Literally no proposed feedback has been considered

Ragnarok0130

Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »

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.

That's the bad part which really makes me doubt ESO will get better in terms of combat balancing in the future. Comprehensive feedback is not solely spreadsheet based but also incorporates anecdotal and experiential feedback to validate the data driven feedback. This is why U35 was such a dumpster fire that did the opposite of the dev's repeatedly stated goal of "accessibility" since the combat team overwhelmingly relied on spreadsheets instead of the larger picture coupled with in game player experience.

Bushido2513

shinry wrote: »

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.'

There is no denying what you're saying just like there's no denying that it's also a lot of information that would take time to sift through and vet. The problem is that that's not how a business works and it can't always turn on a dime. Yes I get it, you're saying hard data is being supplied but remember that's being supplied with things we don't know and can't see going on behind the scenes.

And before anyone says it no ZOS isn't required to be more transparent or stop and explain to us at every turn why they do what they do.

The do something, we give feedback, they either do or don't use that feedback and we either accept it or don't.

But what I see is people trying to throw blame and spend time complaining rather than just recognizing things for what they seem to be.

Bushido2513

Ragnarok0130 wrote: »

Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »

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.

That's the bad part which really makes me doubt ESO will get better in terms of combat balancing in the future. Comprehensive feedback is not solely spreadsheet based but also incorporates anecdotal and experiential feedback to validate the data driven feedback. This is why U35 was such a dumpster fire that did the opposite of the dev's repeatedly stated goal of "accessibility" since the combat team overwhelmingly relied on spreadsheets instead of the larger picture coupled with in game player experience.

You say dumpster fire but people still played and the game still kept going. They may not be able to make everyone happy but last time I checked they were still hiring. I'm not saying anything against you, I'm just saying people keep talking about their methods being wrong and how they treat customers but they're still making money. Something to consider.

Caribou77

Justifying class imbalance by saying that some classes are designed to be more challenging than others is a pretty convenient explanation.

How is it not in all players’ and ZOS’ best interests to have a healthy mix of classes competing in PvP?

Bushido2513

Caribou77 wrote: »

Justifying class imbalance by saying that some classes are designed to be more challenging than others is a pretty convenient explanation.

How is it not in all players’ and ZOS’ best interests to have a healthy mix of classes competing in PvP?

Technically it's just them telling players what they want it to look like. I don't think they are really so much trying to justify or be convenient to anyone and just see it as the way they want the game to look.

It's not in ZOS's best interests if creating that healthy mix would take development dollars away from PVE, The Crown Store, future IP development, etc. Unfortunately PVP is just harder to balance than PVE because NPCs don't have forum accounts

Caribou77

Ha. Nice, Bushido. I certainly appreciate/understand your point about the company's economic priorities.

However, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the way they want the game to look."

Do you mean the way they want people to perceive the class imbalance in PVP? Like: We intended for some classes to be harder to play in PVP than others; this is how we envision the game. (?)

Honestly curious, as your observations seem informed by a broad perspective, imo.

Bushido2513

Caribou77 wrote: »

Ha. Nice, Bushido. I certainly appreciate/understand your point about the company's economic priorities.

However, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the way they want the game to look."

Do you mean the way they want people to perceive the class imbalance in PVP? Like: We intended for some classes to be harder to play in PVP than others; this is how we envision the game. (?)

Honestly curious, as your observations seem informed by a broad perspective, imo.

Well thank you for saying so!

And yeah I think that overall they are just telling players in many ways that this is what our representation was supposed to look like. Kind of like if a chef makes you a meal and they season it with this or that because they intended it to taste a certain way. You can say yeah I don't like it seasoned that way and I prefer it cooked this way but at some point you're going to butt up against what they intended the meal to be and what you want it to be.


I suppose I understand and respect a bit of where ZOS is coming from because I do a similar type of software development. I get feedback all the time but I can't just always stop the train to make a single change because now I'm coming out of my way of development to basically work the way someone else wants. Someone that also doesn't understand everything else I've got going on and yes I could stop everything to explain every detail to them but that tends to slow/kill work output overall.


I think people should always give feedback for any reason they feel. I just don't think the tidal wave of blame and negative reactions is really needed because those things aren't driving the process over at ZOS. It's a business and overall change in most businesses is driven by profit over most things.

