Literally no proposed feedback has been considered

Thecompton73

seventyfive wrote: »

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.

Balancing on statistics without real world application being taken into mind is like running across a busy freeway despite the heavy traffic because statistics tell you you're more likely to choke to death that get hit by a car. You should know it's not a good idea based on common sense without waiting until you see 100 other people get killed doing it.

axi wrote: »

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.

Seriously there is already a major trend underway of people abusing Master 2H Brawler and RoA/DC with VD or PB, a setup that works for any class, to kill large groups as easily as Necro harmony ever could. And though it works for any class considering Dk's will get Major Berserk when they activate the RoA proc and can completely ignore building for pen because they have 100% DD penetration from their ulti for the Brawler swipe I give it three months until more than half of Cyro is just DK Brawler bombers popping corrosive and gap closing with chains into groups.

Melzo

Will there be an alternative to harmony gameplay? Necromancers are the least of all, since this is the most useless class. I go to BG and there are either no necromancers or just me... If there is no alternative, then why play as a necromancer?? If very few people play for this class, this suggests that not everything is in order with this class, but in this patch you hammered the last nail into the necromancer's coffin. Funny huh?? In Tamriel, in order to defeat the worm cult, you need to release patch 37.

Caribou77

Axi noted the problem with Chains is that it is slow & clunky & unreliable, an ineffective gap closer in PvP, and that turning it into a Major Berserk buff won’t solve this problem.

This is almost exactly the same fix approach the dev team applied to Screaming Cliff Racer, a slow, clunky skill that is ineffective in PvP — they gave it a big damage buff.

The animation went unchanged, and SCR remains so slow that it is useless in PvP.

So. I see a pattern. Dev team spots an underused skill on a spreadsheet; dev team gives it a big damage buff to encourage people to use it more.

Tell me I’m wrong.

TechMaybeHic

Caribou77 wrote: »

Axi noted the problem with Chains is that it is slow & clunky & unreliable, an ineffective gap closer in PvP, and that turning it into a Major Berserk buff won’t solve this problem.

This is almost exactly the same fix approach the dev team applied to Screaming Cliff Racer, a slow, clunky skill that it is ineffective in PvP — they gave it a big damage buff.

The animation went unchanged, and SCR remains so slow that it is useless in PvP.

So. I see a pattern. Dev team spots an underused skill on a spreadsheet; dev team gives it a big damage buff to encourage people to use it more.

Tell me I’m wrong.

I hate using the chain gap closer because it is clunky; but I think it will be worth it for corrosive DKs. Especially ones using Rush of Agony with dark convergence to then brawler smash stacks of players they just made. Really that's more a problem with enabling double pulls the way they do, but I guess they can't see that in a spreadsheet yet.

Caribou77

Agree Tech -- I can see that even in its slow state, Chains will have some strong utility for corrosive DKs running Rush & Dark Con, and in that respect, could be far more useful than the Screaming Cliff Racer change.

My main point was to illustrate how the dev team took a similar approach to "improving" the two skills. It's disappointing because it shows a very narrow/myopic approach to balancing class skills.

Melzo

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.

Will the necromancer have an alternative for synergy? I don't understand why you removed the harmony style from the necromancer and at the same time answer us that the necromancer cannot be a bomber? The developers were aware all the time about builds through harmony. And after so many years we are told that the necromancer was not so conceived? OK. But how was it intended? How do you play this class? What is special about it??? I am sure that the necromancer will not receive any updates and now we have to endure this for 3-6 months.

I saw feedback from other classes, but everyone who spoke about the necromancer was completely ignored. Why?

MidniteOwl1913

Billium813 wrote: »

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.

Yes 4 secs isn't worth the effort. I guess one form of balance is where no one is happy. I take it as a win as long as there are no nerfs.

ForumBully

Honestly, I'd rather they left the original change to chains. It's not a question of giving a strong buff to an underwhelming skill, that's a good thing to do. The problem is that with Necro and Templar being an absolute joke, why is DK getting a buff in ANY way? Why is DK even on the radar for improvement at this time? It's literally the top tier.

Billium813

ForumBully wrote: »

Honestly, I'd rather they left the original change to chains. It's not a question of giving a strong buff to an underwhelming skill, that's a good thing to do. The problem is that with Necro and Templar being an absolute joke, why is DK getting a buff in ANY way? Why is DK even on the radar for improvement at this time? It's literally the top tier.

