Please communicate with us ZOS. This is a major update.

Joy_Division

It surprises me that arguably the most radical change in ESO’s combat in the history of the game has seen few combat changes during this PTS cycle, and only one week of them.
Shocked, actually.

We have been told that there are 'over 3,000' combinations of mix-and-matched skill lines. Are we to believe that ZOS has done such a thorough job in its own internal testing that the system as presented to us on the PTS was basically ready to go Live with a few minor tweaks such as making Fatecarver deal direct damage?

That’s the message I am getting because we also haven’t received any communication regarding ZOS’s expectations, goals, or an overall vision for sub-classing since the reveal. It certainly conveying the impression that nothing came up during the PTS was unexpected to ZOS or worthy of comment.

How is that possible? There are over 3,000 combinations of potential builds. Questions absolutely came up. Some people are concerned that pure class builds will be left too far behind when it comes to overall power. Other players are concerned that there are a few obvious combinations of powerful skill-lines that will make for a homogenous endgame “meta.” ZOS itself indicated it there was a potential power-creep they would have to monitor. Yet we haven’t heard a peep.

I can’t help but feel that ESO’s development is on autopilot. It doesn't seem as if there is a pilot to course correct or even to tell us where we are going.

****

Regarding my own feeling about sub-classing, I think it can be an interesting new way for players to enjoy the freedom of experimenting with new ideas and inject new life into what some players may have felt was a stale combat system.

But I think sub-classing really needs to be looked over carefully and shepherded into Live precisely because it has over 3,000 combinations. So many that there are bound to be the sorts of imbalances that detract from the fun of playing an MMO where these 3,000 combinations are interacting with each other, whether it is for PvE guilds looking to make comps for their trials or in PvP where players are fighting each other.

ESO isn’t a single player game in which customers can blissfully ignore balance and just play to their preferences. If I want to join a Battleground or join my guild’s invitation to do instanced group content, there are other players counting on me to adequately fulfill the role I signed up for. This doesn’t mean everyone needs to “mix-max” and strive for the most efficient build possible. That’s not necessary. However, there is an expectation that a certain level of competence comes with taking the role while being part of a group that could be fulfilled by another player. So, those 3,000 combinations and how they balance and interact with each other matter.

I no longer play everyday or use the PTS much, so I can’t say I have a keen grasp of what’s going on the PTS. Which makes it even more important to have communication because the only information I am getting is hearsay, and a lot of that coming from critics who have given me two impressions: 1) those builds who do not subclass are going to be quite a bit behind those that do 2) of these 3000 possibilities, there seems to be a narrow range of cookie-cutter combinations that are conspicuously strong.

I really would like the devs to communicate to us the state of sub-classing as they see it after over a month of PTS. Let us know what the plan is once this goes on Live to address the concerns that have been brought up. I know this is complicated stuff and I didn’t expect a smooth transition. Rome wasn’t built in a day. However, it would really help stick with the difficulties of trying to balance 3000 combinations to play well together if I had the confidence that at least there is a vision, a plan, and ZOS is aware of issues as they stand as 11.0.4. Because I interpret no combat changes as "everything is fine."

SaintJohnHM

They don't care. The only communication was to tell us we were getting big combat changes in week 4 to fix the garbage they gave us in the beginning, but then really it was only a few changes (mostly bad), and then nothing but more garbage and silence.

Erickson9610

It's still communication even if it's something you don't want to hear.

Xarc

I think from ZOS's point of view, it's the "wait and see" method.

What do you want them to say? "Yes, we love our new subclass system, we're making the final adjustments thanks to PTS, but we can't wait for it to be live"? That kind of message is a bit pointless.

From our perspective, it's the same, we have to wait.
For my part, I uninstalled the PTS, after the first update of the pts. I understood that despite the numerous feedback from the burning forum, their decision was made. I saw what I had to see... I'm enjoying the last moments of the game without this class anarchy, and then, well, I'll adapt. What other choice do I have?
This subclass system is just another step towards making ESO Classic one day a reality.

ForumBully

They are communicating. They said "here it is, deal with it for several months, byeee"

ForumBully

If they give me Vengeance I'll spend more time in the game, otherwise...I can't see this making Cyrodiil better than it was when I decided to leave, so maybe not yet.

