Maintenance for the week of January 5:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – January 5
• NA megaservers for maintenance – January 7, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 10:00AM EST (15:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – January 7, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 10:00AM EST (15:00 UTC)
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – January 5
• NA megaservers for maintenance – January 7, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 10:00AM EST (15:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – January 7, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 10:00AM EST (15:00 UTC)
Two New Features that will Save ESO and Make it a 30+ Year Game
-
Malyore✭✭✭✭✭IsharaMeradin wrote: »IsharaMeradin wrote: »If you want an in-game poll about specific content, it should be offered to any player that completes such content. It should not be locked behind paying for one feature over another. However, it should only be completable once per account. And a limited number of times per IP address to reduce the amount of account spamming to inflate specific choices, while allowing for multiple individuals that use the same IP address to be able to participate.
End of the day, the developers will make whatever choices they want to make regardless of player opinions.
The opinion of someone that bought the game for $5.99 on a steam sale and the person that is spending $140 annually do not have the same weight of opinion. I will die on this hill.
The only way that the feature works is if the developers do change their direction based on player feedback, and show it to the players that it does.
So, you're saying that my opinion is worth less than others because I bought the game on sale, bought the chapters on sale, bought the dlc zones when on discount and only picked up the six-month ESO+ package a few times since I started playing way back in 2016. As well as, picking up my second account when offered for free from Epic, purchased the package that included all chapters through West Weald when on sale for that second account and started gifting dlc story zones from main account to second account as they are on discount.
Just because someone might be a little bit more conscious with how they spend their money does not make their thoughts and opinions about the game and the content that they interact with any less valid than any other player. To think that it does is a form of discrimination.
I might not be as passionate as others on certain content, but it does not mean that my opinion is worth any less for any content that I do care about. Which is why I stated that a player must complete the content associated with any poll in order to participate.
Short answer, Yes.
Longer answer, the game needs a steady stream of revenue to continue to be live. Data Centers, Developers, and all the administration and such are expensive. Maybe they give subscribers 2 votes instead of 1 vote or something, but I think players that contribute monetarily to the game should get more say in its direction than those that don't.
I disagree. First of all, I would imagine Microsoft has more than enough money to support ESO more if they really wanted to, but instead they do mass layoffs to save on expenses. They strip the game staff down, so less of your money is actually going back into the game and likely into other aspects of the companies.
But what I think is most important to reiterate is that you would be aiming to flush out people who may love the game but can't afford to spend extra money in it. And where is the line drawn when doing so? If people who subscribe get 2 votes, then what about people who spend even more in the crown store, then wouldn't they be worth even more and get 3 or 4 votes? What if they spent hundreds one month for a new crown crate, but then only maintained their subscription the next month without extra expenses? At what point does that method of "player" value (aka wallet value) become untenable?
If I choose to spend a $100+ dollars on something like feeding my child or paying bills, rather than buying a notable ESO home, that does not mean that my vote for what would be better for the game is automatically moot or unsound for the games health. Just because someone is able to afford putting extra monetary support into the game doesn't mean they know what's best for the game, nor that catering to their wishes is going to bring more/stable money into the game's support in the long run, when it's ran against a varied audience. Especially if the big spenders are split in what they want and a vote lands like 49:51, then a huge portion of those big spenders still aren't getting what they wanted. What good does them having extra votes do for the game or the players if the game won't support the direction that 49% of the big spenders wanted?
Overall it just sounds like a messy situation that could easily be damaging.
Thinking about it further, how would they even measure who is a spender and who isn't? Because if they simply go by active ESO+ subscriptions, then that's imprecise.
I run my subscription month by month. I usually am subscribed and also occasionally get some crowns, I used to preorder the new content too. But my subscription is currently canceled because I do not like the current direction of the game, and it would be a waste of money for me to spend on something I'm hardly playing. So would I be considered a "monetary supporter" or not? Once the games direction shifts, then so too does who is a spender and who isn't. Where would the games direction be leading then all throughout that process?
If I were to vote then for something that would bring me back into the game more if it wins the poll, would I have to reactivate my subscription just to get the additional say? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of the additional financial votes– if I was a spender but stopped due to poor game direction, then reducing me to being considered not someone worth having more votes. What would have once been a louder voice amongst a crowd of votes becomes muted.