They wanted to incentivize players to use a morph that they felt was underplayed. A noble intention, but all classes have underplayed morphs. I feel many players are just upset because the effort didn't go far enough. If 1 underplayed morph had been selected from each class, I don't think players would have felt as jilted.

ForumBully

Billium813 wrote: »

ForumBully wrote: »

Honestly, I'd rather they left the original change to chains. It's not a question of giving a strong buff to an underwhelming skill, that's a good thing to do. The problem is that with Necro and Templar being an absolute joke, why is DK getting a buff in ANY way? Why is DK even on the radar for improvement at this time? It's literally the top tier.

They wanted to incentivize players to use a morph that they felt was underplayed. A noble intention, but all classes have underplayed morphs. I feel many players are just upset because the effort didn't go far enough. If 1 underplayed morph had been selected from each class, I don't think players would have felt as jilted.

Absolutely. It's kind of a kick in the teeth to see Necro gutted, Templar still ignored, and to a lesser extent Sorc getting a weird "buff".

bachpain

That is my question.... Could we have a dev comment on why the team is so enamored with chains being used by DKs more? I can think of a dozen underutilized skills on multiple classes and skill lines that are pretty much useless. It feels foolish to buff the strongest class in the game.

axi

ForumBully wrote: »

Honestly, I'd rather they left the original change to chains. It's not a question of giving a strong buff to an underwhelming skill, that's a good thing to do. The problem is that with Necro and Templar being an absolute joke, why is DK getting a buff in ANY way? Why is DK even on the radar for improvement at this time? It's literally the top tier.

It's not DK getting a buff per se but rather the most underutilised class morph getting a buff. No matter how strong DK is it won't change a fact gap closinbg morph of chain is not used at all and I mean literally not at all. You can find people using some other classes underutilised abilities here and there but You will struggle really hard to find a DK using empowering chain.

ZoS devs possibly just run through data and noticed this ability is not used at all plus they noticed after changing motlen armanents to empower instead of unique buff, empowering chain will be possibly used even less so they decided to buff it. In their eyes they were just buffing the least used class morph in the game in many players eyes they were buffing the strongest class in the game.

axi

bachpain wrote: »

That is my question.... Could we have a dev comment on why the team is so enamored with chains being used by DKs more? I can think of a dozen underutilized skills on multiple classes and skill lines that are pretty much useless. It feels foolish to buff the strongest class in the game.

They actually provided the answer.

axi

MidniteOwl1913 wrote: »

Billium813 wrote: »

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.

Yes 4 secs isn't worth the effort. I guess one form of balance is where no one is happy. I take it as a win as long as there are no nerfs.

With 4 seconds it can still find some use in certain setups. One I can think of is PvP bomber that will use chain as a prebuff and for example will use rushing agony set to perform combo of empowering chain into leap into whirling blades spam, where chains will proc rushing agony to stack enemies together and provide major berserk for rushing agony+leap+other parts of bomb+whirling blades combo. And You know atleats someone will use it now...

Turtle_Bot

axi wrote: »

ForumBully wrote: »

Honestly, I'd rather they left the original change to chains. It's not a question of giving a strong buff to an underwhelming skill, that's a good thing to do. The problem is that with Necro and Templar being an absolute joke, why is DK getting a buff in ANY way? Why is DK even on the radar for improvement at this time? It's literally the top tier.

It's not DK getting a buff per se but rather the most underutilised class morph getting a buff. No matter how strong DK is it won't change a fact gap closinbg morph of chain is not used at all and I mean literally not at all. You can find people using some other classes underutilised abilities here and there but You will struggle really hard to find a DK using empowering chain.

ZoS devs possibly just run through data and noticed this ability is not used at all plus they noticed after changing motlen armanents to empower instead of unique buff, empowering chain will be possibly used even less so they decided to buff it. In their eyes they were just buffing the least used class morph in the game in many players eyes they were buffing the strongest class in the game.

That's the issue though, there are literally dozens of completely unused abilities and morphs in every class kit, not to mention dozens more abilities that are only used by very niche specs or as specific encounter options that aren't normally used otherwise.

sorc has:
- Encase + morphs
- Rune prison + morphs
- ball of lightning

necro has:
- braided tether
- intensive mender
- skulls
- hexproof
- deaden pain

plar has:
- sunfire + morphs
- dark flare
- unstable core
- healing ritual + morphs

warden has:
- fungal growth + morphs

NB has (not that nb needs any buffs either):
- consuming darkness + morphs

These are just off the top of my head for a list of skills that aren't used at all that could have received a buff/change instead of chains. There are plenty more skills that I could list that are only used on niche specs or as an option for a specific encounter that could also have used a buff/change to them as well.

