Community - Suggestion for better Community Input to the Devs

Avran_Sylt · October 2017

Suggestion

-Have one community member compile your grievances into one thread. (similar to the feedback thread) For a certain topic, not for everything.

-Use the main post of the thread as a 'living document' that you continually update (use the edit feature on the first post, don't just repost in the thread) based on posts within that thread, that summarizes the issue into manageable sections. So if a dev wants to they just need to look at one post for information, rather than sifting through 100+ essay length posts on 4+ threads. (TL:DR of the feedback thread). you can add spoiler tabs to sections that lead to a more in depth analysis, but have the gist of each point in a few sentences.

-Try to get a consensus on various topics from the community, do so in the thread for easy compilation by the person who heads the thread and is responsible for changes. Do not expect the devs to look at these sections though (as a matter of practice), and only expect the main post of the thread to be looked at, even if the devs respond in the comments. If they do, treat them as any other forum goer in the sense about discussing the game.

Optional:
Include a changelog that reflects current changes if there are new issues that create new controversy, or old issues that were addressed.

Summary:

Create a patch notes for player concerns about a given topic. This will allow the devs more freedom when it comes to conversing about a topic as they don't need to worry about having to respond to 50+ different posts that request their presence and them not having any time to do any actual work. They can instead view one section.

It's the same thing that happened with the Fortnite forums, too much input leads to a reduction in developer feedback due to their time being eaten up by watching all the other threads that have popped up, and an avoidance of the forums in general because of the toxicity of the player-base.

Otherwise, well. It's just a mire of complaints that all have to be addressed because: "everyone deserves to have their voice heard". And anyone delving into all of it will take more time sifting through it all than time they have, essentially leading to a roadblock of progress. Not to mention general stress from the dregs of human society.

DoonerSeraph · October 2017

Yes. Agreed. Kinda like the "Feedback Threads for W/E", but since the OP of these threads is a ZOS employee, they dont give a flying f about that. The way they take care of these threads shows how much they care about feedback.

Urza1234 · October 2017

OP, the developers dont come here man. The community managers watch the forums like hawks, but mostly just to remove child *** and off-color jokes.

Granted if everyone followed your suggestion the devs -might- come here, but getting everyone to do that would be like herding cats... cats on skooma.

The actual paid moderators could do it, start a community thread about this or that popular grievance, people would flock to it. That would probably take considerably more time and effort though than what they're currently paid to do. It would also take a much more proactive rather than laissez faire company policy.

Avran_Sylt · October 2017

DoonerSeraph wrote: »

Yes. Agreed. Kinda like the "Feedback Threads for W/E", but since the OP of these threads is a ZOS employee, they dont give a flying f about that. The way they take care of these threads shows how much they care about feedback.

Urza1234 wrote: »

OP, the developers dont come here man. The community managers watch the forums like hawks, but mostly just to remove child *** and off-color jokes.

Granted if everyone followed your suggestion the devs -might- come here, but getting everyone to do that would be like herding cats... cats on skooma.

The actual paid moderators could do it, start a community thread about this or that popular grievance, people would flock to it. That would probably take considerably more time and effort though than what they're currently paid to do. It would also take a much more proactive rather than laissez faire company policy.

You're both right. The Current feedback posts are Headed by the PR team who have a fuckton more to handle than just perusing the forums.

As of right now, there is no guarantee that my suggestion would work, or be worth it. So it is not actually something that should be considered as a job description for the PR team. While it's still a proof of concept, it should be community headed, and if it's successful, then and only then should it be considered as a good business practice.

Basically, it needs to be tested. I'm currently trying to do something similar with NB's, over in the combat and character mechanics forum if you want to see the basic idea.

Solariken · October 2017

I like the concept, but as mentioned above the only way it would be even remotely effective is to have these threads maintained by a paid moderator and stickied.

Even with better organization of grievances though, we are still likely to be just as frustrated by all the same lack of attention and/or apathy from the devs.

Avran_Sylt · October 2017

Solariken wrote: »

I like the concept, but as mentioned above the only way it would be even remotely effective is to have these threads maintained by a paid moderator and stickied.

Even with better organization of grievances though, we are still likely to be just as frustrated by all the same lack of attention and/or apathy from the devs.

Not necessarily, but in practice, for everything to be covered and maintained in a timely manner, most likely yes. I do think that more organized communication, especially with a user acting as a filter for the overload of input, may serve as a better medium for Devs to communicate with the general plyerbase. As a whole day ordeal may be condensed down into 20-30 minutes.

Of course, at this point, it is merely speculation.

Solariken · October 2017

I've always wondered if this game would be better off if ZOS' combat/class/skill design team was NOT also a development team.

The combat devs seem to be mostly competent coders, but they are pretty awful game designers. Wouldn't it be better to have two smallish teams that work closely together, one to code / implement new features / fix bugs, and another team to PLAY THE FREAKING GAME / brainstorm about class design / make balance decisions / counterplay / character mechanics?

Avran_Sylt · October 2017

Solariken wrote: »

I've always wondered if this game would be better off if ZOS' combat/class/skill design team was NOT also a development team.

The combat devs seem to be mostly competent coders, but they are pretty awful game designers. Wouldn't it be better to have two smallish teams that work closely together, one to code / implement new features / fix bugs, and another team to PLAY THE FREAKING GAME / brainstorm about class design / make balance decisions / counterplay / character mechanics?

