Twitch Q and A: Arena Weapons and How Community Feedback is Handled

silvereyes · June 2020

I've seen some confusion and misinformation on the forums about how the U26 vMA/vDSA weapon changes were made, why they weren't upgraded to perfected and the general lack of communication and response to player feedback. I took some time last night to fully transcribe some of the bits from last week's Twitch Q and A with Rich Lambert that I thought were particularly enlightening. I hope that you find the following useful. The transcript is edited slightly to remove chatter from KyleDempsterStudios that didn't really add any information, other than as prompts for the flow of the interview.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/633823257?t=00h28m00s

Caleb wrote:

Why are current vMA and vDSA weapons not being upgraded to their perfected versions? They're currently obtained by completing the arenas on vet - same criteria as after the update - which means the new weapons being added to the game are the imperfect versions in the normal arenas.

ZOS_RichLambert wrote:

I mean, they're not imperfect. You didn't loose any power with them. Like, the weapons are the same. If we changed the weapons, we would have probably would have upgraded them. But we didn't take any power away from those. We just added a new thing in there, and ultimately, we wanted to make sure that the current weapons were a little bit more accessible for players. A very, very small number of our community were actually able to get through and earn those weapons.

So, when we went in there ... and I actually made the call. Everybody gives Wheeler grief about, "why didn't you upgrade these things?" I was the one that made the call, that said, "no, we're not going to upgrade them, because player's aren't losing any power there." You know, from my point of view - and I run vMA a ton - you know, we got to use these weapons for five years. We didn't lose anything out of there.

If you really have to have the "perfected" in the item name, um, just go run the Maelstrom Arena again. Yes, there's a line there, and yes, I guess it kinda feels arbitrary to some players, and yes, some players don't want to go and do it because they've done it before. I get that. But, again, when you're kinda doing that balancing act, you know, what's more important in the grand scheme of things? And, you know, I made the call of, no, we're not gonna upgrade 'em.

[snip]

He (Wheeler) gets all the hate, and it totally wasn't his call, and he'll never be like, "I didn't make the call, Rich did." He would never do that. So ... um ... yeah. People can blame me for it, which is fine.

[snip]

Yeah, it kinda got lost in the shuffle as well. Like, I know there was a big long post on the forums. Or, several threads on there that got pretty cranky. In general, I try not to respond to cranky threads. But I know the Community Team has been pushing on that to get an official response. So I think they put something up there, but ... um ... honestly it just kinda got lost in the shuffle, from my point of view.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/633823257?t=00h35m35s

Unattributed wrote:

As a project manager myself, I know how dealing with different teams to deliver a project is. How do you personally handle having to find the balance between the clients and the players' expectations and your team's vision?

ZOS_RichLambert wrote:

That one's hard to answer in a short amount of time, because it really can kind of go on forever. Really, what it comes down to is:
having a vision - kind of knowing where we want to go and what we think are the most important things;

using data - so we have tons of data, tons of analytic data that we can kind of go through; and

getting feedback from social media and the forums and whatnot - kind of putting those all together to kind of reinforce the direction, and kind of reinforce some of the decisions we're making.

You know, I'm a big fan of using the term, "data informed," and not, "data driven," because you can make data tell you anything. The same data can be looked at by multiple people, and you can all come up with multiple theories, or make it show you that your theory is correct. So kind of taking your intuition, your experiences, and then other people's experiences, and kind of matching that up against the data kinda helps do that.

That's how I do things, for the most part. I don't just [say], "I am the hand of God. Do what I tell you 'cause that's what I told you to do." The team generally drives a lot of that stuff, but sometimes, there are decisions where it's just like, "no, we just have to do it this way, and this is why, and sorry, it's not up for debate."

I think we've done a pretty good job overall, of responding to player feedback, and listening to player feedback over the years. I think were kind of one of the best teams in the business at that. I think we could get better at it, but I think we do do a lot, overall.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/633823257?t=00h38m18s

JaxRogue wrote:

how do you filter feedback on social media? From what I see it's all negative

ZOS_RichLambert wrote:

<laughs> YES.
It's hard. Some days it's harder than others, for sure. I will say that most people don't complain just for the sake of complaining. There's a nugget of something in there that bothers them, and that's why they're taking the time to complain.

