Maintenance for the week of March 25:
• [IN PROGRESS] ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – March 28, 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)

Do the devs ever listen to the community feedback and implement or reverse changes.

  • Charon_on_Vacation
    Charon_on_Vacation
    ✭✭✭✭
    yes, they do!
    remember when ZOS increased DOT damage by 60% and everyone said "no, that is not a good idea! don't do it!", and ZOS said "yes, this is a good idea, we have a grand plan and know exactly what we do! do not worry!" and after about 3 month, they reduced DOT damage by 55% and never said a word again about that grand plan.
  • Vulkunne
    Vulkunne
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.

    In that thread they also said that more challenging difficulty should be adjustable, *particularly* for Overland.

    Overland being the key word and as far as I can see was the primary focus of the argument and for that I don't believe its fair to unjustly burden U35 on people who were simply exploring options to improve Overland difficulty itself, as seen in other games. Granted ESO is not other games and thus, the request was made for some mechanism to adjust difficulty without forcing this on everyone, taking into account those who did not agree with this singular difficulty change. I remember reading about that several times and did not see mention of that fact which is something that might be critical to this conversation.

    Secondly, issues regarding Power Creep and Overly powerful players and Stat Ceilings are separate opportunities for improvement and not in scope for adjusting Overland difficulty, which of course is completely PvE related with no changes intended for players themselves.

    There is a very clear line between adjusting Overland difficulty and U35 as well as the healing nerfs and so forth. This along with other player's requests out there, should be treated with diligence so that results produced from U35 fallout are appropriately identified and not confused with anyone else's idea for a completely different request, which could (unintentionally) undermine their request and divert attention from the real issues that U35 brought by itself.
    Edited by Vulkunne on December 4, 2022 8:33PM
    Scourge of the Pact * Sorrow of the Covenant * Sunder of the Dominion

    Today victory is mine. Long live the Empire.
  • WoppaBoem
    WoppaBoem
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yes, but never stop to put in BS sets, items or skills if it helps selling content.
    Xbox EU & NA - PVP Only
  • WoppaBoem
    WoppaBoem
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.

    Never believe them directly. In the messages it was mentioned the high dmg killed the devs options to release content and older content was simply skipped by dps. Very reasonable and valid to adjust this [snip]

    [Edited for Bashing]
    Edited by Psiion on December 4, 2022 10:58PM
    Xbox EU & NA - PVP Only
  • spartaxoxo
    spartaxoxo
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    One Tamriel was a response to player feedback.

    They changed the daily rewards so they weren't only rewarding to new players by removing the drinks and extra potions, and replacing them with small amounts of currency and upgrade mats.

    They added a non-combat pet for plus members when they gave away Firesong, as response to feedback that plus users didn't get anything when they gave away Deadlands.

    They nerfed the health of some trial bosses as a response to U35 feedback

    They added the armory

  • SilverBride
    SilverBride
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Just because they haven't done everything players have asked for doesn't mean that haven't done anything.
    PCNA
  • UnabashedlyHonest
    UnabashedlyHonest
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.
  • gariondavey
    gariondavey
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    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.
    PC NA @gariondavey, BG, IC & Cyrodiil Focused Since October 2017 Stamplar (main), Magplar, Magsorc, Stamsorc, StamDK, MagDK, Stamblade, Magblade, Magden, Stamden
  • SilverBride
    SilverBride
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    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?

    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.
    Edited by SilverBride on December 4, 2022 10:53PM
    PCNA
  • rexagamemnon
    rexagamemnon
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    No
  • Kingsindarkness
    Kingsindarkness
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.


    Major suggestions from the Vet End game community...lets be specific here.

    When we look at things overland players have asked for they have been reasonable in responding.

  • VaranisArano
    VaranisArano
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    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
    gariondavey
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    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.
    PC NA @gariondavey, BG, IC & Cyrodiil Focused Since October 2017 Stamplar (main), Magplar, Magsorc, Stamsorc, StamDK, MagDK, Stamblade, Magblade, Magden, Stamden
  • VaranisArano
    VaranisArano
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.

    Well, perhaps my point wasn't clear either: there's a lot of people who mistake "ZOS didn't try the things I want" for "ZOS didn't try anything."

    ZOS did make various efforts to revitalize BGs. ZoS did add new maps and gamemodes from launch. ZOS did make some changes to BG queues in response to player feedback. Some of those stayed in response to player feedback (like group vs solo queues) and some of them didn't in response to player feedback (like CP BGs and Deathmatch-only).

    It's completely incorrect to characterize ZOS as not having put the slightest effort into BGs. They absolutely have.

