U35 what is wrong?

Elowen_Starveil · January 3

As people point out, U35 changed combat drastically, but does anyone stop to consider WHY they made the changes, when they were so exceedingly unpopular with the end-game crowd -- and KNEW that they would be before they rolled them out to production? They had a long-term goal in mind to weather the blistering feedback that has been occurring ever since.

I'm 55. I've played games since Space Invaders in the grocery store when I was in second grade. I've played games basically my whole life. I was a terror at FPS's like Q2, UT, and CS. I could always count on being in the top quartile playing Battlefield. What I'm saying is that I have good reflexes and timing. However, I could never get the hang of weaving.

I came to the game in the COVID craze (along with several IRL friends) and sort of maxed out around 45K. I "retired" and came back after U35 and the introduction of Oakensoul and the Arcanist to find that I could finally access end-game content. Yay! It was like unlocking the rest of the game I was paying for. I've spent the past year and a half doing trials, gearing up several toons for each DPS, healer, and tank metas, and getting vet clears, thanks to these changes.

What I need is for the hard core players of this game to recognize that while the weaving/animation canceling aspects of combat might be easy FOR THEM, this is a tremendously skillful thing to do well. It's NOT just clicking at the same time through a loop. You have to master each skill in your rotation down to the animation frame if you want to achieve god-tier DPS. That's CLEARLY not a thing that many people can do, and that's WHY they did what they did with U35 and Oakensoul and the Arcanist.

If I'm plotting the data points on a graph, it seems like ZOS would like to finally remove the glitch-that-stuck that enabled weaving in the first place from the game entirely. If they do it all at once, then half of everyone will leave immediately. In another couple of years, I suspect changes will be made to make it worthless to do (weave), and then they can finally just remove it. When your DPS meta relies on a mythic that nullifies all LA attack damage, and people running Drake's Rush and imbibing heroism pots makes ultimate generation much less dependent on basic attacks, where else is this headed?

JiubLeRepenti · January 3

I personally clearly remember my reaction when I see the new jab coming with U35:

Also, I still strongly disagree with the argument that says "weaving was a bit too hard to learn and wasn't integrated into the game on purpose, so this is why we nerfed it." Ooooooor, maybe it was just fine if some people were encountering difficulties handling it and just had to practice a bit more in parses on dummies, like we all did?

Another problem was the nerf of Oakensoul. Don't get me wrong: the ring was actually way too powerful, and it is still very (too?) powerful today. But it's just the way it was done that is problematic.

As always, ZOS releases a crazy item, everybody rushes to get it, and sometimes even destroys their previous builds to create a new one based on that mythic, and then ZOS comes with an axe-made nerf that cuts off 20% of its power.

They do it all the time, and most of the time it's OK for most players. But here, so many people were using it and made it the basis of their build that it logically drove them crazy. It shows how poorly the beta-test phases are handled at ZOS. You can't design the initial Oakensoul ring, test it for several hours on various builds, and not consider that it's completely broken. The ring should never have been released in its initial form.

So yeah, U35 was criticized for these two reasons: unrequested changes (new jab animation when they could have just nerfed it instead and other unclaimed changes), and a huge nerf on an item that was used by many, many players.

LadyGP · January 3

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

I see a lot of complaints about this patch. What's wrong with it?

You'd need to block out your whole day to get caught up on the drama that is U35.

Basically, the state of ESO currently can be traced back to this update. This, IMO, is when ESO "began to die".

code65536 · January 3

Conceptually, U35 was not bad.

They wanted to reduce the impact of light-weaving, and they did. They wanted to increase DoT timers to make rotations a little less timer-watchy, to have less of the rotation be about reapplying DoTs, and to lessen the impact of bad DoT management, and they did. These kinds of changes are fine, frankly, and puts the game in a better place in the long term.

Most of the problems surrounding U35 were largely issues with specific details when it first hit PTS, like 2s tick rates for heals, and with the general across-the-board DPS nerf that was initially not accompanied by adjustments to content. If you want more details about those initial problems with U35, I suggest that you check out this post.