So, I try to look at all of the stuff, and try to see what they're trying ... what they're complaining about. It is difficult at times, when people are just complete and utter ***hats, and they're trying to push your buttons. That stuff will sometimes, well, will generally get ignored.

You know, you can tell me that what I'm doing is wrong, and you hate it. Just tell me why. I know we make mistakes. I know I make mistakes. Just, be constructive about it, in general.

And so, I guess the TL;DR version of that is just, "don't be a jerk." Right? Like, if you're gonna complain about something, and have an issue about something, just be constructive, and it doesn't fall on deaf ears. We'll go, we'll look at it, we'll see what we can do, what we can figure out. Sometimes you might not like the answer or the solution to the thing. But the team does look at it and read over everything.

Edit: Changed title to better match topic

silvereyes · June 2020

So, there's a lot of stuff to mine in there, but a few gems that I think are important for the future of the game are:

When outright replacing gear with gear of different power, Rich thinks upgrades are appropriate.
Horizontal progression isn't guaranteed. Rich sees 5 years as plenty long of a lifetime for gear.
Player feedback didn't really factor into the decision. Rich sees it as something that only affected a very, very small number of players, and their discontent will be forgotten in the grand scheme of things.

Furthermore, the stance on his approach to community feedback wasn't even consistent within a ten minute period, in which he:

said that he completely ignores disgruntled forums threads and that the ones on this topic got lost in the shuffle, then claimed that his team is one of the best at listening and responding to players.
demonstrated a complete dismissal of huge amounts of community feedback when it contradicted his personal view, but then said that the approach for new changes is to test data, vision and personal experience against community feedback and come up with a holistic view
said that he ignores entire forums threads, yet simultaneously filters through every negative social media post to glean the nugget of what the real issue is
said that he ignores entire forums threads that have lots of negativity, but then said that they listen to all constructive feedback, even though the threads in question had ample number of thoughtful, constructive posts

Finedaible · June 2020

That one's hard to answer in a short amount of time, because it really can kind of go on forever. Really, what it comes down to is:
having a vision - kind of knowing where we want to go and what we think are the most important things;
using data - so we have tons of data, tons of analytic data that we can kind of go through; and
getting feedback from social media and the forums and whatnot - kind of putting those all together to kind of reinforce the direction, and kind of reinforce some of the decisions we're making.
You know, I'm a big fan of using the term, "data informed," and not, "data driven," because you can make data tell you anything. The same data can be looked at by multiple people, and you can all come up with multiple theories, or make it show you that your theory is correct. So kind of taking your intuition, your experiences, and then other people's experiences, and kind of matching that up against the data kinda helps do that.
.

What I understood from this is that all data and feedback is meaningless to them unless it happens to "reinforce", coincide or validate their own idealism, and any data or feedback which goes against those ideals is a conspiracy theory... What if the direction is what is wrong? Validating an ideal or point of view by selectively choosing bits and pieces of data and feedback is not what validation is, and definitely doesn't "reinforce" an idea.

That's how I do things, for the most part. I don't just [say], "I am the hand of God. Do what I tell you 'cause that's what I told you to do." The team generally drives a lot of that stuff, but sometimes, there are decisions where it's just like, "no, we just have to do it this way, and this is why, and sorry, it's not up for debate."

I think we've done a pretty good job overall, of responding to player feedback, and listening to player feedback over the years. I think were kind of one of the best teams in the business at that. I think we could get better at it, but I think we do do a lot, overall."

That's kinda like saying, "I'm not saying I'm god, but I am god."

And sorry to break it to you all, but this company is definitely not "one of the best in the business" regarding feedback.

mavfin · June 2020

The nugget in all this, to me:

A very, very small number of our community were actually able to get through and earn those weapons.

He's basically saying not enough people got these weapons before this change, so it really doesn't matter.

He has the data. He *knows* how many people got them. I take that he's saying that the people making noise about an upgrade are noisy, but their a very small minority, and he's not that worried about them, relative to the rest of the playerbase.

You don't have to like it, but it's all there. Just try to read it with an open mind, not one already made up that he doesn't know what he did there.

If you're one of the people who ran vMA before the change, he's just shrugged at you and said, "So, deal with it."

