We Left 21 Pages of Feedback

[Sensations.9507]

So we left 21 pages of feedback and out of all of that feedback there wasn't a single thing that the Dev's "promised that they would read" that they thought was good for the game?................

I didnt agree with alot of what was posted for sure but there was feedback on DH, reaper, engineer, scourge, thief.... that were braindead asks that needed to happen.  The only change from the original post was some reaper shouts being lower cd... which still didnt solve reaper or necro issues.  Why should we bother giving feedback and you promise to read it and yet we dont even see one change from the first iteration?  Like I said only good feedback should be accepted but your telling me out of  21 pages of feedback there was nothing?!?!  I know for a fact there are 7-8 posts on the abysmal state of berserker in there that hit the nail on the head for you.

[Zuko.7132]

It is very disappointing. Clearly no feedback was seriously considered.

[TheLadyOfTheRings.9148]

What 21 pages of feedback? Where? I'd like to read them 🙂 

[Beddo.1907]

I don't see that much feedback that could be applied within one and a half week, tbh.
I'd probably pick about 2 pages worth of actually useful feedback, but nothing "simple" that can be added as is without testing, a lot of coding or that would fit with the planned, vague balance direction.
And obviously there are some ppl that have no idea what they are saying. (Not name calling anyone)

Let's just hope next time they consider some of it. (Preferably before May)
 

[Buran.3796]

   Not surprising taking in consideration how the four EoD betas over 5 months delivered almost no changes in the EoD release. And by the way this is the balance team which made possible that the roster of the best 10 PvP slots between NA and EU ended filled with 7 Catalyst, 1 Tempest and 2 Spellbreakers... 

[Alcatraznc.3869]

What do you define as "good feedback". Because I definitely saw some good feedback, at least feedback *I* consider good but other will not necessarily agree.

[Xenesis.6389]

4 hours ago, Sensations.9507 said:

So we left 21 pages of feedback and out of all of that feedback there wasn't a single thing that the Dev's "promised that they would read" that they thought was good for the game?................

I didnt agree with alot of what was posted for sure but there was feedback on DH, reaper, engineer, scourge, thief.... that were braindead asks that needed to happen.  The only change from the original post was some reaper shouts being lower cd... which still didnt solve reaper or necro issues.  Why should we bother giving feedback and you promise to read it and yet we dont even see one change from the first iteration?  Like I said only good feedback should be accepted but your telling me out of  21 pages of feedback there was nothing?!?!  I know for a fact there are 7-8 posts on the abysmal state of berserker in there that hit the nail on the head for you.

Pffft even this person forgets mesmers.... 😏

[Mell.4873]

Most of the feedback was bad, I mean I distinctly remember people saying Virtuoso was useless and offered nothing for PvE content. It was selfish, Chronomancer is better, the shatters are low damage, etc. 

The reality was Virtuoso is an amazing pick for most end game content and has a very good place in the Meta. 

I mean they still complain about it in PvP but right now it's an amazing Duelist. 

Edited February 16, 2023 by Mell.4873

[Ruisenior.6342]

1 hour ago, Mell.4873 said:

I mean they still complain about it in PvP its arguable strongest game mode as a Duelist. 

Dont make me laugh. 

[Mell.4873]

15 minutes ago, Ruisenior.6342 said:

Dont make me laugh. 

Well, it is definitely better than Mirage in PvP.

[Fueki.4753]

But the time, they presented the preview to us, the changes for the patch were pretty much already set and done. with. They most likely gave us the preview only to mentally prepare players for the changes and maybe so we could theory craft.

I certainly didn't expect any relevant changes in these two weeks. But a slice of the feedback might be considered for the next patch in three months.

Edited February 15, 2023 by Fueki.4753

[Obtena.7952]

I'm just going to guess that 20 of those pages were low value complaints, not feedback. If you want to give valuable feedback on changes to the game, you actually have to play them. 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Obtena.7952

[Arewn.2368]

4 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

I'm just going to guess that 20 of those pages were low value complaints, not feedback. If you want to give valuable feedback on changes to the game, you actually have to play them. 

