I am so frustrated with the state of this game

baltic1284 · August 2022

Jazraena wrote: »

Baltic, it's hard to read. Paragraphs would help.

they are in paragraphs

TaSheen · August 2022

baltic1284 wrote: »

Vylaera wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

Vylaera wrote: »

Can I respectfully ask that my thread remain on topic? I think Kevin has addressed well enough the perhaps wrong use of what many people perceived as antagonistic dialogue in dev responses and posts.

Thanks, guys.

Certainly, if you feel the “state of the game” is not related to management or player/developer relationships.

No I don't think that the unfortunate state of the game which I detailed pretty comprehensively in my post has much to do with a dev using language that players perceived as hostile. Otherwise I would have mentioned it.

In your post no you have a point there but so does those that post as the DEV team have used hostile wording against the community itself and so has Moderators on the forums no, I'm not trying to break rules, but it has happened a lot in the past. Does your post state that directly or indirectly no but it has happened, and most players are starting to get tired of it.

It is very sad when players have to put in there post I'm Not Trying to break the rules, but this is how i feel to generally feel safe on the Forums from what has happened. The company in General does have a very bad reputation of customer company relations, in that area in general does need to be addressed and fixed, moderation still needs work in fact a lot of work, from what i have seen on the forums over the years from when I was selected for testing, the moderation has gotten to the point of either speak good of the company you be picked on and bullied, ie the twitch issue they had as an example.

Relations all around has to be looked at and seriously changed to be more polite to those you are asking A to play the product and B give money to you. your post may have been why your frustrated with the company but so are the players posting in here on why they are and when a Admin steps in to explain and give excuses to defend those that have caused the problem that is also an issue that needs to be addressed.

The community shouldn't have to be posting in fear of the company or of what those that have power will abuse and how they will, communication needs to be on the forums and only on the forums not on Reddit or any other platform as not all have access or use those platforms.

THIS has paragraphs now. It didn't before. And run on sentences don't help either.

However, if English isn't your first language, it's a problem but understandable.

Loves_guars · August 2022

OP describes perfectly why me and friends have quit the game several times (hammer of nerf) and why we can't come back (everytime I try, there's a new update and my builds are gone, and I don't want to spend hours getting them back).
We too are kinda casual but love a challenge, casual in the sense that we don't like to follow guides to the detail and are happy with a an average dps. That doesn't mean we don't have fun with a challenge.
I brought friends to this game, and it was heartbreaking watching them work their asses off to reach an acceptable dps only to find those builds destroyed in a couple of months.

Supreme_Atromancer · August 2022

Destai wrote: »

but the whole effort seems to be contrary to what the community is saying en masse - we don't want it.

"The community" frustratingly seems to be defined as "whoever agrees with my point of view".

I'm part of the community, and I don't agree with the outrage. There are clearly plenty of other people in this thread, in others on the official forums, across other fora, that don't agree. Are they just conveniently defined as "not part of the community", or irrelevant?

I agree that there are concerns. I don't begrudge anyone their point of view, particular concerns, or whatever, but can we please stop pretending that we're speaking for the entire community?

Destai · August 2022

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

Destai wrote: »

but the whole effort seems to be contrary to what the community is saying en masse - we don't want it.

"The community" frustratingly seems to be defined as "whoever agrees with my point of view".

I'm part of the community, and I don't agree with the outrage. There are clearly plenty of other people in this thread, in others on the official forums, across other fora, that don't agree. Are they just conveniently defined as "not part of the community", or irrelevant?

I agree that there are concerns. I don't begrudge anyone their point of view, particular concerns, or whatever, but can we please stop pretending that we're speaking for the entire community?

No one is saying that your views are irrelevant, or not part of the community. I am simply stating the fact that most people, judging by posts here, Reddit, and YouTube, are not wanting this change. Until I see more supportive views, outweighing the current trend, I will continue to believe the community is disapproving en masse because that is the visible fact.

I hope this change is something you can find enjoyable, my hopes are not high, but we’ll adjust.

I also hope you can return the conversation back to the issue at hand - how ZOS speaks to us.

Jazraena · August 2022

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

Destai wrote: »

but the whole effort seems to be contrary to what the community is saying en masse - we don't want it.

"The community" frustratingly seems to be defined as "whoever agrees with my point of view".

I'm part of the community, and I don't agree with the outrage. There are clearly plenty of other people in this thread, in others on the official forums, across other fora, that don't agree. Are they just conveniently defined as "not part of the community", or irrelevant?

I agree that there are concerns. I don't begrudge anyone their point of view, particular concerns, or whatever, but can we please stop pretending that we're speaking for the entire community?