I think that's how they already work. The Leads for each team act as the main brainstormers, while the nameless coders work in the background. Think of leads like Wrobel as spokesmen for their respective department. While they can code, hey also have additional responsibilities. There just isn't a consumer facing role.

Solariken · October 2017

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Solariken wrote: »

I've always wondered if this game would be better off if ZOS' combat/class/skill design team was NOT also a development team.

The combat devs seem to be mostly competent coders, but they are pretty awful game designers. Wouldn't it be better to have two smallish teams that work closely together, one to code / implement new features / fix bugs, and another team to PLAY THE FREAKING GAME / brainstorm about class design / make balance decisions / counterplay / character mechanics?

I think that's how they already work. The Leads for each team act as the main brainstormers, while the nameless coders work in the background. Think of leads like Wrobel as spokesmen for their respective department. While they can code, hey also have additional responsibilities. There just isn't a consumer facing role.

Then why is design so uninspired and unthoughtful? Champion system as exhibit number 1.

Avran_Sylt · October 2017

Solariken wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Solariken wrote: »

I've always wondered if this game would be better off if ZOS' combat/class/skill design team was NOT also a development team.

The combat devs seem to be mostly competent coders, but they are pretty awful game designers. Wouldn't it be better to have two smallish teams that work closely together, one to code / implement new features / fix bugs, and another team to PLAY THE FREAKING GAME / brainstorm about class design / make balance decisions / counterplay / character mechanics?

I think that's how they already work. The Leads for each team act as the main brainstormers, while the nameless coders work in the background. Think of leads like Wrobel as spokesmen for their respective department. While they can code, hey also have additional responsibilities. There just isn't a consumer facing role.

Then why is design so uninspired and unthoughtful? Champion system as exhibit number 1.

Balls if I know. Poorly architectured code that in tandem with the numerous amounts of systems makes balancing anything 'Unique' an absolute living hell?

lucky_Sage · October 2017

the dks did something like this before everyone put in there ideas. then the few people who where running the thread went through it and took the best ideas that weren't stupid or op broken.
zos gave us 2 of the thing fire leap and magicka based db. but they gave the warden a few some like a heroism buf in scales

Tannus15 · October 2017

The thing is getting the community to agree on anything is almost impossible, other than "nerfs are bad, don't take my toys away"

ZOS_GinaBruno · October 2017

Urza1234 wrote: »

OP, the developers dont come here man. The community managers watch the forums like hawks, but mostly just to remove child *** and off-color jokes.

Granted if everyone followed your suggestion the devs -might- come here, but getting everyone to do that would be like herding cats... cats on skooma.

The actual paid moderators could do it, start a community thread about this or that popular grievance, people would flock to it. That would probably take considerably more time and effort though than what they're currently paid to do. It would also take a much more proactive rather than laissez faire company policy.

This isn't correct. The developers do come on the forums almost daily, and they do read the feedback threads we create when we're active on the PTS; we've said this many times in the past. Also, Jess and I (as the Community Managers) frequently bring threads to the attention of devs to make sure they've seen it, and many times, they already have. The moderators are responsible for removing posts that break our forum rules.

Solariken wrote: »

I've always wondered if this game would be better off if ZOS' combat/class/skill design team was NOT also a development team.

The combat devs seem to be mostly competent coders, but they are pretty awful game designers. Wouldn't it be better to have two smallish teams that work closely together, one to code / implement new features / fix bugs, and another team to PLAY THE FREAKING GAME / brainstorm about class design / make balance decisions / counterplay / character mechanics?

At the risk of replying to a pretty rude post, our combat developers are not engineers - these are two different teams. What you're suggesting is essentially what we already do. What is it that you're unhappy with, exactly?

Tannus15 wrote: »

The thing is getting the community to agree on anything is almost impossible, other than "nerfs are bad, don't take my toys away"

That's the thing - it's almost impossible to make a change that every player will agree with. Our job is to make changes that are best for the overall game. It may not always be popular with everyone, such as nerfing a specific ability, but we look at the big picture to see what needs to be done for the betterment of the game as a whole and how something will affect all aspects (PvE, PvP, dungeons, Trials, etc).

ak_pvp · October 2017

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Urza1234 wrote: »

OP, the developers dont come here man. The community managers watch the forums like hawks, but mostly just to remove child *** and off-color jokes.

Granted if everyone followed your suggestion the devs -might- come here, but getting everyone to do that would be like herding cats... cats on skooma.

The actual paid moderators could do it, start a community thread about this or that popular grievance, people would flock to it. That would probably take considerably more time and effort though than what they're currently paid to do. It would also take a much more proactive rather than laissez faire company policy.

This isn't correct. The developers do come on the forums almost daily, and they do read the feedback threads we create when we're active on the PTS; we've said this many times in the past. Also, Jess and I (as the Community Managers) frequently bring threads to the attention of devs to make sure they've seen it, and many times, they already have. The moderators are responsible for removing posts that break our forum rules.

Solariken wrote: »

I've always wondered if this game would be better off if ZOS' combat/class/skill design team was NOT also a development team.

