Kazajhan wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

PvP balance is objectively more important. It is simply not possible to balance a game around players that do not exhaust the potential of the available tools. This always results in extreme power in the hands of ambitious players and always sours or erodes any semblance of challenge.

You're making my argument for me you know. You must be a PvPer, because you mention "players who that do not exhaust the potential of all the available tools." You know, not everyone can.

No, not everybody has the time to grind away at the most difficult content. No, PvP balance is not objectively more important. If you want to get really objective about it,

CatalinaWineMixer2 wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

Kazajhan wrote: »

Arunei wrote: »

YOu CANNOT balance around what the above-average or top players can do.

Do people not remember U35? That whole debacle happened because ZOS attempted to raise the floor by lowering the ceiling. What happened, though? Who was it that was adversely affected by that? It was the average or below-average player hit the hardest.

Yes, I remember U35. Both Templar and Werewolf got nerfed, PvE got harder, because there were problems in PvP. I worked hard to advance, only lose 30% dps because some people in some segment of the game I don't engage in complained. I don't meta, there's this RP thing...

I was wondering at which point I would become disappointed about U50, and yeah, I'm there. Wow, werewolf is going to get some positive attention after 15 updates of nerf after nerf after nerf (not to mention the Templar nerfs).

Was going to log in tonight on PTS to see how things were going with werewolf, but...why?

Oh yeah, for the record werewolves should still have real howls, and some gushing blood when eating...but...

Bottom line, I've thought for years that this game should have a somewhat different system for PvP. Instead, all of balance seems to be centered on endgame/PvP where players meta and minmax and find holes in the algorithms to pwn their opponents, while some of us that'd like to just advance, play a character, engage with lore, and get through advanced PvE can't, because we're nerfed, and gear is locked behind an RNG and endurance trials.

PvE encounters can be adjusted if a shift in average player power is necessary, because NPCs don't care about being treated fairly.

PvP is always relying on a reasonable balance between classes, because players care about being treated fairly.

PvP balance is objectively more important. It is simply not possible to balance a game around players that do not exhaust the potential of the available tools. This always results in extreme power in the hands of ambitious players and always sours or erodes any semblance of challenge.

PvE encounters are not the problem. The overpowered abuse of Subclassing is.

PvP is not and has not in any way whatsoever been balanced. And it will never be balanced. It is not possible to balance a no rules cherry picking system (Subclass)

PvP is not more important than the rest of the game. Ambitious players do not like Vengeance because it is fair. And you actually have to play against Skill, not Gear and exploits.

The top echelon of players being catered to needs to stop in this game. Its been going on for almost 11 years. They are absolutely responsible for the current combat disaster as are the Devs who refuse to listen to anyone else and institute rules and take back control of their own broken out of control combat system. People aren't just quitting PvP over it, theyre leaving the game.

One way to look at it is that 10 years of ESO Plus for me, plus buying Crowns, has been subsidizing a very expensive game where development caters to only the top tier of players, and the rest of the players get served continual disappointment, promises it will be better, and are expected to log into the flashy Skinner box to get their dopamine surges.

Oops, maybe that was objective or something.

So you just assume I spent no money or what? Just pretending your favorite demographic carries the games finances is a crude argument. You know this can not find a logical conclusion if you choose to argue this way. Especially since missed revenue is an impossible metric. A healthy game is likely to affect spending across player groups. How much money might have been missed because developers decided to elevate trivial builds to a pseudo-competitive status? No one can know that either. There is no evidence that supports the assumption that a specific demographic is inherently more valuable than others.

And again, I'd very much like to point out that top tier players are not being catered too more or less than others. Just because you do not see personal benefit in certain development decisions doesn't mean that there is no objective value in them. Nor does it mean that they automatically benefit another group. Nor does it mean that a majority actually supports such decisions.
You dislike A, I dislike B. You can argue the facts without waving your wallet.

I appreciate the detailed communication here, but my main concern is that several of these issues sound like they are being acknowledged as real problems while still being allowed to go live.

Being conservative with balance is reasonable, especially with PvE/PvP separation being newer territory. But “we will adjust this over time” is worrying when the concern is something that could dominate PvP or make certain classes feel pointless for an entire patch cycle.

The biggest things I would like to see addressed before launch:

Werewolf and Class Mastery interactions should not go live if they are already known to be problematic. If the intended long-term fix is not ready, temporarily disable or restrict the worst interactions rather than letting them define the meta and then removing them months later.

Health-scaling heals and shields in PvP need a serious look. These have repeatedly created abusive defensive builds, and U50 seems like it may be adding more of that problem rather than solving it.

Class Mastery passives need to actually compete with subclassing. If the goal is to make single-class builds feel viable, then some of the current passives are too weak, especially once PvP penalties, crit resistance, and real combat conditions are considered. A passive that looks fine on paper or on a dummy can be nearly meaningless in Cyrodiil.

Please do not rely too heavily on trial dummy results. Sorcerer is a good example: high dummy numbers do not necessarily mean strong real-content performance if the class still lacks cleave, group utility, or practical ultimate interactions.

Necromancer, Nightblade, and Templar concerns still feel under-addressed. Disabling a Necro passive in PvP, giving Nightblade a crit cap most PvP builds cannot realistically use, and leaving Templar sustain/damage concerns mostly for “future iterations” does not make those classes feel like they are being brought up to parity.

I like the direction of separating PvE and PvP balance. That is probably necessary for ESO long-term. But if the first major pass ships with known outliers, weak stopgap passives, and problematic health-scaling interactions, it risks making players lose confidence in the system before it has a chance to mature.

So my ask is not “make everything perfect before launch.” My ask is: do not knowingly launch the most obvious problem interactions, and make Class Mastery strong enough that single-class builds are actually worth testing and playing.