Yoshi-P Statement on Player Feedback

[IdowhatIwant]

And this right here is what's being talked about. Not pointing out problems with the game itself, but insulting the devs behind it. And with such a ridiculous claim as 'lazy', completely discounting a variety of perfectly logical reasons why there is less content in your view.

-EW has waaay more cutscenes and story compared to previous expansion.
-they had to shift to a work from home situation. This has all sorts of time loss for a group environment like the devs are in, like in setup, coordinating how they're going to communicate, etc not counting the fact that living in a small space with other people will almost certainly lead to some lost manhours due to real life
-related to the above, work from home doesnt have the same high end pc's to do the work on, therefore taking more manhours to complete the same task

But no, it couldn't possibly be for any reason other than they're a bunch of super lazy slackers. Those same devs that spent how many hours of their own time adjusting some headwear for vierra because they didn't want to disappoint the players? Yup, clearly a case of just simple laziness, cold hard fact!

Here is the thing, and I am not sure if you understand how development teams work. The team is split into other teams. So the fact that Endwalker had more cutscenes and story has nothing to do with class design plummeting because the writers of the story aren't developing the classes in the game. The cut scene designers aren't developing the boss mechanics.

We have had less content in patches since Stormblood so your excuse about Endwalker, only applies to Endwalker. Covid also only applies to Endwalker and the later half of ShB. So I have no idea why you are even using this as an excuse for less content over almost a 5 year span. What's the excuse for dive bombs being an over used mechanic since ARR, yearly flu seasons?

So yes, I feel that if they decide to cut content and tell me they are going to replace that content with better class implementation, better casual content then that is what I expect, but I have not seen that so I am calling it lazy. Spending extra man hours for a race can wear a hat does not make up for that. Let the ears clip through the helmet.

Did you really just type that? Seriously? Which is not how I take your comment. Your comments are exactly the type Yoshi P was talking about.

How is this comment exactly the type of comment that Yoshi P was talking about. That is my feedback play and test the game, test all the classes, test them in the content specially if you are delaying the game for QA testing. The fact that GBR exist tells me they don't play the game or atleast test the classes. Why would you make a class that counter intuitive that spams OGCDs to do DPS on a role that needs to use OGCDs to survive taking hits, it doesn't make any sense. There is no reason why a dancer is not able to be on par with a bard with over all raid dps at launch unless it was not tested.

So you can say that I am an example because I called them lazy but that is what I have seen so far is laziness.

[UkcsAlias]

For clarity (as per the initial edit); make a statement such as "You're casual, you wouldn't understand" - See how long it takes for a remark such as that to derail an entire thread or topic of discussion into an "us vs them" situation.

I can give a team fortress 2 example on this regarding the pyro (which since its design has been problematic in balance). The pyro has multiple tresholds in skill vs effectivity:
- Lowest skill: very effective at almost no effort (W+M1)
- Mid skill: Starts to learn airblast, but stops using fire (effective against other pyros, mostly useless otherwise)
- Higher skill: Knows how to airblast while going in like W+M1, and starts flanking (decently effective, still easily hardcountered). Most important, starts using the shotgun (becomes effective at range)
- Top skill: Knows how to exploit the flanks and estimate player behaviour (suddenly becomes a monster that is problematic to handle for most of the players - but against equaly skilled, its better to go for a diffirent class as its simply more effective)

The problem here is that the pyro alway had limited attack range. But very high damage vs effort. The skilled actions are difficult to perform (making most people unable to use them properly). They have tried many things, but in the end, the pyro became only a defensive tool in pub games to mostly disrupt spies. They simply never managed to give the pyro good capabilities in ranged situations. Although this was part of its design, its also why its still a very broken class.

Casuals simply complain about the class being OP here, because they simply dont know how it works. Which for other classes is clearly visible. So there is a good reason for them derailing, because details start to matter in those cases. But when such case can show up, there is definitely some issue going on that probably goes even further (why is there such barricade in which you can start to seperate us and them?). Anyone that can find such issue therefor should mention it, as its not just the skilled that will benefit from that info, it helps those lower skilled ones from becoming better, and maybe even help devs at preventing that barricade from acting like one.

