SilverBride wrote: »I believe that U35 was partly in response to end game players complaining that the game was too easy, which can be seen in the pinned Overland Content thread. So to deal with power creep and overly powerful players they lowered the ceiling.
Parasaurolophus wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »I believe that U35 was partly in response to end game players complaining that the game was too easy, which can be seen in the pinned Overland Content thread. So to deal with power creep and overly powerful players they lowered the ceiling.
This is absolutely not true. This was an attempt to make combat easier for non-high-end players and to curb large bursts of damage.
SilverBride wrote: »Just because they haven't done everything players have asked for doesn't mean that haven't done anything.
UnabashedlyHonest wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »Just because they haven't done everything players have asked for doesn't mean that haven't done anything.
They've completely ignored the major suggestions in almost every instance. Take how unpopular the Nighthollow spear is for jabs for example. Or the pages and pages of suggestions and commentary on U35 and Account wide achievements that were posted BEFORE those changes even went live.
Most of the time player suggestions and input is completely ignored, especially on the major issues that people are still complaining about today.
VaranisArano wrote: »Oh boy.
Yes, Transmutation was begged for by players. Please remember that we did not have any way to change item trait. So back in the day, you'd be running Vet Maelstrom dozens if not hundreds of times looking for your Inferno staff or Bow in the correct trait.
Yes, One Tamriel was done in response to a host of problems. Players complained that they couldn't explore, and were instead railroaded through zones in a very not TES fashion. Players complained that they couldn't easily group with their friends due to alliance and quest instancing. Players complained that Vet zones were too hard, and they rarely saw other players. Players complained that Craglorn was empty. (Now, players may not have be asking for the results of One Tamriel, but they certainly wanted changes.)
ZOS also ended the subscription model because console players would have to pay a double subscription to ESO and their console provider. So, yeah, it was asked for.
With those three examples alone, I'd suggest that you aren't remembering the full context of some of these decisions by ZOS.
Here's a list of other things ZOS implemented in response to player feedback. It's by no means exhaustive.
Separate Imperial City Campaigns
Alliance Change Tokens (They worked on this one for years before it was ready)
Purchasable skill lines and skyshards
Mythic Aetherial Ambrosia
Endeavors
Tales of Tribute
Legacy of the Bretons (there were lots of requests for Breton Lore and a politically-focused storyline like Orsinium)
Necromancer Class
Account-wide Achievements
Respec Shrines changing individual skills/morphs
Multicrafting
Armory
Armory in Cyrodiil
Companions
Sacred Hourglass
In-game earnable mounts i.e. indriks
Zone Story Guide
Furnishing Envelopes giving ways to buy plans
Storage Chests
Battlegrounds
Jewelrycrafting
Level Up & Skills Advisor
New Tutorial allowing players to pick their starting location
Multi-bidding
Notable Reversions:
PVP campaigns started out Alliance-locked. In response to issues and feedback, ZOS made them non-Alliance-locked. In response to about a year or so of feedback, ZOS made some campaigns Alliance-locked and some open.
Scalebreaker introduced a DOT heavy meta. Due to feedback, it was promptly reverted in Dragonhold.
Groupfinder has been substantially reworked over the years. Used to be that DLC dungeons had no level requirements, so level 10 players with ESO+ had a 50% chance of getting a DLC dungeons.
In PVP, there's been a number of changes that ZOS has tried in response to community feedback and then reverted due to community feedback, including: increased siege damage, group-only healing, CP Battlegrounds, changing up the Battlegrounds queues.
On PTS: during Murkmire, ZOS started out adding cast times to shields, then reverted it due to feedback. We saw numerous examples of changes during the U35 PTS. You might not care for where they ended up, but we certainly saw adjustments from Week 1 to Live.
I will leave it to you and the other readers to decide if those are "actual real times" the Devs made changes and responded to community feedback.
UnabashedlyHonest wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »Just because they haven't done everything players have asked for doesn't mean that haven't done anything.