Pelanora

Bushido2513 wrote: »

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.

...

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.

Ok so theres a misconception in here about business.

You can choose a product and hope the world likes it, and if it does, you're away. If it doesn't, you're out of business.

Or, you can constantly track what people want, and sell it to them.

You can design things that work for the people you sell to, or you can design things and hope they fit, and hope people buy them.

You cannot have a vision for a company that doesn't include meeting customer demand.

The question is, which customers, and how many, do you need to buy your products to carry on, and how many customers can you ignore.

My suspicion is dk is easy and powerful to meet the needs of casual players, who maybe/must also spend. Hence the constant focus and stressing about one small ability that doesn't get played. It's a powerful toyota corolla. Profitable. But I'm guessing.

Sorc is, idk, jaguar xj6? Awesome but out of production?

Pelanora

"There is no denying what you're saying just like there's no denying that it's also a lot of information that would take time to sift through and vet. The problem is that that's not how a business works and it can't always turn on a dime. Yes I get it, you're saying hard data is being supplied but remember that's being supplied with things we don't know and can't see going on behind the scenes.

And before anyone says it no ZOS isn't required to be more transparent or stop and explain to us at every turn why they do what they do.

The do something, we give feedback, they either do or don't use that feedback and we either accept it or don't.

But what I see is people trying to throw blame and spend time complaining rather than just recognizing things for what they seem to be."

----

This is totally and completely against every design tenet that every major IT company like ibm follows these days. Jeez even lego got itself out of the doldrums by going back to building what customers actually asked for.

AdamLAD

The problem with statistical data when it comes to these issues is that since it's so narrow in terms of varieties and possibilities/factors it itself is anecdotal. I can say 2+2=4 without a spreadsheet does that mean it's anecdotal? No, the fact still remains the same that it equates to 4. The same principle applies. I'd argue the people who are actually actively playing the game will know more than some spreadsheet as it's experience of the evidence not some narrow minded statistical data. Its exactly why people come to the forums and say this set will be broken even before its launched on the pts. The fact the PTS notes is in some form a spreadsheet FROM Zos gets criticism way before launching speaks volumes about the way they handle things. We don't even need to play what's on this spreadsheet they hand us to KNOW why and how things will be bad or not simply due to the fact experience playing will always be better than spreadsheet data

WrathOfInnos

That's not necessarily a bad thing. The quality of player feedback this PTS cycle seems lower than ever before. Most of the forum has become "nerf DK because they killed/outparsed me" or "I hate templar jabs". It's obvious that most players are not doing any real PTS testing, just reading patch notes and complaining.

There have been a few interesting suggestions, but these gems get hidden behind hundreds of ill-informed rants. I think I actually have more faith in the devs than the players this time around. We need to do better if we want to be taken seriously.

merevie

Feedback: the bright green constant flashing is going to put off enough people to affect the profitability of the chapter

Accessibility is a thing other gaming companies include in their planning stages.

phantasmalD

AdamLAD wrote: »

The problem with statistical data when it comes to these issues is that since it's so narrow in terms of varieties and possibilities/factors it itself is anecdotal. I can say 2+2=4 without a spreadsheet does that mean it's anecdotal? No, the fact still remains the same that it equates to 4. The same principle applies. I'd argue the people who are actually actively playing the game will know more than some spreadsheet as it's experience of the evidence not some narrow minded statistical data. Its exactly why people come to the forums and say this set will be broken even before its launched on the pts. The fact the PTS notes is in some form a spreadsheet FROM Zos gets criticism way before launching speaks volumes about the way they handle things. We don't even need to play what's on this spreadsheet they hand us to KNOW why and how things will be bad or not simply due to the fact experience playing will always be better than spreadsheet data

The base assumption here is that you are saying '2+2=4' and not '2+2=22' or '2+2=5'.
Human feedback is inherently subjective, tainted by our experiences and biases.

You can't claim that your own experiences are more objective than cold hard numbers, collected from millions of players.
It's physically impossible to be more broad-minded than internal stats, as that would mean that you alone have trillion hours of experience AND the brain power to objectively interpret it all.