Hesperax79

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.

@ZOS_Kevin : First of all I am very happy with this new communication style. I think that the continous discoussion between the ZOS team and the palyerbase is very important.

I fully understand that all class can be shine in different area of the game and a full balance is not a real target in every area. The only problem is that one of the major goal of the development team is to maintain the build diversity.
This buff can be good for this goal I think. This could lead in PVE to interesting setup and rotation aswell as in the PVP situation.

4 sec is not so long, but enough for skilled playen in PvP environment to burst down someone. But the advanced palyer can counter that burst. So, in the end of the day this changes (together with the elimination of DK's infinite stamina recovery) could lead that the skill will be an issue again in PvP scenario.

shinry

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 can tell you Templars are in a rough place trial-wise too. In PvE boss fights you have to beam a lot to have comparable damage to other classes single target. They also lack effective cleave while doing this. Beam is a 1.8s channel. The most frequent mechanic in these fights is block cast or die. This doesn't work well with a channel where you cannot block cast. Maybe having another ability like solar barrage giving you a passive that increases mitigation while channeling would be useful. Otherwise, you have to keep spending magicka and losing dps by recasting channels, risk having them interrupted and put on a cd, or, most tragically, constantly manage dying doing them while dpsing and sustaining adequately.

Pelanora

TechMaybeHic wrote: »

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."

Yea there's plenty of skills in sorc which are unused, and sorc struggles, and a quick buff might help lol, but the response to the lack of sorc buffs was, 'that's how we want it', and, 'you're supposed to struggle'.

@ZOS_Kevin Why aren't dk supposed to struggle? Why are dk supposed to have so many buffs?
Could we hear about that some more?

PhoenixGrey

acastanza_ESO wrote: »

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.

The combat team needs to play sorc or templar and not nightblade.

I am bamboozled that feedback is actually required here by ZOS when the problems are blatantly evident

Sergykid

[snip] And no, not 99% of players agree with a point made. If 50% of players write something, and 99% agree, it doesn't mean 99% of all players. [snip]
How much of the dedicated playerbase (playing often and having done at least one dlc hardmode on at least two different classes would fit the description?) is actually using the forums?

[edited for baiting]

Turtle_Bot

Pelanora wrote: »

TechMaybeHic wrote: »

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."

Yea there's plenty of skills in sorc which are unused, and sorc struggles, and a quick buff might help lol, but the response to the lack of sorc buffs was, 'that's how we want it', and, 'you're supposed to struggle'.

@ZOS_Kevin Why aren't dk supposed to struggle? Why are dk supposed to have so many buffs?
Could we hear about that some more?

Bumping this, because this is an important question that needs answering @ZOS_Kevin
If all classes are supposed to struggle and all classes are supposed to have weaknesses, why is DK allowed to have no weaknesses and also given a completely unneeded buff that doesn't even fix the issues with the skill that are causing players to not use it.

I would also like to add, that making classes struggle in different areas does not mean they are getting an equal "downside" because different areas of combat have different levels of usefulness when actually in combat.

For example, healing is too important of a function for any class to have that as their weakness. You can get away with a lack of damage by tanking up and making sure you cannot die either, you cannot get around not having enough healing as well as not having mitigation unless you are able to put out completely unbalanced and unreasonable levels of damage to make up for this and allow you the opportunity to actually threaten other classes before they can burst you down.

This is why sorcerer needs a burst heal in its class kit. It will still be behind the other classes when under pressure because it will still need to rely on out of class skills/sets/weapons to give it passive healing over time, but a reliable burst heal that cannot be so easily denied or have far too outdated/punishing mechanics is just too important in how the game is currently played due to how far power creep has gone for all of the other classes and the game in general.

TechMaybeHic

Pelanora wrote: »

TechMaybeHic wrote: »

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."

Yea there's plenty of skills in sorc which are unused, and sorc struggles, and a quick buff might help lol, but the response to the lack of sorc buffs was, 'that's how we want it', and, 'you're supposed to struggle'.

@ZOS_Kevin Why aren't dk supposed to struggle? Why are dk supposed to have so many buffs?
Could we hear about that some more?