They've completely ignored the major suggestions in almost every instance. y.
gariondavey wrote: »Yes, they have listened and have added things players have asked for.
Sometimes they reverse big decisions base off of backlash. Other times they don't, though.
One big thing is the lack of pvp content, especially bg content. Players have been begging for reworked modes, the ability to queue for the mode you want, custom lobbies, new maps. Even the slightest bit of effort on zos's end.
They have completely failed to follow through, and the bg community is a hollow shell of what it used to be.
Almost all my bg friends have quit the game. Such a colossal waste and massive disappointment.
VaranisArano wrote: »gariondavey wrote: »Yes, they have listened and have added things players have asked for.
Sometimes they reverse big decisions base off of backlash. Other times they don't, though.
One big thing is the lack of pvp content, especially bg content. Players have been begging for reworked modes, the ability to queue for the mode you want, custom lobbies, new maps. Even the slightest bit of effort on zos's end.
They have completely failed to follow through, and the bg community is a hollow shell of what it used to be.
Almost all my bg friends have quit the game. Such a colossal waste and massive disappointment.
One of the reasons for the lack of PVP content is that what they have made doesn't work and isn't popular. Cyrodiil has persistent problems and Imperial City needs to be free AND have an event going on for most PVPers to ever set foot in it, much less the general playerbase.
Like, I remember when Battlegrounds was announced. ZOS had been listening to a bunch of Cyrodiil small-scalers who were eager for small group battles; no zergs. Theoretically, there was an audience of PVPers hungry for Battlegrounds.
Well, whether because BGs didn't scratch the itch or the small-scale crowd wasn't that large to begin with, BGs lasted a year as paid content before ZOS gave it away for free to get more players in the queues. (Side note: I wouldn't be surprised to see ToT follow the same pattern.)
ZOS has tried a variety of queue options for BGs and always falls into the same problem. If they split the queues too many ways, the queue length gets unreasonable. Why? Because there's just not that many players who want to do BGs. They added new maps like Istarus, and that wasn't enough to save it either. They've tried CP Battlegrounds (it was a complete disaster). They'd tried choosing your favorite mode (turns out players want to be able to choose groups/solo more). They've tried Deathmatch-only (turns out some players love objective modes.) Now, they're kind of doing themed weekends, which makes some people happy and others are like "Ugh, can't believe we're doing this gamemode for a weekend."
ZOS has tried...but there's no silver bullet. Truth is that even at launch when the Cyrodiil population was considerably higher than it was now, there's only a portion of players who like Battlegrounds. Its just unpopular, and that really limits what ZOS can do in terms of changing up the queues without making the times unreasonable.
I'm generally of the belief that PVP content is solidly on the back burner until ZOS can made Cyrodiil work correctly (which may or may not happen as a result of the rearchitecture, we'll see.) Until the performance issues are fixed, there's not a lot of point in trying to add PVP content because there's not a lot of PVPers anymore. ESO is on a long road of needing to fix Cyrodiil in order to draw in a solid PVP population which might possibly carry over into IC and BGs and any new content. As it is, the population just isn't there.
gariondavey wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »gariondavey wrote: »Yes, they have listened and have added things players have asked for.
Sometimes they reverse big decisions base off of backlash. Other times they don't, though.
One big thing is the lack of pvp content, especially bg content. Players have been begging for reworked modes, the ability to queue for the mode you want, custom lobbies, new maps. Even the slightest bit of effort on zos's end.
They have completely failed to follow through, and the bg community is a hollow shell of what it used to be.
Almost all my bg friends have quit the game. Such a colossal waste and massive disappointment.
One of the reasons for the lack of PVP content is that what they have made doesn't work and isn't popular. Cyrodiil has persistent problems and Imperial City needs to be free AND have an event going on for most PVPers to ever set foot in it, much less the general playerbase.
