. And the explanation given in the notes was that the skill was over performing in pvp.

When the issue with healing in pvp currently is more A: healing output scaling with offensive stats, and B: no imposed limit to the number of healing effects a player can receive per second. I find there is a huge disconnect with the devs’ understanding on what really goes in pvp areas.

And the idea of the tank standing still is contradictory to way many of the bosses are scripted, especially in the dlc dungeons.