I have yet to see a single solid reasoning about how U35 does not create already known issues and is at high risk of creating further ones, in particular the initial Week 1 changes that triggered the first outrage.

Everyone, once pressed, has either fallen silent when challenged or has parroted ZOS' mission statement while evidently not realizing that the actual changes do something different.

So please, if you believe that people are in an echo chamber of their own opinions - enlighten us.

How is U35 Week 1 a good thing, as a whole? How is Week 4 a good thing, as a whole? Or at least to a large part? How are the constant build-shattering changes a good thing?

Supreme_Atromancer · August 2022

Destai wrote: »

I am simply stating the fact that most people, judging by posts here, Reddit, and YouTube, are not wanting this change. Until I see more supportive views, outweighing the current trend, I will continue to believe the community is disapproving en masse because that is the visible fact.

Its a mistake to judge what "most people" want or don't want based only on forum posts. Its the myth of being convinced that the views you happen to be most exposed to- *due to your predisposition to be exposed to them*- is representative of all viewpoints. Essentially, echo-chamber thinking. Being determined to "continue to believe" means you are even less predisposed to other perspectives.

Which is fine, we can all believe what we want to believe. But you aren't speaking for the entire community.

Supreme_Atromancer · August 2022

Jazraena wrote: »

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

Destai wrote: »

but the whole effort seems to be contrary to what the community is saying en masse - we don't want it.

"The community" frustratingly seems to be defined as "whoever agrees with my point of view".

I'm part of the community, and I don't agree with the outrage. There are clearly plenty of other people in this thread, in others on the official forums, across other fora, that don't agree. Are they just conveniently defined as "not part of the community", or irrelevant?

I agree that there are concerns. I don't begrudge anyone their point of view, particular concerns, or whatever, but can we please stop pretending that we're speaking for the entire community?

I have yet to see a single solid reasoning about how U35 does not create already known issues and is at high risk of creating further ones, in particular the initial Week 1 changes that triggered the first outrage.

Everyone, once pressed, has either fallen silent when challenged or has parroted ZOS' mission statement while evidently not realizing that the actual changes do something different.

So please, if you believe that people are in an echo chamber of their own opinions - enlighten us.

How is U35 Week 1 a good thing, as a whole? How is Week 4 a good thing, as a whole? Or at least to a large part? How are the constant build-shattering changes a good thing?

Week one in particular, you say? There was not even any consensus on what it was the against-ers were against. It was variously "an attack on "good players" in an attempt to appease the casuals", a "threat to the light-attack spammers", or just that "Light-Attack weaving was the only thing that made combat interesting, and now it was being completely removed." Some people were upset that LA nerfs meant that the average player would no longer be able to complete content they were (or were about to) complete, completely unwilling to take on board the observation that ZOS has, and will continue to- change health thresholds. Others said that LA was the "lesser" of the issues, and that dot nerfs were going to be the biggest problem.

Jazraena · August 2022

You are avoiding the questions posed. Please, answer these:

How is U35 Week 1 a good thing, as a whole? How is Week 4 a good thing, as a whole? Or at least to a large part? How are the constant build-shattering changes a good thing?

Supreme_Atromancer · August 2022

Jazraena wrote: »

You are avoiding the questions posed. Please, answer these:

How is U35 Week 1 a good thing, as a whole? How is Week 4 a good thing, as a whole? Or at least to a large part? How are the constant build-shattering changes a good thing?

Getting a hold of the damage creep and the skill gap seems pretty good to me. Tackling that by targeting the importance of Light Attack Weaving seems like a good idea based on the report that it is responsible for a steep learning curve and that *many* players (not forum-goers, but *players*) are resistant to.

Jazraena · August 2022

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

Jazraena wrote: »

You are avoiding the questions posed. Please, answer these:

How is U35 Week 1 a good thing, as a whole? How is Week 4 a good thing, as a whole? Or at least to a large part? How are the constant build-shattering changes a good thing?

Getting a hold of the damage creep and the skill gap seems pretty good to me. Tackling that by targeting the importance of Light Attack Weaving seems like a good idea based on the report that it is responsible for a steep learning curve and that *many* players (not forum-goers, but *players*) are resistant to.

Elaborate on the advantages of reducing damage across the board and how the skill gap is being reduced please.

Because from where I am standing, the reduced damage for everyone makes it harder to access harder content than before, and the skill gap has gotten worse if anything due to the horrendously out-of-sync DoT Durations, the weaker DoTs in general, and in particular the Week 1 PTS variant where Empower suddenly became all the more relevant to juggle than before, further favouring well-organized teams.

The changes to Empower might well prove a better step into that direction, but it requires some serious side effect addressing and skill rebalancing that ZOS has yet to tackle, so even that change is at best incomplete.

