An appeal to ZOS going forward

furiouslog · April 2021

Hello ZOS dev team and community managers. I'd like to request that, during the inevitable spirited discussion that will take place in the wake of the U30 changes that are going to be announced in the patch notes today, that you provide feedback to the community that includes more transparency about the rationale for your decisions when they have an issue with your approach.

I'm not asking for you to give the different members of the community whatever they want. That would be ridiculous. What I think is fair, though, is that when there is a groundswell of complaints about a particular decision, that you take the time to understand the articulated player point of view on that issue, and then provide a reasonable and comprehensive explanation that addresses their concerns head on. This has two very clear benefits:

1. Your community of loyal and impassioned customers will appreciate being treated like mature stakeholders in your game, which will improve your relationship with your customers. Even if we are not actually stakeholders in your view (but we technically are), it does not hurt anyone to let us feel that way.
2. It will shut down speculation and unproductive discussion as to your motivations because the context of your decisions will be clarified.

In the wake of the U29 changes and the CP 2.0 updates, you guys did not provide an adequate explanation of your intent. It is obvious now, with hindsight, that CP 2.0 was a nerf to players who were at 810 on March 8, 2021, and your response to that was that you ran internal testing and your testing team could clear content the same as if before the patch, and you made declarations that this was proof that it was not a nerf. However, you were not transparent about the fact that from a character statistics viewpoint, it was still a nerf to those players, and that to recapture the balance of their supporting buffs that they were going need to attain more CP. That issue was dodged completely, and it was disingenuous and insulting to those of us who strive to understand the numbers underlying your game design and how they affect our performance. It would have been better to be open and state that up front, rather than ignore the issue completely, which caused volumes of posts going back and forth, inciting conflict, baiting (both intentional and unintentional), as well as a general sense that community concerns are simply unheard.

Again, I'm not asking you to give us whatever we want. I am asking for you to be open and honest about your intent and transparent about the direct effects of any changes you are planning to make. Then, we can provide appropriate feedback, and if you find that feedback incongruent with your objectives for the game, let us know that and why. I don't think that's an inappropriate or burdensome request. I hope that you consider it, and I truly believe that it benefits you as much as it would us.

Vlad9425 · April 2021

If they spent more time fixing the performance issues and bugs that have been plaguing this game for years rather than nerfing players every patch they’d have a great game on their hands.

trackdemon5512 · April 2021

I think they were pretty clear about what they wanted: a 10-15% damage output reduction at the top while minimizing the power gap between high and low CP. Now while the former damage reduction may still have some work to be done I can confidently say the latter has been accomplished.

I’m currently CP2200+ on PS. I have my hard mode trial and dungeon achievements. I have my PVP ranks and Emperor title (legit work). Over the course of the last several weeks I’ve run random dungeon and PVP and what not. I’ve seen over and over and over again CP 300, 400, 500, 600 hit as well as I do. Groups that absolutely melt PVE content. Individuals in CP Cyrodiil slap me around despite literally being 1600 CP below me.

It all comes down to properly equipping yourself and learning the game. Learning mechanics. Learning how to work your attacks. Learning how to outfit a mag vs stam character for DPS. You can do fantastic things. Sure at my CP there is the luxury that I don’t have to constantly rearrange my CP but that power is not a true deciding factor in how things play out. Only in a perfect game world where everything is executed to a T where that be decisive. But I think we all know, from years of forum posts LOL, that ESO is far from perfect and combat has a million-and-one things that always dynamically change it.

Personally I’m looking forward to more nerfs that were promised before. I do think you can bring that parity max level down a bit from where it is now. But CP 2.0 has been fantastic and reinvigorated aspects of the game long dead for many players that were tired of the same cookie cutter max builds.

Elsonso · April 2021

This request seems to be one of asking ZOS to please provide insight regarding whether they would rather be flamed with gasoline, kerosene, or plain wood, and if wood, what sort of wood would they prefer.

Destai · April 2021

I feel like these forums are an afterthought. Post patch notes, make a few small comments, and let the moderators deal with the rest. A lot of us feel if they'd do as your suggesting, the moderators wouldn't have to deal with so much toxicity. That's a win-win in my book.