The combat devs seem to be mostly competent coders, but they are pretty awful game designers. Wouldn't it be better to have two smallish teams that work closely together, one to code / implement new features / fix bugs, and another team to PLAY THE FREAKING GAME / brainstorm about class design / make balance decisions / counterplay / character mechanics?

At the risk of replying to a pretty rude post, our combat developers are not engineers - these are two different teams. What you're suggesting is essentially what we already do. What is it that you're unhappy with, exactly?

Tannus15 wrote: »

The thing is getting the community to agree on anything is almost impossible, other than "nerfs are bad, don't take my toys away"

That's the thing - it's almost impossible to make a change that every player will agree with. Our job is to make changes that are best for the overall game. It may not always be popular with everyone, such as nerfing a specific ability, but we look at the big picture to see what needs to be done for the betterment of the game as a whole and how something will affect all aspects (PvE, PvP, dungeons, Trials, etc).

Fair comment. I don't even mind much nerfs, but ZOS is so far off the ball. But the many liked suggestions are not listened to. Instead we get random inane changes that end up not changing much overall. What we need is more revamps wholely. Not just a blanket "remove x aspect or "Add/take range." The best patches were things like 1tam, or TG with large ability changes that made things worth while

The wide consensus is DK and templar are underpowered. What happened? They got nerfed. People asking for a stonefist rework instead got petrify nerfed? Things like purify had a base cost increase, instead of a change to the ability itself. 1 effect per second would be fair, because some effects would still be up for a few seconds post purge. Sorcerer has a key aspect of another class, whilst that other class got it effectively taken away.

The last comment isn't right either. People want a nerf to shieldstacking (even sorc players) permablocking (even DK players) etc. But nothing was done to affect this, instead we get blanket nerfs.

WhiteNoiseMaker · October 2017

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

That's the thing - it's almost impossible to make a change that every player will agree with. Our job is to make changes that are best for the overall game. It may not always be popular with everyone, such as nerfing a specific ability, but we look at the big picture to see what needs to be done for the betterment of the game as a whole and how something will affect all aspects (PvE, PvP, dungeons, Trials, etc).

@ZOS_GinaBruno
The straw that finally broke the camel's back for me was the very lazy and flippant response from Wrobel about the improved Petrify and how he changed it to make Stonefist more attractive. This was NOT a balance issue as you gave Sorcerers the EXACT SAME mechanics as the improved Petrify, and yet did NOT nerf theirs. This was a big middle-finger from Wrobel to those of us that took the time to try and give meaningful feedback. There's no 'big picture' here as there is an obvious double standard in regards to how Wrobel treats balance passes. Two powers with the exact same mechanics entered into the PTS, and one was gimped after feedback while the other was kept exactly the same.

I for one take exception to the fact that you're painting us with broad strokes about being unhappy because we didn't like your changes. That's not what most people are mad about. We're mad because the Dev Team Lead is inconsistent, non-communicative, and has a very opaque manner of posting that borders on disdain.

You've never been anything but polite and try to show another POV, which I for one appreciate. Wrobel on the other hand has demonstrated nothing but contempt for these forums.

Tannus15 · October 2017

WhiteNoiseMaker wrote: »

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

That's the thing - it's almost impossible to make a change that every player will agree with. Our job is to make changes that are best for the overall game. It may not always be popular with everyone, such as nerfing a specific ability, but we look at the big picture to see what needs to be done for the betterment of the game as a whole and how something will affect all aspects (PvE, PvP, dungeons, Trials, etc).

@ZOS_GinaBruno
The straw that finally broke the camel's back for me was the very lazy and flippant response from Wrobel about the improved Petrify and how he changed it to make Stonefist more attractive. This was NOT a balance issue as you gave Sorcerers the EXACT SAME mechanics as the improved Petrify, and yet did NOT nerf theirs. This was a big middle-finger from Wrobel to those of us that took the time to try and give meaningful feedback. There's no 'big picture' here as there is an obvious double standard in regards to how Wrobel treats balance passes. Two powers with the exact same mechanics entered into the PTS, and one was gimped after feedback while the other was kept exactly the same.

I for one take exception to the fact that you're painting us with broad strokes about being unhappy because we didn't like your changes. That's not what most people are mad about. We're mad because the Dev Team Lead is inconsistent, non-communicative, and has a very opaque manner of posting that borders on disdain.

You've never been anything but polite and try to show another POV, which I for one appreciate. Wrobel on the other hand has demonstrated nothing but contempt for these forums.

Actually, I would argue that crystal frags was nerfed so that the sorc version could remain the same. And that having both classes have exactly the same skill is boring and they should be differentiated somehow.

Basically with the sorc they did what people were hoping for the DK, but no one was happy about that either.

Avran_Sylt · October 2017

@WhiteNoiseMaker

Okay, bud. I know this is hard, and I suffer from outbursts too, but if you REALLY want to have more constructive input with devs (and people in general) , please keep the tone respectful.

Falling down to, as you put it "Wrobels'" level will only lead to a vicious cycle where eventually both parties stop listening to one another.

It's difficult, but try to gut it of the emotion:

"The change to the reworked Petrify was rather surprising, as the Sorcerer version of the ability (which functions just the same) was left alone even though the change to petrify was for the sake of 'balance' between itself and Stonefist. If there are two skills whose function is nearly identical, should that not mean that there is room for a more drastic change than that of range?"