MorallyBipolar

SaintJohnHM wrote: »

They don't care. The only communication was to tell us we were getting big combat changes in week 4 to fix the garbage they gave us in the beginning, but then really it was only a few changes (mostly bad), and then nothing but more garbage and silence.

Subclassing was the last straw for me. It's convinced me they're just throwing stuff at the wall and hoping something will stick at this point. Take it or leave it has been the theme for a few years now.

MorallyBipolar

ForumBully wrote: »

If they give me Vengeance I'll spend more time in the game, otherwise...I can't see this making Cyrodiil better than it was when I decided to leave, so maybe not yet.

As a PvP main if they force vengeance mode on us I'll stop logging into the game all together. At that point ESO will be a completely different game than what I purchased in 2014 for the implicit purpose of PvP end game activities.

React

Thanks for a thoughtful post. Pretty much sums up exactly how I feel about the system as a whole.

For something that is inarguably the most impactful combat change ever made to the game, it is almost inconceivable that the studio has made next to no effort whatsoever to communicate during the PTS cycle, or in general regarding their goals and vision for the system. This system changes the core of ESO so drastically that it will never be the same game again. Class identity is gone, probably forever. Balance in both PVP and PVE is being impacted in ways the studio cannot possibly have accounted for, and yet we've heard nothing other than that they'll "monitor" over the coming months. As far as communication has gone, you'd think this was any other patch full of minor changes that nobody would notice.

When the studio announced the new patch cadence, they said that this would allow them more time to deliver polished, finished content as well as focus more on considering and implementing player feedback. This has clearly not been the case in regards to subclassing. The system is lazy, has drawbacks that work as time-sink inconveniences rather than balancing functions, introduces absurd imbalance in both PVP and PVE, etc. If this is what the studio considers "polished", then I've lost just about my last bit of faith regarding future development in the game.

For my personal opinion, I think subclassing could have been interesting if it were implemented in a much more limited way, with real drawbacks and some actual considerations made for how it should work. Like many others I agree that the combat has gotten stale, although this is mostly due to a lack of balancing and care on zenimax's part. I can see the appeal to introducing a system like this to shake up the combat and drum up some interest in the game, but the current iteration is so laughably low effort and half finished (just like hybridization AND scribing!) that its hard to believe this isn't some massive April fool's joke.

Overall, my takeaway from this whole thing is that they're continuing their focus on the "revolving door of casuals" as I've seen other people call it. This system will be loved by those players and will likely bring some more of them to the game for the short term, but it undoubtedly will cause more of the veterans to flock from the game in just the same way U35 did. I doubt there will even be any of us left giving critical feedback a year from now when they introduce their next attention grabbing intern project.

Barto92

There can be no effective communication where there is no message — especially when it comes to new content and features that players have been requesting for years. A developer's silence toward the community becomes a message in itself.

SolarRune

I used to regualrly participate in PTS, until I realised that any feedback never altered the direction of travel irrespective of what was shown on PTS, and equally there were obvious issues/bugs that were detected in the first couple of weeks of a PTS cycle that made it through to live (think of things like the DK banner issue, unlimited CP (when CPs were more powerful), u35 and the likes).

After all these we were promised more open and better communication in the cycle of development and PTS and that ZoS would endeavor to do better. BEcause of that and this being such a huge change I thought I would try PTS again for the first time in a few years.

What strikes me is that people misinterpret what is meant by test server, it's more to test that the changes are not completely broken, as in errors and unplayable broken, when compared to ZoSs initial vision.Yes there will be number tweaking or similar, but as players we need to accept that history shows that ZoS will not significantly change the direction of travel once released (I know someone will mention markarth - but that was one update and I wasn't here for that).

I will once again be uninstalling PTS and not being involved in those cycles because there is no point because PTS will never significantly change what the release is going to be.

As for subclassing specifically - I do think that it will be equivalent to when destiny did something similar, and from what I am told by players over there basically that did break the OG classes and everyone became the equivalent of subclassed to be able to be competative/participate in group content. The only advantage for ESO is that so much of the content can be done solo and it appears the biggest group of players are story questers - and they probably will be able to do what they want.

Tigertron

It took 10 years to figure out “classes” didn’t work.

You can’t expect them to scrap that and have a new system in place in less time can you?

