Got to love the concept of having 5-6 weeks of PTS but you're only gonna make noticeable changes on week 3, and last 1-2 weeks you do absolutely nothing for some reason.

I agree, this PTS barely did anything, reverting changes back to how it is on live aren't really "changes". Don't think any of the new sets got any noticeable changes despite feedback (like Spellshreader being a bit too weak with its 2% value or the new monster set from the forge dungeon being super underwhelming in PvP because it's being mitigated twice through battlespirit and then player resistance). I can go on.....

Like at this point just do your internal testing and release the patch, no point in having PTS if you ain't gonna do anything useful with a PTS cycle anyway.

Erickson9610 wrote: »

Some of us reported bugs that were fixed early on in the PTS. Just don't expect major sweeping changes to the combat balance; that's not what the PTS is for.

Please tell me when combat changes should happen then if not during a PTS cycle prior to new updates? That's exactly what the pts is for......

I'm not sure I'd really call it a blackhole of feedback when ZOS reverted changes based on feedback.

preevious wrote: »

As for the bugs, I would suspect that they try to correct them, but ultimately fail, because of a bad case os spaghetti code. It's hard to correct something without causing an issue elsewhere, on such complicated software. It's bad, indeed, but I suppose it'll end up corrected somewhere down the road.

As for the feedback, well .. not all feedback is good. Most people end up saying "buff that thing I use, and nerf that thing that killed me". So, while they read, I believe, all the feedback .. they'll ignore most of it, because it's irrelevant. Most of us player play in a bubble, after al.

Except that it is really easy to spot the good feedback vs. the bad. So what you say is not a valid excuse.

preevious wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

preevious wrote: »

As for the bugs, I would suspect that they try to correct them, but ultimately fail, because of a bad case os spaghetti code. It's hard to correct something without causing an issue elsewhere, on such complicated software. It's bad, indeed, but I suppose it'll end up corrected somewhere down the road.

As for the feedback, well .. not all feedback is good. Most people end up saying "buff that thing I use, and nerf that thing that killed me". So, while they read, I believe, all the feedback .. they'll ignore most of it, because it's irrelevant. Most of us player play in a bubble, after al.

Except that it is really easy to spot the good feedback vs. the bad. So what you say is not a valid excuse.

With all due respect, it is not as easy as you think. what you consider good feedback could actually be bad. We all play in a bubble, and we are all convinced our ideas are good. Most of the time, they are not.
So, I tend to disagreed .. the ", easy to spot good feedback" is mainly the one you aree to. Does not mean it"s good.

When I read the feedbacks, I tend to agree with most things posted here. Most makes sense to me. But still, I don't call the shots, and I don't have insider knoweledge. So, I understant it could be all bad.

Being an "insider" is just as much, if not more, of a bubble than that of the players. Keep that in-mind.

I really don't understand why ZOS don't communicate their thoughts around upcoming combat changes in advance of PTS.

So many times people who play the game regularly / are involved in high end content can just look at the patch notes and so clearly see issues which then take weeks of iteration to revert / fix.

For example simply saying: "We're thinking of changing Bound Armour and Hurricane with X changes" instantly players would have been able to say "that's a really bad idea for these reasons" and instead of wasting the effort to first change, test, iterate, send to PTS, get feedback, change, test. That effort could have been spent on an idea which was more important.

For example fixing charm so that it's no longer bugged, Making RoA adhere to combat rules, proper checking of whether buffs / bonuses are supposed to be applied to your character based on the skills on your bar and gear equipped and also clearing debuffs when you die.
Fixing heavy attack so that it works after porting when it currently randomly stops working, Fixing heavy attack so that you no longer get stuck in the animation.

Any of those would have been better to solve than 3 weeks of deciding to nerf then unnerf

Rkindaleft wrote: »

I'm used to it by now, but I'm still a bit disappointed despite threads and pages and pages and threads of feedback there hasn't been a genuine effort to either meaningfully adjust the weak or underperforming skill lines or rein in the power creep

Buffing underperforming skill lines causes power creep. And yet, you say you want them to rein in the power creep.

You can't be surprised that your feedback gets ignored when it is quite literally contradictory.

Marto wrote: »

Rkindaleft wrote: »

I'm used to it by now, but I'm still a bit disappointed despite threads and pages and pages and threads of feedback there hasn't been a genuine effort to either meaningfully adjust the weak or underperforming skill lines or rein in the power creep

Buffing underperforming skill lines causes power creep. And yet, you say you want them to rein in the power creep.

You can't be surprised that your feedback gets ignored when it is quite literally contradictory.

Yes, it is contradictory, that's why I said or.

I view this in two ways:

1) You can not nerf anything, but then if you don't, the logical solution would be to make weak skill lines closer to the strong ones in order to have more options in terms of viable builds, in order for people who run off-meta setups or people who want more diversity in their gameplay to be somewhat more competitive (which I may add, the meta is becoming increasingly bland and stale).

2) You can not buff underperforming skill lines, but then if you don't, then the 3 or 4 skill lines everyone picks 100% of the time will remain dominant and subclassed characters will still perform 40% better than pure characters even though ZOS has repeatedly stated they want them roughly the same power level (but as of yet have done nothing to do that). So to decrease the massive power creep that Subclassing brought a nerf is the logical solution.

I just don't think it should stay the way it is now with no (or very minor) changes.

preevious wrote: »

As for the bugs, I would suspect that they try to correct them, but ultimately fail, because of a bad case os spaghetti code. It's hard to correct something without causing an issue elsewhere, on such complicated software. It's bad, indeed, but I suppose it'll end up corrected somewhere down the road.

As for the feedback, well .. not all feedback is good. Most people end up saying "buff that thing I use, and nerf that thing that killed me". So, while they read, I believe, all the feedback .. they'll ignore most of it, because it's irrelevant. Most of us player play in a bubble, after al.

That argument might work for an indie dev studio, but ZOS makes like $200 million a month from ESO. This is unacceptable.

randconfig wrote: »

Erickson9610 wrote: »

Some of us reported bugs that were fixed early on in the PTS. Just don't expect major sweeping changes to the combat balance; that's not what the PTS is for.

What bugs were reported during the U47 PTS that were also fixed during the U47 PTS???

For one, I submitted a bug report in-game (using /bug) regarding the missing icon of some Skill Styles introduced this update. Those were fixed towards the end of the PTS cycle.

Last update, I submitted a bug report in-game regarding the skill lines for the Companion UI being duplicated. That was fixed really early on.


This doesn't take into account some of the other bugs that were reported on the Live server which were promptly fixed, such as the one where interacting with a crafting interface caused you to be unable to unequip items from Companions.

Yeah, some bugs took a long time to fix (such as the one where a certain animation would fail to play when selecting a Verse or Vision while in Werewolf form, which took over a year to fix) but ZOS eventually fixed them. It's only a matter of time until they fix long-standing bugs such as the one you're describing.

silky_soft wrote: »

I really don't get why it's so hard for them to create a system where they can use a modifier on skills and sets thats +5% or -5% to simple things like cost or damage.

Many sets and skills used to, back before one tamriel.