That is your choice. Deal with it...or not.

Casul · June 2020

It's your choice to not upgrade the weapons. It's my choice to not sub or buy the next chapter.

mavfin · June 2020

BuildMan wrote: »

It's your choice to not upgrade the weapons. It's my choice to not sub or buy the next chapter.

That is exactly true.

If more people understood that, we wouldn't have to have pages and pages of spew about something they already decided a while ago.

zvavi · June 2020

Please keep topic constructive. Ty.

This topic about attitude of the game development regarding changes have a very misleading title, but I agree that this is how it looks like.

The PTS with the light/heavy attack changes felt like a huge step forwards to many of us, we were very happy for the communication and the fact our input was taken about changes.

But this patch? It was horrible.

we never did get an answer to "why did we have linear gear progression introduced in horizontal gear progression game".

When we did get official answer to the vMA changes, it was way too late.

The "perfected" version of vMA staff has 0% increased damage in optimal group(pen is capped anyway), rendering it as artificial title more than a better gear (putting salt on the wound).

Roaring opportunist that is supposed to be the dps weapon for heavy attack builds, is actually bad on heavy attack builds for 2 reasons
1. it scales only with last tick of lightning/resto staves (the only staves with strong heavy attack because of multiple maelstrom buff)
2. Using it on non off balance periods hurts the bonus time, with the exact same cool down as off balance it makes it possible to miss out on off balance window (heavy attack during off balance, but too early for refresh, next heavy attack is out of off balance window).

Many bugs reported on the PTS pushed live anyway (best example is the bugged excavation... The highlighted feature of greymoor).

Numerous occasions of officials stating that "the servers are holding up fine" pointing towards that they are content with the lagy mess endgame is.

I mean, sure, this patch was a step forward in many ways (like the introduction of maelstrom weapons in nMA) but overall attitude towards feedback? 0/10.

JinMori · June 2020

Honestly, i don't really care much about this thing, i am in favor of making old sets perfected but i think there are better ways to implement it.

I think if they do nothing the game will stagnate and it already is. But the problem is that they usually do really bad stuff, the least effort solution as i call it, every single time.

New perfected gear from old trials etc would fit perfectly with a new difficulty to compensate for cp gear etc, hopefully something that is future proof, which means the stronger you get, the more difficult the content CAN be, kinda like m+.

But nope. Instead we are seeing a lot of garbage frankly, and the new perfected bonus isn't even good.

Also, every patch there are really bad changes, or changes that should absolutely happen do not, for example, did you even try using necro in a trial? Have you ever thought of redesigning blastbones to work like a time bomb? It would retain all it's functions aside from the travel, which is trash and needs to go for a variety of reasons, and why did you ever change siphon so it consumes a gcd? Changes like these make me think that you do not test, like at all.

The solution to siphon are 2 to make it more bearable, either it targets the enemy, or off the gcd, either way it should last 16 seconds.

Also, please refer from making stupid comparisons, the car thing, was just utter ***, it's not the same thing. You are here to make a better game supposedly, not to score brownie points about irrelevant stuff, the point is that the game, let's just say it's not at full potential...

silvereyes · June 2020

zvavi wrote: »

This topic about attitude of the game development regarding changes have a very misleading title

Sorry. The intent was not to mislead. I'm just terrible at naming things. In my defense, there are definitely people who are worse at naming.

Edit: title changed now. Lmk if that's better.

silvereyes · June 2020

Finedaible wrote: »

That one's hard to answer in a short amount of time, because it really can kind of go on forever. Really, what it comes down to is:
having a vision - kind of knowing where we want to go and what we think are the most important things;
using data - so we have tons of data, tons of analytic data that we can kind of go through; and
getting feedback from social media and the forums and whatnot - kind of putting those all together to kind of reinforce the direction, and kind of reinforce some of the decisions we're making.
You know, I'm a big fan of using the term, "data informed," and not, "data driven," because you can make data tell you anything. The same data can be looked at by multiple people, and you can all come up with multiple theories, or make it show you that your theory is correct. So kind of taking your intuition, your experiences, and then other people's experiences, and kind of matching that up against the data kinda helps do that.
.

What I understood from this is that all data and feedback is meaningless to them unless it happens to "reinforce", coincide or validate their own idealism, and any data or feedback which goes against those ideals is a conspiracy theory...