By the end of the PTS cycle, many of these issues were addressed, and there was an across-the-board nerf to elite enemy health in PvE to accommodate the the DPS nerf (though this didn't quite fix the issues in PvE, since non-elites were not nerfed--e.g., there is a DPS check mechanic in Shipwright HM that did not get adjusted--and there was nothing done with the massive incoming damage heal checks in recent HM PvE content).

At the end of the day, I think much of the controversy was with the initial version of U35 that we saw during the first week of PTS, and after it went Live, people needed to readjust and relearn stuff to get back to where they were before, and that is never a popular thing. But both of these problems are transient--not permanent--which is why today, U35 is fine and people who weren't around back then wonder why there's even a fuss over it.

Could they have handled U35 a bit better? Yea, sure. But in the longer view, it was fine.

Edit: One more thing that I forgot to mention was that U35 was a part of a series of patches where there were major combat changes. There was a lot of change fatigue, a lot of "I just got used to those changes, and now there's more?", and that also played a large part in how U35 was received. And that is another one of those things that was relevant only in the moment and isn't particularly impactful for how people view U35 years down the road.

Vonnegut2506 · January 3

U35 was so bad I took a year off. I still don't play or enjoy the game as much as I did before the patch, and the minute I can find a good replacement MMO I will leave and not return. U35 proved once and for all that the developers of this game do not listen to well thought out player feedback and will do any ridiculous change that they see fit. Changes since then have only reinforced this belief.

Orbital78 · January 3

I mean you could just google or youtube "eso u35", you will see the content creators that have left posting feedback. There were quite a few "goodbyes" and what not. I think the only good things that came from it to me were eventually templar beams getting buffed and viable heavy attack builds for awhile. They have dropped off some since then, since they later nerfed the main meta set besides Sergeants Mail. I have adapted since then but they don't really get enough AoE and ST to pull vet hardmodes. Most groups these days want to bypass mechs with brute for so pretty much only Arcanists, DK, Necro, and maybe really good templars will get much attention.

The AWA was nice for the most part, and the new dungeons were good. Graven Deep is still one of my favorite cosmetics for dungeons with the underwater Dwemer ruins. Both dungeon hardmodes were up there in difficulty.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/615315/pc-mac-patch-notes-v8-1-5-lost-depths-dlc-update-35#latest

MincMincMinc · January 3

Solariken wrote: »

vsrs_au wrote: »

It added Account Wide Achievements (aka 'AWA'), which for many players ruined achievements for multiple characters.

I think most people did want account-wide achievements, the problem is ZOS implemented it in a really disappointing way.

Its almost like the current zos team wants to redesign the game to only have one character that can do it all..... however we are still stuck with a game that has 20 characters. Basically the worst parts of both designs. Now we have the QoL issues of having to log in and out of 20 characters.....with the no replay ability issue of unlocking achievements on other characters.

For the average player though, zos probably sees that they only play one character anyways. I mean for 9 years I probably spent 90% of my time on stamsorc.

JiubLeRepenti · January 3

code65536 wrote: »

Conceptually, U35 was not bad.

They wanted to reduce the impact of light-weaving, and they did. They wanted to increase DoT timers to make rotations a little less timer-watchy, to have less of the rotation be about reapplying DoTs, and to lessen the impact of bad DoT management, and they did. These kinds of changes are fine, frankly, and puts the game in a better place in the long term.

Sorry, but I sincerly don't get how reducing weaving impact is fine and putting the game in a better place in the long term?

I personally just see it as "some people were complaining about something a bit technical to handle so we nerfed it".

Which is, in my opinion, noting but leveling down.

spartaxoxo · January 3

I actually agree that they needed to do something about LA weaving and dot management because the number of people who could do it was far too low. It was too much of a power gap. I think some of the particulars and how they communicated their goals was poorly managed though.

There needs to be improvements for those that value skill mastery, such as making things less reliant on proc sets and more focus on skills. But, overall I do think the floor to ceiling gap was too high. Ideally, you want enough people interested in endgame that regular vet clears aren't a huge issue to find pickup groups for. And players stick to guild groups for achievements and leaderboards because the difficulty is too high for disorganized play with people on less skill oriented builds.

