ESO Revival Strategy 2025

Blackbird_V

Artim_X wrote: »

1) This isn’t necessary and is a big ask. If WoW and Runescape can still have a population, then the focus should just be on making sure everything works. Also imo ESO graphics are decent for an MMORPG.

2) I disagree completely. I personally love the combat.

3) The Dungeon designs are fine.

4) Absolutely not. Group finder is fine for what it is. We already have a guild finder.

5) Absolutely not. Although the CP system can use some more work, which ZOS has already been doing.

6) Although I am not against account wide alliance rank, separating players in a game mode that already lacks players is not a good decision. Also being good with one character does not mean a person will automatically be good with another.

7) Absolutely not. Trials are important to keep as strictly PvE and battlegrounds IMO just needs to bring back 3 team game modes.

8) ZOS is already taking a chance to adjust the type of content that gets dropped. For the most part, I don't think any of your ideas should be implemented.

I like the combat too. It's fast-paced and that's what's fun. Making combat slower will end up like Runescape 3 combat - basically a spreadsheet for every boss of the order of abilities etc. and that makes it boring asf. You're not playing a game, you're playing Microsoft Excel.

And removing trials? What? U35 already killed off a lot of endgame. What this person is asking for is making it extinct.

thorwyn

LOL... ok.
No thank you.

Ph1p

Rungar wrote: »

as i recall ff14 wasnt a hit until it got revamped.. so theres that.

The original FFIV was such a massive commercial and critical flop that Square Enix was essentially forced to invest in a complete revamp. ESO did have its own troubles at launch, but fixing those allowed it to rake in over $2bn in revenue over its lifetime, so FFIV 1.0 and current ESO are hardly a suitable comparison.

The new version of FFIV took about 2.5 years from announcement to release. That was just rebuilding a base game, whereas ESO has 10 additional years worth of content in addition. On top of all this, ZOS wouldn't just have to port the game, but implement the other complex changes in your other steps.

KekwLord3000

1. If it was so simple Zos would have done it by now, all the OG devs that made the game back then aren't in the company and the current devs are just patching things as they go, obviously they'd have easier time working on a modern more refine engine, however it will probably cost way too much for zos to justify it.
2. I really like this combat, when I quit eso and tried different mmo's the pace felt way too slow for me to enjoy the whole "shtick" of eso is button mashing.
3. I mean I wouldn't mind but pretty much same argument with position 1, it's just not worth for zos to re-do old dungeons, I mean there are game breaking bugs that takes zos years to fix I doubt they have time/resources to remake the vanilla dungeons.
4. Bad idea, a lot of people playing eso are anti social and would never actively look for groups (they do now cause you only need to press a button) but putting extra steps of grouping gonna kill the dungeon scene for like 90% of people.
5. Again I don't agree, eso is a horizantoal prog game, the only slight vertical aspect are the cps it lets us get stronger the more we play, not by a lot but still a bit. So you basically throwing all the people that played the game for a while under the boss, that's like going to any mmo and telling them to remove gear score, like what?
6. Yeah that would be actually pretty nice, getting 5 star general once is a hell, getting multiple? insane. Imo yeah pvp ranks should be account wide, and maybe add a bit more depth to it, like perks and such.
7. Probably the wildest take of them all, without trials there isn't like anything left to do for PVE'ers
8. Kinda position 1 but let me give you my take, older mmo's have a lot of content which can be overwhelming for newer players but also there is a ton of stuff to do in case you want a deep game, usually new MMO's have very little content you play them for 2-3 months and then you are burnt out, a game that devloped for 10 years got so much *** to do that it gives you confidence that the game will live for longer vs new mmo's which are less overwhelming as there are less systems but then there is also less content cause the game is still in its baby stage.

Thysbe

Rungar wrote: »

[snip]

I would add Community Management, Product Strategy and Player Retention to this.

The point of keeping this game alive is catering to its strenghts and not brute forcing copies from a variety of different games onto it. ESO has a clear target audience and the main goal should be getting players back who left during U35 or got tried of hollow promises to get cyrodil back to its old glory. Many of those still hang around and follow ESO news even though they have stopped playing.

If a MMO has a loyal, profitable, long term player base the first rule is to not alienate those for the sake of attracting game hoppers who have the life span of a fruit fly in any game the play (T&L, New World, POE2...). They just sank some really good franchises into the ground with doing that.

If you want something new and experimental make a new game, run open alphas, betas and get feedback and don´t risk a successful product (I am sure ESO still is very profitable) for half baked gaming ideas.