Supreme_Atromancer · August 2022

Jazraena wrote: »

Elaborate on the advantages of reducing damage across the board and how the skill gap is being reduced please.

It prevents challenge designed under older damage caps becoming so utterly irrelevant, and reduces the sheer range of values possible, and therefore the magnitude of differences possible. Its clearly easier to design content for more people if you can design for a smaller range of damage values.

Because from where I am standing, the reduced damage for everyone makes it harder to access harder content than before,

Only if they don't adjust the difficulty to reflect the pass rates they want. And it *always* seemed pretty unlikely that they wouldn't.

and the skill gap has gotten worse if anything due to the horrendously out-of-sync DoT Durations, the weaker DoTs in general, and in particular the Week 1 PTS variant where Empower suddenly became all the more relevant to juggle than before, further favouring well-organized teams.

The changes to Empower might well prove a better step into that direction, but it requires some serious side effect addressing and skill rebalancing that ZOS has yet to tackle, so even that change is at best incomplete.

I never said that I thought they were perfect. I think there is change fatigue, and that's not great. So they should only be making these changes if they really believe that it will make the game more robust, long-term. I trust that they are acting on that. I'm also not saying that they never get things wrong. They do. But so does the vocal community. I'm not convinced by what I've seen, and am not against the changes. And while there's significant pushback from the forums, that doesn't represent the community, only the vocal forum people.

Jazraena · August 2022

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

Jazraena wrote: »

Elaborate on the advantages of reducing damage across the board and how the skill gap is being reduced please.

It prevents challenge designed under older damage caps becoming so utterly irrelevant, and reduces the sheer range of values possible, and therefore the magnitude of differences possible. Its clearly easier to design content for more people if you can design for a smaller range of damage values.

Because from where I am standing, the reduced damage for everyone makes it harder to access harder content than before,

Only if they don't adjust the difficulty to reflect the pass rates they want. And it *always* seemed pretty unlikely that they wouldn't.

Factually incorrect. A situation where the low end deals 10 dps and the high end 100 dps is identical to one where the low end deals 10'000 dps and the high end 100'000 ; you would have to specifically target the upper extreme which hasn't happened. If anything the opposite was achieved.

They also specifically did not address difficulty in their first iteration and have only done so thanks to massive player backlash, thus setting the player base up for at least one patch of reduced accessibility. Once they have done so it was a quick and dirty 10% of health, which not only is significantly less than the average DPS nerf but they also outright missed several cases that would require adjustment, while applying the same blanket adjustment to places that really weren't necessary. In other words, another incomplete change with as of yet not fully foreseen side effects.

and the skill gap has gotten worse if anything due to the horrendously out-of-sync DoT Durations, the weaker DoTs in general, and in particular the Week 1 PTS variant where Empower suddenly became all the more relevant to juggle than before, further favouring well-organized teams.

The changes to Empower might well prove a better step into that direction, but it requires some serious side effect addressing and skill rebalancing that ZOS has yet to tackle, so even that change is at best incomplete.

I never said that I thought they were perfect. I think there is change fatigue, and that's not great. So they should only be making these changes if they really believe that it will make the game more robust, long-term. I trust that they are acting on that. I'm also not saying that they never get things wrong. They do. But so does the vocal community. I'm not convinced by what I've seen, and am not against the changes. And while there's significant pushback from the forums, that doesn't represent the community, only the vocal forum people.

Going 'I never said I thought they were perfect' instead of elaboration sort of proves my point here.

You agree with their mission statement. So do I. So do many others. But at the end of the day, the changes so far are incomplete and in part diametrically opposed to that mission statement. And there is no way to somehow spin such a mess as positive for the game. Note that many aren't exactly screaming to not change anything, but to shelf the changes for this patch and instead take the time to properly refine them, because as is, we're just looking at a botched U35 that then needs another round of heavy fixing in U36, thus messing up builds again, where even more Change Exhaustion comes in.

Supreme_Atromancer · August 2022

Jazraena wrote: »

Factually incorrect. A situation where the low end deals 10 dps and the high end 100 dps is identical to one where the low end deals 10'000 dps and the high end 100'000 ; you would have to specifically target the upper extreme which hasn't happened. If anything the opposite was achieved.

I don't agree with a lot of what you're saying. That range in damage IS important, and harder to target content for. It also continuously makes older content more and more redundant.

They also specifically did not address difficulty in their first iteration and have only done so thanks to massive player backlash, thus setting the player base up for at least one patch of reduced accessibility.

They always adjust content if their pass rates aren't satisfactory. Why would it have not been the same this time?