This means easy casual builds like Oakensoul and other builds need to be good enough to clear regular vet content comfortably in the hands of people who are above normal mode skill but not quite good enough for vet achievements. IMO it was the survivability and not the cleave that should have been nerfed with Oakensoul, it was already lower damage than other more skillful builds.

Overall, you want a significant power gap between floor and ceiling. But not one so large that there is little pickup groups to speak of and the vast majority of your playerbase is completely uninterested in even trying anything vet.

SilverBride · January 3

I will never understand why it was supposed to be so bad either. It baffles me that it's still referred to today.

TaSheen · January 3

I didn't have any issues with it either - I made a few changes to gear on my mains, and went on my merry way. The problem was with what the changes did to those who did high level endgame.

It's easy to say oh it was no big deal when you run around questing etc like I do. For score pushing, not so much....

Stamicka · January 3

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

What I need is for the hard core players of this game to recognize that while the weaving/animation canceling aspects of combat might be easy FOR THEM, this is a tremendously skillful thing to do well. It's NOT just clicking at the same time through a loop. You have to master each skill in your rotation down to the animation frame if you want to achieve god-tier DPS. That's CLEARLY not a thing that many people can do, and that's WHY they did what they did with U35 and Oakensoul and the Arcanist.

If I'm plotting the data points on a graph, it seems like ZOS would like to finally remove the glitch-that-stuck that enabled weaving in the first place from the game entirely. If they do it all at once, then half of everyone will leave immediately. In another couple of years, I suspect changes will be made to make it worthless to do (weave), and then they can finally just remove it. When your DPS meta relies on a mythic that nullifies all LA attack damage, and people running Drake's Rush and imbibing heroism pots makes ultimate generation much less dependent on basic attacks, where else is this headed?

A lot of people are able to get the hang of weaving. As with everything though, there’s going to be natural skill differences. Not everyone will be the best at DPS just like not everyone will be a great PvPer. It doesn’t make sense to nerf the people who do excel just because others don’t though. How is that a good approach?

I think if ZOS didn’t do update 35, but instead released Velothi earlier, then we would be in a bit of a better spot. That way, people could opt into a weaveless playstyle if they wanted to.

Reginald_leBlem · January 3

SilverBride wrote: »

I will never understand why it was supposed to be so bad either. It baffles me that it's still referred to today.

People have explained it very clearly. What part are you finding so confusing?

Surtalogic · January 3

Reginald_leBlem wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I will never understand why it was supposed to be so bad either. It baffles me that it's still referred to today.

People have explained it very clearly. What part are you finding so confusing?

At this point it has to be the letters. There's so many of them that it takes effort to read.

This update and it's negative effects has been explained so clearly on the forums and in so many YouTube videos and now again in this thread. Anyone that still doesn't understand is just not willing to.

SilverBride · January 3

Reginald_leBlem wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I will never understand why it was supposed to be so bad either. It baffles me that it's still referred to today.

People have explained it very clearly. What part are you finding so confusing?

The reaction. I don't see anything that ruined the game or made it unplayable.

Ph1p · January 3

code65536 wrote: »

Conceptually, U35 was not bad.

I think that's the saddest part of it all. U35 is now perceived so negatively, even though it originally had good goals and intentions:

Make rotations easier to manage by streamlining DoTs
Rein in damage creep and raise the floor by adjusting the importance of LA weaving
Strengthen alternative builds based on HAs
Conjecture on my part: Improve performance to enable a new class and other features

In my opinion, of the objectives above, they blundered in two areas: Limiting damage creep and strengthening HA builds. They successfully lowered the DPS ceiling with U35, but quickly undid it all within just 3 patches by introducing an overpowered Arcanist class. With HA builds, they ultimately did popularize a great alternative to the usual 2-bar LA setups, but only after several more balancing patches. In both cases, they first went way overboard with power and were then forced to adjust DPS down, leading to unnecessary debate, change fatigue, and bad blood, because nobody likes nerfs.