Like, I remember when Battlegrounds was announced. ZOS had been listening to a bunch of Cyrodiil small-scalers who were eager for small group battles; no zergs. Theoretically, there was an audience of PVPers hungry for Battlegrounds.
Well, whether because BGs didn't scratch the itch or the small-scale crowd wasn't that large to begin with, BGs lasted a year as paid content before ZOS gave it away for free to get more players in the queues. (Side note: I wouldn't be surprised to see ToT follow the same pattern.)
ZOS has tried a variety of queue options for BGs and always falls into the same problem. If they split the queues too many ways, the queue length gets unreasonable. Why? Because there's just not that many players who want to do BGs. They added new maps like Istarus, and that wasn't enough to save it either. They've tried CP Battlegrounds (it was a complete disaster). They'd tried choosing your favorite mode (turns out players want to be able to choose groups/solo more). They've tried Deathmatch-only (turns out some players love objective modes.) Now, they're kind of doing themed weekends, which makes some people happy and others are like "Ugh, can't believe we're doing this gamemode for a weekend."
ZOS has tried...but there's no silver bullet. Truth is that even at launch when the Cyrodiil population was considerably higher than it was now, there's only a portion of players who like Battlegrounds. Its just unpopular, and that really limits what ZOS can do in terms of changing up the queues without making the times unreasonable.
I'm generally of the belief that PVP content is solidly on the back burner until ZOS can made Cyrodiil work correctly (which may or may not happen as a result of the rearchitecture, we'll see.) Until the performance issues are fixed, there's not a lot of point in trying to add PVP content because there's not a lot of PVPers anymore. ESO is on a long road of needing to fix Cyrodiil in order to draw in a solid PVP population which might possibly carry over into IC and BGs and any new content. As it is, the population just isn't there.
You are missing the point.
Bgs slowly lost popularity because
1) the objective modes are poor designed by having 3 teams, which results in encouraging players to avoid pvp. Matches end in 2 minutes sometimes.
2) inability to choose mode. This flopped around over the years but they never made an objective queue that didn't backfill the dm queue. If they had done this there would still be a half decent population.
3) no custom lobby. So many bg tournaments or premade matches can't even get started. 3 teams on discord voice trying to coordinate a queue. Sometimes you are in the queue for an hour trying to get it to pop for all 3 teams.
These aspects make bgs extremely unappealing to the crowd you believe wanted it in the first place.
Add on top mediocre rewards, and it is painfully obvious why bgs have lost so much of their population.
Hvíthákarl wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »Oh boy.
Yes, Transmutation was begged for by players. Please remember that we did not have any way to change item trait. So back in the day, you'd be running Vet Maelstrom dozens if not hundreds of times looking for your Inferno staff or Bow in the correct trait.
Yes, One Tamriel was done in response to a host of problems. Players complained that they couldn't explore, and were instead railroaded through zones in a very not TES fashion. Players complained that they couldn't easily group with their friends due to alliance and quest instancing. Players complained that Vet zones were too hard, and they rarely saw other players. Players complained that Craglorn was empty. (Now, players may not have be asking for the results of One Tamriel, but they certainly wanted changes.)
ZOS also ended the subscription model because console players would have to pay a double subscription to ESO and their console provider. So, yeah, it was asked for.
With those three examples alone, I'd suggest that you aren't remembering the full context of some of these decisions by ZOS.
Here's a list of other things ZOS implemented in response to player feedback. It's by no means exhaustive.
Separate Imperial City Campaigns
Alliance Change Tokens (They worked on this one for years before it was ready)
Purchasable skill lines and skyshards
Mythic Aetherial Ambrosia
Endeavors
Tales of Tribute
Legacy of the Bretons (there were lots of requests for Breton Lore and a politically-focused storyline like Orsinium)
Necromancer Class
Account-wide Achievements
Respec Shrines changing individual skills/morphs
Multicrafting
Armory
Armory in Cyrodiil
Companions
Sacred Hourglass
In-game earnable mounts i.e. indriks
Zone Story Guide
Furnishing Envelopes giving ways to buy plans
Storage Chests
Battlegrounds
Jewelrycrafting
Level Up & Skills Advisor
New Tutorial allowing players to pick their starting location
Multi-bidding
Notable Reversions:
PVP campaigns started out Alliance-locked. In response to issues and feedback, ZOS made them non-Alliance-locked. In response to about a year or so of feedback, ZOS made some campaigns Alliance-locked and some open.