Come back in 2035 and let’s see how it is going then.

Mayrael

MorallyBipolar wrote: »

ForumBully wrote: »

If they give me Vengeance I'll spend more time in the game, otherwise...I can't see this making Cyrodiil better than it was when I decided to leave, so maybe not yet.

As a PvP main if they force vengeance mode on us I'll stop logging into the game all together. At that point ESO will be a completely different game than what I purchased in 2014 for the implicit purpose of PvP end game activities.

Same here. Vengeance was pitched to us as a test campaign, but it feels counterintuitive to ESO’s core—freedom to choose and build our characters however we want.

Edit:
About subclassing.

Subclassing is designed to be embraced. If you choose to stick with a "pure" class for personal reasons, that's just a self-imposed limit—nobody's forcing you to stay pure; it's your own mindset (just like staying pure magicka or pure stamina would be)

The ability to mix and match skill lines is a nod to players of less competitive classes, bringing them closer to the S+ tier. Many players don’t want to juggle multiple characters just to stay efficient. They’d rather invest in one character without feeling punished for a suboptimal choice or being forced to start over due to balance changes in updates.

This ties into another big plus: balance and future updates. With subclassing, we can look forward to patches with hope instead of dread. In the past, players feared their class getting nerfed or others being buffed. Now, you can simply swap skill lines and adapt. Sure, it gives meta-chasers more options, but overall, it makes balancing the game much easier.

As for communication, ZOS doesn’t have to bend to every player’s demands. They’re sharing their plans and vision, and they’re moving forward with it. We can voice our disappointment, but that doesn’t mean they’ll abandon their direction. They might make tweaks, but the core plan stays intact.

Hotdog_23

My take which is probably very wrong but my 2 cents.

Subclassing is a partial answer to the class change request that has been asked for years, and the need to shock the system. The game is becoming stale and stuck in a rut for a while. Changing the name to seasons over chapters is not the answer. Splitting the new zone and releasing it in 2 parts is just trying to stretch out content in place of actually doing another small zone, which they have not really done for a few years now.

Balance will be an issue, and I think they know it. They just have no clue as to what will turn out to be too much and what will be too little. So, I feel they are just throwing the idea out and seeing what it does to the game. With plans to try and balance it out later.

The only thing they really have adjusted this PTS is how beams interact to prevent the OP nature with the necro passive subclassing caused and help DK’s sustain they wrecked with battle roar changes.

It’s clear they have no long-term plan or direction for the game beyond trying to keep people checking in and spending in the crown store.

In essence, not much to communicate except to say, here it is, go at it.

Personally, I can see myself moving from a daily player to a causal player after this new shiny wears off, but time will tell.

Stay safe

licenturion

This is pure speculation of course. But this is what I think about this.

The possible changes and combinations this brings is huge. I think their philosophy is to keep as much original things intact as possible while adding systems.

I assume they will just release it and see what the player base does with it and buff/nerf outliers with quick hotfixes instead of waiting for the quarterly big patch.

The same happens with a lot of other games like Overwatch, Diablo, Rivals etc where they just drop new things, see what gets abused and underperforms with telemetry and rebalance with hotfixes.

This probably gets the new systems more balanced quickly by putting it out there instead of releasing nothing and only have ongoing conversations with a tiny subset of the playerbase on here.

SwimsWithMemes

Mayrael wrote: »

MorallyBipolar wrote: »

ForumBully wrote: »

If they give me Vengeance I'll spend more time in the game, otherwise...I can't see this making Cyrodiil better than it was when I decided to leave, so maybe not yet.

As a PvP main if they force vengeance mode on us I'll stop logging into the game all together. At that point ESO will be a completely different game than what I purchased in 2014 for the implicit purpose of PvP end game activities.

Same here. Vengeance was pitched to us as a test campaign, but it feels counterintuitive to ESO’s core—freedom to choose and build our characters however we want.

Edit:
About subclassing.

Subclassing is designed to be embraced. If you choose to stick with a "pure" class for personal reasons, that's just a self-imposed limit—nobody's forcing you to stay pure; it's your own mindset (just like staying pure magicka or pure stamina would be)

The ability to mix and match skill lines is a nod to players of less competitive classes, bringing them closer to the S+ tier. Many players don’t want to juggle multiple characters just to stay efficient. They’d rather invest in one character without feeling punished for a suboptimal choice or being forced to start over due to balance changes in updates.