[edited to remove quote]

Rungar

Thysbe wrote: »

Rungar wrote: »

[snip]

I would add Community Management, Product Strategy and Player Retention to this.

The point of keeping this game alive is catering to its strenghts and not brute forcing copies from a variety of different games onto it. ESO has a clear target audience and the main goal should be getting players back who left during U35 or got tried of hollow promises to get cyrodil back to its old glory. Many of those still hang around and follow ESO news even though they have stopped playing.

If a MMO has a loyal, profitable, long term player base the first rule is to not alienate those for the sake of attracting game hoppers who have the life span of a fruit fly in any game the play (T&L, New World, POE2...). They just sank some really good franchises into the ground with doing that.

If you want something new and experimental make a new game, run open alphas, betas and get feedback and don´t risk a successful product (I am sure ESO still is very profitable) for half baked gaming ideas.

i didnt say that. If they want new blood they have to change and take risks. Thats pretty much it. I didnt say they wanted new blood. They did. There revenue is declining. They made good use of what they had but for a AAA flagship franchise like Elder Scrolls its not a great success. They need to do this imo. They have no insurance that their new ip will be a success.

[edited to remove quote]

Pepegrillos

kargen27 wrote: »

Pepegrillos wrote: »

There is no revival possible. Any significant upgrade to the game is heavily constrained by the burden of old gen consoles. The game is also too old to make any drastic changes to combat, which is probably the main reason why this game (as good as it is in other dimensions) could never become a hit like WoW and FF14 were.

We must have a different circle of friends. The combat in ESO is what brought a good number of people to the game. Combat took a hit when they had to switch calculations server side and never recovered. Still a lot of players like the feel of ESO's combat dynamics.

Everyone likes pineapple on pizza in the pineapples on pizza club. If you look at commentary about ESO outside ESO's sphere, you will see that one of the main reasons why people leave the game (or simply don't like it) is due to the floaty combat, anim cancel, and the meager reward structure.

Rungar

tbh i dont really get it. They are owned by microsoft and yet they let it languish in mediocrity the best fantasy ip in the world. An engine upgrade and new systems should be nothing to them with the talent they can access and leverage. Microsoft owns both wow and elder scrolls.I get they dont want to change wow..its still on top .. but eso..is on the bottom. They have a hard lock on the mmo fantasy ip. Crazy to let this game wither and die.

Vrelanier

HatchetHaro wrote: »

Rungar wrote: »

Step 1: Transfer ESO over to whatever new engine the new game they are working on runs on and upscale the existing graphics.

[snip]

Most of us should probably then stop posting altogether.

Combat is terrible in ESO though. The light attack weaving, animation cancelling, and two action bars were imo really terrible ideas to begin with, but what makes it worse is that a quarter of the hits don't land at all. It's always a guessing game whether the game registers my key presses or not. It's decent paced sure (wouldn't call it fast though), but that's because I'm pressing keys twice or thrice or more, and watching my character stand still on the screen. Overall it feels like a dice roll, and not fluid by any means.

[edited to remove quote]

Elsonso

Rungar wrote: »

Step 1: Transfer ESO over to whatever new engine the new game they are working on runs on and upscale the existing graphics.

Step 2: Combat revitalization and normalization: get rid of the buttonmashing and simmer it down to what players actually like. Basic and responsive action combat. No BS.

Step 3: Overhaul all the existing linear dungeons using my radial dungeon format. Same assets, same themes, a different way to play.

Step 4: Discontinue groupfinder and replace it with NPC guilds with specific content focus which features achievement based and ranked chats to bring people of similar interest and quality together naturally.

Step 5: Get rid of the cp system and replace with a simplified achievement based advancement system with a basic two choice specialization system to promote player diversity and performance.

Step 6: implement account based pvp alliance rank. Simplify pvp to three campaigns: novice, adept and master based on your highest account alliance rank to give new players a chance to learn the game.

Step 7: Discontinue trials and battlegrounds and merge them to pvpve instances where 3 groups of 4 compete in intense pvp and pve for the spoils.

Step 8: Win. Finally. lol. This game has 10 years of content that most people have never seen. 24 mill is nothing. Few mmos are coming out and even fewer are any good. An engine imporvement and modification of game systems can breathe new life into this game. Its an underachiever and always has been. Take a chance.

1) I see this as a game killer. ESO is built to do what ESO needs to do. Any new engine would simply be a custom engine for ESO to do what it needs to do for ESO. Update the existing engine to do what it needs to do, but better.