Scalebreaker introduced a DOT heavy meta. Due to feedback, it was promptly reverted in Dragonhold.
Groupfinder has been substantially reworked over the years. Used to be that DLC dungeons had no level requirements, so level 10 players with ESO+ had a 50% chance of getting a DLC dungeons.
In PVP, there's been a number of changes that ZOS has tried in response to community feedback and then reverted due to community feedback, including: increased siege damage, group-only healing, CP Battlegrounds, changing up the Battlegrounds queues.
On PTS: during Murkmire, ZOS started out adding cast times to shields, then reverted it due to feedback. We saw numerous examples of changes during the U35 PTS. You might not care for where they ended up, but we certainly saw adjustments from Week 1 to Live.
I will leave it to you and the other readers to decide if those are "actual real times" the Devs made changes and responded to community feedback.
What a thourough post. Some of these changes, I didn't even notice myself (and I've been playing for years now)
Thanks for the input, very thoughtful of you!
I actually think that the level of engagement with the community is actually good, but still can be improved. Both statements can be true at the same time, and after having been in games with way worse devs, I actually appreciate them more. Which doesn't mean I don't have any criticisms :P
SilverBride wrote: »UnabashedlyHonest wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »Just because they haven't done everything players have asked for doesn't mean that haven't done anything.
They've completely ignored the major suggestions in almost every instance. Take how unpopular the Nighthollow spear is for jabs for example. Or the pages and pages of suggestions and commentary on U35 and Account wide achievements that were posted BEFORE those changes even went live.
Most of the time player suggestions and input is completely ignored, especially on the major issues that people are still complaining about today.
What about these?VaranisArano wrote: »Oh boy.
Yes, Transmutation was begged for by players. Please remember that we did not have any way to change item trait. So back in the day, you'd be running Vet Maelstrom dozens if not hundreds of times looking for your Inferno staff or Bow in the correct trait.
Yes, One Tamriel was done in response to a host of problems. Players complained that they couldn't explore, and were instead railroaded through zones in a very not TES fashion. Players complained that they couldn't easily group with their friends due to alliance and quest instancing. Players complained that Vet zones were too hard, and they rarely saw other players. Players complained that Craglorn was empty. (Now, players may not have be asking for the results of One Tamriel, but they certainly wanted changes.)
ZOS also ended the subscription model because console players would have to pay a double subscription to ESO and their console provider. So, yeah, it was asked for.
With those three examples alone, I'd suggest that you aren't remembering the full context of some of these decisions by ZOS.
Here's a list of other things ZOS implemented in response to player feedback. It's by no means exhaustive.
Separate Imperial City Campaigns
Alliance Change Tokens (They worked on this one for years before it was ready)
Purchasable skill lines and skyshards
Mythic Aetherial Ambrosia
Endeavors
Tales of Tribute
Legacy of the Bretons (there were lots of requests for Breton Lore and a politically-focused storyline like Orsinium)
Necromancer Class
Account-wide Achievements
Respec Shrines changing individual skills/morphs
Multicrafting
Armory
Armory in Cyrodiil
Companions
Sacred Hourglass
In-game earnable mounts i.e. indriks
Zone Story Guide
Furnishing Envelopes giving ways to buy plans
Storage Chests
Battlegrounds
Jewelrycrafting
Level Up & Skills Advisor
New Tutorial allowing players to pick their starting location
Multi-bidding
Notable Reversions:
PVP campaigns started out Alliance-locked. In response to issues and feedback, ZOS made them non-Alliance-locked. In response to about a year or so of feedback, ZOS made some campaigns Alliance-locked and some open.
