Seraphayel wrote: »@John_Falstaff @Lord-Otto
Maybe you didn't notice but I did create this poll. People taking one of the extreme answers are ones I cannot take for serious, let it be the completely positive or negative option. Whereas the extreme negative option is ridiculous because that would imply you hate all of the changes and not just one, two or ten out of the over 30 racials they changed which is absurd and almost impossible.
Nevermind, there are two positive, two negative and a so-so answer. If you count the two negative answers lol, you've count the two positive as well. And that's were we have ~ 40 vs. 26 in favour of the changes. That's a majority. The so-so can't be applied to positive or negative directly that's why I split them in half and added them to both sides. You cannot say "but more of the so-so favour the negative side" because of [reasons]. It's either split in half or we remove them completely from the argument who likes (positive) or dislikes (negative) the changes.
You can spin your heads and arguments as much as you want, the racial changes are not universally disliked by a majority of people and you cannot make it look like that just because you "hate" them. Majority doesn't.
Placing the "so-so" answers as not negative is the exact reason why chefs/restaurant-owners on Nightmare Kitchens are so confused and offended when Gordon Ramsay yells at them instead of praising them. And the fact that you created the poll just drives that point home even better.
If you put your time, energy, and skills into something like baking a cake, cooking a meal, painting a painting, or creating a game; and then you show that masterpiece to your friends/customers/clients and they say, "meh.... It's alright. It's so-so..." You should know this is not a positive response. It is a negative response. Which is what a satisfaction poll is trying to determine. Any restaurant worth its salt receiving 3/5 stars on a customer review will not look at that and think, "Oh its not quite positive or negative! We did good!"
Edit: Tl;dr: The poll shows a majority as negative feedback. The "so-so" votes on a satisfaction poll should always be considered a negative response. It should always translate to: Needs Improvement.
Seraphayel wrote: »Placing the "so-so" answers as not negative is the exact reason why chefs/restaurant-owners on Nightmare Kitchens are so confused and offended when Gordon Ramsay yells at them instead of praising them. And the fact that you created the poll just drives that point home even better.
If you put your time, energy, and skills into something like baking a cake, cooking a meal, painting a painting, or creating a game; and then you show that masterpiece to your friends/customers/clients and they say, "meh.... It's alright. It's so-so..." You should know this is not a positive response. It is a negative response. Which is what a satisfaction poll is trying to determine. Any restaurant worth its salt receiving 3/5 stars on a customer review will not look at that and think, "Oh its not quite positive or negative! We did good!"
Edit: Tl;dr: The poll shows a majority as negative feedback. The "so-so" votes on a satisfaction poll should always be considered a negative response. It should always translate to: Needs Improvement.
It's quite hilarious that you complainers need the "some good, some bad" group to back up your claims that the changes are disliked by a majority. If you all think so, so be it.
To say that the poll shows a majority for negative feedback is still fake news. Might fit your narrative but doesn't translate to the poll results. Maybe we should create a poll with just two options "yes" or "no". But then trying to find arguments why the majority likes the changes and doesn't dislike them might be difficult.
Seraphayel wrote: »Placing the "so-so" answers as not negative is the exact reason why chefs/restaurant-owners on Nightmare Kitchens are so confused and offended when Gordon Ramsay yells at them instead of praising them. And the fact that you created the poll just drives that point home even better.
If you put your time, energy, and skills into something like baking a cake, cooking a meal, painting a painting, or creating a game; and then you show that masterpiece to your friends/customers/clients and they say, "meh.... It's alright. It's so-so..." You should know this is not a positive response. It is a negative response. Which is what a satisfaction poll is trying to determine. Any restaurant worth its salt receiving 3/5 stars on a customer review will not look at that and think, "Oh its not quite positive or negative! We did good!"
Edit: Tl;dr: The poll shows a majority as negative feedback. The "so-so" votes on a satisfaction poll should always be considered a negative response. It should always translate to: Needs Improvement.
It's quite hilarious that you complainers need the "some good, some bad" group to back up your claims that the changes are disliked by a majority. If you all think so, so be it.