But hey, ZOS calls us "gang" so we're chum right?

furiouslog · April 2021

Elsonso wrote: »

This request seems to be one of asking ZOS to please provide insight regarding whether they would rather be flamed with gasoline, kerosene, or plain wood, and if wood, what sort of wood would they prefer.

I'm not sure how you are drawing that conclusion, because anyone who is unhappy, and has a propensity to flame, is going to flame ZOS no matter what ZOS says. Those people can not be reasoned with, but their actions are immutable. There is a portion of the community that can be reasoned with, however, and there is an opportunity to let these people feel included by addressing their concerns and questions.

If your intent is to justify deliberate ambiguity as a strategy to avoid conflict, we just don't agree.

redspecter23 · April 2021

I do like the twisted logic that a nerf isn't a nerf as long as the internal testers can still complete content (even if it takes them more time and resources to do so).

That's like your employer cutting your pay in half, then claiming they did not actually reduce your pay because you can still pay all your bills. It will just take twice as long to do so.

furiouslog · April 2021

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

I think they were pretty clear about what they wanted: a 10-15% damage output reduction at the top while minimizing the power gap between high and low CP. Now while the former damage reduction may still have some work to be done I can confidently say the latter has been accomplished.

I’m currently CP2200+ on PS. I have my hard mode trial and dungeon achievements. I have my PVP ranks and Emperor title (legit work). Over the course of the last several weeks I’ve run random dungeon and PVP and what not. I’ve seen over and over and over again CP 300, 400, 500, 600 hit as well as I do. Groups that absolutely melt PVE content. Individuals in CP Cyrodiil slap me around despite literally being 1600 CP below me.

It all comes down to properly equipping yourself and learning the game. Learning mechanics. Learning how to work your attacks. Learning how to outfit a mag vs stam character for DPS. You can do fantastic things. Sure at my CP there is the luxury that I don’t have to constantly rearrange my CP but that power is not a true deciding factor in how things play out. Only in a perfect game world where everything is executed to a T where that be decisive. But I think we all know, from years of forum posts LOL, that ESO is far from perfect and combat has a million-and-one things that always dynamically change it.

Personally I’m looking forward to more nerfs that were promised before. I do think you can bring that parity max level down a bit from where it is now. But CP 2.0 has been fantastic and reinvigorated aspects of the game long dead for many players that were tired of the same cookie cutter max builds.

We don't agree on any of that, but you already knew that when you posted it.

Ramber · April 2021

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

I think they were pretty clear about what they wanted: a 10-15% damage output reduction at the top while minimizing the power gap between high and low CP. Now while the former damage reduction may still have some work to be done I can confidently say the latter has been accomplished.

I’m currently CP2200+ on PS. I have my hard mode trial and dungeon achievements. I have my PVP ranks and Emperor title (legit work). Over the course of the last several weeks I’ve run random dungeon and PVP and what not. I’ve seen over and over and over again CP 300, 400, 500, 600 hit as well as I do. Groups that absolutely melt PVE content. Individuals in CP Cyrodiil slap me around despite literally being 1600 CP below me.

It all comes down to properly equipping yourself and learning the game. Learning mechanics. Learning how to work your attacks. Learning how to outfit a mag vs stam character for DPS. You can do fantastic things. Sure at my CP there is the luxury that I don’t have to constantly rearrange my CP but that power is not a true deciding factor in how things play out. Only in a perfect game world where everything is executed to a T where that be decisive. But I think we all know, from years of forum posts LOL, that ESO is far from perfect and combat has a million-and-one things that always dynamically change it.

Personally I’m looking forward to more nerfs that were promised before. I do think you can bring that parity max level down a bit from where it is now. But CP 2.0 has been fantastic and reinvigorated aspects of the game long dead for many players that were tired of the same cookie cutter max builds.

they were not. this was an attempt to control lag by reducing the "math" involved in using all the advantages of the CP system, nothing more. they removed what they added in that effort which resulted is less damage/tanking/healing by design. This has been their approach since day 1 to control lag. another example is removing proc sets. we still have lag just no procs in PvP just like we still have lag in PvE just less damage. their only platform for testing changes is to move them to the live servers as they have no real dev system to do so.

Destai · April 2021

furiouslog wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

This request seems to be one of asking ZOS to please provide insight regarding whether they would rather be flamed with gasoline, kerosene, or plain wood, and if wood, what sort of wood would they prefer.

