No discussion on fixing Blu?????

[Lambdafish]

Regardless of your opinion on BLU, expecting an immediate response is ignorant to the point of laughable. The devs have been extremely transparent about the time it takes to develop content, just look at their interview about Eureka, where they talk honestly about their intentions and what they learned from the content. One thing of note from it is that they say that feedback from Anemos couldn't be implemented until Pyros (which did make significant improvements) due to the Pagos already being in late development by the time the feedback was in place. They can't just drop everything because you didn't like it.

So when people say "why aren't they talking about BLU?" or worse "They need to fix BLU before 5.0", it sounds more entitled than it should, because it throws all logic out of the window in favor of "I need it now". Despite the narrative that is spun, the devs are very good at taking on board feedback, they are just a bit slow about it (as is expected in an MMO where there is no time to spend on feedback and something is always being worked on, *cough* expansion *cough*). People will call me overly optimistic, but why do you think they released BLU in 4.5 instead of 5.0? They said in 3.5 that Zhloe custom deliveries were implemented to test the content during a content lull, and I firmly believe that BLU is in the same place, an experiment to improve in time for the new expansion cycle.

[Kabooa]

It takes time to develop content.

It takes 5 seconds to say "We have heard your feedback."

[Mito123]

It takes time to develop content.

It takes 5 seconds to say "We have heard your feedback."

Haha you said it. All I'm asking is then to just say we aren't listening or acknowledging. I just don't want Blu to die off

[Brightamethyst]

It takes time to develop content.

It takes 5 seconds to say "We have heard your feedback."

While I agree that more communication with the community would be appreciated, that's often a no win scenario for the devs in cases like this.

People tend to assume that any official non-negative response is automatically a positive one. A dev saying "we heard your feedback" doesn't mean anything is going to change. It just leads to eventual "they said there were going to fix it but never did!" posts, even though no one ever actually said that.

[Kabooa]

While I agree that more communication with the community would be appreciated, that's often a no win scenario for the devs in cases like this.

People tend to assume that any official non-negative response is automatically a positive one. A dev saying "we heard your feedback" doesn't mean anything is going to change. It just leads to eventual "they said there were going to fix it but never did!" posts, even though no one ever actually said that.

No, given all recent feedback and changes we hear, the pattern is "bandaid fix" to "system change later". Generally speaking, having feedback acknowledged is favorable.

It's just Warrior set a bad precedent where feedback is given radical change in a quick response.

So in regards to blue mage, a "Bandaid Fix" is Synced Full Blue Mage parties give 100% learning rate for dungeons and trials, and allowing them to participate in up to level 50 duty finder. No one's going to complain that Satasha got a random Blue Mage in it to speed things along.

[Lambdafish]

It takes time to develop content.

It takes 5 seconds to say "We have heard your feedback."

Does it? The devs won't say anything until they have figured out a strategy for implementing the feedback. Its really bad business to publicly take a stance on feedback without a plan to address it.

[Phoenicia]

Does it? The devs won't say anything until they have figured out a strategy for implementing the feedback. Its really bad business to publicly take a stance on feedback without a plan to address it.

Why not? It's not "taking a stance" when you say "We received your feedback, we will see what we can do about it."

[Shurrikhan]

Despite the narrative that is spun, the devs are very good at taking on board feedback.

Outside of outlandishly poor designs that should have been caught even before, say, a public test server release (e.g. original Wanderer's Minuet), I can scarcely think of a change to existent content, classes, or designs therein according to feedback that didn't take a step in a new poor direction in addition to however few steps it took forward or towards a direct, non-errant solution.

If a revision causes just as many, or greater, problems with the alleged 'solution', I can't exactly exactly say their revision procedures are "on board" with the complaints those solutions claim to come from.

Yeah......... Come again?

* Above now revised for clarity.

Shield Swipe not particular useful in raids --> fix guts its usefulness in dungeons.
DoTs don't seem particularly fitting as a source of so much Monk damage --> "fix" guts all positional and stance-timing control, each absolutely core to Monk.
PvP lends itself towards toxicity -> Feast chat muted.
X job performs poorly due to poorly designed mechanic -> Have some more potency?
Shake it Off doesn't work on most status effects, to the point it literally feels like a trap if ever depended on in one's first run of a given piece of content -> Here, have Divine Veil, but better.
Ooh, I'd love a BLU job -> Have a BLU minigame!

Having said that, I struggle to believe that you can't think of any feature of the game that has been built on player feedback. Hell, the devs removed the greed only system from 24 man immediately due to negative feedback. Off the top of my head heres what I can think of:

Only two of the bullet points you gave had anything to do with revisions. Ultimate raids are a fine example of taking on player feedback for new content, but it doesn't give any positive evidence for their ability to fix things without newly breaking them.

[Mito123]

Outside for outlandishly poor designs that should have been caught even before, say, a public test server release (e.g. original Wanderer's Minuet), I can scarcely think of a change according to feedback that didn't take a step in a new poor direction in addition to however few steps it took forward or towards a direct, non-errant solution.

If one causes as many problems with the alleged 'solution', I can't exactly exactly say their procedures share a vessel with the complaints that solution claims to originate from.

Yeah......... Come again?

[Lambdafish]

Outside for outlandishly poor designs that should have been caught even before, say, a public test server release (e.g. original Wanderer's Minuet), I can scarcely think of a change according to feedback that didn't take a step in a new poor direction in addition to however few steps it took forward or towards a direct, non-errant solution.

If one causes as many problems with the alleged 'solution', I can't exactly exactly say their procedures share a vessel with the complaints that solution claims to originate from.

I agree that this game is in dire need of a test realm, though I think with all the hype and speculation that this game is built on, it would cause content to come out at a slower pace, with a lot less hype surrounding content, which is the most likely reason why we don't have this.

Having said that, I struggle to believe that you can't think of any feature of the game that has been built on player feedback. Hell, the devs removed the greed only system from 24 man immediately due to negative feedback. Off the top of my head heres what I can think of:
- Changes to finale story dungeon in HW and SB based on negative feedback for castrum and praetorium.
- Difficulty adjustments to 24man raids based on feedback for void ark.
- Implementation of NM raids because people complained they couldn't do them
- Implementation of Ultimate raids because people complained that raids were getting easier.
- Implementation of BLU (yes, that was based on the sheer popularity of the job) and Viera based on community request
- Many many quality of life changes are based on popular threads on the forums.
- And my personal favourite - Male bunny outfits.

And there's so much more, thats just off the top of my head without thinking.

Why not? It's not "taking a stance" when you say "We received your feedback, we will see what we can do about it."

Heres why: When you say something as vague as that to a mass audience, assumptions get made. Yoshi P learned his lesson about 6 years ago, when he said famous quotes like "Housing will always be FC only", "We will never create a demolition timer", "Cash shop will only be for old content", "We are planning to add a system where FCs can summon primals", and the list goes on. Essentially, keeping quiet until they have definitive news is the best course of action, because people get bitter when their interpretation doesn't become a reality.

I realize that doesn't entirely answer your question, so I will give you the scenario where he says what you quoted and it translates to "We are working to evolve BLU into something that is more akin to what players want". Even if all he meant was "we hear your feedback", what players see is "BLU becoming mainline job confirmed". That's a dangerous and reckless thing for a developer to do, especially when they have no scheduled roadmap for implementing the extensive feedback received at present.