2) Maybe I am missing what was intended by "button mashing" but this sounds like "basic" combat to me. ¯\(ツ)/¯

3) Linear dungeons are easier to master and easier for PUGs, so I say leave them alone. That said, the quests in several of them need to be redone now that it is more apparent how players are using the dungeons.

4) Group finder barely works, and that is likely because a minority of players use it so the queue population is low. I only use it when I want something, like Transmutes from daily random, or some drop from a specific dungeon and I have to run it a million times before RNG gives it to me.

5) CPs are not supposed to be tied to in-game progression, outside of getting the XP, and I like that. I can spend on whatever I want.

6) In an RPG game, I generally dislike ranks earned in the game but becomes account wide. Monetized and cosmetic stuff should be account wide, and for paid content, cross-server. Outside of that, if the player did something on a particular build, I am usually against other builds benefitting from it.

7) No.

Rungar

Elsonso wrote: »

Rungar wrote: »

Step 1: Transfer ESO over to whatever new engine the new game they are working on runs on and upscale the existing graphics.

Step 2: Combat revitalization and normalization: get rid of the buttonmashing and simmer it down to what players actually like. Basic and responsive action combat. No BS.

Step 3: Overhaul all the existing linear dungeons using my radial dungeon format. Same assets, same themes, a different way to play.

Step 4: Discontinue groupfinder and replace it with NPC guilds with specific content focus which features achievement based and ranked chats to bring people of similar interest and quality together naturally.

Step 5: Get rid of the cp system and replace with a simplified achievement based advancement system with a basic two choice specialization system to promote player diversity and performance.

Step 6: implement account based pvp alliance rank. Simplify pvp to three campaigns: novice, adept and master based on your highest account alliance rank to give new players a chance to learn the game.

Step 7: Discontinue trials and battlegrounds and merge them to pvpve instances where 3 groups of 4 compete in intense pvp and pve for the spoils.

Step 8: Win. Finally. lol. This game has 10 years of content that most people have never seen. 24 mill is nothing. Few mmos are coming out and even fewer are any good. An engine imporvement and modification of game systems can breathe new life into this game. Its an underachiever and always has been. Take a chance.

1) I see this as a game killer. ESO is built to do what ESO needs to do. Any new engine would simply be a custom engine for ESO to do what it needs to do for ESO. Update the existing engine to do what it needs to do, but better.

2) Maybe I am missing what was intended by "button mashing" but this sounds like "basic" combat to me. ¯\(ツ)/¯

3) Linear dungeons are easier to master and easier for PUGs, so I say leave them alone. That said, the quests in several of them need to be redone now that it is more apparent how players are using the dungeons.

4) Group finder barely works, and that is likely because a minority of players use it so the queue population is low. I only use it when I want something, like Transmutes from daily random, or some drop from a specific dungeon and I have to run it a million times before RNG gives it to me.

5) CPs are not supposed to be tied to in-game progression, outside of getting the XP, and I like that. I can spend on whatever I want.

6) In an RPG game, I generally dislike ranks earned in the game but becomes account wide. Monetized and cosmetic stuff should be account wide, and for paid content, cross-server. Outside of that, if the player did something on a particular build, I am usually against other builds benefitting from it.

7) No.

not really true. Their new game will have a new engine and likely wont compete with eso so its alot easier to manage two games if they share the same technology. So there is a great benifit to this and any relaunch advertized with this would bring in new blood, so there is alot of value to it, especially if those creating the new engine have the work done and are available to do this.

its well known outside of here the games a buttonmasher no matter how elegant you think it is. It has terrible performance and doesnt jive with most of the 24 million who played the game. Its never worked since 2014 because it wasnt designed for server side calculations. It was designed for client side. It will never work right on the hero engine in its current form.

dungeons need a massive overhaul and not just this mmo. All games focus on rigid character roles and dragons lair style dance steps to complete content. Just keep throwing yourself at it until your fingers remember what to do. Bad design. Not much thought went into it at all.

Groupfinder is horrible and players need a better way to find groups of similar abiliy players. Even guilds cant achieve this. They need a structure free of player control where your achievements determine who is in your chat. Once you have that forming groups of like minded and similar ability players is a natural process. Given Elder scrolls is the game, use of npc guilds is a practical thing to do.