Going 'I never said I thought they were perfect' instead of elaboration sort of proves my point here.

I'm elaborating- on my own point. From my point of view, they do get it wrong. So do the forums. I'm not convinced they're so wrong that the game will not be better off for the changes, and your arguments so far have not been strong- or well-detailed- enough to convince me that they have it wrong, and that I'm therefore wrong to not be against the changes, which I guess is the point you think I'm proving.

Jazraena · August 2022

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

Jazraena wrote: »

Factually incorrect. A situation where the low end deals 10 dps and the high end 100 dps is identical to one where the low end deals 10'000 dps and the high end 100'000 ; you would have to specifically target the upper extreme which hasn't happened. If anything the opposite was achieved.

I don't agree with a lot of what you're saying. That range in damage IS important, and harder to target content for. It also continuously makes older content more and more redundant.

Your disagreement does not alter the mathematical realities. Balancing for 10 to 100 is identical to 10k to 100k. This isn't subjective. This isn't something someone can have an opinion on. It's simple math. If you want to simplify balancing, you need to alter the upper extreme. They reduced both, and arguably the lower extreme more than the upper one - which has the opposite effect of what you want them to do.

They also specifically did not address difficulty in their first iteration and have only done so thanks to massive player backlash, thus setting the player base up for at least one patch of reduced accessibility.

They always adjust content if their pass rates aren't satisfactory. Why would it have not been the same this time?

They have not. It's not about 'would'. It's about them not having done that. This would have meant at least one update of reduced accessibility. And when they did in fact do it, it was insufficient and incomplete. This, once again, isn't subjective, it's what has actually happened or not happened on the PTS.

Going 'I never said I thought they were perfect' instead of elaboration sort of proves my point here.

I'm elaborating- on my own point. From my point of view, they do get it wrong. So do the forums. I'm not convinced they're so wrong that the game will not be better off for the changes, and your arguments so far have not been strong- or well-detailed- enough to convince me that they have it wrong, and that I'm therefore wrong to not be against the changes, which I guess is the point you think I'm proving.

No, you are not elaborating on that point. As a reminder, this is what you responded to:

and the skill gap has gotten worse if anything due to the horrendously out-of-sync DoT Durations, the weaker DoTs in general, and in particular the Week 1 PTS variant where Empower suddenly became all the more relevant to juggle than before, further favouring well-organized teams.

The changes to Empower might well prove a better step into that direction, but it requires some serious side effect addressing and skill rebalancing that ZOS has yet to tackle, so even that change is at best incomplete.

Your answer to this was 'I never said I thought they were perfect'. Their perfection isn't up for debate. Their intent to reduce the skill gap isn't up for debate. Them actually doing the opposite is.

Each to their opinion, but basing yours on what they said they were doing when people are in fact disagreeing with what they are doing is pointless and missing the mark of the complaints.

psychotrip · August 2022

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

Jazraena wrote: »

You are avoiding the questions posed. Please, answer these:

How is U35 Week 1 a good thing, as a whole? How is Week 4 a good thing, as a whole? Or at least to a large part? How are the constant build-shattering changes a good thing?

Getting a hold of the damage creep and the skill gap seems pretty good to me. ackling that by targeting the importance of Light Attack Weaving seems like a good idea based on the report that it is responsible for a steep learning curve and that *many* players (not forum-goers, but *players*) are resistant to.

I dont understand this. You (rightfully) say that we cant judge the playerbase's opinion based on the forums, but you then proceed to assume the opinions of *many* players based on...what, exactly? ZOS's word?

Even if this is the case, how are the proposed changes the best solution to the problem?

Supreme_Atromancer · August 2022

Jazraena wrote: »

Your disagreement does not alter the mathematical realities. Balancing for 10 to 100 is identical to 10k to 100k. This isn't subjective. This isn't something someone can have an opinion on. It's simple math. If you want to simplify balancing, you need to alter the upper extreme. They reduced both, and arguably the lower extreme more than the upper one - which has the opposite effect of what you want them to do.

If the data was modelling lower-extreme dps so well, it wouldn't be "arguable". But its not. What are the assumptions? Are they correct? Are there factors that the modellers haven't taken into account? That seems very likely to me. I take this with a huge grain of salt, and absolutely not as fact.

They have not.

I'm not talking about week one. I'm talking about live. I'm talking about whenever, in the past, completion rates don't meet the standard, they have adjusted. I don't know why they didn't do that in week one. But its conceivable to me that there are reasons that I just don't see, and reasons you haven't seen. Or it was just a mistake. Who knows. What I'm basing my dismissal of the "impossible content" argument on is the fact that they *have*, on live, in the past, adjusted things and people not considering that is evidence to me of incomplete arguments. Its the same with Rockgrove, 18 months ago. Remember how everyone was so convinced that the changes to vampire meant that literally no one would ever be able to get the hard mode again? Everyone was so enraged, everyone was going to quit. There was so much math and reason to believe that the game would die because of those changes. So yes, I think there's reason despite all the "evidence" to believe you might have it wrong.