The reason broad strokes are being used is because if you didn't generalize the statement, you'd need to write a goddamned essay that takes everything into account. Gina has to function as some kind of Filter for all the input, and that means that what she finds to be a consensus may not agree with you fully.

The dev team is comprised of several different people with several different individual ideas of the game and its direction (because not everyone thinks the exact same thoughts, you have to create a robust document that describes your goal, and even then it may not have everyone on the same page, this becomes exacerbated the larger a team gets). Expecting personal level feedback that is unanimous among everyone on the dev team is not feasible, as noted by your pointing out of the inconsistencies.

And given that the community has so many varied concerns and opinions of the game, it is impossible for the devs to all convene and reach a consensus for themselves for every single topic the community makes about the game. Hench my suggestion that a living document for various aspects of the game is headed by the community, to act as a way for the devs to get the sparknotes of the community consensus so that they can actually all come to a conclusion in a reasonable amount of time that fits in with their work schedule and can be shared.

dimensional · October 2017

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

@WhiteNoiseMaker

Okay, bud. I know this is hard, and I suffer from outbursts too, but if you REALLY want to have more constructive input with devs (and people in general) , please keep the tone respectful.

Falling down to, as you put it "Wrobels'" level will only lead to a vicious cycle where eventually both parties stop listening to one another.

It's difficult, but try to gut it of the emotion:

"The change to the reworked Petrify was rather surprising, as the Sorcerer version of the ability (which functions just the same) was left alone even though the change to petrify was for the sake of 'balance' between itself and Stonefist. If there are two skills whose function is nearly identical, should that not mean that there is room for a more drastic change than that of range?"

The reason broad strokes are being used is because if you didn't generalize the statement, you'd need to write a goddamned essay that takes everything into account. Gina has to function as some kind of Filter for all the input, and that means that what she finds to be a consensus may not agree with you fully.

The dev team is comprised of several different people with several different individual ideas of the game and its direction (because not everyone thinks the exact same thoughts, you have to create a robust document that describes your goal, and even then it may not have everyone on the same page, this becomes exacerbated the larger a team gets). Expecting personal level feedback that is unanimous among everyone on the dev team is not feasible, as noted by your pointing out of the inconsistencies.

And given that the community has so many varied concerns and opinions of the game, it is impossible for the devs to all convene and reach a consensus for themselves for every single topic the community makes about the game. Hench my suggestion that a living document for various aspects of the game is headed by the community, to act as a way for the devs to get the sparknotes of the community consensus so that they can actually all come to a conclusion in a reasonable amount of time that fits in with their work schedule.

Thank you for this excellent post, all I can say is that I agree 100% with what you've said here.

Taonnor · October 2017

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

... of the game as a whole and how something will affect all aspects (PvE, PvP, dungeons, Trials, etc).

In my eyes you do not enough for PvP part of the game. There is only 1 DLC which is concentrated on PvP. All other DLC's or Chapter Morrorwind does have only PvP as small part.

What is with Cyrodiil? Will there be changes in future?
What is with IC<>Cyrodiil connection?
What is with implementing a better UI for battlegrounds?

The pvp community is very active in case of suggestions. You know this thread: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/4498190

But with your silence in PvP part you suggest us: "PvP is not relevant". You said 10 days before in this Thread -> https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/375281/has-zos-abandoned-pvp/p1

that you will say something about campaign adjustments. Ok, it's friday now. Eventually today or monday?

Next is that @ZOS_BrianWheeler does stopped communication to us PvP players. Is he still there? On what he is working now? How large is his team for PvP? It is shrunken or growing? Are there a road ahead for PvP or not?

Your lack of communication does subtly say to us "PvP is not relevant". Sooner or later PvP will sleep in in ESO and then it is realy not relevant. If you not want this, you should change something in your way of communication. We need information. Information is the community air to breathe. You should know this @ZOS_GinaBruno .

Derra · October 2017

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

...we look at the big picture to see what needs to be done for the betterment of the game as a whole and how something will affect all aspects (PvE, PvP, dungeons, Trials, etc).

You know what would be good for the game?
If pvp worked during primetime.
You´d have 10 times the pvp playerbase if pvp wasn´t a freaking lagfest when you try to play it between 7 to 11pm on EU PC.

I´ll put it quite simple: Everyone i´ve played with in my guild since release. Literally everyone. Everyone of those people quit your game because it does not work during primetime in pvp.
Not because of anything else. Only because it does not work.
Over the past 3 years you have not been able to get your game to work during primetime.

How you can come here and have the audacity to tell people you´re doing anything for the betterment of the game in pvp is beyond me and i find that statement infuriating and straightup insulting (i know you´re not to blame for the state of affairs in general - i´m only blaming you for making the statement that there is anything done for the betterment of pvp - simply because it´s a lie).

Your game does not even work unless you play it in the morning.
Seriously

Taonnor · October 2017

Derra wrote: »

... i´m only blaming you for making the statement that there is anything done for the betterment of pvp - simply because it´s a lie)....

This is hard. I think it is only an unlucky way of communication.

DoonerSeraph · October 2017

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Urza1234 wrote: »

OP, the developers dont come here man. The community managers watch the forums like hawks, but mostly just to remove child *** and off-color jokes.

Granted if everyone followed your suggestion the devs -might- come here, but getting everyone to do that would be like herding cats... cats on skooma.

