Changes needed to make ESO better... Also keep it as a Sub Only Game!

lykan_spike

Dear Zenimax,

I will give you a quick run through of my history with this game before I get onto what I feel should be the next step for future content/patch updates from 1.7 on-wards.

I played in 3 of the open beta sessions and gave as much feedback as I could, some of the initial points I made have never been implemented.

I have been a subscriber since the release and brought the Imperial Edition. I paid for 6 months upfront to support a game that had vast potential.

My first experience was questing, having a main story line and also general questing were a fun experience and the best I've had compared to any other MMO game. (I've played various including the market leader that is WoW.) I rarely make an ALT character as I get tied to one character and want to do the best I can with that character and become the best with it. However, having seen all the changes over the months, the improvements, I will be making another character to experience the process again. It also helps with the bug fixes, but I can't complain as Bugs is apart of development and they have all been fixed within an acceptable timeline. The grouping for questing has been vastly improved, the only part that lacks is the immersion of certain quests. For example when guards believe the end is coming and a big fight is underway, the guards can be found standing still and will say the same things to you if you try to talk to them. It would be nice if they were more immersed in the situation the quest suggests, but not a reason to not play the game!

I was around when the gold spammers plagued the game and bots, however though you have stressed this is down to your own measures, I'm not fully convinced as the game has declined in popularity, which is why you have announced the change to include a non-sub model, which I will get into later. When this new model hit's, the gold sellers and bot's will possibly return as the game becomes popular again. Time will tell.

During my leveling experience I started my own guild, which quickly gathered pace and became a well established and top guild in the EU. We arguably had the best Ebonheart Pact PvP Team and one of the best Trial teams. My guild lasted about 6 months till the member pool dried up, people left/quit for various reasons. One of our best PvP players quit at the very start due to the Bats exploit (he used it, but quickly got bored of how easy it became) and never game back. The echo's of his voice on TS saying, bats,bats,bats,bats can still be heard.

I will now cover the other 3 Main Areas of the Game as to which needs to be looked at after the current patch, so whatever you are working on, put it on the back burner and correct all these mistakes/issues and you will have a solid platform to work from.

Crafting / Trade

The crafting system when you first take a look, is very tidy and smart. Easy to start, and skill improvements to be more proficient at. You have to put time into the research which works well. The one part I feel you missed out on, were the Dyes, it felt the quick way to add this was via achievements. It would of been better if this was a profession and you had to learn the different colours, so if you wanted your armor dyed a certain colour, you would have to find the right person.

Hirelings are a good addition, but I feel these should have more immersion, it would be a great feature to hire/improve a hireling, and have this person be intractable with, you send this person on certain jobs, which you need to pay them for. You could send them off for further training in a certain field, for example they become a better wood cutter, so they can bring back more Nighwood and more often. The same for finding epic/legendary materials.

The Guild Bank stacking issue has been present since Day 1. This should have been a high priority and fixed. I've spend countless hours, taking stuff out, stacking it and putting it back in. Also the guild bank will fail to load and it takes several tries. Never come across a MMO with this issue and for so long. This needs an over haul.

Market Traders was a great addition, in the early days it was all about spamming chat and people wanting an Auction House.

PvE

This needs a massive over haul, the current format is just poor at End Game. End Game is more important than anything else, this is what keeps people playing each month. The trials have proven not to offer enough of a challenge or any reward. Craft-able Gear was still just as good for most set-ups and better in some cases.

Adding one dungeon in every few months or so is the most pointless thing I've ever seen in all my time playing MMO's. The older VR Dungeons no longer prove a challenge for people at VR14 who do them for the Undaunted Skill Line. I'm hopeful this all comes back into line when you remove the VR and bring in the Champion system. All the current content needs to be on the same par, this includes the Trials. I propose a complete new format and structure that is similar to other MMO's and works and will cater for all.

Normal Mode - For the Casual Player to experience End Game Content. Can get the same gear but with lower stats.
Veteran Mode - For the Players looking for a challenge. Currently only the final boss has a hard mode, all the bosses should have a hard mode.
Veteran Time Trials - Same as above, but with the death limits and a completion time. For the Top Guilds to fight against each other for pride!

I propose each type has a weekly lock out phase, once completed you have to wait for the weekly reset, excluding the Time Trials. This should be how the current format is, can do it as much as you like.

The loot system will need changing, only Blue/Epic Gear should drop in Normal Mode. 2 of Each per boss. A master looter system will need to be added. All items are BOP, so they can't be sold or traded.