Each to their opinion, but basing yours on what they said they were doing when people are in fact disagreeing with what they are doing is pointless and missing the mark of the complaints.

Yes, my opinion is debatable either way, but I do have it, and that's my point. Being told over and over again that "everyone agrees, everyone is against it" is frustrating. I'm not against being convinced that my point of view is wrong, or having a robust debate about it, but that should rely on the merits of the argument itself, and not the imaginary army.

psychotrip · August 2022

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

Jazraena wrote: »

Your disagreement does not alter the mathematical realities. Balancing for 10 to 100 is identical to 10k to 100k. This isn't subjective. This isn't something someone can have an opinion on. It's simple math. If you want to simplify balancing, you need to alter the upper extreme. They reduced both, and arguably the lower extreme more than the upper one - which has the opposite effect of what you want them to do.

If the data was modelling lower-extreme dps so well, it wouldn't be "arguable". But its not. What are the assumptions? Are they correct? Are there factors that the modellers haven't taken into account? That seems very likely to me. I take this with a huge grain of salt, and absolutely not as fact.

They have not.

I'm not talking about week one. I'm talking about live. I'm talking about whenever, in the past, completion rates don't meet the standard, they have adjusted. I don't know why they didn't do that in week one. But its conceivable to me that there are reasons that I just don't see, and reasons you haven't seen. Or it was just a mistake. Who knows. What I'm basing my dismissal of the "impossible content" argument on is the fact that they *have*, on live, in the past, adjusted things and people not considering that is evidence to me of incomplete arguments. Its the same with Rockgrove, 18 months ago. Remember how everyone was so convinced that the changes to vampire meant that literally no one would ever be able to get the hard mode again? Everyone was so enraged, everyone was going to quit. There was so much math and reason to believe that the game would die because of those changes. So yes, I think there's reason despite all the "evidence" to believe you might have it wrong.

Each to their opinion, but basing yours on what they said they were doing when people are in fact disagreeing with what they are doing is pointless and missing the mark of the complaints.

Yes, my opinion is debatable either way, but I do have it, and that's my point. Being told over and over again that "everyone agrees, everyone is against it" is frustrating. I'm not against being convinced that my point of view is wrong, or having a robust debate about it, but that should rely on the merits of the argument itself, and not the imaginary army.

Well, it is wrong. Happens to the best of us. Lord knows I've had wrong opinions before.

Enough people have explained why. The points you're making fall apart the moment they go beyond your personal hopes or assumptions. The "merits" just aren't there.

I understand your assumption that they'll balance the difficulty at *some* point, but...so what? That doesnt make any of this a good idea to begin with, it doesnt explain why they chose these "solutions" to fix pre-existing issues, and it's an indictment on ZOS for repeatedly failing to troubleshoot properly.

Balancing a patch after it goes live happens to most mmo companies, and while it's understandable, it's not something we should celebrate, nor does ir exonerate them of the mistakes they're continuing to make. And this isnt even the only issue people have with the patch.

No one is literally saying everyone agrees. Even Anthem had fans. But I think enough people have countered enough of your points to demonstrate that this is simply the wrong opinion based on the facts.

Supreme_Atromancer · August 2022

psychotrip wrote: »

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

Jazraena wrote: »

You are avoiding the questions posed. Please, answer these:

How is U35 Week 1 a good thing, as a whole? How is Week 4 a good thing, as a whole? Or at least to a large part? How are the constant build-shattering changes a good thing?

Getting a hold of the damage creep and the skill gap seems pretty good to me. ackling that by targeting the importance of Light Attack Weaving seems like a good idea based on the report that it is responsible for a steep learning curve and that *many* players (not forum-goers, but *players*) are resistant to.

I dont understand this. You (rightfully) say that we cant judge the playerbase's opinion based on the forums, but you then proceed to assume the opinions of *many* players based on...what, exactly? ZOS's word?

Even if this is the case, how are the proposed changes the best solution to the problem?

I am assuming ZOS is telling the truth when they discussed the resistance to light attack weaving. That I've seen a LOT of discussion about it over the last 8 years adds support in my mind. But they could be lying, and the "discussion I've seen" is possibly skewed.

But it seems reasonable to me.