CPS are progression. They are overly complex and everyone takes the same standard stuff anyway which means the system is just adding extra calculations for no real gain. If everyone takes it, just standardize it. Achievements are core to this game. Its crazy that they are not tied to your players advancement. Its just logical. A simple specialization system ensures that players can still invest in their character but also ensure that there is variability within the system. If everyone chooses fire.. ice becomes more powerful.. the cp you have now cant do that.

ranks are necessary. They are necessary to bring like ability players together and in the case of pvp to ensure players can learn the game free of endless slaughter. Players who think thats a bad idea is usually because it will inhibit the way they like to play to some degree. Players who get good groups, and have fun in pvp might stick around. Horrible groups and endless slaughter and theyll move on. Losing dont make something bad, disrespect makes things bad.

Amottica

Rungar wrote: »

Thysbe wrote: »

Rungar wrote: »

[snip]

I would add Community Management, Product Strategy and Player Retention to this.

The point of keeping this game alive is catering to its strenghts and not brute forcing copies from a variety of different games onto it. ESO has a clear target audience and the main goal should be getting players back who left during U35 or got tried of hollow promises to get cyrodil back to its old glory. Many of those still hang around and follow ESO news even though they have stopped playing.

If a MMO has a loyal, profitable, long term player base the first rule is to not alienate those for the sake of attracting game hoppers who have the life span of a fruit fly in any game the play (T&L, New World, POE2...). They just sank some really good franchises into the ground with doing that.

If you want something new and experimental make a new game, run open alphas, betas and get feedback and don´t risk a successful product (I am sure ESO still is very profitable) for half baked gaming ideas.

i didnt say that. If they want new blood they have to change and take risks. Thats pretty much it. I didnt say they wanted new blood. They did. There revenue is declining. They made good use of what they had but for a AAA flagship franchise like Elder Scrolls its not a great success. They need to do this imo. They have no insurance that their new ip will be a success.

[edited to remove quote]

Their point was that many of the suggestions presented would drive a large portion of the loyal player base away.

It would be a great idea if they wanted to make room for new players while also reducing stress on the servers but it would lead to a critical flop and be a disastrous business move.

The suggestion that actually needs to be heeded is for Zenimax to look at what they did that increased the population and what they changed that decreased it. The core game does not need to be changed has been suggested in this thread.

Edit: No offense here but the overwhelming majority of respondents have presented their opinions that the presented suggestions would be detrimental to the game, not mentioning the ones that are far from practical to implement such as reworking the entire game to use a different engine.

IDK, I think the majority here is spot on and is looking at this appropriately.

Rungar

You really dont know that. Id wager not doing some of those things is why the game is not more popular. Most popular IP, least popular big mmo. The ship might be sailed but they should of changed some things to make it more player friendly because it really isnt.

groupfinder, 5 guilds=no guilds, guild only vendors, pvp ball groups, vet dlcs, bad performance, weird combat system...pretty much chasing people away lol. Not that youll see it that way.

ESO_player123

If you are so dissatisfied with the game (including its core combat mechanics), may it's time to look at other games that are more to your liking? What you are proposing is literally creating another different game.

Rungar

oh im not dissatisfied per say..i just see that its dying and i dont want it to. You seem happy to chase people away and now you know why its dying. Im sure youll disagree with that too.

Amottica

Elsonso wrote: »

Rungar wrote: »

Step 1: Transfer ESO over to whatever new engine the new game they are working on runs on and upscale the existing graphics.

Step 2: Combat revitalization and normalization: get rid of the buttonmashing and simmer it down to what players actually like. Basic and responsive action combat. No BS.

Step 3: Overhaul all the existing linear dungeons using my radial dungeon format. Same assets, same themes, a different way to play.

Step 4: Discontinue groupfinder and replace it with NPC guilds with specific content focus which features achievement based and ranked chats to bring people of similar interest and quality together naturally.

Step 5: Get rid of the cp system and replace with a simplified achievement based advancement system with a basic two choice specialization system to promote player diversity and performance.

Step 6: implement account based pvp alliance rank. Simplify pvp to three campaigns: novice, adept and master based on your highest account alliance rank to give new players a chance to learn the game.

Step 7: Discontinue trials and battlegrounds and merge them to pvpve instances where 3 groups of 4 compete in intense pvp and pve for the spoils.

Step 8: Win. Finally. lol. This game has 10 years of content that most people have never seen. 24 mill is nothing. Few mmos are coming out and even fewer are any good. An engine imporvement and modification of game systems can breathe new life into this game. Its an underachiever and always has been. Take a chance.

1) I see this as a game killer. ESO is built to do what ESO needs to do. Any new engine would simply be a custom engine for ESO to do what it needs to do for ESO. Update the existing engine to do what it needs to do, but better.