Veteran Mode: 2 Epic and One Legendary Item per boss.

Time Trials. No Gear drops. The weekly results of this can handle the rewards.

Each Trial has the chance of dropping 4 different set types for each role. Tank / Healer / Stamina DPS / Magicka DPS. The other gear can be made from Crafting. So their is a mixture of both. You currently have 3 trials. They should all be brought into the same difficulty bracket, with the Serpent still a bit more challenging than AA & Hel'ra. You could also introduce a Quest Line to create a special Legendary Weapon, with the completion of that Quest at the Serpent Trial.

For example on Veteran Mode for the 1st Boss in AA. You could add in more HP for starters, and the boss is immune to a certain type of damage. it's random each time when he does his main move. So he's immune to any magicka damage, however some adds spawn that can only take damage from stamina based attacks and vice-versa.

When you release new Trial Content, (I would suggest keeping it in groups of 3, or put more bosses and have less zones?) this is the next level of challenging content. You don't need to increase the level cap, and casual players can keep up with average gear. For the Veteran Mode players, this will need to be stepped up quite a bit, as most people will be kited out in full legendary gear. So you will need a fine balance.

This will give all types of players something to do and aim for, it will also stop people from being burnt out from the content, as it will take longer to complete. It took my guild less time to complete a trial than it did a VR Dungeon on our first attempt! You could also add in Undaunted Quests to collect items or relics from a Trial, however you need to collect a certain amount and you can't do this in one run. so it will be a quest that could take a month to complete.

I was bored of AA after 3 days, because we could spend every day clearing it for gear... though as it wasn't challenging enough as well played a part in the bordem. You did address this with the Serpant Trial which was more difficult.

The current VR Dungeons are good, nice variety and challenging when you first play them. Due to the current level format as already mentioned, they have become to easy! You can never prevent this as people gear up, but they are a stepping stone to trials, but with the Undaunted you have tied this in nicely for repeating them. If all the VR Dungeons were the same level it would be better. Due to the way you raised the levels in VR, it's all out of sync.

PvP

The first major issue you have to address is the Lag in Cyrodiil. Game has been out for nearly a year and this has never been fixed. There has been many other changes in PvP, some have worked, some have not. It's a great format and enjoyable, but people are becoming burnt out from doing the same things on a daily basis.

The other two things that should be added in immediately is the ability to dual people in your own alliance. You could add in cross-faction 1v1 Fights in various Cities and the second is the 3v3v3 Arena Style you showed off. This is clearly working. The AvAvA in Cyrodiil is great, but it's all we have. Variety is needed!

In the future it would be great to see smaller scale Skirmishes. 10v10 & 20v20. These areas can be added on the borders of Cyrodiil and the borders for Each Alliance. All 3 Factions are at war, we do quests with invading forces, so it makes sense this would be an option.

What Makes ESO Stand Out & Different from the rest

A lot of MMO's have the changes I've mentioned as standard, these are working models, especially in the No.1 MMO, world of warcraft. Love it or hate it, the game is No.1 for a reason.

ESO has the potential to be the best, just graphically the game is so far ahead. The questing, the immersion it's on the next level. The History of ES it's self, the lore is one of the best in any game.

The game has to use the normal perceived structure for End Game Content, because the above features along side the game combat which is about to make a big step forward in 1.6 is what makes this game different, the Justice System coming into the game and all the other ES style's from the previous games that will be added over time is what is going to make this game different and better than the rest.

Summary

• Keep the game as Sub Only.
• Bring the End Game PvE Content into line with other MMO's.
• Add in a dual system and 3v3v3 Arena Style PvP.
• Seriously look into the Lag issues with Cyrodiil.
• Continue with Bug Fixes & Class Tweaks. (Guild Bank Stacking is a must)
• After the above is done. Add New Zone (Solo Exploration / Questing this time.) with Next Tier Dungeons & Trials. A new PvP Skirmish, I would say doing this every 6 months would be prefect.
• Complete the Justice System, Thief's Guild / Dark BrotherHood & All other ES type features. 3 Months then the next in 6 months, so they fill in between the Major Content Updates for End Game.

If you do this, I guarantee in 2 Years you will replace WoW as the No.1 MMO.

ers101284b14_ESO

Meanwhile at ZOS

MURPHY1094

Great Idea, but many people are un- subbing. It takes a LOT to re-sub again, and they are pulling a popularity stunt by taking out subs. I know for a fact, that people are subbing now to avoid the noob storm on March 17. I really hope it goes above WoW, but I believe if they added subs again people would get very upset and feel cheated.