Do you think its more likely that Wheeler or Gilliam is lying? Do you think they could be telling the truth?

psychotrip · August 2022

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

psychotrip wrote: »

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

Jazraena wrote: »

You are avoiding the questions posed. Please, answer these:

How is U35 Week 1 a good thing, as a whole? How is Week 4 a good thing, as a whole? Or at least to a large part? How are the constant build-shattering changes a good thing?

Getting a hold of the damage creep and the skill gap seems pretty good to me. ackling that by targeting the importance of Light Attack Weaving seems like a good idea based on the report that it is responsible for a steep learning curve and that *many* players (not forum-goers, but *players*) are resistant to.

I dont understand this. You (rightfully) say that we cant judge the playerbase's opinion based on the forums, but you then proceed to assume the opinions of *many* players based on...what, exactly? ZOS's word?

Even if this is the case, how are the proposed changes the best solution to the problem?

I am assuming ZOS is telling the truth when they discussed the resistance to light attack weaving.

Why?

You're confusing individual developers (who I'm sure have good intentions) with Zenimax Media, who has a reputation for lying or gaslighting their fanbase when it suits them. We all love Bethesda games, but they have for YEARS routinely told us things that just dont end up being true. This goes beyond just ESO and you'll find no shortage of examples.

Individual devs need to toe the line and say what they're told. This is a place of business for them. I assume you know how corporations work. Things may be mandated to them based on entirely different reasons and the marketing team needs to spin it in a way that's palatable to the customer. Half truths are often exaggerated, previous intentions morph overtime, and the people actually programming these games often have much less agency than we wish they had.

So, I ask again: why?

Pelanora · August 2022

Quote from above "I posted the link earlier, but emerging research is suggesting that AAA live service games dont need to be "fun" at all; They just need to manipulate people into playing / spending more. It's like the carrot on the stick metaphor. Thats how these companies operate."

Remember cow clicker? Showed long ago, rewards and stimulus reaps gains for much less investment than you'd need to make things fun.

I think this game does try to make things fun but the accountants are always there.... did you see the scene in The Offer, accounting argued to cut The Godfather so they could get more screenings in a day.

Jazraena · August 2022

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

Jazraena wrote: »

Your disagreement does not alter the mathematical realities. Balancing for 10 to 100 is identical to 10k to 100k. This isn't subjective. This isn't something someone can have an opinion on. It's simple math. If you want to simplify balancing, you need to alter the upper extreme. They reduced both, and arguably the lower extreme more than the upper one - which has the opposite effect of what you want them to do.

If the data was modelling lower-extreme dps so well, it wouldn't be "arguable". But its not. What are the assumptions? Are they correct? Are there factors that the modellers haven't taken into account? That seems very likely to me. I take this with a huge grain of salt, and absolutely not as fact.

They have not.

I'm not talking about week one. I'm talking about live. I'm talking about whenever, in the past, completion rates don't meet the standard, they have adjusted. I don't know why they didn't do that in week one. But its conceivable to me that there are reasons that I just don't see, and reasons you haven't seen. Or it was just a mistake. Who knows. What I'm basing my dismissal of the "impossible content" argument on is the fact that they *have*, on live, in the past, adjusted things and people not considering that is evidence to me of incomplete arguments. Its the same with Rockgrove, 18 months ago. Remember how everyone was so convinced that the changes to vampire meant that literally no one would ever be able to get the hard mode again? Everyone was so enraged, everyone was going to quit. There was so much math and reason to believe that the game would die because of those changes. So yes, I think there's reason despite all the "evidence" to believe you might have it wrong.

Each to their opinion, but basing yours on what they said they were doing when people are in fact disagreeing with what they are doing is pointless and missing the mark of the complaints.

Yes, my opinion is debatable either way, but I do have it, and that's my point. Being told over and over again that "everyone agrees, everyone is against it" is frustrating. I'm not against being convinced that my point of view is wrong, or having a robust debate about it, but that should rely on the merits of the argument itself, and not the imaginary army.

You are, once again, talking past the points made. Removing zeroes at both ends of the spectrum does nothing, and delaying difficulty adjustment to the next patch still leaves us with months of a bad patch.

Your argument boils down to 'it's bad now but I'm sure they would have fixed it with the next one'. Yes, sure... by the end of the year. And in that time I guess people just don't do the content they want to anymore, adjust all their builds, only to redo them by the end of the year again. No worries, right?

How is this a good thing?