The actual paid moderators could do it, start a community thread about this or that popular grievance, people would flock to it. That would probably take considerably more time and effort though than what they're currently paid to do. It would also take a much more proactive rather than laissez faire company policy.

This isn't correct. The developers do come on the forums almost daily, and they do read the feedback threads we create when we're active on the PTS; we've said this many times in the past. Also, Jess and I (as the Community Managers) frequently bring threads to the attention of devs to make sure they've seen it, and many times, they already have. The moderators are responsible for removing posts that break our forum rules.

Solariken wrote: »

I've always wondered if this game would be better off if ZOS' combat/class/skill design team was NOT also a development team.

The combat devs seem to be mostly competent coders, but they are pretty awful game designers. Wouldn't it be better to have two smallish teams that work closely together, one to code / implement new features / fix bugs, and another team to PLAY THE FREAKING GAME / brainstorm about class design / make balance decisions / counterplay / character mechanics?

At the risk of replying to a pretty rude post, our combat developers are not engineers - these are two different teams. What you're suggesting is essentially what we already do. What is it that you're unhappy with, exactly?

Tannus15 wrote: »

The thing is getting the community to agree on anything is almost impossible, other than "nerfs are bad, don't take my toys away"

That's the thing - it's almost impossible to make a change that every player will agree with. Our job is to make changes that are best for the overall game. It may not always be popular with everyone, such as nerfing a specific ability, but we look at the big picture to see what needs to be done for the betterment of the game as a whole and how something will affect all aspects (PvE, PvP, dungeons, Trials, etc).

Unfortunately, all the nice words you write pale in comparison of the actions ZOS take patch after patch. You can't expect us to believe that you come here and read posts when every patch and lack of response screams in booming voice: "WEEEEE DOOOOON'T CAAAARE".

Arciris · October 2017

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

That's the thing - it's almost impossible to make a change that every player will agree with. Our job is to make changes that are best for the overall game. It may not always be popular with everyone, such as nerfing a specific ability, but we look at the big picture to see what needs to be done for the betterment of the game as a whole and how something will affect all aspects (PvE, PvP, dungeons, Trials, etc).

Thank you Gina for coming here and for the courage you've always showed in facing a multitude of angry mobs players.
But...
It would be nice to know what is it that the dev team calls "betterment" because all that a lot of players see is:
1. Game performance is still bad.
2. Broken core mechanics are left without a fix - ie: CC immunity after break free is not always granted (even in PVE), gap closers are still working on RNG (they might work or not), weapon swap too, etc...
3. The game is not as fun as it used to be - I've bolded game and fun because that is what ultimately a game should be: fun.
4. Class identity is getting more and more blurry and is loosing flavor because the way skills work is being changed constantly, instead of having some numbers tweaked (costs less/costs more and deals more damage/deals less damage are the only parameters that should be tweaked when it comes to classes).

More importantly, balance will never be achieve while 3d party programs are able to alter core values of the game. Cheating is distorting players perception on what is OP and what is not... and I bet it is distorting dev's perception as well.

Elsonso · October 2017

Derra wrote: »

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

...we look at the big picture to see what needs to be done for the betterment of the game as a whole and how something will affect all aspects (PvE, PvP, dungeons, Trials, etc).

You know what would be good for the game?
If pvp worked during primetime.
You´d have 10 times the pvp playerbase if pvp wasn´t a freaking lagfest when you try to play it between 7 to 11pm on EU PC.

I´ll put it quite simple: Everyone i´ve played with in my guild since release. Literally everyone. Everyone of those people quit your game because it does not work during primetime in pvp.
Not because of anything else. Only because it does not work.
Over the past 3 years you have not been able to get your game to work during primetime.

I am pretty sure they know this. I doubt they are in their own little World of Constant Tea Parties.

The real question is: What is it about PVP on their end that is causing them to let problems drag out for years? My thought about the answer is that the game engine needs to be rewritten, and until that happens, PVP is pretty much "as-is".

The next question, if that answer is right, is whether ESO will benefit from the improved engine, or whether that will be a core feature of the next game they write.

DRXHarbinger · October 2017

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Urza1234 wrote: »

OP, the developers dont come here man. The community managers watch the forums like hawks, but mostly just to remove child *** and off-color jokes.

Granted if everyone followed your suggestion the devs -might- come here, but getting everyone to do that would be like herding cats... cats on skooma.

The actual paid moderators could do it, start a community thread about this or that popular grievance, people would flock to it. That would probably take considerably more time and effort though than what they're currently paid to do. It would also take a much more proactive rather than laissez faire company policy.

This isn't correct. The developers do come on the forums almost daily, and they do read the feedback threads we create when we're active on the PTS; we've said this many times in the past. Also, Jess and I (as the Community Managers) frequently bring threads to the attention of devs to make sure they've seen it, and many times, they already have. The moderators are responsible for removing posts that break our forum rules.

Solariken wrote: »

I've always wondered if this game would be better off if ZOS' combat/class/skill design team was NOT also a development team.

The combat devs seem to be mostly competent coders, but they are pretty awful game designers. Wouldn't it be better to have two smallish teams that work closely together, one to code / implement new features / fix bugs, and another team to PLAY THE FREAKING GAME / brainstorm about class design / make balance decisions / counterplay / character mechanics?