BagOfBadgers · January 3

SilverBride wrote: »

I will never understand why it was supposed to be so bad either. It baffles me that it's still referred to today.

Because, at the time, it hit most, I repeat most, negativity and didn't achieve it's aim of rasing the floor. If it had, players would not find end of story bosses hard!

TBH, the responses on this and other threads are the reason why many of us "end gamers" have left, or are leaving as ZOS and some players see us a annoyance and not part of the community. Oh well.

spartaxoxo · January 3

SilverBride wrote: »

Reginald_leBlem wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I will never understand why it was supposed to be so bad either. It baffles me that it's still referred to today.

People have explained it very clearly. What part are you finding so confusing?

The reaction. I don't see anything that ruined the game or made it unplayable.

I think that the power gap needed to be lowered and la weaving made less important but they targeted an entire playstyle for huge nerfs. And these huge nerfs were also directed mostly at endgame. So, it is not difficult for me to empathize with a playstyle being gutted having a negative impact on those who used it, even if one agrees that something needed to change.

Stamicka · January 3

SilverBride wrote: »

Reginald_leBlem wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I will never understand why it was supposed to be so bad either. It baffles me that it's still referred to today.

People have explained it very clearly. What part are you finding so confusing?

The reaction. I don't see anything that ruined the game or made it unplayable.

Do you engage with endgame raids or veteran dungeons and arenas? Do you PvP?

If the answer to all of that is no and you are a casual solo quester, then this patch, just like almost any other patch with combat changes does not matter for you. It made the game worse for the people who do actually engage with endgame though.

Orbital78 · January 3

SilverBride wrote: »

I will never understand why it was supposed to be so bad either. It baffles me that it's still referred to today.

if they nerfed the housing item cap to 10, I wouldn't notice much either.

React · January 3

They made drastic changes to combat with the goal of simplifying the game, the community was nearly unanimous during testing that the changes were bad and should be reverted, but zenimax rolled them out anyways. This caused a massive exodus of endgame players particularly on the PVM side of the game. To be clear, people weren't against accessibility for more casual players or people looking to progress into endgame content - but we were against the "dumbing down" of the combat system to the point that it became much less engaging for veteran players.

The creative director's response to the very real concerns of the entire veteran playerbase was to belittle them by saying that their concerns were a "knee jerk reaction" that was "tiresome".

After (weeks, months?) of the community begging for communication and insight as to why zenimax chose to plow forward with the patch despite the feedback we provided during testing, they promised us an "update 35 Q&A livestream" - a format that would allow for questions to be asked directly to the developers and give us more transparency into their process and why they chose to ignore the feedback. They then proceeded to cancel this livestream and gave us some sort of polished, cherry picked PR developer post that did not satisfy what the community was asking for.

sarahthes · January 3

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Reginald_leBlem wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I will never understand why it was supposed to be so bad either. It baffles me that it's still referred to today.

People have explained it very clearly. What part are you finding so confusing?

The reaction. I don't see anything that ruined the game or made it unplayable.

I think that the power gap needed to be lowered and la weaving made less important but they targeted an entire playstyle for huge nerfs. And these huge nerfs were also directed mostly at endgame. So, it is not difficult for me to empathize with a playstyle being gutted having a negative impact on those who used it, even if one agrees that something needed to change.

The power gap hasn't been reduced though. It just looks different now. There's a big damage output difference between a good arcanist and a bad arcanist, for example.

SilverBride · January 3

Stamicka wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Reginald_leBlem wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I will never understand why it was supposed to be so bad either. It baffles me that it's still referred to today.

People have explained it very clearly. What part are you finding so confusing?

The reaction. I don't see anything that ruined the game or made it unplayable.

Do you engage with endgame raids or veteran dungeons and arenas? Do you PvP?

If the answer to all of that is no and you are a casual solo quester, then this patch, just like almost any other patch with combat changes does not matter for you. It made the game worse for the people who do actually engage with endgame though.

