Another Patch, Same story (When are we getting meaningful class changes)

Stx

Here are some quotes from ZOS each of the last few patches regarding the number of combat and gameplay changes.

**Updated*** Every patch is the same….

Update 40: Don’t expect a lot of balance adjustments this update; we’re slowing down to let changes to values and functionalities “bake” longer“

Update 39 Patch notes: “We have some targeted balance adjustments too, of course, but the list is quite short compared to other updates”

Update 38 patch notes: “We mainly keep large scale changes out of the chapter”

Update 37 patch notes: “this update is more targeted with its adjustments, rather than widespread”

Update 36 also brought very minimal class changes.

I just want to know when they are going to actually do some work on the class design and gameplay. If you added up all the class changes from the last four updates, that *might* be on par with other MMO balance notes for one patch.

boi_anachronism_

This is because of the massive out cry after 35. It brought huge changes to the game as far as combat. People don't love massive meta swings and lets be honest, combat changes, adjustments to sets and so forth are generally affecting raiders more then anyone else but also pvp to a great degree. A lot of raiders quit and a lot of guilds dispanded. It was universally panned by zos's own stream team. Now granted it is a much smaller part of the community, its a vocal one and comprised of some of the longest term players in the game. Causal players by and large do not read patch notes or visit the forums. The biggest effect for them was the advent of HA builds. Beyond that they dont really seem to care that much unless it helps with solo play which generally amounts to an "oh thats cool" or after 35 "i dont see a difference" where combat oriented players saw a huge one.

They have been treading lightly since then. Thats why.

Stx

boi_anachronism_ wrote: »

This is because of the massive out cry after 35. It brought huge changes to the game as far as combat. People don't love massive meta swings and lets be honest, combat changes, adjustments to sets and so forth are generally affecting raiders more then anyone else but also pvp to a great degree. A lot of raiders quit and a lot of guilds dispanded. It was universally panned by zos's own stream team. Now granted it is a much smaller part of the community, its a vocal one and comprised of some of the longest term players in the game. Causal players by and large do not read patch notes or visit the forums. The biggest effect for them was the advent of HA builds. Beyond that they dont really seem to care that much unless it helps with solo play which generally amounts to an "oh thats cool" or after 35 "i dont see a difference" where combat oriented players saw a huge one.

They have been treading lightly since then. Thats why.

That’s a fallacy. Massive changes are different than numerous needed changes. You don’t have to massively change combat or entire categories of spells in order to provide buffs to underpowered abilities.

Every patch each class gets 0-5 total changes with the same excuse over and over as I quoted from each patch stating why there won’t be many changes.

TechMaybeHic

It went from Update 35 having a lot of people unhappy by mass class changes wrecking several classes and making others just standout like a sore thumb, to them then just saying "OK they don't like these mass changes so small changes only while we let them bake." Meanwhile; leaving all the changes that were hated by many in update 35 mostly the standard. Then the small tweaks have only seemed to make it worse by somehow managing to buff stronger classes and missing the mark on others.

Just can't win with big changes or small changes so long as the gameplay is not understood

Stx

TechMaybeHic wrote: »

It went from Update 35 having a lot of people unhappy by mass class changes wrecking several classes and making others just standout like a sore thumb, to them then just saying "OK they don't like these mass changes so small changes only while we let them bake." Meanwhile; leaving all the changes that were hated by many in update 35 mostly the standard. Then the small tweaks have only seemed to make it worse by somehow managing to buff stronger classes and missing the mark on others.

Just can't win with big changes or small changes so long as the gameplay is not understood

Right. Update 35 not only brought sweeping changes, but they were almost universally hated by the community. That was the issue. ZoS has a history of just very poor implementation of their large scale changes, such as buffing dots across the board by 100%.

The answer to the update 35 uproar shouldn’t be to just never implement class changes again.. it should be to do better changes.

ZOS can ‘win’ by doing a little research into what players are saying, both endgame pve, PvP, and casual players, as well as look at raw data, and implement changes to balance the game. They have never tried widespread minor tuning…. That’s the key.

boi_anachronism_

Stx wrote: »

boi_anachronism_ wrote: »

This is because of the massive out cry after 35. It brought huge changes to the game as far as combat. People don't love massive meta swings and lets be honest, combat changes, adjustments to sets and so forth are generally affecting raiders more then anyone else but also pvp to a great degree. A lot of raiders quit and a lot of guilds dispanded. It was universally panned by zos's own stream team. Now granted it is a much smaller part of the community, its a vocal one and comprised of some of the longest term players in the game. Causal players by and large do not read patch notes or visit the forums. The biggest effect for them was the advent of HA builds. Beyond that they dont really seem to care that much unless it helps with solo play which generally amounts to an "oh thats cool" or after 35 "i dont see a difference" where combat oriented players saw a huge one.

They have been treading lightly since then. Thats why.

That’s a fallacy. Massive changes are different than numerous needed changes. You don’t have to massively change combat or entire categories of spells in order to provide buffs to underpowered abilities.

Every patch each class gets 0-5 total changes with the same excuse over and over as I quoted from each patch stating why there won’t be many changes.

Numerous changes are massive, needed or not If it effects the game wide scale especially in the context you are talking about. Significant class changes. 35 wasnt one massive change, it was numerous changes wrapped into one patch that they felt were needed. Providing buffs to abilities for example to bring them in line always shakes things up because it makes things the werent viable potentially stronger then something previously used due to the possibility of unintended interaction. Even if you theoretically put it on the same level at face value with another comparable skill it may suddenly synergize with something else that may not have been predicted causing it to be much more powerful then another class, skill, ect.