At the risk of replying to a pretty rude post, our combat developers are not engineers - these are two different teams. What you're suggesting is essentially what we already do. What is it that you're unhappy with, exactly?

Tannus15 wrote: »

The thing is getting the community to agree on anything is almost impossible, other than "nerfs are bad, don't take my toys away"

That's the thing - it's almost impossible to make a change that every player will agree with. Our job is to make changes that are best for the overall game. It may not always be popular with everyone, such as nerfing a specific ability, but we look at the big picture to see what needs to be done for the betterment of the game as a whole and how something will affect all aspects (PvE, PvP, dungeons, Trials, etc).

@ZOS_GinaBruno Whilst I agree with your input there to pipe some people down, it may be best to.

Explain the process on how you go about making changes? I see you say the developers read feedback from the PTS feedback threads? But isn't it important to listen to real world in game feedback, not the feedback on the changes that 99% of the player base never wanted in the 1st place?

It seems apparent to a lot of people that some of the desirable and required changes are ignored now for ... well a very very very long time.

I think it just the process that you have in place is what people don't like. The nerf or buff hammer comes out and it seems like a fight against or for it everytime but largely none of it came from the community in the 1st place.

Would it not be possible to perhaps have something like a "what do you think poll" just post out desired changes you would like to make and give perhaps a few options and let the players decide by majority vote.

It just seems there is a huge disconnect between the players and the dev team. I have no desire of having Eric's phone number or email or any means but perhaps just some engagement from the core team.

Such as,

we are thinking of removing the stun from Templar shards and givin x in return... who wants this? (99% vote no)

We are thinking of removing sorc proc frag stun, what think? (non sorcs vote yes overwhelmingly)

Potentially we are thinking of making these changes to DK's (options inserted here) feedback begins, if felt is desired THEN goes into PTS for testing)

Just feels a bit defeating that the majority of changes made each and everytime are there to stay regardless of feedback AND on the flip side if overwhelmingly opposed to the changes... saves time of development work.

Derra · October 2017

Taonnor wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

... i´m only blaming you for making the statement that there is anything done for the betterment of pvp - simply because it´s a lie)....

This is hard. I think it is only an unlucky way of communication.

It´s purely subjective ofc.

I´ll explain my point of view:
Sure there are changes being done specifically with pvp in mind.
However those are pointless if the game simply does not work when players attempt to play it during primetime.

It´s like AMG working on the suspension of a car and getting new tires, new aerodynamic kit but every time you try to drive more than 40mph the engine fails.

So in my very biased opinion all the changes that are supposedly being done for the betterment of pvp are pointless because the car does not start - figuratively.

You can´t claim to improve something that fails to work in the first place.

Elsonso · October 2017

DRXHarbinger wrote: »

Explain the process on how you go about making changes? I see you say the developers read feedback from the PTS feedback threads? But isn't it important to listen to real world in game feedback, not the feedback on the changes that 99% of the player base never wanted in the 1st place?

It seems apparent to a lot of people that some of the desirable and required changes are ignored now for ... well a very very very long time.

I think it just the process that you have in place is what people don't like. The nerf or buff hammer comes out and it seems like a fight against or for it everytime but largely none of it came from the community in the 1st place.

Would it not be possible to perhaps have something like a "what do you think poll" just post out desired changes you would like to make and give perhaps a few options and let the players decide by majority vote.

It just seems there is a huge disconnect between the players and the dev team. I have no desire of having Eric's phone number or email or any means but perhaps just some engagement from the core team.

To the inhabitants of Lineland, the entire world consists of themselves and the two Points to either side. The two Points will always be there, and always be the same. It is impossible for it to be any other way because Linelanders cannot perceive any other dimensions. When three Points are in agreement, the Point in the middle perceives that the entire world is in agreement. They cannot step back from the world and see the Points on the other side of their neighbors.

The Square from Flatland can see that Lineland (which looks like a wall) has many different Points with many different thoughts and ideas. To any one of the Points, these ideas are either completely ridiculous, because the entire world thinks something different, obvious, because the entire world also thinks this, or plausible, because one or two of the three Points in the entire world agrees.

ZOS sees the "game as a whole", which is to us, an idea that is outside of our perception. It is from another universe. We have only the word of ZOS, and statements from Apostles and Haters who share our universe, about this "game as a whole", and what properties it might have.

Are we just Points in Lineland who are upset because Square does not pay heed to the ideas that the entire world has agreed upon?

rhapsodious · October 2017

DRXHarbinger wrote: »

Would it not be possible to perhaps have something like a "what do you think poll" just post out desired changes you would like to make and give perhaps a few options and let the players decide by majority vote.

It just seems there is a huge disconnect between the players and the dev team. I have no desire of having Eric's phone number or email or any means but perhaps just some engagement from the core team.

Such as,

we are thinking of removing the stun from Templar shards and givin x in return... who wants this? (99% vote no)

We are thinking of removing sorc proc frag stun, what think? (non sorcs vote yes overwhelmingly)

Potentially we are thinking of making these changes to DK's (options inserted here) feedback begins, if felt is desired THEN goes into PTS for testing)

Just feels a bit defeating that the majority of changes made each and everytime are there to stay regardless of feedback AND on the flip side if overwhelmingly opposed to the changes... saves time of development work.