I do dungeons, veteran dungeons, normal trials, occasional arenas (not a big fan of them), the IA, and occasional battlegrounds. The only thing I haven't tried so far are veteran trials but I plan to give them a try one day, too.

spartaxoxo · January 3

sarahthes wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Reginald_leBlem wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I will never understand why it was supposed to be so bad either. It baffles me that it's still referred to today.

People have explained it very clearly. What part are you finding so confusing?

The reaction. I don't see anything that ruined the game or made it unplayable.

I think that the power gap needed to be lowered and la weaving made less important but they targeted an entire playstyle for huge nerfs. And these huge nerfs were also directed mostly at endgame. So, it is not difficult for me to empathize with a playstyle being gutted having a negative impact on those who used it, even if one agrees that something needed to change.

The power gap hasn't been reduced though. It just looks different now. There's a big damage output difference between a good arcanist and a bad arcanist, for example.

The power gap has been reduced enough that I'm starting to see more pickup groups again, after they cratered after the Oakensoul nerfs. The big thing about the gap, to me, wasn't about the numbers difference. But rather how hard it was to get decent enough numbers to start dipping your toe into the actually challenging vet content (and not just people pretending mid game/early endgame was in a good spot because you could always do vet Craglorn).

Which is honestly why I think they could have handled the ceiling nerfs better and put more emphasis instead on offering up more alternatives to getting there like they did with Oakensoul and Arcanist. Someone asked why there was so few sets dedicated to helping people who can't weave rather than such sledge hammers to those who can, and I think that's an absolutely fair question.

Stamicka · January 3

SilverBride wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Reginald_leBlem wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I will never understand why it was supposed to be so bad either. It baffles me that it's still referred to today.

People have explained it very clearly. What part are you finding so confusing?

The reaction. I don't see anything that ruined the game or made it unplayable.

Do you engage with endgame raids or veteran dungeons and arenas? Do you PvP?

If the answer to all of that is no and you are a casual solo quester, then this patch, just like almost any other patch with combat changes does not matter for you. It made the game worse for the people who do actually engage with endgame though.

I do dungeons, veteran dungeons, normal trials, occasional arenas (not a big fan of them), the IA, and occasional battlegrounds. The only thing I haven't tried so far are veteran trials but I plan to give them a try one day, too.

The people who do veteran trials were the most impacted. There’s not too big of a difference to be noticed in the older vet dungeons because those were made during a time where 25k DPS was good.

When they increase overland difficulty I probably won’t notice. I’ll be sure to pop into every thread complaining about the increased difficulty with “I can’t tell, didn’t impact me” comments.

SilverBride · January 3

Stamicka wrote: »

When they increase overland difficulty I probably won’t notice. I’ll be sure to pop into every thread complaining about the increased difficulty with “I can’t tell, didn’t impact me” comments.

As players should. All feedback is important and shows what types of players were affected positively or negatively or not at all, and why.

peacenote · January 3

Oceanchanter wrote: »

TBH I like AWA, because if I had to repeat achievments on every of my 11 characters just to get a reward (skin, memento etc) I'd get aunerism and the game would feel like a chore more than anything else.

I know this thread is about U35, but I think it's important to point out that Account Wide Achievements are different than Account Wide Rewards. At the time that AwA was implemented, almost all of the rewards (dyes, skins, personalities) obtained via achievements were already account-wide. The primary reward that was not yet account-wide at the time was titles. Account Wide Titles were a polarizing issue, which I won't get into here, but were likely inevitable given the direction of the game. ZOS tied Account Wide Titles to the rollout of AwA, but they would not have had to do that... and they could have changed how titles worked without rolling out AwA.

Grega wrote: »

And people who do play this game for the lore and fantasy world, well - they feel nothing was wrong with U35. Just like mostly nothing was wrong with any update to date for that clientele.

I slightly disagree as one of the U35 changes was the Templar animation updates, which I am given to understand were not lore-friendly.

MincMincMinc wrote: »

[
Its almost like the current zos team wants to redesign the game to only have one character that can do it all.....