That's what it sounded like to me at first too, but I think it was just a poor choice of words. When he expounded on it later, it sounded much more like a process of trying to see if there was a disconnect between the community's experiences and his own, or whether they matched.

But regardless of what he meant, his actions prove that he doesn't give much weight to the community's point of view, at least in the case where it's just a vocal, but small portion of the community.

mavfin · June 2020

silvereyes wrote: »

But regardless of what he meant, his actions prove that he doesn't give much weight to the community's point of view, at least in the case where it's just a vocal, but small portion of the community.

He knows exactly what he did, and pretty much *because* it was a very small portion of the community.

If you're some of that small portion, you can adapt, or quit. Those are your choices. He's obviously not going to change his decision, when he's already made sure to mention that it affects a very small group.

D0PAMINE · June 2020

zvavi wrote: »

Please keep topic constructive. Ty.

This topic about attitude of the game development regarding changes have a very misleading title, but I agree that this is how it looks like.

The PTS with the light/heavy attack changes felt like a huge step forwards to many of us, we were very happy for the communication and the fact our input was taken about changes.

But this patch? It was horrible.

we never did get an answer to "why did we have linear gear progression introduced in horizontal gear progression game".

When we did get official answer to the vMA changes, it was way too late.

The "perfected" version of vMA staff has 0% increased damage in optimal group(pen is capped anyway), rendering it as artificial title more than a better gear (putting salt on the wound).

Roaring opportunist that is supposed to be the dps weapon for heavy attack builds, is actually bad on heavy attack builds for 2 reasons
1. it scales only with last tick of lightning/resto staves (the only staves with strong heavy attack because of multiple maelstrom buff)
2. Using it on non off balance periods hurts the bonus time, with the exact same cool down as off balance it makes it possible to miss out on off balance window (heavy attack during off balance, but too early for refresh, next heavy attack is out of off balance window).

Many bugs reported on the PTS pushed live anyway (best example is the bugged excavation... The highlighted feature of greymoor).

Numerous occasions of officials stating that "the servers are holding up fine" pointing towards that they are content with the lagy mess endgame is.

I mean, sure, this patch was a step forward in many ways (like the introduction of maelstrom weapons in nMA) but overall attitude towards feedback? 0/10.

I think Code65536 had a massive impact in shedding some light on the potential issues reguarding the proposed LA/HA weave changes.

silvereyes · June 2020

D0PAMINE wrote: »

zvavi wrote: »

Please keep topic constructive. Ty.

This topic about attitude of the game development regarding changes have a very misleading title, but I agree that this is how it looks like.

The PTS with the light/heavy attack changes felt like a huge step forwards to many of us, we were very happy for the communication and the fact our input was taken about changes.

But this patch? It was horrible.

we never did get an answer to "why did we have linear gear progression introduced in horizontal gear progression game".

When we did get official answer to the vMA changes, it was way too late.

The "perfected" version of vMA staff has 0% increased damage in optimal group(pen is capped anyway), rendering it as artificial title more than a better gear (putting salt on the wound).

Roaring opportunist that is supposed to be the dps weapon for heavy attack builds, is actually bad on heavy attack builds for 2 reasons
1. it scales only with last tick of lightning/resto staves (the only staves with strong heavy attack because of multiple maelstrom buff)
2. Using it on non off balance periods hurts the bonus time, with the exact same cool down as off balance it makes it possible to miss out on off balance window (heavy attack during off balance, but too early for refresh, next heavy attack is out of off balance window).

Many bugs reported on the PTS pushed live anyway (best example is the bugged excavation... The highlighted feature of greymoor).

Numerous occasions of officials stating that "the servers are holding up fine" pointing towards that they are content with the lagy mess endgame is.

I mean, sure, this patch was a step forward in many ways (like the introduction of maelstrom weapons in nMA) but overall attitude towards feedback? 0/10.

I think Code65536 had a massive impact in shedding some light on the potential issues reguarding the proposed LA/HA weave changes.

Indeed. Honestly, I think the entire exercise is a great template for everyone going forward.

I give ZOS massive credit for even coming up with that out-of-cycle PTS feedback round, and I give them even more credit for adjusting their plans based on the feedback. I want to buy whomever came up with that idea a drink.