Scalebreaker introduced a DOT heavy meta. Due to feedback, it was promptly reverted in Dragonhold.
Groupfinder has been substantially reworked over the years. Used to be that DLC dungeons had no level requirements, so level 10 players with ESO+ had a 50% chance of getting a DLC dungeons.
In PVP, there's been a number of changes that ZOS has tried in response to community feedback and then reverted due to community feedback, including: increased siege damage, group-only healing, CP Battlegrounds, changing up the Battlegrounds queues.
On PTS: during Murkmire, ZOS started out adding cast times to shields, then reverted it due to feedback. We saw numerous examples of changes during the U35 PTS. You might not care for where they ended up, but we certainly saw adjustments from Week 1 to Live.
I will leave it to you and the other readers to decide if those are "actual real times" the Devs made changes and responded to community feedback.
UnabashedlyHonest wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »UnabashedlyHonest wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »Just because they haven't done everything players have asked for doesn't mean that haven't done anything.
They've completely ignored the major suggestions in almost every instance. Take how unpopular the Nighthollow spear is for jabs for example. Or the pages and pages of suggestions and commentary on U35 and Account wide achievements that were posted BEFORE those changes even went live.
Most of the time player suggestions and input is completely ignored, especially on the major issues that people are still complaining about today.
What about these?VaranisArano wrote: »Oh boy.
Yes, Transmutation was begged for by players. Please remember that we did not have any way to change item trait. So back in the day, you'd be running Vet Maelstrom dozens if not hundreds of times looking for your Inferno staff or Bow in the correct trait.
Yes, One Tamriel was done in response to a host of problems. Players complained that they couldn't explore, and were instead railroaded through zones in a very not TES fashion. Players complained that they couldn't easily group with their friends due to alliance and quest instancing. Players complained that Vet zones were too hard, and they rarely saw other players. Players complained that Craglorn was empty. (Now, players may not have be asking for the results of One Tamriel, but they certainly wanted changes.)
ZOS also ended the subscription model because console players would have to pay a double subscription to ESO and their console provider. So, yeah, it was asked for.
With those three examples alone, I'd suggest that you aren't remembering the full context of some of these decisions by ZOS.
Here's a list of other things ZOS implemented in response to player feedback. It's by no means exhaustive.
Separate Imperial City Campaigns
Alliance Change Tokens (They worked on this one for years before it was ready)
Purchasable skill lines and skyshards
Mythic Aetherial Ambrosia
Endeavors
Tales of Tribute
Legacy of the Bretons (there were lots of requests for Breton Lore and a politically-focused storyline like Orsinium)
Necromancer Class
Account-wide Achievements
Respec Shrines changing individual skills/morphs
Multicrafting
Armory
Armory in Cyrodiil
Companions
Sacred Hourglass
In-game earnable mounts i.e. indriks
Zone Story Guide
Furnishing Envelopes giving ways to buy plans
Storage Chests
Battlegrounds
Jewelrycrafting
Level Up & Skills Advisor
New Tutorial allowing players to pick their starting location
Multi-bidding
Notable Reversions:
PVP campaigns started out Alliance-locked. In response to issues and feedback, ZOS made them non-Alliance-locked. In response to about a year or so of feedback, ZOS made some campaigns Alliance-locked and some open.
Scalebreaker introduced a DOT heavy meta. Due to feedback, it was promptly reverted in Dragonhold.
Groupfinder has been substantially reworked over the years. Used to be that DLC dungeons had no level requirements, so level 10 players with ESO+ had a 50% chance of getting a DLC dungeons.
In PVP, there's been a number of changes that ZOS has tried in response to community feedback and then reverted due to community feedback, including: increased siege damage, group-only healing, CP Battlegrounds, changing up the Battlegrounds queues.
On PTS: during Murkmire, ZOS started out adding cast times to shields, then reverted it due to feedback. We saw numerous examples of changes during the U35 PTS. You might not care for where they ended up, but we certainly saw adjustments from Week 1 to Live.