May i note that 1 of the biggest pyro issues was not just the class, but the way the server handled fire hitreg. A situation that ranked players knew for very long (the backburner was banned for a reason), yet took like 7 years to get fixed.

[Kaurhz]

Snip.

Interesting..

The thing about teams is that many of them will be given their own assigned budget or task assignment. Aside from this simple fact, teams are equally as interdependent on each other for resources and assets. Battle designers will still rely on environmental artist, similarly battle designers may also heavily rely on level designers or asset design. Equally scenario designers will also rely on a myriad of teams including battle designers and environmental artists. So yes it is still a perfectly logical thing to expect. Is it great? Nah. Is it ideal? Obviously not, but in the end it is still a valid point.

I only half and half agree with the point regarding content. We haven't really had less content. It has been more sparsely designed. But more importantly the issue is surrounding the level of replayability it has with the community. Deep dungeon wasn't exactly a monumental amount of content, versus the simple fact it was an extraordinarily designed piece of content for replayability. This is as much to do with incentivisation as to what it does with anything else. Placing the levelling and relics within the same set of content was a massive let-down in this regard. So yeah, I would argue we have as much if not more content but it hasn't necessarily translated into said content having the same replay value - Which the replayability is the bigger issue.

On the comment of testing. Having the time to test something, and then having the time to pass all those results through their pipeline to eventually feed back to the job and encounter designers, and then having them make the necessary adjustments are 2 entirely different things. Which given how much design actually goes into an expansion it isn't really the most feasible thing in the world to expect balanced jobs from the outlet. I suppose on this regard the only comment that can be made is to wait and see what changes are coming in 6.08.

What one person can construe as being lazy, another can reasonably construe as just having tight deadlines and not having the ability to meet every nuance of them on the expansion launch. Hence the reason for minor patches like 4.06 or 6.08.

[Gemina]

I'm not telling people how they should, other than keeping it civil and not resorting to insulting. Almost all of the threads I've seen have had VERY thinly veiled insults in them. Not always by the OP, or even people who oppose them, but there are almost always the thinly veiled insults present somewhere in there.

As I said, back on page 1, negative feedback is probably the most important feedback a game can receive. BUT! Keep it civil.

Negative feedback and constructive criticism are not the same thing. Like, at all. Negative feedback, as the name entails serves no purpose other than to be negative. The term is how you differentiate such a viewpoint from a positive one.

You can be ultra negative and still remain civil. You just won't be helping the situation much unless optimism reaches a point of naivety and pretentiousness.

[Caurcas]

Stormblood was the peak, and it's been all downhill ever since. They focused too hard on narrative and have been sacrificing gameplay ever since.

[IdowhatIwant]

Interesting..

The thing about teams is that many of them will be given their own assigned budget or task assignment. Aside from this simple fact, teams are equally as interdependent on each other for resources and assets. Battle designers will still rely on environmental artist, similarly battle designers may also heavily rely on level designers or asset design. Equally scenario designers will also rely on a myriad of teams including battle designers and environmental artists. So yes it is still a perfectly logical thing to expect. Is it great? Nah. Is it ideal? Obviously not, but in the end it is still a valid point.

I only half and half agree with the point regarding content. We haven't really had less content. It has been more sparsely designed. But more importantly the issue is surrounding the level of replayability it has with the community. Deep dungeon wasn't exactly a monumental amount of content, versus the simple fact it was an extraordinarily designed piece of content for replayability. This is as much to do with incentivisation as to what it does with anything else. Placing the levelling and relics within the same set of content was a massive let-down in this regard. So yeah, I would argue we have as much if not more content but it hasn't necessarily translated into said content having the same replay value - Which the replayability is the bigger issue.

