ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Destai wrote: »

IMO, how you guys treat PTS feedback is going to be one of the most impactful ways to demonstrate "actions speak louder than words". If there's changes that people straight up don't like on PTS, pumping the brakes on that feature's launch is going to gain the whole company some credibility.

Conversely, if people are poking holes in combat changes, pointing out nasty bugs with content and events, and not one actual developer says anything, then it's going to sink the new leaderships's credibility and another year's content.

We are discussing a better feedback loop for PTS and a better framing for PTS. That way, we are getting the information needed, but we are also communicating what a proper timeline to see suggested fixes are for you, the player.

For example, changing a damage number is something that is realistic for a quick fix during a PTS cycle. Changing an animation for something is something that would take months, because we need to coordinate with various teams to work on the change. Sounds, VFX, SFX, art direction. So trying to give a better example of timeframe for changes is something we are looking at to provide better context around. That is in addition to working toward more back and forth communication.

There are quite a few things we need to change process wise to make this all happen, some of which you will learn about on Jan. 7, but we hope to have more details on PTS as a process and some of our changes within the first few months of 2026.

Hold on Kevin, I want to make sure this is correct. It takes MONTHS to change an animation on something... due to how far apart ZOS keeps their dev teams separated?

Aside from that, as others have said if there's a major issue discovered in the PTS and if it can't be fixed by the time of release, then the thing's release should ideally just be reversed to its pre-PTS state until the fix is ready.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

We are discussing a better feedback loop for PTS and a better framing for PTS. That way, we are getting the information needed, but we are also communicating what a proper timeline to see suggested fixes are for you, the player.

For example, changing a damage number is something that is realistic for a quick fix during a PTS cycle. Changing an animation for something is something that would take months, because we need to coordinate with various teams to work on the change. Sounds, VFX, SFX, art direction. So trying to give a better example of timeframe for changes is something we are looking at to provide better context around. That is in addition to working toward more back and forth communication.

There are quite a few things we need to change process wise to make this all happen, some of which you will learn about on Jan. 7, but we hope to have more details on PTS as a process and some of our changes within the first few months of 2026.

I agree with others who have said that the most common feedback on PTS is usually not related to animations or visuals, but rather to balance.

For example, the most common feedback on PTS regarding Sorc's Monolith of Storms was its poor 5-item bonus because:

1. It couldn't crit (and wasn't fixed until the very last minute).

2. Strict limitations (An enemy can only take damage from this set once every 2 seconds. Class sets like Corpseburster, which also deal area damage, don't have similar limitations, making Corpseburster still one of Necro's preferred sets).

3. Low damage output (Without the Energized passive, Monolith of Storms deals less damage than most sets).

4. Unbearable procedural conditions (Storm Calling doesn't often fulfill procedural conditions or fit into skill rotations).

Conversely, the least complained-about aspect was the animation of Monolith of Storms. However, just as the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman, Monolith of Storms is neither Monolith nor Storms; it's merely a few ugly lightning rods. But this is precisely what receives the fewest complaints, because before the terrible animations, there are other things players care about more: poor balance.

Furthermore, many things that players felt only needed a slight buff/nerf, such as Pyrebrand, were ultimately over-adjusted, rendering them completely unusable or excessively powerful.

Past experience shows that the phrase "...changing a damage number is something that is realistic for a quick fix during a PTS cycle..." often turns into a massive buff/nerf delayed for several patches. Some obviously bad balance issues remain uncorrected even after the PTS ends. For example, during the U46 PTS, players pointed out that Grim Focus's free weapon damage made the skill too powerful, but it wasn't balanced until U47.

Therefore, I think what players are more curious about is how long "quick fix" actually takes, and what the developers mean by "changing a damage number"? Based on past cases, why does a simple request for damage balance often take 4-5 weeks or even longer?

ZhuJiuyin wrote: »

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

We are discussing a better feedback loop for PTS and a better framing for PTS. That way, we are getting the information needed, but we are also communicating what a proper timeline to see suggested fixes are for you, the player.

For example, changing a damage number is something that is realistic for a quick fix during a PTS cycle. Changing an animation for something is something that would take months, because we need to coordinate with various teams to work on the change. Sounds, VFX, SFX, art direction. So trying to give a better example of timeframe for changes is something we are looking at to provide better context around. That is in addition to working toward more back and forth communication.

There are quite a few things we need to change process wise to make this all happen, some of which you will learn about on Jan. 7, but we hope to have more details on PTS as a process and some of our changes within the first few months of 2026.

I agree with others who have said that the most common feedback on PTS is usually not related to animations or visuals, but rather to balance.