This ties into another big plus: balance and future updates. With subclassing, we can look forward to patches with hope instead of dread. In the past, players feared their class getting nerfed or others being buffed. Now, you can simply swap skill lines and adapt. Sure, it gives meta-chasers more options, but overall, it makes balancing the game much easier.

As for communication, ZOS doesn’t have to bend to every player’s demands. They’re sharing their plans and vision, and they’re moving forward with it. We can voice our disappointment, but that doesn’t mean they’ll abandon their direction. They might make tweaks, but the core plan stays intact.

1. I think Vengeance would be not the sole campaign, if it returned permanently.

2. It's not "just" a self imposed limit.
a) the idea of it being a "limit": Why should it be suboptimal compared to subclassing? Why can't they be equally viable? It wouldn't be a limit in this case.
b) subclassing is a also a grind, for no real reason. The cynic may see it as a chance to sell skyshard packs & an artificial boost of engagement on the release of a season pass (e.g., exp grinding on existing characters), for a lack of engaging content

3. If you think this will improve a diversity of classes in content, that is (to me) an erroneous assumption. Sure, you might have 1-2 of each class in a trial, but game optimisation will mean there will be *less* choice for being closer to the S+ tier than before. If Arcanist beam build is simpler and stronger than every other build, over time, other builds will die if they don't offer uniqueness. Uniqueness is antithetical to providing every class with every option.

4.Single character preference:
a) I am not sure you have anything beyond anecdotes to offer the view that people prefer a single character. As a counter-anecdote, I enjoy having characters for different themes. My Bosmer Warden does nature stuff. My Arcanist does the Hermaeus Mora stuff (and Breton stuff). My imperial does PvP, I their homeland. For my Sorc, he was exclusively for the Daedric War storyline & then spent his retirement grinding solo content.
b) on being forced to start over on balance updates, this is exactly what will happen! When a skill line is nerfed, you will probably go and grind the next best thing. That skill line might also be best with another armor set, so you'll need to re-gear more than ever before.

5. balance and future updates: Balancing is primarily done based on an optimised/over performing basis. It is rare that underperformance is a core consideration of balancing. "Simply swap skill lines" again requires a substantial time investment to grind that line if you haven't before (although you would refund the skill points at this time, still need to level the line at the double exp requirement). It makes balancing the game easier, because there will likely only be 1 popular build (AKA a homogenisation of the game). Further, it reduces the viability of alternative builds. E.g. if a skill line is nerfed because it is strong, the S+ build goes and takes the next best skill line. Every non-S+ build relying on that skill line will generally, be far worse off. It will suck.

6. Communication: we don't want to control ZOS, we want to understand the reasoning behind their choices and importantly, people want to know that their concerns are valid and being taken on board. Players spend much more time on the game than developers, both on the hardcore level and as an overall group. Players may be bad at recognizing solutions, but they are excellent at identifying problems. We really don't know what any core plan is beyond the superficial, let alone have received communication about the why.

Muizer

ZOS have said they wanted to adopt a more experimental approach, didn't they? Well, here it is.

They did the technical work to make it possible. It's the players who will be doing the testing.

And frankly, while this might be something to complain about as an attitude to development, it's probably the only way in a case like this.

So yeah they're definitely rolling the dice here.

I see a lot of concern about actual narrowing of the meta. Seems to me the primary concern should be how strong those builds will be. Will they actually trivialize the game content? And what will happen then.

And yeah I can think of a reliable path ZOS could choose to balance subclassing without actually tinkering with the game difficulty, but I'm sure nobody's going to like it. It basically means balancing at the skill line level (instead of class level), which will involve shuffling around class skills between their respective lines to un-specialize them and overhauling passives.

licenturion

Muizer wrote: »

And yeah I can think of a reliable path ZOS could choose to balance subclassing without actually tinkering with the game difficulty, but I'm sure nobody's going to like it. It basically means balancing at the skill line level. Shuffle around class skills until each line does more or less the same thing.

That would kill the game because this would touch every type of player in the game out there mostly in a negative way; from solo players, to role players, PvP players and PvE score pushers. People are already anxious now that one thing of their playstyle would change if they don't want to subclass. Changing everything would be nuclear.