SanderBuraas

As for the subscription, no that would not be possible. They have already announced it, and it will attract many players including the console players. It's not a bad change, as this will allow even busy people have a go without being forced to pay a monthly fee, while still allowing those who wish to subscribe to do so for some bonuses. The crown store will also be lore friendly and offer no pay-to-win items.

I don't agree with the dye suggestion either, achievement based is a good way to make people more interested in obtaining them.

Neizir

I entirely agree with this!

Hopefully by 1.8 we should see ESO become a much better game.

AshySamurai

Good post. Wish I have your faith in this game. IMO it's still pretty unique MMO and "I want to belive" in it. But it's hard to belive them after all this broken promises.

Gidorick

By leading with the unreasonable request for ESO to remain a subscription based revenue model you pretty much kick the legs out from under yourself from the get go. The model is changing. You don't have to like it, but understand that it's changing and develop your thoughts with that understanding.

kongkim

MURPHY1094 wrote: »

Great Idea, but many people are un- subbing. It takes a LOT to re-sub again, and they are pulling a popularity stunt by taking out subs. I know for a fact, that people are subbing now to avoid the noob storm on March 17. I really hope it goes above WoW, but I believe if they added subs again people would get very upset and feel cheated.

And new will come.

Hawk269

Gidorick wrote: »

By leading with the unreasonable request for ESO to remain a subscription based revenue model you pretty much kick the legs out from under yourself from the get go. The model is changing. You don't have to like it, but understand that it's changing and develop your thoughts with that understanding.

Agree. While I appreciate your comments OP and the time it took to write all of that and by no means do I totally disagree with you, the bottom line is that asking/hoping for it to be a sub only game is like beating a dead horse already. It is changing to a BTP model and it will not change.

Emma_Overload

Subscriptions were probably doomed them moment ZoS decided to release this game on consoles. If you want to blame anyone, blame Microsoft for in inventing Xbox Gold or whatever it's called.

As for the other stuff, I don't think anyone will ever knock WoW off its throne by making a better MMO. The biggest enemies of any MMO, in my opinion, are MMO culture and tradition. If ZoS had just built the multiplayer game the masses wanted, aka the infamous "Skyrim Online", they would have had a huge financial success from day one.

Mortuum

Good ideas, well written post, but mate, save your keyboard for something useful really, as they wont listen. Waste of time.

rawne1980b16_ESO

lykan_spike wrote: »

[*] Keep the game as Sub Only.

Not going to happen.

Whether people like it or not the subs are going bye bye.

Mercurio

OP, why are you even trying? It's all over now.

lykan_spike

The non sub option doesn't come into play till March. So from that point, it can be reversed. It will most probably not, but it's a point I had to put in place. It's the cost of a take-way, anyone can afford that who games! Amount of Pizza's people go through!

It's not the main point, it's something that will help as money will help get in better developers, testers etc.

If this one post had over 1000 people and continued to gather agreement, maybe, just maybe. They would look and think, this is a good path to take.

If they don't, I may have to put a phone call into Bill Gates, ask him to buy them out and make me Head Director of the game!

renton1x1x1

I agree with most of this particularly the arena pvp i REALLY want that. I'm patient though i want it done right if it takes two years then so be it.

I missed the part where you give reasons why it should stay a sub fee game. Please could explain your reasons for this definitely.

They had to go b2p so they could release on consoles and XBOX ONE specifically. How could the sub fee have remained and console release still gone ahead. I mulled it over a bit and don't see any scenario where a sub fee would work on consoles.

Mercurio

companies make more money "F2P" than through a sub. insert your own theory why. You'll see via game design soon enough how it changes the landscape.

Digiman

If this game remains subbed to play then people will compare it to WoW and only rely on WoW as it is far more developed and has far more content.

ESO on the other hand has problems with players leaving, most don't even bother coming back and wouldn't give it a second glance after is disastrous launch. They need those players to come back.

Really this game is still a sub system, only now your are properly rewarded for loyalty other then gating you out. You can't deny that the gaming population has dwindled. Would rather 1000 newbs over a dwindling population of experts finally leave and a bankrupt ZoS.

trimsic_ESO

I agree that the high end stuff that we can loot should be much more rewarding. But then, the crafted stuff may be outdated and no more appealing. On the other hand, if the crafted stuff remains better than what we can loot, then why should I spend my time farming new stuff in dungeons or in Cyrodiil ?