I'm not sure how you are drawing that conclusion, because anyone who is unhappy, and has a propensity to flame, is going to flame ZOS no matter what ZOS says. Those people can not be reasoned with, but their actions are immutable. There is a portion of the community that can be reasoned with, however, and there is an opportunity to let these people feel included by addressing their concerns and questions.

If your intent is to justify deliberate ambiguity as a strategy to avoid conflict, we just don't agree.

Conflict is inevitable, especially when people invest a lot of their into something and it changes. I think most people are prepared to defend their views with data and alternative approaches. You'd think as part of any release, they'd be prepared to answer some questions. Imagine. Imagine how much better they'd look. Historically, we either get ignored or "here's the change, no further comment".

Seraphayel · April 2021

Vlad9425 wrote: »

If they spent more time fixing the performance issues and bugs that have been plaguing this game for years rather than nerfing players every patch they’d have a great game on their hands.

They're fixing performance for several years in a row now and all that changed was that it got worse.

jecks33 · April 2021

I remember a 110 pages post about "existing VMA weapons will not be upgraded to perfected" with 0 (zero) replies from Zos.
I expect the same type of communication from devs now.

furiouslog · April 2021

jecks33 wrote: »

I remember a 110 pages post about "existing VMA weapons will not be upgraded to perfected" with 0 (zero) replies from Zos.
I expect the same type of communication from devs now.

That's exactly the kind of thing I am encouraging them to change.

Even if they came out and said, "We want you to have to do vMA over again to get the new weapons because we place a priority on your continued participation in the game," that would have shut down the discussion. Angry people would still be angry, who would and should be able to express their feelings on the issue, but it would at least let us clearly know what ZOS intends, which is what causes a lot of the angst and conflict. The alternative is that people speculate about their motivations, which leads to moderation because speculation can reasonably be interpreted as conspiracy theory. That moderation further distances customers from the dev team. It's a losing strategy that undermines trust.

Faded · April 2021

Elsonso wrote: »

This request seems to be one of asking ZOS to please provide insight regarding whether they would rather be flamed with gasoline, kerosene, or plain wood, and if wood, what sort of wood would they prefer.

Yeah. A quick sampling of the forum even on a slow day will net you a bunch of people freaking out about things that aren't possible, aren't happening, or completely expected and normal parts of gameplay they just don't understand. There's much more of that when the devs make big changes. It's a lot of noise to wade through, which is a time investment.

The irony is some of that would go away if they bothered to explain things clearly. ESO has never been a game for that.

So yeah. Their changes are going to get flamed, their decisions are going to be questioned, sometimes in detail with charts and lots of math, no matter what they do. That might be a reason they drop things into the game and then go find a soundproof room, but it's not an excuse. There are loads of players not shouting at them, doing testing for them, and clarity and communication isn't too much to ask.

Might get it. Don't expect it.

magnusthorek · April 2021

To summarize: Developers? Community Managers? Talk to us! I don't know about everyone here but, for example, I don't see Gina on the forums as often as I used to 5y ago (before my break).

Talk to us! Give us the relevant information we want and need! Don't just throw a Twitch here and there which the vast majority just watch to get free Crates full of useless items — I once wasted 40mins or so just to watch you cooking a... lemon pie? for god's sakes! — while the really important ones are full of time-fillers (quizzes, streamers' participations and etc.) instead of a, let's say, "Devs 101: Why the hate for Templars?".

trackdemon5512 · April 2021

Ramber wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

I think they were pretty clear about what they wanted: a 10-15% damage output reduction at the top while minimizing the power gap between high and low CP. Now while the former damage reduction may still have some work to be done I can confidently say the latter has been accomplished.

I’m currently CP2200+ on PS. I have my hard mode trial and dungeon achievements. I have my PVP ranks and Emperor title (legit work). Over the course of the last several weeks I’ve run random dungeon and PVP and what not. I’ve seen over and over and over again CP 300, 400, 500, 600 hit as well as I do. Groups that absolutely melt PVE content. Individuals in CP Cyrodiil slap me around despite literally being 1600 CP below me.