I mean, even with the ones touched;

DK gets a major buff added to chains, a regular ability at first for 10 seconds in place of empower witch is worthless in Pvp unless you glitch heavy attacking mobs.

Templar gets a couple extra DOT ticks on a ultimate morphed that's not used. LMBO!

Should be embarrassing really

Hey @ZOS_Kevin , how bout we flip those 2 and Chains can have a couple DoT ticks added and Empowering Sweep can have major berserk?

Bushido2513

Feedback obviously seems to be considered. But it's clear the feedback will be considered within the larger scope of what ZOS has planned for the future.

So no they might no hit the exact thing you wanted, implement it the way you wanted, or do either of those as fast as you wanted. That's just part of having a direction within your own company.

Also I probably wouldn't even want to work on a dev team based on responding the way people here actually want them to respond.

What I see on these forums basically amounts to scenarios like the following.

Asking for nerfs or buffs based on personal experience and justification.

Wondering why no response was given on x nerf or buff even though I feel like the consensus is obvious that EVERYONE including a popular youtuber agrees with me.

Oh you made a change, that's great but it wasn't fast enough and it didn't go far enough. And no I don't care about that other person who said it shouldn't even have been changed, I'm talking right now!

Well now I'm tired of being ignored, I'm still going to play the game and maybe even buy stuff but also vent on the forums. Enjoy my toxic levels, you made me into this monster ZOS!



And the list goes on but they are all just reactions to the same thing. ZOS has a vision that they share with you the player. Without the player there is no game and without the game there is no player. But in ZOS's case money plays a factor. So they do what they can to keep the money rolling in and to try to make their vision something you'll enjoy.

But at the end of the day it's still a business which isn't usually successful if you try to spend your time pleasing everyone vs actually being a business.

Like any good business they look at many things but numbers are prime. If the numbers change the business will change but currently I imagine this is still fairly profitable even with the complaints and unhappiness.


Draw your own conclusions on why ZOS responds the way it does but I just think people should remember this is a business at the end of the day that has to be run like one.

phantasmalD

Turtle_Bot wrote: »

axi wrote: »

ForumBully wrote: »

Honestly, I'd rather they left the original change to chains. It's not a question of giving a strong buff to an underwhelming skill, that's a good thing to do. The problem is that with Necro and Templar being an absolute joke, why is DK getting a buff in ANY way? Why is DK even on the radar for improvement at this time? It's literally the top tier.

It's not DK getting a buff per se but rather the most underutilised class morph getting a buff. No matter how strong DK is it won't change a fact gap closinbg morph of chain is not used at all and I mean literally not at all. You can find people using some other classes underutilised abilities here and there but You will struggle really hard to find a DK using empowering chain.

ZoS devs possibly just run through data and noticed this ability is not used at all plus they noticed after changing motlen armanents to empower instead of unique buff, empowering chain will be possibly used even less so they decided to buff it. In their eyes they were just buffing the least used class morph in the game in many players eyes they were buffing the strongest class in the game.

That's the issue though, there are literally dozens of completely unused abilities and morphs in every class kit, not to mention dozens more abilities that are only used by very niche specs or as specific encounter options that aren't normally used otherwise.

sorc has:
- Encase + morphs
- Rune prison + morphs
- ball of lightning

necro has:
- braided tether
- intensive mender
- skulls
- hexproof
- deaden pain

plar has:
- sunfire + morphs
- dark flare
- unstable core
- healing ritual + morphs

warden has:
- fungal growth + morphs

NB has (not that nb needs any buffs either):
- consuming darkness + morphs

These are just off the top of my head for a list of skills that aren't used at all that could have received a buff/change instead of chains. There are plenty more skills that I could list that are only used on niche specs or as an option for a specific encounter that could also have used a buff/change to them as well.

To play devil's advocate: do we have any stats backing these claims, or is it just the top 1% projecting their opinions onto the general playerbase?
Perhaps ZoS' internal stats show a far less bleak picture?

Tbh I'd love to see some graphs and brief summaries of the stats ZoS uses for balance decisions.
@ZOS_Kevin, could we perhaps have some stat focused Dev Posts in the future? Could help bridging the gap between the Dev team's vision and player's perception.

Ragnarok0130

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.

@ZOS_Kevin this isn't directed at you as you do a very good job interacting with the community but player expectations are really just basic customer service expectations such as communication - something that the Studio has repeated vowed to improve over the years and then goes back to ignoring their paying customers by not communicating, and the even handed application of class and skill balancing creating space for all classes to be played.