For example, the most common feedback on PTS regarding Sorc's Monolith of Storms was its poor 5-item bonus because:

1. It couldn't crit (and wasn't fixed until the very last minute).

2. Strict limitations (An enemy can only take damage from this set once every 2 seconds. Class sets like Corpseburster, which also deal area damage, don't have similar limitations, making Corpseburster still one of Necro's preferred sets).

3. Low damage output (Without the Energized passive, Monolith of Storms deals less damage than most sets).

4. Unbearable procedural conditions (Storm Calling doesn't often fulfill procedural conditions or fit into skill rotations).

Conversely, the least complained-about aspect was the animation of Monolith of Storms. However, just as the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman, Monolith of Storms is neither Monolith nor Storms; it's merely a few ugly lightning rods. But this is precisely what receives the fewest complaints, because before the terrible animations, there are other things players care about more: poor balance.

Furthermore, many things that players felt only needed a slight buff/nerf, such as Pyrebrand, were ultimately over-adjusted, rendering them completely unusable or excessively powerful.

Past experience shows that the phrase "...changing a damage number is something that is realistic for a quick fix during a PTS cycle..." often turns into a massive buff/nerf delayed for several patches. Some obviously bad balance issues remain uncorrected even after the PTS ends. For example, during the U46 PTS, players pointed out that Grim Focus's free weapon damage made the skill too powerful, but it wasn't balanced until U47.

Therefore, I think what players are more curious about is how long "quick fix" actually takes, and what the developers mean by "changing a damage number"? Based on past cases, why does a simple request for damage balance often take 4-5 weeks or even longer?

I'm also curious about the wording "a better framing for PTS." Like how the players view the pts now is framed in the wrong way. Like they want to change that and frame the pts in a different light.

twisttop138 wrote: »

ZhuJiuyin wrote: »

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

We are discussing a better feedback loop for PTS and a better framing for PTS. That way, we are getting the information needed, but we are also communicating what a proper timeline to see suggested fixes are for you, the player.

For example, changing a damage number is something that is realistic for a quick fix during a PTS cycle. Changing an animation for something is something that would take months, because we need to coordinate with various teams to work on the change. Sounds, VFX, SFX, art direction. So trying to give a better example of timeframe for changes is something we are looking at to provide better context around. That is in addition to working toward more back and forth communication.

There are quite a few things we need to change process wise to make this all happen, some of which you will learn about on Jan. 7, but we hope to have more details on PTS as a process and some of our changes within the first few months of 2026.

I agree with others who have said that the most common feedback on PTS is usually not related to animations or visuals, but rather to balance.

For example, the most common feedback on PTS regarding Sorc's Monolith of Storms was its poor 5-item bonus because:

1. It couldn't crit (and wasn't fixed until the very last minute).

2. Strict limitations (An enemy can only take damage from this set once every 2 seconds. Class sets like Corpseburster, which also deal area damage, don't have similar limitations, making Corpseburster still one of Necro's preferred sets).

3. Low damage output (Without the Energized passive, Monolith of Storms deals less damage than most sets).

4. Unbearable procedural conditions (Storm Calling doesn't often fulfill procedural conditions or fit into skill rotations).

Conversely, the least complained-about aspect was the animation of Monolith of Storms. However, just as the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman, Monolith of Storms is neither Monolith nor Storms; it's merely a few ugly lightning rods. But this is precisely what receives the fewest complaints, because before the terrible animations, there are other things players care about more: poor balance.

Furthermore, many things that players felt only needed a slight buff/nerf, such as Pyrebrand, were ultimately over-adjusted, rendering them completely unusable or excessively powerful.

Past experience shows that the phrase "...changing a damage number is something that is realistic for a quick fix during a PTS cycle..." often turns into a massive buff/nerf delayed for several patches. Some obviously bad balance issues remain uncorrected even after the PTS ends. For example, during the U46 PTS, players pointed out that Grim Focus's free weapon damage made the skill too powerful, but it wasn't balanced until U47.

Therefore, I think what players are more curious about is how long "quick fix" actually takes, and what the developers mean by "changing a damage number"? Based on past cases, why does a simple request for damage balance often take 4-5 weeks or even longer?

I'm also curious about the wording "a better framing for PTS." Like how the players view the pts now is framed in the wrong way. Like they want to change that and frame the pts in a different light.

What I'm hoping is that the devs will actually see the PTS the way the players do: as a testing ground.

Currently, the players (the unpaid testers, I might add) go in and test things, and then post reports on the official feedback threads, which is then summarily ignored. It's been harder and harder to go on and test things because people have stopped caring, which ended up leading to the U48 PTS which barely had enough people to test the Writhing Fortress because of lack of interest (compounded by the continued lack of combat balance). And as such, the Wall event ended up being a bug-addled catastrophe.
At least some of those bugs could have been found on PTS. Not all of them, mind (we only saw U47 during phase 2 and U48 during phase 3, so all of U47 pre-wall, U47 phase 1, U48 phase 1, U48 phase 2, and U48 post wall were all untestable), but many of the long time testers have burnt out.