On the comment of testing. Having the time to test something, and then having the time to pass all those results through their pipeline to eventually feed back to the job and encounter designers, and then having them make the necessary adjustments are 2 entirely different things. Which given how much design actually goes into an expansion it isn't really the most feasible thing in the world to expect balanced jobs from the outlet. I suppose on this regard the only comment that can be made is to wait and see what changes are coming in 6.08.

What one person can construe as being lazy, another can reasonably construe as just having tight deadlines and not having the ability to meet every nuance of them on the expansion launch. Hence the reason for minor patches like 4.06 or 6.08.

When I mention less content, I believe it was Stormblood they first stopped doing hardmode dungeons (or maybe they still called them hardmode) and bringing the amount of dungeons to 1 every 4.x0 and one every 4.x5 patch. Then shadowbringers brought that down further to one every 5.x0 patch IRRC. So Stormblood halved the number of dungeons we got, and Shadowbringers halved the half. So we now get a quarter of the dungeons we used to get back in ARR and HW. Which cuts down on some of the replayability you mentioned and can really make it tough to get those weekly tomestones.

BTW, Thank you for the well thought out response.

[Kaurhz]

When I mention less content, I believe it was Stormblood they first stopped doing hardmode dungeons (or maybe they still called them hardmode) and bringing the amount of dungeons to 1 every 4.x0 and one every 4.x5 patch. Then shadowbringers brought that down further to one every 5.x0 patch IRRC. So Stormblood halved the number of dungeons we got, and Shadowbringers halved the half. So we now get a quarter of the dungeons we used to get back in ARR and HW. Which cuts down on some of the replayability you mentioned and can really make it tough to get those weekly tomestones.

BTW, Thank you for the well thought out response.

It's a philosophy thing for them, really. Does the number of dungeons necessarily translate into a substantial amount of content? I mean they've been long reduced to corridor simulators long before Stormblood, and any dungeon that wasn't (in ARR), quite arguably just remained unexplored. Personally I can't really call or consider the hardmode tag to be anything now given the point of corridor simulators. To my understanding the dungeons have been as followed:

- 18 in HW
- 15 in SB
- 13 in ShB

I don't think the factor of replayability can come down to a dungeon level, nor do I think it makes it any more difficult to get tomes (unless you count bonus too), arguably all it has accomplished is giving people a greater sense of stale-ness from the scope of their roulette. In this regard I think it would be a nice idea in merging 50/60/70/80 with the expert roulette, so that it draws from a wider array of dungeons. But not many people would feel mutual on this regard.

[Apopopo]

omg this is so sad alexa play despacito

[Tibowmew]

Important to note that he's talking mostly to the japanese playerbase.

We're okay, they don't read the english forums.

That may be true, but I don't think we should brush it off either. There are many people who are unreasonable online and don't think about the impact their words have on others people's lives, Japanese or not. It's a good reminder to us all to be civil and treat others as humans. Also, don't forget that there are some that work for SE in the Japanese offices that do speak English.

[Tibowmew]

When I mention less content, I believe it was Stormblood they first stopped doing hardmode dungeons (or maybe they still called them hardmode) and bringing the amount of dungeons to 1 every 4.x0 and one every 4.x5 patch. Then shadowbringers brought that down further to one every 5.x0 patch IRRC. So Stormblood halved the number of dungeons we got, and Shadowbringers halved the half. So we now get a quarter of the dungeons we used to get back in ARR and HW. Which cuts down on some of the replayability you mentioned and can really make it tough to get those weekly tomestones.

BTW, Thank you for the well thought out response.

My perspective may be different as a newer player, but it seems that there's still quite a lot of content in the game. I suppose if you plan on only doing dungeons, then there are less per expansion. But having other consistent things like alliance raids and areas like Eureka and Bozja are nice because they're not the same type of activities. I don't know what their budgets look like, but I also imagine there's some weighing the costs on adding new content in. Like the new PvP setup. Those resources had to come from somewhere. I can't really comment on replayability though, outside of incentives, since that would just depend on the kind of content each player likes to do.

I'm glad to see people having respectful conversations here, despite everyone's different perspectives.