The whole system seems like it would only whittle down audiences.Edited by Malyore on 22 December 2025 20:392 -
kojou✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭IsharaMeradin wrote: »IsharaMeradin wrote: »If you want an in-game poll about specific content, it should be offered to any player that completes such content. It should not be locked behind paying for one feature over another. However, it should only be completable once per account. And a limited number of times per IP address to reduce the amount of account spamming to inflate specific choices, while allowing for multiple individuals that use the same IP address to be able to participate.
End of the day, the developers will make whatever choices they want to make regardless of player opinions.
The opinion of someone that bought the game for $5.99 on a steam sale and the person that is spending $140 annually do not have the same weight of opinion. I will die on this hill.
The only way that the feature works is if the developers do change their direction based on player feedback, and show it to the players that it does.
So, you're saying that my opinion is worth less than others because I bought the game on sale, bought the chapters on sale, bought the dlc zones when on discount and only picked up the six-month ESO+ package a few times since I started playing way back in 2016. As well as, picking up my second account when offered for free from Epic, purchased the package that included all chapters through West Weald when on sale for that second account and started gifting dlc story zones from main account to second account as they are on discount.
Just because someone might be a little bit more conscious with how they spend their money does not make their thoughts and opinions about the game and the content that they interact with any less valid than any other player. To think that it does is a form of discrimination.
I might not be as passionate as others on certain content, but it does not mean that my opinion is worth any less for any content that I do care about. Which is why I stated that a player must complete the content associated with any poll in order to participate.
Short answer, Yes.
Longer answer, the game needs a steady stream of revenue to continue to be live. Data Centers, Developers, and all the administration and such are expensive. Maybe they give subscribers 2 votes instead of 1 vote or something, but I think players that contribute monetarily to the game should get more say in its direction than those that don't.
I disagree. First of all, I would imagine Microsoft has more than enough money to support ESO more if they really wanted to, but instead they do mass layoffs to save on expenses. They strip the game staff down, so less of your money is actually going back into the game and likely into other aspects of the companies.
But what I think is most important to reiterate is that you would be aiming to flush out people who may love the game but can't afford to spend extra money in it. And where is the line drawn when doing so? If people who subscribe get 2 votes, then what about people who spend even more in the crown store, then wouldn't they be worth even more and get 3 or 4 votes? What if they spent hundreds one month for a new crown crate, but then only maintained their subscription the next month without extra expenses? At what point does that method of "player" value (aka wallet value) become untenable?
If I choose to spend a $100+ dollars on something like feeding my child or paying bills, rather than buying a notable ESO home, that does not mean that my vote for what would be better for the game is automatically moot or unsound for the games health. Just because someone is able to afford putting extra monetary support into the game doesn't mean they know what's best for the game, nor that catering to their wishes is going to bring more/stable money into the game's support in the long run, when it's ran against a varied audience. Especially if the big spenders are split in what they want and a vote lands like 49:51, then a huge portion of those big spenders still aren't getting what they wanted. What good does them having extra votes do for the game or the players if the game won't support the direction that 49% of the big spenders wanted?
Overall it just sounds like a messy situation that could easily be damaging.
Thinking about it further, how would they even measure who is a spender and who isn't? Because if they simply go by active ESO+ subscriptions, then that's imprecise.
I run my subscription month by month. I usually am subscribed and also occasionally get some crowns, I used to preorder the new content too. But my subscription is currently canceled because I do not like the current direction of the game, and it would be a waste of money for me to spend on something I'm hardly playing. So would I be considered a "monetary supporter" or not? Once the games direction shifts, then so too does who is a spender and who isn't. Where would the games direction be leading then all throughout that process?
If I were to vote then for something that would bring me back into the game more if it wins the poll, would I have to reactivate my subscription just to get the additional say? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of the additional financial votes– if I was a spender but stopped due to poor game direction, then reducing me to being considered not someone worth having more votes. What would have once been a louder voice amongst a crowd of votes becomes muted.
The whole system seems like it would only whittle down audiences.
Obviously my opinion matters very little to ZOS, but if it were up to me it would be a simple matter of whether you currently have ESO Plus active or not. I wouldn’t get into any complex systems and calculations.Playing since beta...0 -
Syldras✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Obviously my opinion matters very little to ZOS, but if it were up to me it would be a simple matter of whether you currently have ESO Plus active or not. I wouldn’t get into any complex systems and calculations.