    ZOS may not have given you and your friends what you want out of BGs - that's certainly true. And what ZOS has done so far isn't enough to draw in large numbers of PVPers - that's also true.

    All three can be can be true. And when you're in the midst of asking ZOS to pretty please consider adding your preferred features, I generally think it's a good idea to consider what they've already tried when asking them to do more and try again.
  • Jammy420
    Jammy420
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    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

    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.

    To use the dot example. No one wanted Dots buffed, ZoS buffed them WAY too much, we wanted them back to original values, they nerfed them to worse than PRE BUFFED values.

    So they have the uncanny ability of half listening. Thats true.
  • UnabashedlyHonest
    UnabashedlyHonest
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    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?

    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. (alliance change tokens and pick what zone you want to start in after the tutorial when starting a new account) 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. 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. Nobody builds a $3000 plus gaming computer that draws more than 600 watts of power to play a card game.

    Almost everything on that list is monetized in one way or another. Storage crates have existed since shortly after launch.

    Again, when it comes to the major changes such as U35 and Account Wide Achievements, bug and performance fixes, the animation changes to jabs and flurry, ZOS has been completely unresponsive in almost all cases. These issues were commented on VERY extensively PRIOR to going live and ZOS knew full well that the vast majority of players would not be happy with these changes and they went live with them anyway.
    Edited by UnabashedlyHonest on December 5, 2022 4:17PM
  • VaranisArano
    VaranisArano
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    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?

    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.

    That's the funny thing about relying on what one person recalls.

    There's been plenty of requests for various minigames, including card games. Obviously ZOS was not likely to make a Gwent copy, a Legends copy, or copy another existing card game exactly, so bear that in mind. Something, something other people's Intellectual Property and all that...they were going to make their own spin on the request.

    From 2015: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/191748/gwent-style-card-game-in-taverns
    https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/224375/eso-needs-something-like-gwent
    https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/172096/needs-more-mini-games

    From 2017:
    https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/344782/a-wildly-impractical-trivial-and-possibly-unreasonable-feature-request
    https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/384699/can-we-add-more-mini-game-chest-poker

    That's a smattering of five forum threads easily pulled up in the Search bar, not an exhaustive list of threads or comments from people who wanted some form of card/collectible card games. There were players asking for card games.

    I'm not saying that ZOS is beyond criticism for how they've implemented features in response to player feedback. ToT may not appeal to everyone who wanted a particular card game. I personally don't care for CCGs. I thought ToT was lackluster as the Chapter's only new feature. There's plenty to criticize about how ToT works now - see regular complaints threads in that subforum.

    But I am getting tired of correcting assertions that ZOS wasn't listening to players when they decided to add a card game to ESO. They did, and its easily fact checkable.
  • Cryptor
    Cryptor
    ✭✭✭
    While it's hard to tell who takes criticism better, players or devs, imho devs at least are willing to listen.
    Casually Xbox Guild: Discord Server - Recruiting Thread - Guild Website - My information: Instagram - Twitch Stream - Youtube Channel - Discord Server - Xbox GT: OGCryptor - Mastodon Profile
  • spartaxoxo
    spartaxoxo
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    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?

    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.

    Everything on that list was requested, and console players frequently request that the devs find a way to make an official version of various add-ons.
    Edited by spartaxoxo on December 5, 2022 10:17PM
  • spartaxoxo
    spartaxoxo
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.

    Only if you count expansions as the same thing as the cash shop.

    If you don't then the list vastly favors it being QOL Improvements.

    QOL Improvements from that list

    Separate IC campaigns
    Mythic Ambrosia
    Endeavors
    Tales of Tribute
    Legacy of Bretons
    Account Wide Achievements
    Respec Shrine Improvements
    Multi Crafting
    Companions
    Earnable Mounts
    Zone Story Guide
    Writ Furniture Envelopes
    Battlegrounds
    Jewelry Crafting
    Level up
    New Tutorial
    Multibidding

    Fully in Crown Store

    Alliance change token
    Purchasable skill lines and skyshards

    Partially in Crown Store

    Armory
    Necromancer class
    Storage Chests*
    Sacred Hour Glass*

    *earnable entirely for free with base game or free expansions, but also available as a convenience purchase in cash shop.
  • spartaxoxo
    spartaxoxo
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Jammy420 wrote: »
    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.

    BTW was hoping someone else responded before I made yet another post lol. But, I did want to say I think this is a big sticking point of the issue. They do often listen, but when they make changes based off feedback it will be in ways that players dislike.

    Another good example is the proc sets in pvp. People asked for a campaign where damage proc sets weren't a thing. So, they removed all but like 12 sets and what they considered a proc was far, far wider than anything anyone asked for.
Sign In or Register to comment.