You asked and Im telling you WHY this is happening. Its not a fallacy it a fact that they straight up said months ago. The issue is that zos historically is incapable of knowing the difference or understanding how to balance so those things have been made inseparable regardless of if they can or should be approached separately. Its not difficult to understand this.

Let me ask you this: how would significant class changes not affect combat?

Stx

Significant changes? What in the world are you talking about? I’m talking about changes that make classes better to play, be that through gameplay or by raw numbers making abilities good enough to be included in a build. Also, you WANT the changes you make to affect combat, that’s the whole point.

This is NOT what was done in update 35 and in many previous updates like the 100% buff to all dots and then the 66% nerf to all dots a few patches later. Those changes affected the game in drastic ways across the board, that’s what players were getting tired of.

They could also (get this, it’s a crazy idea) add new skills or weapons to the game. Insane, I know. Do know that if you play one of the original classes, that it’s been since SUMMERSET since any new combat related skills were added to the game?

boi_anachronism_

Stx wrote: »

Significant changes? What in the world are you talking about? I’m talking about changes that make classes better to play, be that through gameplay or by raw numbers making abilities good enough to be included in a build. Also, you WANT the changes you make to affect combat, that’s the whole point.

This is NOT what was done in update 35 and in many previous updates like the 100% buff to all dots and then the 66% nerf to all dots a few patches later. Those changes affected the game in drastic ways across the board, that’s what players were getting tired of.

They could also (get this, it’s a crazy idea) add new skills or weapons to the game. Insane, I know. Do know that if you play one of the original classes, that it’s been since SUMMERSET since any new combat related skills were added to the game?

How on earth does adding new skills not effect combat? Its the basis of it.

You add new skills they may or may not be stronger then others currently used, potentially by a wide margin. If you add spears for agument sake it may overtake something like duel wield that has been used consistently for several patches. That shakes things up.

Id personally like to see things like this happen but you cant possibly be blind to how much this would change metas within the game. New weapons, skills, and buffs effect the game in a similar way to how new sets do just on a much larger scale. Did adding the arcanist not change a lot within the game meta? Absolutely it did. Its absolutely undeniable.

And yes im quite aware of the eso time line. Thanks.

If you dont know what im talking about, im sorry but it very much explains why you are asking the question.

boi_anachronism_

Take a good hard look a the new class sets and the arguments over balancing issues. That is a microcosm of what happens when you introduce new features of that nature.

Im not saying its a bad change, id like to see a lot of that happen but im telling you why they have been more careful about it.

boi_anachronism_

Dekrypted wrote: »

At this point, it's hard to say that they're just "treading lightly".

It really seems as though they have zero interest in addressing the obvious issues with the game. They loudly proclaimed that "we're not in maintenance mode!" And "we're going to continue to support ESO", but outside if the new class, what real changes were made to combat? Outside of the endless dungeon, what development has been done to the game?

If a change was made 6 to 9 months ago, how long does it actually take to come up with something of a solution or a direction to move in? The stagnation is harmful. A report can be ran right now to see what items are commonly being used in cyrodiil across all accounts within the past 3 months.

That report will show that Master DW and Way of fire is being used. Go back 6 months. Same thing. 9 months? Same thing. How much longer does it need to bake in there that everyone's using the same thing?

Run a report on what classes are commonly used in cyrodiil and the results will show. It'd be different if it was impossible to get the data, but the data is there. Nothings happening and that's apart of the frustration.

U35 was a disaster because historically whenever zos wanted to touch light/heavy attacks, they get a more than uniting and collective negative reaction. This time they just went ahead with it anyways and craglorn never recovered.

Im not arguing any of that. Im simply saying that because of the way they historically function there is little differentiation for them between the two. So essentially what im saying to the company, the player base saying "we dont want massive core combat changes" (like the whole la/ha/dot change debockle) was simplified down to "we don't want any changes". Thats why very little has happened. Because they equate changes that add features, interest or anything that effects the game widescale is on the same level with those core combat changes. As i said change = bad is basically the direction that they took instead of realizing the adding things like new weapons ect is not the same as changing some basic and fundamental mechanics of a 9yr old game.

SandandStars

They will never make good changes that improve the balance of pvp because they don’t actually play pvp enough to understand or care.

Isn’t that clear by now?

MashmalloMan

Preach. ZOS speaks like a politician every patch. Empty promises and false hope for meaningful changes.

Problem with the Internet is things stay forever. Doesn't take a long time to collect every time they said "we want to let these minor changes cook".

I've been counting the years at this point for hybridization to finish. 2 years ago on update 32, they updated sets to give hybrid stats. Take that in.

Why is it taking so long to finish? Make a new mundus stone, make 2 new class minor buffs, combine potion/poison effects.

Fixed.

Jazraena

The problem up to U35 and exemplified by U35 was that people literally had to rebuild and relearn their characters over and over and over, with many of us barely keeping pace on all characters until the next load of changes dropped.

Now however, while reducing the volume of changes they're not really changing stuff that needs change while neglecting things that do, and somehow still manage to force people to change their builds.

Corrosive Armour is still over the top and getting worse with the new set, Magsorcs are still terrible and still not getting viable non-pet build options, staff passive changes mostly meant just replacing inferno with lightning for most people and thus messing with power fantasies, and because jab visuals we're already such a capitally bad idea they doubled down in driving plenty night blades away from Grim Focus because of the permaglow.

They need to stop breaking things and start fixing actual pain points.