I will leave it to you and the other readers to decide if those are "actual real times" the Devs made changes and responded to community feedback.
I have to laugh at the idea that the card game was requested by players. There were requests for a mini game, but I don't ever recall anyone asking for a card game.
UnabashedlyHonest wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »UnabashedlyHonest wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »Just because they haven't done everything players have asked for doesn't mean that haven't done anything.
They've completely ignored the major suggestions in almost every instance. Take how unpopular the Nighthollow spear is for jabs for example. Or the pages and pages of suggestions and commentary on U35 and Account wide achievements that were posted BEFORE those changes even went live.
Most of the time player suggestions and input is completely ignored, especially on the major issues that people are still complaining about today.
What about these?VaranisArano wrote: »Oh boy.
Yes, Transmutation was begged for by players. Please remember that we did not have any way to change item trait. So back in the day, you'd be running Vet Maelstrom dozens if not hundreds of times looking for your Inferno staff or Bow in the correct trait.
Yes, One Tamriel was done in response to a host of problems. Players complained that they couldn't explore, and were instead railroaded through zones in a very not TES fashion. Players complained that they couldn't easily group with their friends due to alliance and quest instancing. Players complained that Vet zones were too hard, and they rarely saw other players. Players complained that Craglorn was empty. (Now, players may not have be asking for the results of One Tamriel, but they certainly wanted changes.)
ZOS also ended the subscription model because console players would have to pay a double subscription to ESO and their console provider. So, yeah, it was asked for.
With those three examples alone, I'd suggest that you aren't remembering the full context of some of these decisions by ZOS.
Here's a list of other things ZOS implemented in response to player feedback. It's by no means exhaustive.
Separate Imperial City Campaigns
Alliance Change Tokens (They worked on this one for years before it was ready)
Purchasable skill lines and skyshards
Mythic Aetherial Ambrosia
Endeavors
Tales of Tribute
Legacy of the Bretons (there were lots of requests for Breton Lore and a politically-focused storyline like Orsinium)
Necromancer Class
Account-wide Achievements
Respec Shrines changing individual skills/morphs
Multicrafting
Armory
Armory in Cyrodiil
Companions
Sacred Hourglass
In-game earnable mounts i.e. indriks
Zone Story Guide
Furnishing Envelopes giving ways to buy plans
Storage Chests
Battlegrounds
Jewelrycrafting
Level Up & Skills Advisor
New Tutorial allowing players to pick their starting location
Multi-bidding
Notable Reversions:
PVP campaigns started out Alliance-locked. In response to issues and feedback, ZOS made them non-Alliance-locked. In response to about a year or so of feedback, ZOS made some campaigns Alliance-locked and some open.
Scalebreaker introduced a DOT heavy meta. Due to feedback, it was promptly reverted in Dragonhold.
Groupfinder has been substantially reworked over the years. Used to be that DLC dungeons had no level requirements, so level 10 players with ESO+ had a 50% chance of getting a DLC dungeons.
In PVP, there's been a number of changes that ZOS has tried in response to community feedback and then reverted due to community feedback, including: increased siege damage, group-only healing, CP Battlegrounds, changing up the Battlegrounds queues.
On PTS: during Murkmire, ZOS started out adding cast times to shields, then reverted it due to feedback. We saw numerous examples of changes during the U35 PTS. You might not care for where they ended up, but we certainly saw adjustments from Week 1 to Live.
I will leave it to you and the other readers to decide if those are "actual real times" the Devs made changes and responded to community feedback.
What about them?
I only see 2 things on that list that were actually requested and not already available using add-ons.
UnabashedlyHonest wrote: »I see many things on that list that were added to the crown store to generate revenue rather than being done as a quality of life improvement.
What they failed to mention is context. Because ZoS " reverted and changed " things, but always did it with 0 respect to the amounts said things should be changed.