Human feedback is of course important, but only as a way to interpret and tweak the data based calculations, highlight potential issues.

Bushido2513

Pelanora wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

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.

...

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.

The question is, which customers, and how many, do you need to buy your products to carry on, and how many customers can you ignore.

My suspicion is dk is easy and powerful to meet the needs of casual players, who maybe/must also spend. Hence the constant focus and stressing about one small ability that doesn't get played. It's a powerful toyota corolla. Profitable. But I'm guessing.

Sorc is, idk, jaguar xj6? Awesome but out of production?

I'd agree with this. I think ZOS is catering to where most of their revenue seems to be coming in. I think it's pretty obvious to see what that's turned into over the years and that it appears to be working for them.

Bushido2513

Pelanora wrote: »

"There is no denying what you're saying just like there's no denying that it's also a lot of information that would take time to sift through and vet. The problem is that that's not how a business works and it can't always turn on a dime. Yes I get it, you're saying hard data is being supplied but remember that's being supplied with things we don't know and can't see going on behind the scenes.

And before anyone says it no ZOS isn't required to be more transparent or stop and explain to us at every turn why they do what they do.

The do something, we give feedback, they either do or don't use that feedback and we either accept it or don't.

But what I see is people trying to throw blame and spend time complaining rather than just recognizing things for what they seem to be."

----

This is totally and completely against every design tenet that every major IT company like ibm follows these days. Jeez even lego got itself out of the doldrums by going back to building what customers actually asked for.

There is some truth in what you say however we're not dealing with the simple IT model where you could easily go and pick up another thing that does the same thing. This is more of a situation where you hooked customers into something and over the years have made them dependent on how much they have invested in you. Sure you can't outright make something that doesn't work for any of the customer base but you have a lot more freedom to play with the numbers. Also ZOS is giving some of the customer base, the base that pays most of the bills some of what they want. The bigger thing is that they make sure to give them just enough without completely pooping on them. They really have set themselves up in quite the interesting position!

Bushido2513

AdamLAD wrote: »

The problem with statistical data when it comes to these issues is that since it's so narrow in terms of varieties and possibilities/factors it itself is anecdotal. I can say 2+2=4 without a spreadsheet does that mean it's anecdotal? No, the fact still remains the same that it equates to 4. The same principle applies. I'd argue the people who are actually actively playing the game will know more than some spreadsheet as it's experience of the evidence not some narrow minded statistical data. Its exactly why people come to the forums and say this set will be broken even before its launched on the pts. The fact the PTS notes is in some form a spreadsheet FROM Zos gets criticism way before launching speaks volumes about the way they handle things. We don't even need to play what's on this spreadsheet they hand us to KNOW why and how things will be bad or not simply due to the fact experience playing will always be better than spreadsheet data

In this particular case all of the data is flawed to some degree because humans are making final interpretations. Once you insert people it's flawed. I say that to say that I can see players seeing it one way and thinking it's justified and ZOS seeing it their way and thinking the same. At the end of the day though ZOS gets final say and we either play and make another suggestion and wait or don't I suppose.

Melivar

The main misconception is that the voice of the forums is in any way significant to the games population. I am sure ZOS has these statistics, but I would be surprised if 1/3 of the games player base even knows there is a ESO forums, and of that 1/3 most stopped in saw the chaos and never came back.

Personally, I enjoy all the varying points of feedback mostly while I am at work and don't have access to play the game and I learn things that can be useful every now and again but at the same time most if it is just noise. The posts with the most back and fourth on a side are always entertaining and sometimes even have useful input.

I am in 2 fairly large guilds and I play several hours a day but at the same time I rarely see more than 45-50 people on at a given time and mostly the same core but on periodic scrolls through the list those 400+ people have been on at least 1 time in the last week. We do dungeons and trials sometimes vet trial with groups most people wouldn't give the time of day. Might take some extra time but failures are the exception not the norm. I have at times mentioned they can find info on the forums and am surprised by the replies or people asking how you get there. They don't make it the easiest if IRC from when I first came looking.

You can just look at the majority of the polls posted on these forums and see most peek at 300-400 with some getting over 2000 votes. Then look at the ESO live twitch streams and see the 50K plus number of viewers for some perspective.