One solution is to have some special rare ingredients implemented in the game. They would drop off the bosses in PVE and have a small chance to be sent to the players as a reward in Cyrodiil ( could be every x kill or whatever else).

There could be different ways to use these ingredients:
- They could be required to craft some great new epic sets
- They could be used as a booster to increase the effect of some set bonuses; people would then be able to upgrade their equipment.


Another issue that should be fixed: it's always a pity to loot a great new stuff, and be disappointed because the trait or the motif is not what you would like. For instance, you have a full daedric stuff, and you loot a great new helm. But this helm looks awful and you would like to change its motif to the daedric style.

The crafters should be able to:
- Change the trait of any piece of equipment
- Change the motif of any piece of equipment

phairdon

Do you really think ZOS are going to reverse their decision & make the game only subscription based again? You might not like the idea of b2p or think the world is going to end, as some seem to. Pleading on the forums for them to change models again is not going to work. In fact, it would kill the game.

Wolfshead

The only thing that can kill WoW is blizzard and atm the do good job of by themself and have friends that still play WoW and the are start question blizzard more and more and with next patch that come to WoW you can start wonder what the are smoking at blizzard HQ.

ESO is good game with alot potential and if ZoS just keep listen to us the can make game even better which i hope the still will do.

Sub is as many say dead as we know but with new system the add in march and you still keep sub to ESO you will basically not see any difference in way of patch and DLC only thing you will notice that get Crown every month that you can buy in thing from the Crown Store.

But as Emma_Eunjung say we can thank Microsoft for force ZoS change the sub model to BTP if it was not for Microsoft i think we would still have sub model we have today.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

phairdon wrote: »

Do you really think ZOS are going to reverse their decision & make the game only subscription based again? You might not like the idea of b2p or think the world is going to end, as some seem to. Pleading on the forums for them to change models again is not going to work. In fact, it would kill the game.

I personally don't think they are going to change their mind, but it is worth trying.
At worst, it educates people for whom ESO is their first MMO.

Until the first box of ESO:TU is sold, they can still easily reverse the model back to sub. Spin it just like they did for the b2p change: "the community asked for us to remain sub, so we're doing it"

That would be the best publicity stunt they could make. The first game company that actualy does something sensible and it would make ESO standout.
The susbcription model, and how it was explained by the devs at launch, is one of ESO's selling points. Aside from WoW, this would be a unique selling proposition.

I agree with most of what OP says, not everything, but he has a good vision of what in the game needs to be improved.

In the end, the subscription model is what can save ESO, the b2p/f2p model is what is going to kill it. It's not a sustainable business model and it damages gameplay. Everyone loses.
Not to mention the goodwill lost from the core audience which no longer trusts ZOS. That's a valuable commodity the devs just lost.
Finally, console players and PC players are only different in the way in which they consume their games. Either on a couch or at a desk. They will pay for a sub, and they already do for other games. Consoles is not an excuse. Neither is financial survival.

Every game before suffered and lost revenue in such conversion, ESO won't be an exception.

starkerealm

lykan_spike wrote: »

• Keep the game as Sub Only.

You get that this probably has nothing to do with the state of the game, right? It has everything to do with Microsoft not backing down off of requiring an XBL subscription and a cut of Bethesda's subscription fee to make it happen.

The only way to keep the game Subscription only would have been to scratch the XBone release.

phairdon

Would be very nice to know the percentage of the community that what the current payment model to remain vs those accepting, or just not concerned over the change to b2p with optional subscription. I mean all of the community, not just people posting on the forums.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

starkerealm wrote: »

lykan_spike wrote: »

• Keep the game as Sub Only.

You get that this probably has nothing to do with the state of the game, right? It has everything to do with Microsoft not backing down off of requiring an XBL subscription and a cut of Bethesda's subscription fee to make it happen.

The only way to keep the game Subscription only would have been to scratch the XBone release.

It's not a reasonable explanation.
Does Youtube's cut of ad revenue prevent content creators?
Does the appstore's cut prevent app creators?

There is virtually no competition on the xbox one. Even if Microsoft took 50% of the susbcription revenue, it would still be a huge market bringing in loads of money it would not have otherwise.

phairdon wrote: »

Would be very nice to know the percentage of the community that what the current payment model to remain vs those accepting, or just not concerned over the change to b2p with optional subscription. I mean all of the community, not just people posting on the forums.