Agreed that it did seem like that is where ZOS was going. And some of us (myself included) asked for confirmation that they still supported the multi-character playstyle, but were greeted, at the time, with silence. Of course, now we've been given this announcement which seems to indicate that ZOS is now (whether again or still, I don't know) supportive of alts.

Anyway, this thread is fascinating to me. It's not often we get to see post mortem summaries, years later, about a patch from the community. Most of them are pretty accurate even though some of them, on the surface, seem contradictory to each other. It really highlights the different perspectives and types of players we have in the community. Even the references to AwA are accurate, in my opinion, because even though it was U33, I believe that U33 and then U35 together were so negatively impactful to the community that each made the other worse. They caused different types of players to leave, with some overlap. Players impacted by both were hit with a double whammy.

I don't believe ZOS set out to destroy their own game or cause a mass exodus (nor am I saying that's what happened, to be clear) but both U33 and U35 did cause a lot of negativity across the community from which it is still recovering. I believe a lot of this has to do with the fact that ZOS is on a delivery schedule that does not, in fact, allow them to adjust for the feedback they gather. I am mildly hopeful that the change in content delivery referenced in the most recent studio director's letter is a result of the company's understanding of what went wrong in 2022. Specifically:

Freeing up the dev team from needing to adhere to a strict annual cycle means we will be able to have teams launch content when it is ready throughout the year and not work to a date in June – this will let us focus on a greater variety of content spread over the year. This supports the new Seasons model, and will enable us to release content, updates, fixes, and systems in a more efficient manner.

It takes a long time to turn the Titantic. The primary issue I see, over and over again, is that feedback is requested but then it isn't even acknowledged, let alone ever applied. ZOS is notorious for never reversing a decision no matter the level of outcry. Here is a great example:

89 pages of comments about the wood elf passive change in 2019.

And a quote on the second page of the 89 page thread describing exactly the sentiments I continue to see across the forums, in PTS, everywhere...

[BlueRaven] I think what’s most annoying about all of this is the wall of silence. No devs, no class reps, no one mentioning this.

If you are a dev and you want this change, at least own it. Say something along the lines that they heard the complaints but feel this is the way to go. And put it in a direct message, not bury it in a paragraph. Everything they have said so far feels like an afterthought or they are dodging the issue. Step up to the plate and address it directly.

On the flip side, the community can sometimes come across as too entitled and certainly we provide feedback without insights into overall strategies or plans. We must understand that where we want the game to go may not be where ZOS wants it to go, and we must make our peace with that after providing input.

However maybe, just maybe, they will take this opportunity to build in time not only for gathering feedback, but include enough time to respond to feedback with acknowledgements and reasons, and adjusting content if it makes sense. I think that would make a huge difference.

Elowen_Starveil · January 3

SilverBride wrote: »

Reginald_leBlem wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I will never understand why it was supposed to be so bad either. It baffles me that it's still referred to today.

People have explained it very clearly. What part are you finding so confusing?

The reaction. I don't see anything that ruined the game or made it unplayable.

People have explained ad nauseam why THEY found the game unplayable with the changes. You can say that you don't agree with it, but if you can't even understand what they were saying, then you just don't want to hear it. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

Marronsuisse · January 3

For me, I had just spent 6 months learning the combat system, improving my parse, and working on my first endgame build, and the patch threw all that work out the window. I lost 45% of my DPS and everything that had been becoming easier became way harder. I was still new enough that I didn't understand how to fix or adapt my builds, or have the in-game resources to do so.

It was a good learning experience for my first MMO, though. Your progress can be taken away at any time. I left until several patches later, and when I came back I was much more conservative about how much time and money I invest in ESO, which I think is a good thing for me.

SilverBride · January 3

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Reginald_leBlem wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I will never understand why it was supposed to be so bad either. It baffles me that it's still referred to today.

People have explained it very clearly. What part are you finding so confusing?

The reaction. I don't see anything that ruined the game or made it unplayable.

People have explained ad nauseam why THEY found the game unplayable with the changes. You can say that you don't agree with it, but if you can't even understand what they were saying, then you just don't want to hear it. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

I said I didn't understand the reaction. And I especially don't understand why it's still being brought up today over 2 years later.