To say that the poll shows a majority for negative feedback is still fake news. Might fit your narrative but doesn't translate to the poll results. Maybe we should create a poll with just two options "yes" or "no". But then trying to find arguments why the majority likes the changes and doesn't dislike them might be difficult.
Added the full portion of my comment that you quoted, so you know, you can read it again.
But, keep on deluding yourself with your confirmation bias!
Needs improvement =/= Satisfaction.
One cannot be satisfied if there is a need for improvement.
There are 10 races. If people are voting they are unhappy with 4-6 of 10 racial passives, this is a negative satisfaction vote.
If you are polling for customer satisfaction, any answer that does not express satisfaction is a negative. I don't know how much more clear this point can be made to you.
The poll shows that a minority of players (40%) like the changes. That is the important conclusion. You don't need to twist numbers to get that.
It doesn't matter. The majority hates the racial changes and will quit the game asap.
Nevertheless we get the changes in the end and all the complaining was in vain. And I, the minority, will sit there and be satisfied, that's enough for me.
Seraphayel wrote: »Nevertheless, I still think it's very much an overreaction. Somehow reasonable? Understandable? Definitely! But the world will not end because of that yet some are acting like it will. I understand Bosmer frustration about losing the Stealth aspect of their race but best is to counter that with more arguments and less feels (I know it has been done already in the last weeks).
Stealthy: Reduces detection Radius by 3m […] → Hunter’s Eye: Increases your Stealth detection radius by 3m.
Ridiculous.... Role players talking about identity while referring to a bunch of skills and considering changes to be an insult to the players... You may complain when they change the models or sounds.
Pact, Archery, Stealth.Seriously, if one was to boil down Bosmers to 3 points, it would be that they are amazing archers, they are amazing at stealth, and they don't eat or even damage any plant. Stealth is integral to Bosmers.
I'll quote a book from Daggerfall:And so on. Seriously, if one was to boil down Bosmers to 3 points, it would be that they are amazing archers, they are amazing at stealth, and they don't eat or even damage any plant. Stealth is integral to Bosmers.
What do you call a Wood Elf who doesn't lie or cheat or steal?
A dead Wood Elf.
4 – Stealth is part of the gameplay, don’t treat it as if it doesn’t exist
There is a huge contradiction in that update. One one side, « Sneaking isn’t a universal mechanic to the game », so they’re taking it away from the Bosmers, but on the other hand, they were initially boosting Khajiit’s stealth (don't know if that's still true, didn't care, I have no Khajiit and don't intend to have one). Doesn’t make much sense to me aside from the sheer will to force an artificial, stat-based-only difference between the two races, even though they do share this trait in the lore and have been sharing it in games for almost 3 decades. Stealth exists, stealth is part of the gameplay, and stealth is helluva fun
Stealth isn’t a major part of the gameplay, I’ll give you that. But it isn’t negligible either. There are TWO entire DLCs that revolve around sneaking, a huge amount of items that exist only to be stolen, and a whole justice system that benefits from being able to avoid being seen by the guards. There are achievements and housing items to unlock with said achievements that call for picking merchant lockboxes. So, it’s entirely possible that a Bosmer (or Khajiit) character was created with that in mind, to be a thief / assassin. I know mine was, at least.
Sure, stealth has no place in trials and most « end game » content, but… Does everyone focus on that ? I don’t think so. And even so, it’s entirely possible to have separate characters for different contents, for instance one really optimised character for competitive gameplay, and a stealthy little Bosmer for when you feel like picking pockets and are curious about what’s behind that locked door.
Ridiculous.... Role players talking about identity while referring to a bunch of skills and considering changes to be an insult to the players... You may complain when they change the models or sounds.
Ridiculous... Stat player not even understanding that stealth is a gameplay choice and not Roleplay. Also, "roleplaying" initially meant rolling dices and writing stats on a paper sheet with friends in your mom's basement, mate. Just saying.
So, if you consider a developer changing a game to be an insult to players, then you probably better don't bother with computer games at all. Just saying
So, if you consider a developer changing a game to be an insult to players, then you probably better don't bother with computer games at all. Just saying
You go to a restaurant and order a specific meal. The waiter says "excellent choice, sir, this one is particularly tasty !", then proceeds to bring you the plate. You start eating ,and after one bite, the waiter takes your plate away and brings you something entirely different. Something you don't even like, and not even worth half the price of what you ordered. He still charges you for what you ordered.