Margha_Ralmoren · August 2022

That's too bad really. I'm a mid tier solo player. Although I didn't buy High Isles I really enjoyed U34. Hybridisation is fantastic and with that plus the simplified CP system I was able to start making my own builds without always having to copy Alcast's math homework. This update I thought ZOS wanted magsorcs to have a more fast paced gameplay with their rework on overload and crystal frags that could be proc'ed by bound armaments. So I ditched my boring petsorc build to make a build that works around light attacks (with kinras/undaunted unweaver). Maybe not the most optimised build and it was a bit clunky to weave with overload but it was one of the build I managed to make on my own this patch (the other is my bleed warden, my strongest character).
Then U35 ZOS be like:

Stop everything ! Stop having fun !

This feels like another Scalebreaker. In that Q3 ZOS had decided to buff dots like crazy and made other questionable choices (like removing major sorcery from sorcerers Oo). I had decided to learn how to play my stam warden following an Alcast build and managed to reach 45k on a non trial dummy. But it didn't matter because three months later the dots were nerfed back to normal and I went back to my usual 25k. U35 seems as poorly thought out so I won't bother learning how to play this patch.

Do I think ZOS went completely full Wollay ? No, I still have hope that once they realise the extent of the damage of U35 when it hits live they'll fix it in the next updates. But I won't stick around to find out.
I'll come back in a year hoping that this whole mess is settled and that the next chapter is as interesting as those released pre 2020.
If not, I have other hobbies.

noblecron · August 2022

I completely agree with the original poster. I think this is the first PTS update I generally don't like and I hate all the issues it's caused and stress. Aside from that there's other areas of the game that are just making me burn out [snip] We aren't getting a free house this year at all nor a gold buyable one. I've also been noticing a more and more lack of care towards the player base that's just making me want to not renew my sub more and more which is a shame because this is my favorite game. It's my stress release but the game is making me increasingly stressed. Hopefully things change after Update 35 happens. Hopefully.

[edited for bashing]

ZOS_Icy · August 2022

Greetings,

After removing some unnecessary back and forth from this thread, we would like everyone to keep posts on the subject at hand, civil, and constructive. If there may be any questions in regards to the rules, please feel free to review them here.

Thank you for your understanding.

Destai · August 2022

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

Destai wrote: »

I am simply stating the fact that most people, judging by posts here, Reddit, and YouTube, are not wanting this change. Until I see more supportive views, outweighing the current trend, I will continue to believe the community is disapproving en masse because that is the visible fact.

Its a mistake to judge what "most people" want or don't want based only on forum posts. Its the myth of being convinced that the views you happen to be most exposed to- *due to your predisposition to be exposed to them*- is representative of all viewpoints. Essentially, echo-chamber thinking. Being determined to "continue to believe" means you are even less predisposed to other perspectives.

Which is fine, we can all believe what we want to believe. But you aren't speaking for the entire community.

Just to reiterate our previous, civil conclusion of our discussion…

I am not purporting to speak for the entire community, just echoing what I see as the majority opinion represented here and elsewhere. When I said, “en masse”, I am using the definition meaning “in large volume”. Judging by the outpouring of criticism and concerns, I do feel my statement was accurate.

I am also willing to hear positive things about this patch, of which there a few (nightblade changes in particular). But the numbers being presented by community members here and YouTube, back up the perspective that I have. While I am sure the spirit of this patch is coming from a good place, I just don’t see the merit of this patch, especially when the scope of such changes warrant more time than a 5 week PTS cycle.

Additionally, I recall watching some of the content creators, who spoke highly about some of the revisions, that lessened my apprehension for this patch. Even with some of those apprehensions being addressed, I still weigh the change fatigue higher, personally. I am sure it’s something that I can adjust to, but would prefer not to. I think many people have change fatigue.

rmajereub17_ESO · August 2022

Destai wrote: »

I am not purporting to speak for the entire community, just echoing what I see as the majority opinion represented here and elsewhere. When I said, “en masse”, I am using the definition meaning “in large volume”. Judging by the outpouring of criticism and concerns, I do feel my statement was accurate.

I agree with ya for sure. The overall sentiment within what I’ve read, discussed or heard is overwhelmingly full of criticism, concern and absolute contempt at what’s coming. More so than that before I had decided to take a break myself there were an unfortunate amount of others across my guilds who up and did the same. They didn’t even wait, holding out for the PTS cycle to finish. There’s no other way to put it other than the it really sucks to login and see ppl have been offline for two weeks already I’ve played with every evening I had a chance to hop on for these last few years. But I get it and I’m right there with them. I’m 100% butthurt and heated over it—- especially the jabs animation change.

That being said we’ll certainly find out soon enough how well it’s received when it goes live. Ppl who are upset tend to put more energy in being vocal than those who are happy and just going on about their day. So the devs certainly catch a lot more butthurt flak from us in our feedback and interactions. I can appreciate other ppl may well love the changes and the devs do have a slight biased pool to take feedback from early on.