Except they only give 1 or 2 weeks of notice for the changes. And there's no test server.

 

So yeah, a lot of low quality feedback and no play testing. That's obviously going to be the case when all Arena Net does is posture about listening to feedback without actually putting in place the framework necessary to consider it.

[Dadnir.5038]

On 2/14/2023 at 7:26 PM, Sensations.9507 said:

So we left 21 pages of feedback and out of all of that feedback there wasn't a single thing that the Dev's "promised that they would read" that they thought was good for the game?

Unfortunately, that's nothing out of the ordinary. When they give you a patch note preview it's usually that "the build is already ready to be lauched and thus they can't make much change until it goes live".

[Obtena.7952]

1 hour ago, Arewn.2368 said:

Except they only give 1 or 2 weeks of notice for the changes. And there's no test server.

 

So yeah, a lot of low quality feedback and no play testing. That's obviously going to be the case when all Arena Net does is posture about listening to feedback without actually putting in place the framework necessary to consider it.

It's not posturing though ... it's always been this way because there isn't a test server. It's not that they don't listen ... it's that the testing/feedback process requires the changes to be in the game before it makes sense for people to give feedback on the changes. 

Bottomline here is that people put too much value on their feedback prior to being able to actually test the changes. 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Obtena.7952

[Gaiawolf.8261]

4 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

It's not posturing though ... it's always been this way because there isn't a test server. It's not that they don't listen ... it's that the testing/feedback process requires the changes to be in the game before it makes sense for people to give feedback on the changes. 

Bottomline here is that people put too much value on their feedback prior to the changes. 

To be fair ArenaNet did set the precedent themselves. A few of the items that the community pushed back on during the last preview were recalled or adjusted when the November 29 patch went live. You do it once, and the people are going to expect it. It's called courtesy consistency.

Now if there are more communication on how they plan to process and work with feedback, and at least explain their state of mind on certain key issues like mirage dodging in competitive modes, there might be less kitten. 

In the end I don't think they have to roll over for everything the community wants, but a little bit more transparency and communication wouldn't hurt. 

[Obtena.7952]

8 minutes ago, Gaiawolf.8261 said:

To be fair ArenaNet did set the precedent themselves. A few of the items that the community pushed back on during the last preview were recalled or adjusted when the November 29 patch went live. You do it once, and the people are going to expect it. It's called courtesy consistency.

Now if there are more communication on how they plan to process and work with feedback, and at least explain their state of mind on certain key issues like mirage dodging in competitive modes, there might be less kitten. 

In the end I don't think they have to roll over for everything the community wants, but a little bit more transparency and communication wouldn't hurt. 

There have been instances where Anet didn't implement intended changes based on feedback so, when people say this forum feedback process is just  'posturing' ... that's just not honest and a bad attempt at guilt shaming. Some of the feedback is good and Anet does pay attention to it. The majority of it is not. 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Obtena.7952

[Gaiawolf.8261]

2 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

There have been instances where Anet didn't implement intended changes based on feedback so, when people say this forum feedback process is just  'posturing' ... that's just not honest and a bad attempt at guilt shaming. Some of the feedback is good and Anet does pay attention to it. The majority of it is not. 

I don't agree with the virulent language, but I understand the sentiment 

[Obtena.7952]

27 minutes ago, Gaiawolf.8261 said:

I don't agree with the virulent language, but I understand the sentiment 

Well, the sentiment is weird ... the idea that Anet doesn't act on '21 pages of feedback' implies Anet needs to act on 21 pages of feedback just because people made 21 pages of it. That's just an unreasonable expectation in the first place. 

Let's just lay it out here: Feedback does not mean Anet doesn't follow through with how they plan to change the game. I consider these preview more a courtesy than anything else, since it's unlikely that a week before release, Anet rejigs everything because 'feedback'. It can happen in exceptional cases, but no one should expect it to happen, even if '21 pages'. 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Obtena.7952

[Gaiawolf.8261]

28 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Well, the sentiment is weird ... the idea that Anet doesn't act on '21 pages of feedback' implies Anet needs to act on 21 pages of feedback just because people made 21 pages of it. That's just an unreasonable expectation in the first place. 