And, code65536's responses ... where to begin. So thoughtful and professional. I really think they should be the model for most player feedback.

It makes me wonder how different the game would be now if that early-feedback and response model had been implemented years ago, before the Morrowind resource management changes, before skill and gear audits, before race changes, before guild trader multi-bidding....

Ri_Khan · June 2020

There's a good reason why certain people aren't allowed to be the dungeon master.

VaranisArano · June 2020

Thanks for the transcript!

VaranisArano · June 2020

mavfin wrote: »

The nugget in all this, to me:

A very, very small number of our community were actually able to get through and earn those weapons.

He's basically saying not enough people got these weapons before this change, so it really doesn't matter.

He has the data. He *knows* how many people got them. I take that he's saying that the people making noise about an upgrade are noisy, but their a very small minority, and he's not that worried about them, relative to the rest of the playerbase.

This is absolutely correct and its something a lot of posters on the forums forget.

The forum community is tiny compared to the active population in ESO. Most of our polls hardly break 500. In the past, they've explicitly said that their website articles get far, far more views than the same article on the forums.

Likewise, the dedicated end game PVE or dedicated PVP community is small compared to the active population in ESO. They've got the stats and we've seen them nerf end-game content to try to boost completion rates.

We're a vocal minority here on the forums. Its easy to think we deserve to wield undue influence simply because we're vocal, and also easy to forget that we're a minority.

silvereyes · June 2020

VaranisArano wrote: »

We're a vocal minority here on the forums. Its easy to think we deserve to wield undue influence simply because we're vocal, and also easy to forget that we're a minority.

I wouldn’t say we deserve to wield more influence than other channels of player feedback, but I think those who participate should have some influence. I mean, the feedback channels are there for a reason.

I also think that special consideration should always be given to those like code65536, community reps and class reps who work hard to represent the views of those who don’t send feedback, but who share their experiences informally.

eso_lags · June 2020

Caleb wrote:

Why are current vMA and vDSA weapons not being upgraded to their perfected versions? They're currently obtained by completing the arenas on vet - same criteria as after the update - which means the new weapons being added to the game are the imperfect versions in the normal arenas.

ZOS_RichLambert wrote:

I mean, they're not imperfect. You didn't loose any power with them. Like, the weapons are the same. If we changed the weapons, we would have probably would have upgraded them. But we didn't take any power away from those. We just added a new thing in there, and ultimately, we wanted to make sure that the current weapons were a little bit more accessible for players. A very, very small number of our community were actually able to get through and earn those weapons.

So, when we went in there ... and I actually made the call. Everybody gives Wheeler grief about, "why didn't you upgrade these things?" I was the one that made the call, that said, "no, we're not going to upgrade them, because player's aren't losing any power there." You know, from my point of view - and I run vMA a ton - you know, we got to use these weapons for five years. We didn't lose anything out of there.

If you really have to have the "perfected" in the item name, um, just go run the Maelstrom Arena again. Yes, there's a line there, and yes, I guess it kinda feels arbitrary to some players, and yes, some players don't want to go and do it because they've done it before. I get that. But, again, when you're kinda doing that balancing act, you know, what's more important in the grand scheme of things? And, you know, I made the call of, no, we're not gonna upgrade 'em.

Wait what? Really? Someone tell me I am missing something here, or is this guy just that out of touch. Because to me it seems like he is literally ignoring such a major point of this issue. The weapons we used to have were the "perfected versions". You (zos) nerfed those weapons and removed the extra bonus they gave. Now you want to bring them back and have us grind for them again after we already had the perfected versions originally.

And by doing the same content? So the weapons we had in the past that were pretty much the same as these new perfected weapons are now "normal weapons" obtained through normal vma/dsa. I have no hope for anyone who cant at least admit how outrageous that is.

This is literally the same thing as taking a set like hundings, or pick your favorite set, and removing the 2/3 piece bonuses, then years later adding in perfected hundings, and giving pretty much the same 2/3 piece bonuses back. Would people accept that? Well it doesnt matter because they will do what they want no matter how ridiculous it is. And this sure is ridiculous.