Your Raid or PVP team/teams may all think that something is broken or useless but that doesn't mean there are not 1000's of people using a set or skill line and having a grand time playing the game. Does that mean is shouldn't be fixed no not at all it just means that while it seems super important to you and your friends it likley isn't as high on the list as you want it to be.

KingLewie_III

You can't claim PTS feedback is taken seriously when you just had the blunder of Update 35. There was plenty of evidence showing the changes were not reaching their desired outcome, yet it was ignored. The response was telling us not to have knee jerk reactions, and that change is scary. This also happened with Mara's Balm and Oakensoul, just to name a few in recent memory.

It's discouraging to see the player base identify why things are problematic yet the developers of the game itself seem oblivious to very blatant problems.

Pelanora

It's of no relevance that thousands, even millions, of people don't understand something or care about something, to whether the few who do are right.

There are people in here who know the game inside out back to front, played for years, and their comments are worth being taken seriously by zos.

Shagreth

Quite disappointed by the devs when it comes to balance and combat in general and how feedback is disregarded. There's evidence to suggest that even stories are cut short, but ZOS has put out some pretty good stuff when under pressure in the past, but it must be hard for the devs, I feel as if they want to do more but can't due to some suit & enforced time limits. There's so much good feedback that I find it hard to believe that they're ignoring it, this community is so dedicated.

@ZOS_Kevin That said, I still think you guys can do better.

Bushido2513

Pelanora wrote: »

It's of no relevance that thousands, even millions, of people don't understand something or care about something, to whether the few who do are right.

There are people in here who know the game inside out back to front, played for years, and their comments are worth being taken seriously by zos.

Incorrect in this situation as right is subjective and all will be affected by any choice made. And nobody says ZOS isn't taking it seriously but that doesn't mean they don't have their own agenda that supercedes.

VaranisArano

Pelanora wrote: »

It's of no relevance that thousands, even millions, of people don't understand something or care about something, to whether the few who do are right.

There are people in here who know the game inside out back to front, played for years, and their comments are worth being taken seriously by zos.

Well, we used to have the Class Rep program for that. And even then, ZOS listened to their feedback and then did whatever suited the Dev Team's vision on several major occasions. We no longer have a Class Rep program...

See also U35, where ZOS took some feedback from the PVE endgame community and made changes based on how the Devs wanted to meet their overall goal of nerfing DPS.

Ultimately, the Devs are driving the car, no matter how knowledgeable/experienced the players in the backseat are.

Pelanora

Bushido2513 wrote: »

Pelanora wrote: »

It's of no relevance that thousands, even millions, of people don't understand something or care about something, to whether the few who do are right.

There are people in here who know the game inside out back to front, played for years, and their comments are worth being taken seriously by zos.

Incorrect in this situation as right is subjective and all will be affected by any choice made. And nobody says ZOS isn't taking it seriously but that doesn't mean they don't have their own agenda that supercedes.

No.

It's subjective that green is a bad choice for acanist- unless everyone agrees in which case it's subjective but majority view; is objective that eg sorc needs passive rework, heals not tied to pets, staffs getting a rethink.

Having their own agenda - they don't make raincoats. It's not as if we can say hey let's all switch these leak and the market has a ton of providers. People invest in this game and people really really CARE. And no company can afford to neglect that, in this economy.

Auldwulfe

Thinking about this, though, and it makes perfect sense from a marketing point of view. They want to sell the new expansion.... and they are hedging on the Arcanist to do that for them. It needs to be powerful enough that it can sell the game.... especially after the disaster that is Tales of Tribute.
But.... making an overly powerful class, that they later have to nerf hard, is something they have already done, and had a lot of flak received, because of that.

So, they start by nerfing all the classes in preparation for the Arcanist... that way, they don't have to, and can't be accused of, having to do a heavy nerf, on the arcanist, later.... and the accusation that it was created only to sell the expansion. But, they have to leave one class finely tuned, so they aren't accused of overly breaking everything, just to sell their new class... hence the Dragon Knight, a popular class, already, and one of the originals, with nostalgia roots to the Dragonborn from Skyrim is left up.... that way, when the players of the other 5 classes start to complain, they can point out that the Arcanist is no more powerful than one of the original classes.... you must be playing your class wrong, if you feel you are not performing as well.........