So it's basically buying a vote for 12 dollars or how much a month costs? That system would be so easy to abuse. And even without some people potentially having bad intentions and deliberately manipulating the vote, you'd get a very skewed result. People who are discontent with the game will not subscribe just to make a vote that might never be acted upon. People who are regularly subscribed anyway are most probably people who don't have too many aspects to criticize.
Edited by Syldras on 23 December 2025 14:28@Syldras | PC | EU
The forceful expression of will gives true honor to the Ancestors.
Sarayn Andrethi, Telvanni mage (Main)
Darvasa Andrethi, his "I'm NOT a Necromancer!" sister
Malacar Sunavarlas, Altmer Ayleid vampire
Soris Rethandus, a Sleeper not yet awake2 -
Cooperharley✭✭✭✭✭
✭In this thread, I’m noticing many are getting stuck on the premise of the voting idea being tied to the ESO Plus subscription. I think voting would be a wonderful idea, but agree it should be about tenure (I.e. a designated amount of time in game per ZOS’s choice) rather than subscription. This would prevent abuse during ESO+ trials and also from people making lots of accounts to get lots of votes. Play time would be most important.
I think legendary mode is great, but is likely just going to be what ZOS does when they give us the optional increase in overland difficulty. This will allow more adventure and exploration for those who want it & will allow those with great builds to go back and do solo content for cool rewards.
Doesn’t seem bad to me!
I definitely think ZOS has proved that they think they tend to know better and that hasn’t served them well over the past few years. The tone shift with the new leadership looks great and I’m pumped about that, but we have a long way to go. The voting system present in OSRS has proven that this is a valuable method for implementing changes and content - it largely helps to prevent “out of touch” changes, which would be great for ESO.
As the “classic plus” version of WoW gets developed, this is also a very common feature people ask for there because it simply works very, very well
Edit: spellingEdited by Cooperharley on 24 December 2025 18:24PC-NA | @Cooperharley2 -
Ezhh✭✭✭✭✭
✭but I would also add that in order to vote in ESO that you must be an ESO+ subscriber. This way you keep the feedback limited to players that are actually writing the developer's paychecks and give an extra perk to encourage subscription.The opinion of someone that bought the game for $5.99 on a steam sale and the person that is spending $140 annually do not have the same weight of opinion. I will die on this hill.
While I appreciate that devs do indeed have a right to make a living, equating amount spent with dedication, love and care for the game, or with the ability to have an informed opinion about the game, is wrong in so many ways.
Maybe it would make more sense to instead be chasing the opinions of those of us who were paying, but have stopped.0 -
Gadamlub14_ESO✭✭✭✭the devs would have to care about player concerns in the first place in order for the idea to do anything.1 -
kojou✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭but I would also add that in order to vote in ESO that you must be an ESO+ subscriber. This way you keep the feedback limited to players that are actually writing the developer's paychecks and give an extra perk to encourage subscription.The opinion of someone that bought the game for $5.99 on a steam sale and the person that is spending $140 annually do not have the same weight of opinion. I will die on this hill.
While I appreciate that devs do indeed have a right to make a living, equating amount spent with dedication, love and care for the game, or with the ability to have an informed opinion about the game, is wrong in so many ways.
Maybe it would make more sense to instead be chasing the opinions of those of us who were paying, but have stopped.
I get where you are coming from. There are a lot of people that stopped playing due to one poor balancing decision or another that I would love to see come back, but my opinion is that the most prudent action would be to shore up support for people that are currently playing, and not chase them away with another poor choice of direction. If they let the players essentially veto bad ideas long enough then the game might stay alive for a few more years.
I'm just afraid that this class identity stuff is just going to lead to more people leaving the game because they are going to leave even more stuff poorly thought out and half done. They should be asking for input before they start working on stuff like this, not let us know after they have already just about finished a class.Playing since beta...1 -
Cooperharley✭✭✭✭✭
✭but I would also add that in order to vote in ESO that you must be an ESO+ subscriber. This way you keep the feedback limited to players that are actually writing the developer's paychecks and give an extra perk to encourage subscription.The opinion of someone that bought the game for $5.99 on a steam sale and the person that is spending $140 annually do not have the same weight of opinion. I will die on this hill.
While I appreciate that devs do indeed have a right to make a living, equating amount spent with dedication, love and care for the game, or with the ability to have an informed opinion about the game, is wrong in so many ways.
Maybe it would make more sense to instead be chasing the opinions of those of us who were paying, but have stopped.