We'll never really know that.
The closest we have is this poll:
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/146847/how-do-you-feel-about-the-b2p-announcement/p1
It's over 1000 votes, but it is from a biased sample rather than randomly picked so take it with a grain of salt.

I'd argue though, that the bias in the selection is actually an advantage. Those that bought the game and are involved enough to hang out on the forums are the most valuable customer to listen to.

KerinKor

Most likely the majority won't care one way or the other, experience of other games that went this way (LoTRO, Rift and SW:TOR are ones I played through the transition) is that most players carried on until they drifted away as they would have done in any case.

The vociferous anti-x2P minority shouted and screamed and threatened to leave, but in the case of Rift for one I tracked 25 of them and sure enough, three months later only 3 were no longer around, I also think this was LoTRO's experience though I had no evidence: ZOS probably hope history repeats itself.

@lykan_spike, I really don't think you expect ZOS to change their minds, but just in case you do, forget it.

This decision is irreversible, it was almost certainly dictated by the bean counters and reflects a huge drop in player numbers before VR was abandoned and those who decided waiting a year before it's eventual removal (to be replaced by what we don't know, clearly the Champion System per se doesn't relate to Cadwell's SIlver/Gold and that whole aspect of the game).

rawne1980b16_ESO

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Until the first box of ESO:TU is sold, they can still easily reverse the model back to sub. Spin it just like they did for the b2p change: "the community asked for us to remain sub, so we're doing it"

It's not a decision ZOS can make.

No one at ZOS has that authority.

Zenimax, ZOS' parent company, make all those decisions and they don't give the slightest rats backside what anyone on the forums wants.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6JAJVAGC9M

starkerealm

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

It's not a reasonable explanation.

Then you haven't been paying attention to Bethesda and Microsoft's behavior in the past.

starkerealm

rawne1980b16_ESO wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Until the first box of ESO:TU is sold, they can still easily reverse the model back to sub. Spin it just like they did for the b2p change: "the community asked for us to remain sub, so we're doing it"

It's not a decision ZOS can make.

No one at ZOS has that authority.

Zenimax, ZOS' parent company, make all those decisions and they don't give the slightest rats backside what anyone on the forums wants.

Strictly speaking, Bethesda Softworks is the publisher, Zenimax (I think the technical name is Zenimax Entertainment, but it's been awhile since I checked) is the holding company. So, this could have come from either of those. Bethesda Game Studios and Zenimax Online Studios are the developers (for the single player games and ESO respectively.)

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

starkerealm wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

It's not a reasonable explanation.

Then you haven't been paying attention to Bethesda and Microsoft's behavior in the past.

Them being stupid in the past doesn't make it a reasonable choice now.

rawne1980b16_ESO wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Until the first box of ESO:TU is sold, they can still easily reverse the model back to sub. Spin it just like they did for the b2p change: "the community asked for us to remain sub, so we're doing it"

It's not a decision ZOS can make.

No one at ZOS has that authority.

Zenimax, ZOS' parent company, make all those decisions and they don't give the slightest rats backside what anyone on the forums wants.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6JAJVAGC9M

+1 for the song.

They may not have the authority, but they have the ability and responsability to ensure the game's financial success. If higher ups make a bad decision that is counter productive to that goal, it is their duty to let them know and convince them.

Bethseda and Zenimax don't have any experience publishing MMOs. Their job up to now was to sell single player sandbox games. ESO is a themepark MMO, they were bound to make mistakes.
But this one is way too big to let it pass.

starkerealm

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

It's not a reasonable explanation.

Then you haven't been paying attention to Bethesda and Microsoft's behavior in the past.

Them being stupid in the past doesn't make it a reasonable choice

So, no, you haven't.

I'd explain, but, let's call this a learning experience. Go do your homework, then come back and see if the world makes more sense.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

starkerealm wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

It's not a reasonable explanation.

Then you haven't been paying attention to Bethesda and Microsoft's behavior in the past.

Them being stupid in the past doesn't make it a reasonable choice

So, no, you haven't.

I'd explain, but, let's call this a learning experience. Go do your homework, then come back and see if the world makes more sense.

I initially assumed you were refering to the Skyrim DLCs, but now I do not know what you're talking about.

So please, enlighten me, what could possibly prevent Bethesda/zos from releasing the game on Xbox One with a subscription?
The xbox live fee is not a valid answer, neither is Microsoft taking a share of the revenue.
What am I missing?