The "what do you think" poll is pretty much the PTS, as much as it feels like the players aren't being listened to.

(The following I'm pretty sure you already know, so it's more a general statement)

The administrative portion of the combat team (which is mostly but not entirely Wrobel, from what I understand) has a vision for each class's playstyle and feel, and puts out proposed variations on PTS. People either jump for joy or riot (okay. Mostly rioting

) and further adjustments are rolled out in incremental PTS patches, still adhering to the general vision from the first patch, e.g. Agony was never being used, and NBs are a healing-over-time class, so let's make the new one a HOT that plays into the theme of siphoning. He/they definitely make a lot of decisions I disagree with and end up changing how I play, but MOST of the time I can see why the changes were made, or where they were trying to go with it.

Explicit polls where the winner is a majority vote and opt-in responses will lead to heavily biased, reactionary data that mostly consists of "they changed it and I don't like it". Remember how 6 second shields were going to RUIN SORCS FOREVER and the 2h ulti was going to eviscerate anything in its path?

BUT. I completely agree that there's still a lot that could be done for transparency, maybe like a dev fireside chat on the forums once a week (separate from ESO live) where they talk about pain points that are being felt, using actual examples of performance and not knee-jerk reactions. Or even where they address specific, well-researched, unbiased points that people have brought up, like magplar skills not scaling correctly/like previously, and explain what the roadmap is on that, or why they're not changing it just yet. I remember Wrobel did that once, for... blocking changes?? It was a nice gesture.

I just fear that the community would scare them away.

Avran_Sylt · October 2017

Taonnor wrote: »

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

... of the game as a whole and how something will affect all aspects (PvE, PvP, dungeons, Trials, etc).

In my eyes you do not enough for PvP part of the game. There is only 1 DLC which is concentrated on PvP. All other DLC's or Chapter Morrorwind does have only PvP as small part.

What is with Cyrodiil? Will there be changes in future?
What is with IC<>Cyrodiil connection?
What is with implementing a better UI for battlegrounds?

The pvp community is very active in case of suggestions. You know this thread: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/4498190

But with your silence in PvP part you suggest us: "PvP is not relevant". You said 10 days before in this Thread -> https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/375281/has-zos-abandoned-pvp/p1

that you will say something about campaign adjustments. Ok, it's friday now. Eventually today or monday?

Next is that @ZOS_BrianWheeler does stopped communication to us PvP players. Is he still there? On what he is working now? How large is his team for PvP? It is shrunken or growing? Are there a road ahead for PvP or not?

Your lack of communication does subtly say to us "PvP is not relevant". Sooner or later PvP will sleep in in ESO and then it is realy not relevant. If you not want this, you should change something in your way of communication. We need information. Information is the community air to breathe. You should know this @ZOS_GinaBruno .

That first thread linked is fantastic. However, I do suggest that as a matter of practice, you don't expect ZoS to respond in the comments. It's unfortunate, but it should be assumed that the OP is read, and it leads to internal, rather than external, discussions.

Derra wrote: »

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

...we look at the big picture to see what needs to be done for the betterment of the game as a whole and how something will affect all aspects (PvE, PvP, dungeons, Trials, etc).

You know what would be good for the game?
If pvp worked during primetime.
You´d have 10 times the pvp playerbase if pvp wasn´t a freaking lagfest when you try to play it between 7 to 11pm on EU PC.

I´ll put it quite simple: Everyone i´ve played with in my guild since release. Literally everyone. Everyone of those people quit your game because it does not work during primetime in pvp.
Not because of anything else. Only because it does not work.
Over the past 3 years you have not been able to get your game to work during primetime.

How you can come here and have the audacity to tell people you´re doing anything for the betterment of the game in pvp is beyond me and i find that statement infuriating and straightup insulting (i know you´re not to blame for the state of affairs in general - i´m only blaming you for making the statement that there is anything done for the betterment of pvp - simply because it´s a lie).

Your game does not even work unless you play it in the morning.
Seriously

That would be a question for the Network Engineers, not anyone whom we are used to communicating with on the forums who handle the high-level concepts. But I doubt anyone of them would want to come out and discuss this with the amount of vitriol on the topic.

DoonerSeraph wrote: »

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Urza1234 wrote: »

OP, the developers dont come here man. The community managers watch the forums like hawks, but mostly just to remove child *** and off-color jokes.

Granted if everyone followed your suggestion the devs -might- come here, but getting everyone to do that would be like herding cats... cats on skooma.

The actual paid moderators could do it, start a community thread about this or that popular grievance, people would flock to it. That would probably take considerably more time and effort though than what they're currently paid to do. It would also take a much more proactive rather than laissez faire company policy.

This isn't correct. The developers do come on the forums almost daily, and they do read the feedback threads we create when we're active on the PTS; we've said this many times in the past. Also, Jess and I (as the Community Managers) frequently bring threads to the attention of devs to make sure they've seen it, and many times, they already have. The moderators are responsible for removing posts that break our forum rules.

Solariken wrote: »

I've always wondered if this game would be better off if ZOS' combat/class/skill design team was NOT also a development team.

The combat devs seem to be mostly competent coders, but they are pretty awful game designers. Wouldn't it be better to have two smallish teams that work closely together, one to code / implement new features / fix bugs, and another team to PLAY THE FREAKING GAME / brainstorm about class design / make balance decisions / counterplay / character mechanics?