2) Maybe I am missing what was intended by "button mashing" but this sounds like "basic" combat to me. ¯\(ツ)/¯

3) Linear dungeons are easier to master and easier for PUGs, so I say leave them alone. That said, the quests in several of them need to be redone now that it is more apparent how players are using the dungeons.

4) Group finder barely works, and that is likely because a minority of players use it so the queue population is low. I only use it when I want something, like Transmutes from daily random, or some drop from a specific dungeon and I have to run it a million times before RNG gives it to me.

5) CPs are not supposed to be tied to in-game progression, outside of getting the XP, and I like that. I can spend on whatever I want.

6) In an RPG game, I generally dislike ranks earned in the game but becomes account wide. Monetized and cosmetic stuff should be account wide, and for paid content, cross-server. Outside of that, if the player did something on a particular build, I am usually against other builds benefitting from it.

7) No.

This overall is the widely agreed upon by most in this thread. Thx for the clarity you have brought to each point.

Rungar wrote: »

You really dont know that. Id wager not doing some of those things is why the game is not more popular. Most popular IP, least popular big mmo. The ship might be sailed but they should of changed some things to make it more player friendly because it really isnt.

groupfinder, 5 guilds=no guilds, guild only vendors, pvp ball groups, vet dlcs, bad performance, weird combat system...pretty much chasing people away lol. Not that youll see it that way.

The game was more popular without doing those things. In fact, everything listed in the last paragraph of this post I just replied to was in play at the peak of this game as oner of the top 5 P2P/Sub MMORPGs in the world.

Further, as I stated earlier, when Zenimax looked to simplify combat they received major pushback from the playerbase.

So yes, I, and many of those who have responded here, do know what we are talking about.

Further, one must understand why the population has decline in the past couple of years to understand how to fix it. Without that suggested fixes are shots in the dark and nothing more.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and the majority here are of the opinion that the suggestions are detrimental to the game.

Have a good day.

colossalvoids

Rungar wrote: »

oh im not dissatisfied per say..i just see that its dying and i dont want it to. You seem happy to chase people away and now you know why its dying. Im sure youll disagree with that too.

People aren't disagreeing that the game is in decline and a pretty hefty one at that, but with the reasoning. You aligned your personal pain points with that somehow and it surely looks believable from that angle, but that's not what others have observed with popularity spikes and drop off's throughout the years, even completely contrary to that like gutting combat into slower pace and making it "more accessible", disregard of PvP and PvE alike, decline in storytelling and writing themselves into a proverbial corner by inability to write a decent story were big reasons for it.

Rungar

Amottica wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Rungar wrote: »

Step 1: Transfer ESO over to whatever new engine the new game they are working on runs on and upscale the existing graphics.

Step 2: Combat revitalization and normalization: get rid of the buttonmashing and simmer it down to what players actually like. Basic and responsive action combat. No BS.

Step 3: Overhaul all the existing linear dungeons using my radial dungeon format. Same assets, same themes, a different way to play.

Step 4: Discontinue groupfinder and replace it with NPC guilds with specific content focus which features achievement based and ranked chats to bring people of similar interest and quality together naturally.

Step 5: Get rid of the cp system and replace with a simplified achievement based advancement system with a basic two choice specialization system to promote player diversity and performance.

Step 6: implement account based pvp alliance rank. Simplify pvp to three campaigns: novice, adept and master based on your highest account alliance rank to give new players a chance to learn the game.

Step 7: Discontinue trials and battlegrounds and merge them to pvpve instances where 3 groups of 4 compete in intense pvp and pve for the spoils.

Step 8: Win. Finally. lol. This game has 10 years of content that most people have never seen. 24 mill is nothing. Few mmos are coming out and even fewer are any good. An engine imporvement and modification of game systems can breathe new life into this game. Its an underachiever and always has been. Take a chance.

1) I see this as a game killer. ESO is built to do what ESO needs to do. Any new engine would simply be a custom engine for ESO to do what it needs to do for ESO. Update the existing engine to do what it needs to do, but better.

2) Maybe I am missing what was intended by "button mashing" but this sounds like "basic" combat to me. ¯\(ツ)/¯

3) Linear dungeons are easier to master and easier for PUGs, so I say leave them alone. That said, the quests in several of them need to be redone now that it is more apparent how players are using the dungeons.

4) Group finder barely works, and that is likely because a minority of players use it so the queue population is low. I only use it when I want something, like Transmutes from daily random, or some drop from a specific dungeon and I have to run it a million times before RNG gives it to me.