Like when I read the reviews for something off Amazon. They’re all short and sweet until you get to that one disgruntled customer. They got paragraphs and all caps with that added energy from being upset that motivated a detailed response. When you take a look at ESO there’s a lot of players who don’t even know we have forums, they’re too busy in-game having fun. They don’t generally come around until they’re stumped and seeking information on something or something has happened to *** ‘em off(pts to live).

Either way I’ve always loved the game beyond all criticisms and hope it’ll be fixed sooner than later. I’ve got to take a break myself because for the time being U35 changes I just can’t find it in me to bother with after checking out PTS and seeing the animation they’ve changed jabs to. Like I said, I’m butthurt and heated the devs are moving forward going to live and it’ll sit there for months unfinished and entirely foreign to ppl overnight who have invested hundreds to thousands of hours on their characters. As other have said, I’m just fatigued from such constant large changes.

P.S. It was cool to see Kevin come on and address some things a few pages back. Hope more dialogue continues. It’s obvious ppl are a bit heated and got a boatload of wth to unload, including me. Regardless of that I genuinely do hope things go well and hope all the devs can figure things out. It’s easy to give the finger at things but harder to come up with the solutions, especially trying to appease so many differing views.

FlopsyPrince · August 2022

Vylaera wrote: »

baltic1284 wrote: »

Vylaera wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

Vylaera wrote: »

Can I respectfully ask that my thread remain on topic? I think Kevin has addressed well enough the perhaps wrong use of what many people perceived as antagonistic dialogue in dev responses and posts.

Thanks, guys.

Certainly, if you feel the “state of the game” is not related to management or player/developer relationships.

No I don't think that the unfortunate state of the game which I detailed pretty comprehensively in my post has much to do with a dev using language that players perceived as hostile. Otherwise I would have mentioned it.

In your post no you have a point there but so does those that post as the DEV team have used hostile wording against the community itself and so has Moderators on the forums no, I'm not trying to break rules, but it has happened a lot in the past. Does your post state that directly or indirectly no but it has happened, and most players are starting to get tired of it.
It is very sad when players have to put in there post I'm Not Trying to break the rules, but this is how i feel to generally feel safe on the Forums from what has happened. The company in General does have a very bad reputation of customer company relations, in that area in general does need to be addressed and fixed, moderation still needs work in fact a lot of work, from what i have seen on the forums over the years from when I was selected for testing, the moderation has gotten to the point of either speak good of the company you be picked on and bullied, ie the twitch issue they had as an example.
Relations all around has to be looked at and seriously changed to be more polite to those you are asking A to play the product and B give money to you. your post may have been why your frustrated with the company but so are the players posting in here on why they are and when a Admin steps in to explain and give excuses to defend those that have caused the problem that is also an issue that needs to be addressed. The community shouldn't have to be posting in fear of the company or of what those that have power will abuse and how they will, communication needs to be on the forums and only on the forums not on Reddit or any other platform as not all have access or use those platforms.

Gonna be totally honest when I say I did not read your whole post. Very hard to read, no offense. Here's a great resource for you.

But the gist of your post appears, to me, to say that people are frustrated with the nature of dev communication or the lack thereof. And that's totally fine. You can have a problem with that. My post isn't about this issue, which was my earlier point. There are other active posts dedicated specifically to this issue. Those posts would be a great place to submit your valued player feedback and allow my post to stay on topic.

Many of us would be glad to submit feedback, with significant thought, if we had a forum where we could see we were heard. I haven't seen the hostile language some mention, though I am not impressed with my experience here and don't see much solid dev communication, especially none on things. I am surprised to see it in the PTS threads, but even that is limited.

I wish ZOS would fully view its customers as valuable enough for appropriate communication above what is happening now.

Inosaska · August 2022

I've learned that if I'm not having fun playing the video game that I'm playing, then I stop playing it and go play a different game or go do something else other than playing a video game. Do not force yourself to continue to do something that isn't fun anymore. It's not worth getting frustrated over it, and it's taken me a long time to learn this lesson.

katanagirl1 · August 2022

Inosaska wrote: »

I've learned that if I'm not having fun playing the video game that I'm playing, then I stop playing it and go play a different game or go do something else other than playing a video game. Do not force yourself to continue to do something that isn't fun anymore. It's not worth getting frustrated over it, and it's taken me a long time to learn this lesson.

It’s hard to do this when you are heavily invested in the game, though it is a smart move.

I try to do what I can to argue why these things shouldn't happen in whichever game I am currently involved in, but here I am just one of the average players who are affected rather than the top dps, which ironically my voice would not be heard as much as them, even though they may not be heard either.

You just get tired of having to move on every time.