It all comes down to properly equipping yourself and learning the game. Learning mechanics. Learning how to work your attacks. Learning how to outfit a mag vs stam character for DPS. You can do fantastic things. Sure at my CP there is the luxury that I don’t have to constantly rearrange my CP but that power is not a true deciding factor in how things play out. Only in a perfect game world where everything is executed to a T where that be decisive. But I think we all know, from years of forum posts LOL, that ESO is far from perfect and combat has a million-and-one things that always dynamically change it.

Personally I’m looking forward to more nerfs that were promised before. I do think you can bring that parity max level down a bit from where it is now. But CP 2.0 has been fantastic and reinvigorated aspects of the game long dead for many players that were tired of the same cookie cutter max builds.

they were not. this was an attempt to control lag by reducing the "math" involved in using all the advantages of the CP system, nothing more. they removed what they added in that effort which resulted is less damage/tanking/healing by design. This has been their approach since day 1 to control lag. another example is removing proc sets. we still have lag just no procs in PvP just like we still have lag in PvE just less damage. their only platform for testing changes is to move them to the live servers as they have no real dev system to do so.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/563606/cp-2-0-faq/p1

5. Total DPS output seems lower in CP2.0. What’s the reasoning for this? Will tanks/healers get more utility in CP2.0?
The overall goal was to reduce the power of high end damage and efficiency by 15-20% with CP 2.0, as there is a significant delta in power between many players. However, due to the penetration bug we saw on LIVE and PTS, we didn't fully reach that goal, and will continue investigating solutions, such as potentially reducing passive power from the CP system further, as well as looking into more outlying problems.
For healers, we recognize that the healing tree is limited right now. We do have plans to try and expand the healing tree further in terms of slottable nodes. (see #7)
For tanks, no large changes from CP1.0 to CP2.0 at this time.

Destai · April 2021

magnusthorek wrote: »

To summarize: Developers? Community Managers? Talk to us! I don't know about everyone here but, for example, I don't see Gina on the forums as often as I used to 5y ago (before my break).

Talk to us! Give us the relevant information we want and need! Don't just throw a Twitch here and there which the vast majority just watch to get free Crates full of useless items — I once wasted 40mins or so just to watch you cooking a... lemon pie? for god's sakes! — while the really important ones are full of time-fillers (quizzes, streamers' participations and etc.) instead of a, let's say, "Devs 101: Why the hate for Templars?".

I think many of us would appreciate if they just communicated their restraints and tasked some of the CMs to acknowledging our requests and addressing the hot-button threads. If Gina and Jessica want/need to do visible stuff like sell the garbage crown crates and do patch notes, then assign someone to circling back on the bug forum, another for QoL threads, and then have a process for AMA each release. This game is over 7 years old and in that time the CM team can't come up with feedback management when they know people are going to have questions at each release.

Moloch1514 · April 2021

Destai wrote: »

magnusthorek wrote: »

To summarize: Developers? Community Managers? Talk to us! I don't know about everyone here but, for example, I don't see Gina on the forums as often as I used to 5y ago (before my break).

Talk to us! Give us the relevant information we want and need! Don't just throw a Twitch here and there which the vast majority just watch to get free Crates full of useless items — I once wasted 40mins or so just to watch you cooking a... lemon pie? for god's sakes! — while the really important ones are full of time-fillers (quizzes, streamers' participations and etc.) instead of a, let's say, "Devs 101: Why the hate for Templars?".

[snip

If Gina and Jessica want/need to do visible stuff like sell the garbage crown crates, then assign someone to circling back on the bug forum, another for QoL threads, and then have a process for AMA each release. This game is over 7 years old and in that time the CM team can't come up with feedback management when they know people are going to have questions at each release.

I feel like they all need some coaching - at best - because the optics are not in their favor. There's no reason why old-timers like Gina and Jessica can't just put together a forum post stating their constraints, demonstrate some awareness of their limitations and the community's sentiments - especially at a launch window. Could easily do it on their lunch break, for crying out loud. There's too much insulation around the CMs and Devs that I really haven't seen in other games.

Well said. I remember the post by Gina saying the CMs were going to be improving the communication, which they admitted was a weakness. Then crickets pretty much.

Marto · April 2021

furiouslog wrote: »

I'd like to request that you provide feedback to the community that includes more transparency about the rationale for your decisions when they have an issue with your approach.

They already do that in all patch notes, and they go further into it during ESO Live.

furiouslog wrote: »

In the wake of the U29 changes and the CP 2.0 updates, you guys did not provide an adequate explanation of your intent. It is obvious now, with hindsight, that CP 2.0 was a nerf to players who were at 810

They did explain what they wanted to do, and what their overall goals were.

furiouslog wrote: »

your response to that was that you ran internal testing and your testing team could clear content the same as if before the patch

Which is entirely correct. You didn't need 810 before, you don't need 810 now.
The difference in power between a 0CP character and a 810CP character was massive. But 90% of that power was obtained by the time you reached CP300

Are developers deceitful because they refuse to call a nerf by its name? Maybe.
But the majority of the community is delusional, and believes that all nerfs are bad, no matter what. They fail to understand that nerfs are an inevitable part of game development and balancing, and that nerfs are often times the healthier, safer alternative.

Categorizing every balance change into "buff" or "nerf" is also something the community loves to do. And it's a massive oversimplification that ignores the difference in power between different players.

Is CP2.0 a nerf or a buff? It entirely depends on what kind of player we're talking about.

For everyone in the CP0-CP600 range, it's a massive buff to their damage done, upwards of 50%. To CP600-1000, a 5-10% reduction. To those above that, a 15-25% reduction. But even that is missing all the nuances.

For example, the new CP system makes the difference between a optimized CP allocation and a "idk I just buy whatever looks cool" allocation much smaller than before. In that way, it fulfils one of its goals, which is to allow players to customize it to their playstyle.

You can't quantify every change with dps numbers. And you can't simplify every patch note into "nerf" or "buff".

furiouslog · April 2021

Marto wrote: »

They already do that in all patch notes, and they go further into it during ESO Live.

I do not agree with this statement. For example, today's patch notes said this:

Fixed a calculation error in the Rationer star’s effect.

What was the error? What is the prior/current state? How will this affect me today as opposed to yesterday? These are all natural questions that could come up. There is no information there that would allow me to react. A thread was posted that is currently on the front page asking about the apparent effect on ambrosia potions post-patch. Additional information would head off player uncertainty and allow them to understand if they were experiencing a bug, or if what was happening to them was intended.

As to the rest of your position, I just don't agree with any of it. Yes, they explained what they wanted to do - nerf damage by 10-15%. But the how and why of the implementation details and how it affected individual players was not supplied. At all. How the dev team performs in a trial is going to be a lot different from how players end up. I've already discussed specifics and provided data that clearly demonstrates this in the appropriate threads.

Even if we don't agree about that, what I am asking for is simply an improvement in ZOS's communication about these specifics. If we need to be able to understand the data well enough to play, then we need the information in sufficient depth to be able to react and understand it in order to provide feedback. If you have no value for that, fair enough, but I do, and I think there are others like me.

Destai · April 2021

Moloch1514 wrote: »

Destai wrote: »

magnusthorek wrote: »

To summarize: Developers? Community Managers? Talk to us! I don't know about everyone here but, for example, I don't see Gina on the forums as often as I used to 5y ago (before my break).

Talk to us! Give us the relevant information we want and need! Don't just throw a Twitch here and there which the vast majority just watch to get free Crates full of useless items — I once wasted 40mins or so just to watch you cooking a... lemon pie? for god's sakes! — while the really important ones are full of time-fillers (quizzes, streamers' participations and etc.) instead of a, let's say, "Devs 101: Why the hate for Templars?".

[snip]

If Gina and Jessica want/need to do visible stuff like sell the garbage crown crates, then assign someone to circling back on the bug forum, another for QoL threads, and then have a process for AMA each release. This game is over 7 years old and in that time the CM team can't come up with feedback management when they know people are going to have questions at each release.

I feel like they all need some coaching - at best - because the optics are not in their favor. There's no reason why old-timers like Gina and Jessica can't just put together a forum post stating their constraints, demonstrate some awareness of their limitations and the community's sentiments - especially at a launch window. Could easily do it on their lunch break, for crying out loud. There's too much insulation around the CMs and Devs that I really haven't seen in other games.

Well said. I remember the post by Gina saying the CMs were going to be improving the communication, which they admitted was a weakness. Then crickets pretty much.

I honestly don't put much value in those posts, because their track record says otherwise. I can pull up countless threads where they're tagged and you guessed it - crickets. They do some things really well - like patch notes. Supporting that seems like a full time job, so we someone need to address the community in the meantime. It cuts down on the toxicity, makes ZOS look better, and gives the community more confidence.

I don't expect ZOS leadership to post here regularly, but you'd think they'd provide concrete data on how they've improved the game. We all know there's a persistent problem with performance, and you'd think they'd take any chance they get to make their team look better. Why they don't is puzzling.

I will say, I appreciated the response from leadership on the PSN Maintenance issues, very professional. Hopefully he can coach Gina and Jessica so that we can consistently get the same from them.

trackdemon5512 · April 2021

furiouslog wrote: »

Marto wrote: »

They already do that in all patch notes, and they go further into it during ESO Live.

I do not agree with this statement. For example, today's patch notes said this:

Fixed a calculation error in the Rationer star’s effect.

What was the error? What is the prior/current state? How will this affect me today as opposed to yesterday? These are all natural questions that could come up. There is no information there that would allow me to react. A thread was posted that is currently on the front page asking about the apparent effect on ambrosia potions post-patch. Additional information would head off player uncertainty and allow them to understand if they were experiencing a bug, or if what was happening to them was intended.

As to the rest of your position, I just don't agree with any of it. Yes, they explained what they wanted to do - nerf damage by 10-15%. But the how and why of the implementation details and how it affected individual players was not supplied. At all. How the dev team performs in a trial is going to be a lot different from how players end up. I've already discussed specifics and provided data that clearly demonstrates this in the appropriate threads.

Even if we don't agree about that, what I am asking for is simply an improvement in ZOS's communication about these specifics. If we need to be able to understand the data well enough to play, then we need the information in sufficient depth to be able to react and understand it in order to provide feedback. If you have no value for that, fair enough, but I do, and I think there are others like me.

They can’t give you a detailed reply simply because too much information leads to players exploiting things. With the above rationer change, PC got the fix but consoles haven’t yet. Stating exactly what is going on would allow console players to exploit any corrected errors. So being vague is necessary for fairness.

If you didn’t make use of it before, your life should go on just the same. If you did well then something was happening that wasn’t the developer’s intention and it has been fixed. Simple.

There is a thing as providing too much information. Doing so eliminates self discovery and thus you’re no longer playing a game but rather a full set of dictated rules and that gets boring real fast as it becomes a calculations game.

ZOS_ConnorG · April 2021

Greetings all,

After review we have had to edit or remove several posts for various rule violations. Ensure when engaging in a discussion that you keep said discussion civil, constructive, and within the rules.

You are welcome to review the Community Rules here.

WhyMustItBe · April 2021

OP, I agree with your points and sentiments 100%. One cannot operate a successful business with a public facing component by neglecting that public and dismissing their concerns as either irrelevant or somehow attacking the company.

Too many people in this age of social media take simple constructive criticism as a personal attack. We are conditioned at this point to see anything that doesn't confirm our preconceptions as some sort of assault on us personally, and react as if it were, and it creates a hostile and adversarial relationship that exists only in the minds of the participants (and often only 1 side of that relationship).

[Edit to remove discussion of boycott]

furiouslog · April 2021

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

They can’t give you a detailed reply simply because too much information leads to players exploiting things. With the above rationer change, PC got the fix but consoles haven’t yet. Stating exactly what is going on would allow console players to exploit any corrected errors. So being vague is necessary for fairness.

If you didn’t make use of it before, your life should go on just the same. If you did well then something was happening that wasn’t the developer’s intention and it has been fixed. Simple.

There is a thing as providing too much information. Doing so eliminates self discovery and thus you’re no longer playing a game but rather a full set of dictated rules and that gets boring real fast as it becomes a calculations game.

I hear the issue with console/PC timing differences. However, two counterpoints: the console players aware of the issue are already and still exploiting the issue, but even taking that as a necessity, there is still an opportunity to improve transparency after all patches have been rolled out.

As to your second point, I find it illogical. Every game has a rule set with logic, constraints, and math underlying it. If you don't understand those elements, how can you play the game? If anything, ESO has too much self-discovery built in to it. I've been playing for 6 years and I still have to run multiple parses and build a regression model to figure out which of my skills is being buffed by what passives and CP every time they make a change. I do that because the barrier to entry for score pushing is contingent on situational optimization. All of the calculators that are available that validate builds or min-max have gone through this sampling exercise. Isn't it better just to be transparent about this stuff? People are going to search for optimizations anyway. The websites that promote the game the most do this routinely. Why burden all of us with a lot of unnecessary work?

Right now, if I want to learn the effect of the PTS CP changes on my build, I need to go into the PTS, recreate my character, and figure it out. The patch notes still don't have the specifics on what "a reduction in stages" actually means. It's not a good use of my time to go in, do all of that, and then come and provide feedback that in all probability won't get directly addressed anyway. What's in it for me if I do that? I don't know if my feedback will make a difference, and I don't know why it won't if it won't. That's demotivational. If your position is that ZOS knows what they are doing regardless, why even have a PTS at all? Just make it private for the class reps and let them try to steer the game.

In addition, it's obvious that ZOS listened to the community on some issues (like putting style pages in your own bank), and provided a remedy. In other situations (like green tree slottables), they did not address anything. Why one and not the other? If they came out and said "we're not changing green tree because of XYZ," that would end the issue. Instead, people persist in complaining about their issues with the design, as if repeating the comments will generate different results. It's counterproductive. I don't see how being vague about any of that benefits the community at all, and I don't see how specificity will hurt anyone either. You have the option to ignore their information if you want to discover it for yourself. I'm tired of the level of work and effort required to achieve that discovery.

Vlad9425 · April 2021

Seraphayel wrote: »

Vlad9425 wrote: »

If they spent more time fixing the performance issues and bugs that have been plaguing this game for years rather than nerfing players every patch they’d have a great game on their hands.

They're fixing performance for several years in a row now and all that changed was that it got worse.

Only thing I’ve seen them “fix” properly is the Crown Store.

furiouslog · April 2021

So another example of this is the ambrosia potion issue that got rolled out with the patch yesterday. They fixed it so that Rationer does not apply to XP boost pots/food anymore, and did not tell us in the patch notes, but it was also never broadcast that this was a bug in the first place.

A player's decision process is contingent on knowing this information. With the high stocks and prices of dust on the market during the event periods, people set prices and/or purchased after making an economic decision dependent on the boost value that players were going to be able to get out of these pots. 30 minutes of extra time on a 150% XP boost is huge if you are farming XP. It's terrible that this entire issue was swept under the rug, both prior to and at the time of patch update.

This is a complete failure of transparency.

@ZOS_GinaBruno , please do better. A lot of us care about this stuff.

Anonx31st · April 2021

This game has been out for 7 years. It makes sense that ZOS would want to help newer players in this game to help bring longevity to it and help close the gap with power disparity, especially with it's next gen console update.

geonsocal · April 2021

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

I’m currently CP2200+ on PS. I have my hard mode trial and dungeon achievements. I have my PVP ranks and Emperor title (legit work). Over the course of the last several weeks I’ve run random dungeon and PVP and what not. I’ve seen over and over and over again CP 300, 400, 500, 600 hit as well as I do. Groups that absolutely melt PVE content. Individuals in CP Cyrodiil slap me around despite literally being 1600 CP below me.

i'm not seeing that - from what i can tell, currently there looks like a huge power difference that occurs between players roughly 300 cp apart...

furiouslog · April 2021

Anonx31st wrote: »

This game has been out for 7 years. It makes sense that ZOS would want to help newer players in this game to help bring longevity to it and help close the gap with power disparity, especially with it's next gen console update.

That does not really have anything to do with this thread. Do you agree that ZOS has an opportunity to be more transparent when they make changes?

Anonx31st · April 2021

furiouslog wrote: »

Anonx31st wrote: »

This game has been out for 7 years. It makes sense that ZOS would want to help newer players in this game to help bring longevity to it and help close the gap with power disparity, especially with it's next gen console update.

That does not really have anything to do with this thread. Do you agree that ZOS has an opportunity to be more transparent when they make changes?

More transparent like as writing all their ideas on these forums for development? Blizzard has private Discords for the top players to get their input about changes, maybe ZOS has this as well?