But hey, at least you got a meal, so you probably shouldn't feel cheated, right ?
They are screwing up with the Bosmer thing. Really irritated. Deliberately made a Bosmer thief for the stealth. Khajiit does not fit that character so they have essentially destroyed it. There is nothing that can be done short of restoring the passive to what it was that will fix it.
So, if you consider a developer changing a game to be an insult to players, then you probably better don't bother with computer games at all. Just saying
You go to a restaurant and order a specific meal. The waiter says "excellent choice, sir, this one is particularly tasty !", then proceeds to bring you the plate. You start eating ,and after one bite, the waiter takes your plate away and brings you something entirely different. Something you don't even like, and not even worth half the price of what you ordered. He still charges you for what you ordered.
But hey, at least you got a meal, so you probably shouldn't feel cheated, right ?
Seraphayel wrote: »Bla bla bla
Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »Well... OK, tell me, but honestly and objectively, without favouring any race or racial bias, Did ZOS fulfilled all their goals that they stated amongst every race we have in ESO ? Can you go and look at all of the 10 races and add a "✔" check mark to all of those points ?
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/453551/upcoming-racial-balance-changes-for-update-21/p1
"To summarize, we decided to focus more on racial balance this update because racial choice was one of the larger outliers to our core mantra of the game - freedom. We wanted to expand the horizon for choice and present players with a self-reflecting question of “What is my playstyle or ideal build?”, providing options to help reach that individual answer. Now, instead of having a single race that focuses almost exclusively on a specific playstyle, you can pick based on a personal level."
1. Allow more effective options when picking a race for each role in tanking, healing, or damage dealing.
2. Equalize the overall power that each race provides by using our set bonus efficiency system, which compares the total amount of power that a bonus provides under equal terms.
3. Retain and enhance the unique feeling and gameplay patterns that each race allows.
4. Improve the sense of progression that the racial passives provide when leveling up.
5. Achieve the above goals while still obeying our rich and structured lore and storytelling.
If they DID NOT, I honestly think they should not push those changes to the live server to meet the "deadline" and take their time, as much time as they can as it is technically not a "race" (no pun intended) and it would be wiser to test changes longer until they can actually put a big huge "✔" check mark to all their goals.
Seraphayel wrote: »So, if you consider a developer changing a game to be an insult to players, then you probably better don't bother with computer games at all. Just saying
You go to a restaurant and order a specific meal. The waiter says "excellent choice, sir, this one is particularly tasty !", then proceeds to bring you the plate. You start eating ,and after one bite, the waiter takes your plate away and brings you something entirely different. Something you don't even like, and not even worth half the price of what you ordered. He still charges you for what you ordered.
But hey, at least you got a meal, so you probably shouldn't feel cheated, right ?
Yeah unless you ordered that plate several years ago, waited in that restaurant until it was rotten and still swallowed it, your comparison is absurd. You know why? Because you ordered nothing recently to begin with. And you have the free choice to not eat what you've ordered years ago and don't like anymore (oh but you've eaten it year after year until you realized it doesn't taste good anymore).
Oops, now I answered to that horrible comparison and made it even more absurd. Well nevermind. Tomorrow you'll either eat your meal or change the restaurant. Or you just make a scene and embarrass yourself in front of the other guests because your steak was one time medium instead of medium rare.
Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »Well... OK, tell me, but honestly and objectively, without favouring any race or racial bias, Did ZOS fulfilled all their goals that they stated amongst every race we have in ESO ? Can you go and look at all of the 10 races and add a "✔" check mark to all of those points ?
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/453551/upcoming-racial-balance-changes-for-update-21/p1
"To summarize, we decided to focus more on racial balance this update because racial choice was one of the larger outliers to our core mantra of the game - freedom. We wanted to expand the horizon for choice and present players with a self-reflecting question of “What is my playstyle or ideal build?”, providing options to help reach that individual answer. Now, instead of having a single race that focuses almost exclusively on a specific playstyle, you can pick based on a personal level."