Templar and Sorc being ignored yet again after the nerfs in U35 and U36 and then DK getting a rather large buff that the high performing class did not need is case in point. Who thought it necessary to buff a must have class while ignoring classes that have been sidelined like Templar, Sorc, and even Necro? How is the player base supposed to take that? Sorc and Templar are currently not bringing much to the table in end game PVE at the moment and from the earlier post that is intentional? Someone on the combat team should be tested for narcotics because that just doesn't make any sense. Every class should bring something unique to the table for group comp or that class will be left out of group comp for one that does. So much for "play how you want" when your class has intentionally been knee capped and ignored. It's been 7 months since U35 and to rub salt in the wound we still have that horrendous new flailing fishing animation for Templar sweeps/jabs with the vampire shovel model but the devs haven't even acknowledged the Templar community's revulsion to this specific set of changes and how it negatively impacts player enjoyment and willingness to play the class. You have customized actions in the game now, let us customize sweeps/jabs back to the original action with the original spear model.

The only positive aspect of this patch cycle is that at least we don't have any public developer social media posts intentionally antagonizing large sections of the end game community again. That is a win I'll gladly take.

Thank you Kevin for your continued interaction with the community. Often times it feels like you're the only one who takes time out of your day to answer the community's concerns even if you can't personally solve them so keep up the solid work.

Tommy_The_Gun

Tbh. I Was suspecting that feedback for the most part is being ignored, but at some point I think devs said directly that they are not interested in "Anecdotal" feedback. Yep. That was the term they used. "Anecdotal". This pretty much means that every opinion, suggestion, idea or thought, as long as it does not have an excel spreadsheet of data gathered on PTS is irrelevant.

Now look, I spend my free time on PTS and I don't have THAT much free time to spend to gather statistical data. Besides, if you are experienced player... lets just say that you don't even need any testing at all to know if something will be broken or not. You just look at stuff like Snake In Stars or Shell Splitter and you know it is busted.

KlauthWarthog

Bushido2513 wrote: »

ZOS has a vision that they share with you the player.

Well, here is the problem, they did not really share their vision with the players. We got the shallowest deep-dive ever, which did not touch any of those fabled class identities that they keep using as excuse for their changes, and lack of changes.
So... any time they use class identity as a reason, they are pretty much hiding behind an all-encompassing excuse, and preventing any discussion from taking place.
If we do not know what the classes are supposed to look like, we have nothing to compare with what they currently are. Which is extremely convenient for the combat team.

Bushido2513

KlauthWarthog wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

ZOS has a vision that they share with you the player.

Well, here is the problem, they did not really share their vision with the players. We got the shallowest deep-dive ever, which did not touch any of those fabled class identities that they keep using as excuse for their changes, and lack of changes.
So... any time they use class identity as a reason, they are pretty much hiding behind an all-encompassing excuse, and preventing any discussion from taking place.
If we do not know what the classes are supposed to look like, we have nothing to compare with what they currently are. Which is extremely convenient for the combat team.

Sorry I was unclear. I meant more like when you see a piece of art on the wall or go see a movie. The creator is sharing a vision with you. Yes you get to critique it and provide feedback but at the end of the day it's their vision. So if you enjoy the vision then yay, if you have complaints, well response can vary because again, it's their vision that they are just sharing with you.

I think a lot of people on here use their words but don't vote with their dollars or or acknowledge that apparently complaints or not, ZOS is still profiting which affects how they respond to some degree.

shinry

Bushido2513 wrote: »

What I see on these forums basically amounts to scenarios like the following.

Asking for nerfs or buffs based on personal experience and justification.

Did you read the discussion on the 'PTS Update 37 - Feedback Thread for Combat & Classes' thread that a lot of people are referring to? Feedback was asked for by the devs. And although I personally think people's individual experiences shouldn't be discounted, especially if it is often echoed by others frequently, many players provided data. They shared logs and the statistics the community has provided. This is really well documented on esologs and paints a clear picture using a lot of actual data, especially on the state of the raiding community. For the majority of trial situations, DKs are overshadowing other classes, and some are underrepresented and underperforming. It is also fairly obvious to see what classes are more frequent and successful in PvP encounters. This isn't 'anecdotal.'

shinry

I would also love to know about what statistics they are personally using to make their decisions.