At the risk of replying to a pretty rude post, our combat developers are not engineers - these are two different teams. What you're suggesting is essentially what we already do. What is it that you're unhappy with, exactly?

Tannus15 wrote: »

The thing is getting the community to agree on anything is almost impossible, other than "nerfs are bad, don't take my toys away"

That's the thing - it's almost impossible to make a change that every player will agree with. Our job is to make changes that are best for the overall game. It may not always be popular with everyone, such as nerfing a specific ability, but we look at the big picture to see what needs to be done for the betterment of the game as a whole and how something will affect all aspects (PvE, PvP, dungeons, Trials, etc).

Unfortunately, all the nice words you write pale in comparison of the actions ZOS take patch after patch. You can't expect us to believe that you come here and read posts when every patch and lack of response screams in booming voice: "WEEEEE DOOOOON'T CAAAARE".

YOOOOOU AAAARREEEEEE TTTHHHEEEEE PRRROOOOBLEEEEEEEEEM. Seriously, if you can't have constructive, and most importantly, respectful discourse, keep your mouth shut until you can. Show respect, and hopefully respect will be shown to you.

@Derra @lordrichter @Arciris @ZOS_GinaBruno @DRXHarbinger

Would you all agree that it seems that what the community is after is seeing the experimental stages of production as well?

Think of it in terms of @lordrichter Line/Square example:

All of this is in a 2D space (Product -> Consumer), The points on a line only see one edge of the square, meaning they only see a line as well (The finished product). Because of that, they can only work off of past iterations to try and get a feel for what will happen, and ultimately don't see all of the stuff that gets cut (the area of the square).

If, this became a 3D space (Product -> Testers -> Consumers), the Square could lay on a perpendicular plane, so for those points on the line that take the time to look up, they can see what's being planned, what is being cut, ideas that are thrown around/out.

You might say that this is what the PTS already is, and I can't argue with that. I can only say that it seems that players are wishing for more transparency in the High-Level concept stages of production.

If anyone is familiar with Oldschool Runescape, (Runescape 2007), The poll section might be of interest to you. But be warned, this also comes at the cost of experimental ideas, such as the time that a new sailing skill was cut because of community feedback, even though the dev team was excited about it, and all the new exploration features that could have come about from it.

ZOS_GinaBruno · October 2017

Derra wrote: »

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

...we look at the big picture to see what needs to be done for the betterment of the game as a whole and how something will affect all aspects (PvE, PvP, dungeons, Trials, etc).

You know what would be good for the game?
If pvp worked during primetime.
You´d have 10 times the pvp playerbase if pvp wasn´t a freaking lagfest when you try to play it between 7 to 11pm on EU PC.

I´ll put it quite simple: Everyone i´ve played with in my guild since release. Literally everyone. Everyone of those people quit your game because it does not work during primetime in pvp.
Not because of anything else. Only because it does not work.
Over the past 3 years you have not been able to get your game to work during primetime.

How you can come here and have the audacity to tell people you´re doing anything for the betterment of the game in pvp is beyond me and i find that statement infuriating and straightup insulting (i know you´re not to blame for the state of affairs in general - i´m only blaming you for making the statement that there is anything done for the betterment of pvp - simply because it´s a lie).

Your game does not even work unless you play it in the morning.
Seriously

I know you're frustrated, but remember the statement I made earlier was in regards to ability changes and not performance. Now that said, we do have several performance improvements coming in Update 16 (Monday for PC) that will help improve the frame rate and loading screens - this includes Cyrodiil.

rfennell_ESO · October 2017

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Tannus15 wrote: »

The thing is getting the community to agree on anything is almost impossible, other than "nerfs are bad, don't take my toys away"

That's the thing - it's almost impossible to make a change that every player will agree with. Our job is to make changes that are best for the overall game. It may not always be popular with everyone, such as nerfing a specific ability, but we look at the big picture to see what needs to be done for the betterment of the game as a whole and how something will affect all aspects (PvE, PvP, dungeons, Trials, etc).

Keep on with the betterment of the game.

The majority isn't always right, they always want to rule by majority when it benefits them. When your majority of "testers" are people testing to *get an advantage* you are going to be very limited on useful input. By get an advantage I do mean exactly that, if you are testing to see what's broken and you can use or simply getting ahead of the curve or merely seeing what you need to change for when it goes live... it's "getting an advantage" and that's the bulk of testers and always will be.

You aren't dealing with the player base as a whole, you are dealing with a very selective grouping of people that have the interest, the time and the inclination to play on the pts... and trust me, regardless of the claims that will be made... there aren't very many that are testing for the sake of helping you test, or at least as their only reason for it.

I guarantee that if you put up polls over balance you would never get anything resembling accuracy. Self interest rules supreme in reality, those that have interest in something remaining unbalanced will always flock to a poll they perceive as input in a change... those that have no interest will be underrepresented.

There has been cycle after cycle of streamers on pts either being wrong or outright lying about changes and their actual merit. Heavy armor is dead!!!!, not enough was done for Stamsorc, the spec is dead!!!!!, Haunting Curse is a great change, thanks for the pve help! (when it wasn't needed and the ability became the immediate staple of pvp even though it was claimed to be a pve change).

Perception is reality, but reality is rarely perception.