1. Allow more effective options when picking a race for each role in tanking, healing, or damage dealing.
2. Equalize the overall power that each race provides by using our set bonus efficiency system, which compares the total amount of power that a bonus provides under equal terms.
3. Retain and enhance the unique feeling and gameplay patterns that each race allows.
4. Improve the sense of progression that the racial passives provide when leveling up.
5. Achieve the above goals while still obeying our rich and structured lore and storytelling.
If they DID NOT, I honestly think they should not push those changes to the live server to meet the "deadline" and take their time, as much time as they can as it is technically not a "race" (no pun intended) and it would be wiser to test changes longer until they can actually put a big huge "✔" check mark to all their goals.
Kalle_Demos wrote: »Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »Well... OK, tell me, but honestly and objectively, without favouring any race or racial bias, Did ZOS fulfilled all their goals that they stated amongst every race we have in ESO ? Can you go and look at all of the 10 races and add a "✔" check mark to all of those points ?
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/453551/upcoming-racial-balance-changes-for-update-21/p1
"To summarize, we decided to focus more on racial balance this update because racial choice was one of the larger outliers to our core mantra of the game - freedom. We wanted to expand the horizon for choice and present players with a self-reflecting question of “What is my playstyle or ideal build?”, providing options to help reach that individual answer. Now, instead of having a single race that focuses almost exclusively on a specific playstyle, you can pick based on a personal level."
1. Allow more effective options when picking a race for each role in tanking, healing, or damage dealing.
2. Equalize the overall power that each race provides by using our set bonus efficiency system, which compares the total amount of power that a bonus provides under equal terms.
3. Retain and enhance the unique feeling and gameplay patterns that each race allows.
4. Improve the sense of progression that the racial passives provide when leveling up.
5. Achieve the above goals while still obeying our rich and structured lore and storytelling.
If they DID NOT, I honestly think they should not push those changes to the live server to meet the "deadline" and take their time, as much time as they can as it is technically not a "race" (no pun intended) and it would be wiser to test changes longer until they can actually put a big huge "✔" check mark to all their goals.
This. If you read through the goals and then look at what was actually implemented you see a large disconnect. In many cases you can see where they took steps backwards from live. On live there are races competitive for DPS, Healing and Tanking but now some races are clearly ahead of all others. Some passives lack universal applicability and are only useful, if at all, in certain scenarios. There are also multiple lore and racial identity conflicts that have arisen. All of this is strongly contrasted to the goals that were set. If the balance team were serious about achieving these goals they'd be nowhere near finished.
LiquidPony wrote: »But I don't see why those improvements can't be made iteratively rather than scrapping the whole thing because it's not perfect.
SidewalkChalk5 wrote: »LiquidPony wrote: »But I don't see why those improvements can't be made iteratively rather than scrapping the whole thing because it's not perfect.
Because they charge money for race change tokens. Carelessly changing the product after people have paid for it to pressure people into purchasing tokens is a slimy business practice. Racial changes should not be pushed to live until they are as close to perfect and permanent as possible, unless ZOS stops charging for race changes. Right now racial balance presents a giant ethical conflict of interest and they've horribly mismanaged it, utterly failed at their stated objectives, and are rushing to push bad changes that players don't want instead of slowing down and fixing things before we either (a) get stuck with this crap long-term or (b) get whiplash from multiple changes to something they're changing cash for.
Goal #4 (feeling of progression while leveling) doesn't affect endgame so I'll leave it out of this analysis:
SidewalkChalk5 wrote: »LiquidPony wrote: »But I don't see why those improvements can't be made iteratively rather than scrapping the whole thing because it's not perfect.
Because they charge money for race change tokens. Carelessly changing the product after people have paid for it to pressure people into purchasing tokens is a slimy business practice. Racial changes should not be pushed to live until they are as close to perfect and permanent as possible, unless ZOS stops charging for race changes. Right now racial balance presents a giant ethical conflict of interest and they've horribly mismanaged it, utterly failed at their stated objectives, and are rushing to push bad changes that players don't want instead of slowing down and fixing things before we either (a) get stuck with this crap long-term or (b) get whiplash from multiple changes to something they're changing cash for.
Goal #4 (feeling of progression while leveling) doesn't affect endgame so I'll leave it out of this analysis: