Personally, I consider it just to be unprofessional or incompetent on ZoS's part. I've been in the outsourcing/tech industry for over 30 years managing hundreds of clients and 10's of thousands of servers. In all that time you *always* have

• Where the change was applied in preproduction or QA environments successfully
• communication as to what the change is to cover
• What time window to implement the change
• what is required to validate the change
• how much time it takes to back out the change and it's effects
• If change has taken longer than 50% of the window (usually in practice 40%) then change should be backed out unless VP or environment owner approval.
• change control officer to communicate said changes to all users/clients affected by change and any updates.

whenever there is a failure or an extension there is always a RCA report (root cause analysis); and any changes after that failure from the same team needs secondary review until at least 3 changes have gone in under specified time and with no errata.

To me, this just strikes me as an immature shop and probably one that needs a major redesign of the environment. In at least the 'real world' businesses you are held toward 99.999 uptime or are docked (SLA violations, etc).

Sempronius_Varus wrote: »

Personally, I consider it just to be unprofessional or incompetent on ZoS's part. I've been in the outsourcing/tech industry for over 30 years managing hundreds of clients and 10's of thousands of servers. In all that time you *always* have

• Where the change was applied in preproduction or QA environments successfully
• communication as to what the change is to cover
• What time window to implement the change
• what is required to validate the change
• how much time it takes to back out the change and it's effects
• If change has taken longer than 50% of the window (usually in practice 40%) then change should be backed out unless VP or environment owner approval.
• change control officer to communicate said changes to all users/clients affected by change and any updates.

whenever there is a failure or an extension there is always a RCA report (root cause analysis); and any changes after that failure from the same team needs secondary review until at least 3 changes have gone in under specified time and with no errata.

To me, this just strikes me as an immature shop and probably one that needs a major redesign of the environment. In at least the 'real world' businesses you are held toward 99.999 uptime or are docked (SLA violations, etc).

For some reason Video Game Developers are not held to the same standard or other Tech Service Providers. They get so much slack on every front.

kargen27 wrote: »

Wouldn't matter. If ZoS were continually updating the status in the forums you would complain and wonder why they are wasting time in the forums when they should be fixing the game.

I mean isn't the whole purpose of the Community Manager, be the In-Between of the Devs and Community. The Devs should work on their stuff, the Community Manager should connect with the Community.

Mr_Stach wrote: »

Sempronius_Varus wrote: »

Personally, I consider it just to be unprofessional or incompetent on ZoS's part. I've been in the outsourcing/tech industry for over 30 years managing hundreds of clients and 10's of thousands of servers. In all that time you *always* have

• Where the change was applied in preproduction or QA environments successfully
• communication as to what the change is to cover
• What time window to implement the change
• what is required to validate the change
• how much time it takes to back out the change and it's effects
• If change has taken longer than 50% of the window (usually in practice 40%) then change should be backed out unless VP or environment owner approval.
• change control officer to communicate said changes to all users/clients affected by change and any updates.

whenever there is a failure or an extension there is always a RCA report (root cause analysis); and any changes after that failure from the same team needs secondary review until at least 3 changes have gone in under specified time and with no errata.

To me, this just strikes me as an immature shop and probably one that needs a major redesign of the environment. In at least the 'real world' businesses you are held toward 99.999 uptime or are docked (SLA violations, etc).

For some reason Video Game Developers are not held to the same standard or other Tech Service Providers. They get so much slack on every front.

The big difference is, most service type providers have contracts with their clients. Contracts that have terms and minimums and expectations of service for X periods of time.

This game, and pretty much every game as a service, does not have that agreement in place. Zos could decide, today, that they are shutting the game down and there is pretty much nothing anyone could do about it, outside of maybe some chapter refunds for High Isle. Our "contract" with Zos is at the whim of their willingness to continue providing the service. Nowhere near the expectations of an actual contracted client.

You're misunderstanding. That's literally their Job. They Communicate with the Community.

"A community manager acts as the liaison between an organization and its audience. They act as the voice, tone, and moderator of the brand through community support, content distribution, and digital engagement to build brand presence and trust, both online and in-person."

They don't develop the game.

The Community should be the Priority

I don't feel like Zos has particularly built Trust in their Brand very well. Yeah the Cinematics are great, content cadence is good, but you get past that and it's just a Gacha Game

Poor Communication. Zos has it. We has it.

It goes around like a plague

Thretion wrote: »

francesinhalover wrote: »

I'm sorry but, what is this post about exactly?
In the end of the day, it's their game after all. We are only guests in it like we are in most other games and need to respect their decisions.

Consider it just a cry from the heart. Judging by the number of posts - I'm not the only one upset by this situation. I understand perfectly well that tomorrow this thread will be deleted, and I may be banned. But if people more often show what they are dissatisfied with, perhaps one of those who make decisions in Zos will finally pay attention to this problem.

I once got my stam sorc killed with nerfs, stopped playing for 2 years. Came back and the class was even better than before