It feels to many of us that the devs see the PTS as a preview server. Anything put on PTS will go live (barring rare circumstances, and even then...), so it seems that the goal is that the devs have the StreamTeam go on and make content for the new stuff to try to hype players up. The StreamTeam even has their own private Discord server with the devs so they can give feedback (which is treated as only slightly more important than the feedback of us plebs who are not ~✨creators✨~), but at least they do get eyes on it that way.
I still remember when I was taking screenshots for one of my characters and ran the Orsinium questline on PTS, only to find that the U41 patch added invisible walls and hard broke that questline... and then they announced an Orsinium event that gave rewards for completing that questline that would go live after release. Despite me sending in a /bug, posting in an official Feedback thread, and even making a new thread specifically to point it out with screenshots in week 1 of PTS, I finally had to get one of my streamer friends to post it in their secret Discord and the response from the devs was literally "what Orsinium bug?"

Honestly, if that's the way they want to run PTS, then why is it even open to us plebs in the first place? Just close it off like it was back in the Summerset era.

The PTS should be a way for the players - including the non-streamers - to test out content and give feedback. We have seen so many reports of "this will not be fun for players" that go live and... are not fun for players. It's obvious that the players seem to have a better idea of how the players will react to changes than the devs do (memories of the "don't have knee-jerk reactions" post after just reading U35 patch notes, and then PTS came up and it was exactly as players expected... and then it went live and had exactly the effect players warned about). And yes, that should also include the devs deciding to take something off the patch and table it for a bit if it needs to cook longer. The only time that ever happened was the two-person mounts, and only because that would literally ban players for riding.

It should be an unwritten requirement for the devs, particularly the Combat team, to read and interact with the feedback thread at least once a week. But at minimum, if a bug is presented on PTS in week 1, there should be no way that said bug ends up going live. Too many times we have a bug or issue that is reported in week 1 of PTS, and then 6 weeks later is goes live and necessitates a surprise downtime two days after release to hotfix something that we had known about for over a month.

twisttop138 wrote: »

I'm also curious about the wording "a better framing for PTS." Like how the players view the pts now is framed in the wrong way. Like they want to change that and frame the pts in a different light.

I assumed time frames. Indeed the time we get for testing is too short. Just a few weeks before release isn't sufficient if some bigger problem shows up.

Syldras wrote: »

twisttop138 wrote: »

I'm also curious about the wording "a better framing for PTS." Like how the players view the pts now is framed in the wrong way. Like they want to change that and frame the pts in a different light.

I assumed time frames. Indeed the time we get for testing is too short. Just a few weeks before release isn't sufficient if some bigger problem shows up.

Yeah I guessed that was part of it but then he came back with another post about how content is in the works 18 months ahead of time, so actually pulling something to fix it is unrealistic in their view, so it feels like he's saying our view of what the pts should be is not in line with how they see it and want to reframe.

Seraphayel wrote: »

I guess the important announcement from the stream next year is if they’re revamping their “four patches per year“ model or if they stick to it. I‘d rather have two major releases that are thoroughly tested than four where there is a limit of four weeks for PTS. That said, every update needs to be big enough to last for half a year. Personally, dungeon quarters always felt flat and boring to me as someone who wasn’t that much into dungeons anyway.

And to someone who thinks dungeons are the best content in the game, the dungeon quarters are way more exciting than anything else this game does. Certainly this year, where only two of the four updates had anything at all fun in them, and it wasn't the two that added the zone.

The one thing I can almost guarantee though is that they're going to stick with the 4-updates-per-year model, and that's because each update brings the data for that quarter's worth of Crown Crates. If they reduced the number of updates, then they'd need to slow the Crates down, and I doubt the overlords will allow that to happen.
(also it's 6 weeks of PTS each, not that anyone would know it considering how much is ignored from that in the first place)

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Gadamlub14_ESO wrote: »

can you tell us what the point of the PTS servers are in the view of ZOS?

We are working on a write up for next year to list out our view of PTS, how we intend to improve communication and any changes that we are making. The details are still being worked out here, so once that is ready, we’ll follow up.

My interpretation is that the PTS strategy going forward based on the survey feedback that was collected involves perhaps a tiny bit of improvement combined with a very large helping of lowering expectations. It remains to be seen. But if so, this is more of the same we have seen from ZOS and makes me further doubt the "new" leadership team is really capable of change.

Snipped by user.

I‘m sorry, but people expecting a feature doesn’t get released because of negative feedback is beyond me. Subclassing was a huge selling point for the game this year, successful or not. There was no possibility that it would not make it into the game.

The same with animations: you don’t know all the implications these things have and it’s not like a switch you turn on or off.