With a new expansion to Skyrim being announced as well... the Dragon Knight was the most logical choice to be the spoiler for this tactic...

Auldwulfe

Pelanora

If the approach to dk was new, I'd agree. But it's been like this a while.

But yep, they need acanist to sell, and i gather it is still in development. Down to the wire probably. No time for much else i expect.

Elsonso

Pelanora wrote: »

But yep, they need acanist to sell, and i gather it is still in development. Down to the wire probably. No time for much else i expect.

I expect that Arcanist is done, or very close to done, with primary development and is being play tested and tuned internally.

Destai

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?

@ZOS_Kevin Just adding to this comment, which was an important point. I've been playing since beta and I still don't feel like I know what each class is supposed to have for strengths and weaknesses. Maybe a refresh of that class identity is appropriate, feels like DK's are getting lots of love and others are being neglected or nerfed.

Billium813

Destai wrote: »

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?

@ZOS_Kevin Just adding to this comment, which was an important point. I've been playing since beta and I still don't feel like I know what each class is supposed to have for strengths and weaknesses. Maybe a refresh of that class identity is appropriate, feels like DK's are getting lots of love and others are being neglected or nerfed.

This is what players want from a "Combat Deep Dive". Instead, we got:

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Play The Way You Want
We strive to provide freedom and flexibility that allow you to transform your character fantasy into a gameplay reality. We value diversity of choice and playstyle with abilities, weapons, and armor. Some combinations of these tools are more effective than others, but every character should have the capacity to protect their group, mend allies, or devastate foes.

• Wear any combination of light, medium, and heavy armor
• Slot abilities from any skill line you've discovered
• "Deck building" through a selection of abilities, items, Champion Points, etc.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/624269/eso-developer-deep-dive-core-combat-values

Jammy420

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.

While I do see things being changed here and there, in large, the majority, I agree with the person in OP, are being largely ignored. I have been lurking her since beta, and on the forums for a bit now, and this is how I see it as well.

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.

Just because it was their intent however, does not make it a good idea, and player feedback concerning the game breaking rammifications of berserk being on chains should have been adressed. The proposed duration was so game breaking, it made it pointless to play anything other than dk. So a reduction in time, while a miniscule compromise, was not really a compromise, as it did not really adress the core issue. Namely, berserk ever being ADDED to chains.

Player Feedback- Chains are broken with consistant access to major berserk, will break game balance even more making other classes pointless

Dev Implementation - Add shorter duration, still guaranteed to activate, ignore core feedback however, giving the feeling that our feedback is not valuable

This kind of dismissive attitude really does not help customer dev relations at all. It actually deepends mistrust between the community and the devs.

A compromise would have been

Chains - 25 ( this is just a random number im throwing around ) percent chance to activate for X Duration ( no more than 3 seconds )

In this way the consistancy of chains was reduced, which was from what I understand a big part of the complaint, AND the devs reduced the duration effectively as well.

That is a compromise. A compromise means everyone is usually half happy. The actual implementation however was devs happy, community unhappy. Ergo, not a compromise.

Bushido2513

Pelanora wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

Pelanora wrote: »

It's of no relevance that thousands, even millions, of people don't understand something or care about something, to whether the few who do are right.

There are people in here who know the game inside out back to front, played for years, and their comments are worth being taken seriously by zos.

Incorrect in this situation as right is subjective and all will be affected by any choice made. And nobody says ZOS isn't taking it seriously but that doesn't mean they don't have their own agenda that supercedes.

No.

It's subjective that green is a bad choice for acanist- unless everyone agrees in which case it's subjective but majority view; is objective that eg sorc needs passive rework, heals not tied to pets, staffs getting a rethink.

Having their own agenda - they don't make raincoats. It's not as if we can say hey let's all switch these leak and the market has a ton of providers. People invest in this game and people really really CARE. And no company can afford to neglect that, in this economy.

Actually there are a lot of other games anyone is free to play and people have switched. But you the other point who is on the forums complaining the most? PVP

Who has generally speaking been ignored the most and for years? PVP

They can definitely somewhat though I admit in all fairness not completely ignore a segment and still make a profit.