Silaf

The main problem is that ZOS sold the chapter before asking for the players opinion.
This take away their abilities to make major changes like reducing the subclassing to 1 line instead of 2.

The 2 main representatives for the comunity are not experts in the game. To obtain good answers the ideal would be a lore expert and a combat expert.

The people behind the scenes in ZOS are ignorant about how the game is actually played.
We can see this in the terrible balancing of the economy whith a continuos gift of aboundant rare items in the anniversary boxes, errors in planning the new battlegrounds no serious PvP player would have made, inability to balance the game even in front of evidently broken skills like fatecarver ecc...

ZOS tends to priorize short term immediate fun to long term consinstency.
The game is actually wonderful and their dedication in expanding it really impressive but maybe ZOS should realize that having programmed something doesn't necessarly make you an expert in how it is used.
If i'm a great blacksmith and can make the best sword this doesn't automatically make me the number 1 swordsman.

katorga

1. I think Vengeance would be not the sole campaign, if it returned permanently.

Then Vengeance would be empty like all the other campaigns.

But I assume from subclassing being introduced, that eventually Vengeance will be the only PVP mode for everything, openworld, BGs, duels, etc., and they will use subclassing to expand the pool of pvp skills players can choose from.

Honestly, I thought vengeance was so boring and stale by the end of a week, that I would probably drop the game after 10 years if it becomes standard pvp.

xylena_lazarow

Joy_Division wrote: »

I no longer play everyday or use the PTS much

I've been living on the PTS the past month. Subclassing doesn't break PvP, the opportunity cost of giving up your utility tree is much higher than in PvE. A small handful of busted skills and sets break PvP, same as always. Nobody will care about subclassing when all they remember after logging is how much they hate Rushing Agony and double spec bows.

Stx

ZOS is run by the government. It’s the only explanation for having such a large team that produces so little.

(I’m kidding please don’t censor me)

kojou

I think the plan was to just address the worst things, and let everything else mix and bake on live. I’m not sure why they can’t communicate that, but that seems to be the direction.

If one of those 3000 combinations is a particularly toxic outlier then they will hot fix it, but I doubt we will see any more rebalancing until the next major patch.

I prefer this over the strategy of letting content creators put out builds, then nerfing said builds at the last minute if all content creators come to the same conclusion on META. There aren’t that many content creators left, so maybe they can’t use that strategy anymore?

MJallday

Im sorry , what communication exactly would you like?

Theyve told you what the update will be.
theyve provided patch notes, which are as far as i can tell comprehensive

theres nothing else to say is there?

what you (everyone) appears to be criticising and questioning is the decision of the change, and effect of the change. not the communication.

its not up to ZOS to justify their decisions, design, commercial or otherwise.

the only decision to make is whether you want to continue to pay for their product. and only you can answer that.

Stx

MJallday wrote: »

Im sorry , what communication exactly would you like?

Theyve told you what the update will be.
theyve provided patch notes, which are as far as i can tell comprehensive

theres nothing else to say is there?

what you (everyone) appears to be criticising and questioning is the decision of the change, and effect of the change. not the communication.

its not up to ZOS to justify their decisions, design, commercial or otherwise.

the only decision to make is whether you want to continue to pay for their product. and only you can answer that.

More dev notes on listed changes?

More changes week to week. More changes total…

Daoin

maybe they finally they understand when enough people up and leave before needing to see any pts results something is wrong, therefore no need to cause more bickering

thinkaboutit

MJallday wrote: »

Im sorry , what communication exactly would you like?

Theyve told you what the update will be.
theyve provided patch notes, which are as far as i can tell comprehensive

theres nothing else to say is there?

what you (everyone) appears to be criticising and questioning is the decision of the change, and effect of the change. not the communication.

its not up to ZOS to justify their decisions, design, commercial or otherwise.

the only decision to make is whether you want to continue to pay for their product. and only you can answer that.

The kind of communication where we work together to stop a train crash that's happening in slow motion

sans-culottes

MJallday wrote: »

Im sorry , what communication exactly would you like?