I get where you are coming from. There are a lot of people that stopped playing due to one poor balancing decision or another that I would love to see come back, but my opinion is that the most prudent action would be to shore up support for people that are currently playing, and not chase them away with another poor choice of direction. If they let the players essentially veto bad ideas long enough then the game might stay alive for a few more years.
I'm just afraid that this class identity stuff is just going to lead to more people leaving the game because they are going to leave even more stuff poorly thought out and half done. They should be asking for input before they start working on stuff like this, not let us know after they have already just about finished a class.
Yea i think the largest problem is that many feel that the PTS is pointless. Virtually all complaints and bugs are found early on in the PTS before it goes live (i.e. subclassing issues were discussed ad nauseum in PTS), yet they still make it to live unfinished and buggy every time. I think the point here would be, while the voting system would be fantastic (again, based on tenure and found IN GAME so everyone can see it when they log in) - it could be found next to announcements and labeled "player polls" or something - there's just a big difference between Jagex & ZOS. If you listen to any average Jagex interview or livestream versus a ZOS livestream (we rarely even see interviews), the tone was (i'm saying was because leadership has changed now for us) VERY different. ZOS tends to pat themselves on the back and reminisce on the good ole days from 10-14 years ago when initially developing rather than sitting down and answering the tough questions.
All of that to say, would they even care what the poll says? Would they make actionable changes based on poll answers? Would there be a point? If you asked me a year ago, I'd say there's no point. But I cannot make that judgment call nowadays with a new leadership team. I do know our combat team is still led by Brian Wheeler, which is concerning based on his knowledge (seems like a cool guy, just not super knowledgeable about the combat). Idk just a tough call.PC-NA | @Cooperharley0 -
kojou✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Cooperharley wrote: »but I would also add that in order to vote in ESO that you must be an ESO+ subscriber. This way you keep the feedback limited to players that are actually writing the developer's paychecks and give an extra perk to encourage subscription.The opinion of someone that bought the game for $5.99 on a steam sale and the person that is spending $140 annually do not have the same weight of opinion. I will die on this hill.
While I appreciate that devs do indeed have a right to make a living, equating amount spent with dedication, love and care for the game, or with the ability to have an informed opinion about the game, is wrong in so many ways.
Maybe it would make more sense to instead be chasing the opinions of those of us who were paying, but have stopped.
I get where you are coming from. There are a lot of people that stopped playing due to one poor balancing decision or another that I would love to see come back, but my opinion is that the most prudent action would be to shore up support for people that are currently playing, and not chase them away with another poor choice of direction. If they let the players essentially veto bad ideas long enough then the game might stay alive for a few more years.
I'm just afraid that this class identity stuff is just going to lead to more people leaving the game because they are going to leave even more stuff poorly thought out and half done. They should be asking for input before they start working on stuff like this, not let us know after they have already just about finished a class.
Yea i think the largest problem is that many feel that the PTS is pointless. Virtually all complaints and bugs are found early on in the PTS before it goes live (i.e. subclassing issues were discussed ad nauseum in PTS), yet they still make it to live unfinished and buggy every time. I think the point here would be, while the voting system would be fantastic (again, based on tenure and found IN GAME so everyone can see it when they log in) - it could be found next to announcements and labeled "player polls" or something - there's just a big difference between Jagex & ZOS. If you listen to any average Jagex interview or livestream versus a ZOS livestream (we rarely even see interviews), the tone was (i'm saying was because leadership has changed now for us) VERY different. ZOS tends to pat themselves on the back and reminisce on the good ole days from 10-14 years ago when initially developing rather than sitting down and answering the tough questions.
All of that to say, would they even care what the poll says? Would they make actionable changes based on poll answers? Would there be a point? If you asked me a year ago, I'd say there's no point. But I cannot make that judgment call nowadays with a new leadership team. I do know our combat team is still led by Brian Wheeler, which is concerning based on his knowledge (seems like a cool guy, just not super knowledgeable about the combat). Idk just a tough call.
It did seem like the original dev team (a much of the dev team up to this point) had a strong ego, and thought they knew what is best, hence a lot of their decisions were met with anywhere from mixed review, to straight up animosity for any of their *ahem* less thought out decisions.
If I could have my desire for this thread it would be that they would run polls for design decisions early on, get player sentiment towards those decisions and take that into consideration before beginning work on them Obviously, I would also want to see ideas taken to full completion as well, and not left half done like some other things (e.g. Skill Hybridization).
Anyway… we can only hope.Playing since beta...1