It would be one thing if we never had the "perfected" versions in the first place. It would still be a bad move since these weapons we have now came from veteran. But it wouldnt be as bad as this.

But it will all blow over. They know how ridiculous it is and they dont care. They never do. And most of us will still get certain weapons if they are really good for a build we want to run. They know this. Personally I just add it to the list of awful things zenimax has done, so I remember for future games.

Idk though, unless i am missing something that quote, if accurate, seems extremely disingenuous.

danthemann5 · June 2020

"I think we've done a pretty good job overall, of responding to player feedback, and listening to player feedback over the years. I think were kind of one of the best teams in the business at that. I think we could get better at it, but I think we do do a lot, overall."

No, not even close. I've been playing MMOs for more than 20 years, and in that time, I have yet to see a development team with the same level of utter contempt for their community that ZOS has for their players.

Pride goeth before the fall.

Kadoin · June 2020

What a bunch of bull. They apparently ignored all feedback that mythics would break balance in PvP and guess what will happen when players get woke enough to realize how broken they are?

GrumpyDuckling · June 2020

Here are facts:

Rich Lambert said VMA is "definitely one of [his] favorite pieces of content" (ESO Live 3/2/18).
Rich Lambert had completed over 600 VMA runs as of March 2018 (ESO Live 3/2/18).
Rich Lambert confirms he still runs VMA "a ton" (Twitch interview from last week).
Rich Lambert confirms that it was his decision not to upgrade weapons (Twitch interview from last week).

I just posted the facts, and I'll let you all connect the dots for yourself about why he alone chose not to update the existing VMA weapons [snip].

[edited for discussing disciplinary actions]

silvereyes · June 2020

eso_lags wrote: »

Wait what? Really? Someone tell me I am missing something here, or is this guy just that out of touch. Because to me it seems like he is literally ignoring such a major point of this issue. The weapons we used to have were the "perfected versions".

The new perfected versions have two set bonuses and the ability to be enchanted without losing those bonuses. That has never existed for arena weapons in the game before Greymoor.

The old versions had their unique enchants changed to set bonuses. Yes, they lost one of their two bonus effects, but they also gained the ability to be enchanted at the same time. The way the math worked out, it actually ended up being a moderate buff, not a nerf.

colossalvoids · June 2020

I think we've done a pretty good job overall, of responding to player feedback, and listening to player feedback over the years. I think were kind of one of the best teams in the business at that. I think we could get better at it, but I think we do do a lot, overall.

Well if they really think so it's a rip. Lots of things never get any fixes or taking years to be acknowledged at least. Gear made useless and zero thought put in to make it less of a loss. What are they talking about?

And responding... We probably have some secret forum somewhere where devs actually responding to player feedback and making sense. As patch notes clearly state "you've been ignored".

Ectheliontnacil · June 2020

I guess it kinda feels arbitrary to some players, and yes, some players don't want to go and do it because they've done it before. I get that.

I get it, but I don't care.

zvavi · June 2020

silvereyes wrote: »

Indeed. Honestly, I think the entire exercise is a great template for everyone going forward.

I give ZOS massive credit for even coming up with that out-of-cycle PTS feedback round, and I give them even more credit for adjusting their plans based on the feedback. I want to buy whomever came up with that idea a drink.

And, code65536's responses ... where to begin. So thoughtful and professional. I really think they should be the model for most player feedback.

It makes me wonder how different the game would be now if that early-feedback and response model had been implemented years ago, before the Morrowind resource management changes, before skill and gear audits, before race changes, before guild trader multi-bidding....

I agree. code65536 had a great response, detailed, professional, and they listened. But you are forgetting one thing, it was not his only professional and detailed response. Many of his others are ignored. both by the community (because the subject is not "hot" enough) and the development. There are others who also had constructive professional posts that were completely ignored, out of the top of my head, WrathOfInnos and Joy_Division.

Using the example of vMA weapon changes again, many of the comments were constructive and professional, maybe it wasn't as long as code65536's, but it was really because there was not much to say about it.

As I said in my first comment, the light/heavy attack changes communication was a huge step forward, but other than this small feedback they did take, we are still talking about a game that his "class representative program" is considered a joke by the community.

zvavi · June 2020

silvereyes wrote: »

Edit: title changed now. Lmk if that's better.