5) CPs are not supposed to be tied to in-game progression, outside of getting the XP, and I like that. I can spend on whatever I want.

6) In an RPG game, I generally dislike ranks earned in the game but becomes account wide. Monetized and cosmetic stuff should be account wide, and for paid content, cross-server. Outside of that, if the player did something on a particular build, I am usually against other builds benefitting from it.

7) No.

This overall is the widely agreed upon by most in this thread. Thx for the clarity you have brought to each point.

Rungar wrote: »

You really dont know that. Id wager not doing some of those things is why the game is not more popular. Most popular IP, least popular big mmo. The ship might be sailed but they should of changed some things to make it more player friendly because it really isnt.

groupfinder, 5 guilds=no guilds, guild only vendors, pvp ball groups, vet dlcs, bad performance, weird combat system...pretty much chasing people away lol. Not that youll see it that way.

The game was more popular without doing those things. In fact, everything listed in the last paragraph of this post I just replied to was in play at the peak of this game as oner of the top 5 P2P/Sub MMORPGs in the world.

Further, as I stated earlier, when Zenimax looked to simplify combat they received major pushback from the playerbase.

So yes, I, and many of those who have responded here, do know what we are talking about.

Further, one must understand why the population has decline in the past couple of years to understand how to fix it. Without that suggested fixes are shots in the dark and nothing more.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and the majority here are of the opinion that the suggestions are detrimental to the game.

Have a good day.

Dont expect new blood if you continue to do nothing. It is what it is. Its sad that many people here cannot see how anti new player this game really is and vigorously resist anything that might actually change that. Perhaps a sunset is well deserved.

smallhammer

Get rid of the combat mode at least. It's annoying, and hinders gameplay.

Amottica

Rungar wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Rungar wrote: »

Step 1: Transfer ESO over to whatever new engine the new game they are working on runs on and upscale the existing graphics.

Step 2: Combat revitalization and normalization: get rid of the buttonmashing and simmer it down to what players actually like. Basic and responsive action combat. No BS.

Step 3: Overhaul all the existing linear dungeons using my radial dungeon format. Same assets, same themes, a different way to play.

Step 4: Discontinue groupfinder and replace it with NPC guilds with specific content focus which features achievement based and ranked chats to bring people of similar interest and quality together naturally.

Step 5: Get rid of the cp system and replace with a simplified achievement based advancement system with a basic two choice specialization system to promote player diversity and performance.

Step 6: implement account based pvp alliance rank. Simplify pvp to three campaigns: novice, adept and master based on your highest account alliance rank to give new players a chance to learn the game.

Step 7: Discontinue trials and battlegrounds and merge them to pvpve instances where 3 groups of 4 compete in intense pvp and pve for the spoils.

Step 8: Win. Finally. lol. This game has 10 years of content that most people have never seen. 24 mill is nothing. Few mmos are coming out and even fewer are any good. An engine imporvement and modification of game systems can breathe new life into this game. Its an underachiever and always has been. Take a chance.

1) I see this as a game killer. ESO is built to do what ESO needs to do. Any new engine would simply be a custom engine for ESO to do what it needs to do for ESO. Update the existing engine to do what it needs to do, but better.

2) Maybe I am missing what was intended by "button mashing" but this sounds like "basic" combat to me. ¯\(ツ)/¯

3) Linear dungeons are easier to master and easier for PUGs, so I say leave them alone. That said, the quests in several of them need to be redone now that it is more apparent how players are using the dungeons.

4) Group finder barely works, and that is likely because a minority of players use it so the queue population is low. I only use it when I want something, like Transmutes from daily random, or some drop from a specific dungeon and I have to run it a million times before RNG gives it to me.

5) CPs are not supposed to be tied to in-game progression, outside of getting the XP, and I like that. I can spend on whatever I want.

6) In an RPG game, I generally dislike ranks earned in the game but becomes account wide. Monetized and cosmetic stuff should be account wide, and for paid content, cross-server. Outside of that, if the player did something on a particular build, I am usually against other builds benefitting from it.

7) No.

This overall is the widely agreed upon by most in this thread. Thx for the clarity you have brought to each point.

Rungar wrote: »

You really dont know that. Id wager not doing some of those things is why the game is not more popular. Most popular IP, least popular big mmo. The ship might be sailed but they should of changed some things to make it more player friendly because it really isnt.

groupfinder, 5 guilds=no guilds, guild only vendors, pvp ball groups, vet dlcs, bad performance, weird combat system...pretty much chasing people away lol. Not that youll see it that way.