Let's just lay it out here: Feedback does not mean Anet doesn't follow through with how they plan to change the game. I consider these preview more a courtesy than anything else, since it's unlikely that a week before release, Anet rejigs everything because 'feedback'. It can happen in exceptional cases, but no one should expect it to happen, even if '21 pages'. 

I think you're being a little too literal. 

[CalmTheStorm.2364]

I really appreciate the previews and Livestream to discuss the changes, but I think they aren't leaving themselves adequate time to actually incorporate community feedback. In one of their previous communications, they said that they need about 2 weeks lead time to incorporate most changes. If that's the case, holding the patch preview 1-1.5 weeks before it goes live puts them in a position where it is difficult if not impossible to make significant changes.

 

I think that, ideally, they should be previewing their planned changes ~2 months prior to launch so there is ample time for feedback and dialogue. They don't need to have a Livestream or have everything worked out or coded; just give the planned direction. Ex, "For Warrior, we're planning on reworking the Arms traitline, as well as updating Healing Signet, Berserker stance, and a few other underused utility skills." The more specific they can be with their planned changes, the better, but even a sketch would allow the community to start giving focused feedback, identity potential pitfalls, etc. I think this process would be much more effective --and hopefully more mutually satisfactory for both designers and gamers.

[Xenesis.6389]

26 minutes ago, CalmTheStorm.2364 said:

I think they aren't leaving themselves adequate time to actually incorporate community feedback. In one of their previous communications, they said that they need about 2 weeks lead time to incorporate most changes. If that's the case, holding the patch preview 1-1.5 weeks before it goes live puts them in a position where it is difficult if not impossible to make significant changes.

If that's the absolute minimum time they need, then they basically never planned on listening to player feedback or implementing any changes this last preview cycle, since it was only 10 days in between, but really only left a window of 6 business days for changes. An actual 2 week window would have put the patch to the 21st instead..

2 months lead time is way too long, 2 weeks is fine if they're able to do numerical and mechanical changes in that time, but whatever time doesn't really matter if they are not going to bother listening  to feedback anyways... 🤷‍♂️.

Edited February 16, 2023 by Xenesis.6389

[Infusion.7149]

5 minutes ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

If that's the absolute minimum time they need, then they basically never planned on listening to player feedback or implementing any changes this last preview cycle, since it was only 10 days in between, but really only left a window of 6 business days for changes. An actual 2 week window would have put the patch to the 21st instead..

2 months lead time is way too long, 2 weeks is fine if they're able to do numerical and mechanical changes in that time, but whatever time doesn't really matter if they are not going to bother listening  to feedback anyways... 🤷‍♂️.

To be fair they stopped changes in the past (i.e. scrapper gyro). They never reworked it after the preview was out.

[CalmTheStorm.2364]

53 minutes ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

If that's the absolute minimum time they need, then they basically never planned on listening to player feedback or implementing any changes this last preview cycle, since it was only 10 days in between, but really only left a window of 6 business days for changes. An actual 2 week window would have put the patch to the 21st instead..

2 months lead time is way too long, 2 weeks is fine if they're able to do numerical and mechanical changes in that time, but whatever time doesn't really matter if they are not going to bother listening  to feedback anyways... 🤷‍♂️.

The idea behind the longer preview period is so that community feedback could be incorporated on the front end, rather than only allowing an extremely small window to address "emergency" issues that the community points out.

 

I think there is a lot of wisdom and insight on the forums (often buried under mountains of salt, but still). The devs would be wise to utilize it.

[Blazing Rathalos.1904]

I think this time there just weren't any changes that were as near-unanimously condemned as was the case with the previously planned changes to Gyros and Deadeye Rifle range. I know I certainly didn't see dozens of posts on the subreddit this time. So, they felt no need to change things beforehand.