Definitely better than anything I can come up with, after all, I am bad at naming as well

Raudgrani · June 2020

There was no problem about us "losing" power when they changed them previously; now when we are not "losing" anything from the change, that's not a problem either. It frankly ****** me off. Badly. What a bunch of.. Well. Silliness... Why would anyone even do such a thing? If it's such an insignificant difference, why not let us have it just to feel good about ourselves?

I'm in a bit of a Maelstrom protest now. I will refuse to show Maelstrom weapons on any of my toons (hiding them with other motifs), and just using the "Flawless..." title on the toons that have it.
First they made non bound Maelstrom motifs that anyone can run around with, now they make these weapons so easy to get even my mom or my cats could get them - and they are turning my VMA weapons into this? It's frankly an act of stolen Valor. It's not about the DPS you can pull with them, ZOS made me feel like this, no one else...

daemonios · June 2020

The issue with how MA weapons were handled isn't about a vocal minority wielding undue influence. ZOS had a simple and quick solution to negate the backlash: upgrade the weapons of those (apparently very few) players who already ran Maelstrom on veteran. That's it. How is that undue influence? They could still go ahead and drop normal weapons on normal MA. Instead they opted for dismissing the concerns of that minority entirely, implying that their opinions have no weight at all, and for no discernible benefit other than inflating numbers out of people running repeated content, in many cases grudgingly.

More concerning is that they've instituted a new practice of adding new carrots to 5-year-old content in order to drive numbers. ZOS are free to update gear. I think most people will agree that maelstrom weapons being best in slot for 5 years is quite enough. But then they should do their job and come up with new and interesting best in slot gear, who knows, maybe even tied to new content. Don't just slap a ridiculous bonus to the same old weapons, call them "perfected" and force people to run the same tired content again to get them.

Suddwrath · June 2020

ZOS_RichLambert wrote:

Like, I know there was a big long post on the forums. Or, several threads on there that got pretty cranky. In general, I try not to respond to cranky threads. But I know the Community Team has been pushing on that to get an official response. So I think they put something up there, but ... um ... honestly it just kinda got lost in the shuffle, from my point of view.

“Cranky”.

There you have it, folks. @ZOS_RichLambert views well-deserved criticism and feedback as the community simply being “cranky”.

What a condescending way to describe your community.

ZOS_RichLambert wrote:

In general, I try not to respond to cranky threads.

You didn’t respond to ANY threads, Rich.

Suddwrath · June 2020

Also-

ZOS_RichLambert wrote:

So, when we went in there ... and I actually made the call. Everybody gives Wheeler grief about, "why didn't you upgrade these things?" I was the one that made the call, that said, "no, we're not going to upgrade them, because player's aren't losing any power there."

...

He (Wheeler) gets all the hate, and it totally wasn't his call, and he'll never be like, "I didn't make the call, Rich did." He would never do that. So ... um ... yeah. People can blame me for it, which is fine.

You didn’t seem to mind Brian taking the blame for nearly a month. If you really did make this decision as you claim, then why let Brian “get all the hate” for as long as you did? Why did you not provide an official response? Why did it take having someone post a screenshot of a conversation you had with a player on Discord?

Slyclone · June 2020

You did not earn the perfected version. And the difference between the weapon you earned and the new one is so insignificant, that you would probably not notice the differences while in use. But you can totally earn it, by doing the content again.

What you guys are asking is for the devs to magically upgrade your Rekuta to Kuta just because Kuta is better.

And since the version you did not lose was obviously the best yesterday, what makes you think it's not the best tomorrow when the number of players who have the perfect
Version is still extremely low.

Then what?

Everytime you die in PVP now will prompt you to investigate if the opponent has the Perfected. Then come running here to complain because someone who earned it is now making MY day with the exact same 2hp difference you never noticed when Bob killed you last week with his non-perfected.

You. Are. Still. Top. Tier.

Perfected or not.

RNG is the same for you now as it was when you were Level 1.

RNG is the same in our new and improved normal as it was for you in old school veteran.

Only now, you will have more people to play with, as opposed to the same 800 people you are stuck with since day 1.

You moan about people not being inclusive, yet you always seek to be exclusive.

You either like the game or you know exactly what to do.

Sincerely,

Farmer Misty.