The game was more popular without doing those things. In fact, everything listed in the last paragraph of this post I just replied to was in play at the peak of this game as oner of the top 5 P2P/Sub MMORPGs in the world.

Further, as I stated earlier, when Zenimax looked to simplify combat they received major pushback from the playerbase.

So yes, I, and many of those who have responded here, do know what we are talking about.

Further, one must understand why the population has decline in the past couple of years to understand how to fix it. Without that suggested fixes are shots in the dark and nothing more.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and the majority here are of the opinion that the suggestions are detrimental to the game.

Have a good day.

Dont expect new blood if you continue to do nothing. It is what it is. Its sad that many people here cannot see how anti new player this game really is and vigorously resist anything that might actually change that. Perhaps a sunset is well deserved.

Incorrect. We are vigorously resisting changes that would drive away large swaths of the player base. It makes no sense to drive away a lot of players. It makes less sense to change aspects of the game that were in place when ESO was at it's peak.

Rungar

we would need another pandemic for that. Truth is that the idea behind eso is that player longevity is based on whether or not a player joins a guild, and whether or not that guild works out for the player. Zos has always put their money on the fact that a player will join and be happy with a guild and that is a bad investment these days for many reasons.

eso's guild strategy is very flakey as you can have 5 of them at a time, you need one to sell items, if you join a big one you wont be in the clique, and player guilds often fail to offer players what they need. Guild hopping is a huge thing, and many people dont find that home.

they require something though. Thats why i propose npc guilds that provide basic support for those unsatisfied with the player guild system. far from driving away players it just provides support where there is none now and this is critical for new players, because it might take a long time to find the right player guild if they ever find one. The npc guild also helps players find guilds without joining them. It just exposes them to people of the same calibur

similarly seperating new players from ball groups and veteran players, in combination with the above provides new player support to ensure a good pvp experience while they learn the game and theres no way this would drive anyone away.

outside of these forums the biggest complaint ive ever seen is the janky combat system. Its a physical barrier that limits how long most people will play this game.

if i was zos i would invest in fixing this game and being innovative if for no other reason than to sell the next game. Right now they appear to be in the legion of out of touch big developers who only care about monetization. Be different and make sure people see it.

All i see with you is a failure to adapt to changing conditions. You want to hang on, but theres nothing to hang on to. The way i see it this game has run its course but is a great test bed for the next one. Theres literally no reason not to try new things.

Elsonso

Amottica wrote: »

Incorrect. We are vigorously resisting changes that would drive away large swaths of the player base. It makes no sense to drive away a lot of players. It makes less sense to change aspects of the game that were in place when ESO was at it's peak.

Interestingly, I expect that ZOS deviating from that over the last couple of years may contribute to the decline of the game.

I see new blood as necessary, but fickle. They may not stick around in enough quantity to become "old blood", and it is old blood that keeps the game alive. I think that attempting to cater to an ever changing clientele coming in through the revolving door is futile.

arena25

Rungar wrote: »

Step 1: Transfer ESO over to whatever new engine the new game they are working on runs on and upscale the existing graphics.

You're acting as though that's a simple task. It's not. World of Warcraft has survived for 20 years on the same engine despite multiple people creating concepts of zones in the Unreal engine. I think ESO can do the same. Especially since both MMOs now answer to the same boardroom.

Rungar wrote: »

Step 2: Combat revitalization and normalization: get rid of the buttonmashing and simmer it down to what players actually like. Basic and responsive action combat. No BS.

Sounds like what you want is Skyrim. Guess what - ESO is not Skyrim, or ES6. Never was, never is, never will be.

Rungar wrote: »

Step 3: Overhaul all the existing linear dungeons using my radial dungeon format. Same assets, same themes, a different way to play.

Sounds like you need to apply for a job at Zenimax. Someone linked the careers page earlier, feel free to toss in an app.

Rungar wrote: »

Step 4: Discontinue groupfinder and replace it with NPC guilds with specific content focus which features achievement based and ranked chats to bring people of similar interest and quality together naturally.

I mean this in a kind way, but group finder serves a purpose. Getting folks into a dungeon, trial, etc. quickly. Important since people do have IRL stuff to take care of.

Rungar wrote: »

Step 5: Get rid of the cp system and replace with a simplified achievement based advancement system with a basic two choice specialization system to promote player diversity and performance.