Theyve told you what the update will be.
theyve provided patch notes, which are as far as i can tell comprehensive

theres nothing else to say is there?

what you (everyone) appears to be criticising and questioning is the decision of the change, and effect of the change. not the communication.

its not up to ZOS to justify their decisions, design, commercial or otherwise.

the only decision to make is whether you want to continue to pay for their product. and only you can answer that.

With respect, you’re conflating disclosure with communication.

Patch notes tell us what changed. Communication tells us why. One is a record. The other is a roadmap.

The current concern isn’t that players don’t know what subclassing is. It’s that ZOS has introduced the most radical mechanical change in ESO’s history with no meaningful public articulation of design goals, performance expectations, balance philosophy, or long-term integration with existing systems. Players aren’t asking for veto power. They’re asking for transparency—especially in a test cycle that introduced thousands of new build permutations and then went functionally silent.

If the development model is “push major systems live, then wait for telemetry,” then fine. Say that. If the model is “balance through hotfixes post-launch,” say that too. But pretending that patch notes alone constitute a developer conversation is a misread of both modern live-service expectations and the studio’s own past commitments.

You say ZOS doesn’t owe players justification. But in a feedback-driven ecosystem, design opacity isn’t strength. It’s erosion. And as many here have noted, it’s already being felt.

tomofhyrule

MJallday wrote: »

Im sorry , what communication exactly would you like?

Theyve told you what the update will be.
theyve provided patch notes, which are as far as i can tell comprehensive

theres nothing else to say is there?

But that's the thing: they're not comprehensive.

Let's even look past combat for a second - they changed the UI and the animations. We got a whole paragraph on why they are changing the animations because of saving space backend and the like, and then they pulled those changes in the last patch because it wasn't working. As for the UI, all we got was "we're modernizing it!" The feedback thread is on its 7th page and nothing has been said about why this was necessary despite near universal negative feedback.

That's something that could use a dev answer. "Hey, we're doing this because of reason X" would go a long way when it looks like someone just wanted to make the UI ugly for no reason. I mean, anyone can see that the new version of the group UI was just removing the alpha channel from the smudge, which means it now has an off-center black box in your face. Really? That's the finished product?!?

As for the combat feedback, so many people are pointing out issues with various OP skills (double-proc bow in PvP), or broken combos (slotting Grim Focus in PvE just gives a lot of WD/SD for free), or nerfs that were too heavy-handed (DK sustain being nuked because of the potential to get loads of ulti... which then also got nerfed in the form of Pillager). A simple "hey, we see what you're saying and we'll address that" or "yeah, but we actually want this setup to be OP for reason X" would make the community feel heard.

When we don't get anything from the devs, we'll start inventing reasons on our own, and people tend to assume the worst. As it is, a character who keeps their original Class without Subclassing will be underpowered compared to a subclass, and ZOS hasn't said anything along those lines. So... do they believe we should all "play as we want?" Because their actions make it sound like "Hey, we're introducing Subclassing, so you all had better go and subclass with your characters, and we're going to take away a lot of your power unless you do it." We don't know what their goal is - is it to give us freedom or to force us into Subclassing? But the fact that everything is going as it is makes it seem like their goal is for everyone to have to Subclass, they're just not saying it.

The_Meathead

Erickson9610 wrote: »

It's still communication even if it's something you don't want to hear.

That's not what's happening here nor what the OP is addressing.

Joy_Division isn't complaining that an Ability or two aren't tuned to suit their personal preference, they're pointing out how limited the give/take has been on the PTS for such an incredibly huge and game-wide impactful addition we're being handed with Subclassing.

I'm not sure how anyone can take away from the PTS that ZOS is really on top of things or up to the monumental and herculean relaunch of their game that Subclassing truly is, but at the very least we should have seen a hundred times the interactive benefit of leaning on the number crunchers the player community offers at no cost.

Instead, we've seen a PTS as normal for these past few years - and that's not a good thing, especially with the scope of what's coming.

licenturion

If people expect any changes or communication about this system before going live you are being unrealistic. It is too late.

From the patch notes: [The Elder Scrolls Online v11.0.4 introduces bug fixes and improvements for Seasons of the Worm Cult, Part One and Base Game zones as we enter the last week of PTS.

So early next week the code is locked down, they do some final internal Q&A and start prepping the packages and scripts to migrate the server, launcher and client to U46 next week.