The hypocrisy is delicious. You could cut it with a knife. Replace a system where you could customize your power to where you like it and replace it with 2 choices in the name of "player diversity". That's just going to create a bunch of cookie cutter builds (even more than the current CP system) - if I wanted cookie cutter builds, World of Warcraft is that way. >>>>

Rungar wrote: »

Step 6: implement account based pvp alliance rank. Simplify pvp to three campaigns: novice, adept and master based on your highest account alliance rank to give new players a chance to learn the game.

Just because a player is a god at one class doesn't mean he/she will be excellent at other classes. I might be kicking butt right now in Cyrodiil (albeit owing to the current test which takes out most bomb/godlike PvP builds) on templar, but that doesn't mean I'll be good when i swap to necro or arcanist. So no to account-based pvp alliance rank. The novice, adept, master based campaigns based on your character's alliance rank is something I would be interested in, though.

Rungar wrote: »

Step 7: Discontinue trials and battlegrounds and merge them to pvpve instances where 3 groups of 4 compete in intense pvp and pve for the spoils.

No, no, no. Breaking into the endgame scene is intimidating enough, to the point where many people move on to other games after 3 weeks rather than take a chance at trying the endgame content out. Let's not discourage it any further. Battlegrounds, though, definitely need to be retired and the team responsible needs to head back to the drawing board - too many gaping holes, and I don't think dropping battlegrounds from 3 teams to 2 teams solved the issues plaguing it.

Rungar wrote: »

Step 8: Win. Finally. lol. This game has 10 years of content that most people have never seen. 24 mill is nothing. Few mmos are coming out and even fewer are any good. An engine imporvement and modification of game systems can breathe new life into this game. Its an underachiever and always has been. Take a chance.

And sometimes, flying under the radar is actually the best move. ESO can and has developed it's own deal. Other MMOs try to copy each other and improve upon it, but at the end of the day, imitation isn't exactly flattering when it comes to MMOs - which is why the other MMOs fail.

************

I'm not sure I should have responded to this since I am highly suspect that the OP posted bait/a troll thread - but I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt since this is not even the stupidest thing I've read today.

Rungar

your feeble attempt to be witty and edgy has failed miserably.

1) they have the engine, its the basis of their new game. They have the people hired to take care of that engine. They may have their work somewhat complete on the other game and may be free to do this at some point before most of them get layed off. If i had to take care of two games id want them both on the same engine. Its not like theres ever going to be another elser scrolls mmo. This is it. If they want new blood, this is the best way to get it. If its fine for Oblivion, why cant it be fine for ESO? Wow doesnt need to change. Its still on top. Eso is on the bottom.

2) Outside these board, combat is the most complained about thing in eso. Not the quests, not the graphics, not even the performance..combat. It should of changed a long long time ago. Its cheezy and everyone has always known it except for the echo chamber here on these boards.

3) They definitely need my help. I will agree with that.

4) Ive given them a simpler and more efficient way to do this that is actually social and matches players by their skill level/achievements. Groupfinder is brute force and its a coin toss if youll have a good experience or not. Its better to lose a dungeon with your peers than win a dungeon because some dude ran ahead and killed everything himself. Its very well known its not the best.

5) I think players and pvp especially would be better off with less choices. Sometimes less is more. if everyone takes the same things, those things should be standardized. Specialization also gives you a weakness. So if everyone chooses fire, ice becomes strong and so on.

6) if your a veteran player should should not be playing with new players unless they choose it. How can anyone even argue this. You have to let them learn the game. They arent going to stick around if they cant find target of their skill level and are constantly getting rolled. There has to be a buffer and account alliancce rank is the easiest method. Your first experience in pvp shouldnt be a ball group.

7) maybe you should go play wow. Trials were always weak in this game compared to wow. I mean 1 a year? This is one of those try to do something for everyone and end up pleasing no one. They should focus on pvp if the game is to be sunsetting. They couldnt do it all in the best of times. I guess you think 1 trial every 3 years will be great. Its already over.

8) ESO is in massive decline and this is well known, but it is also a world class ip: elder scrolls. More people play skyrim right now on steam, alot more people and that game hasnt been updated in a decade and ESO is free! ESO cannot retain players largely because of some of the things i listed. Its new player unfriendly in many subtle ways. If they want to let it die, let it die, but this is the only Elder Scrolls MMO youll ever get. You wont get another.

i would rather they invest in it, change things up, relaunch if needed ( why not, worked for final fantasy...).

Amottica

Elsonso wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Incorrect. We are vigorously resisting changes that would drive away large swaths of the player base. It makes no sense to drive away a lot of players. It makes less sense to change aspects of the game that were in place when ESO was at it's peak.

Interestingly, I expect that ZOS deviating from that over the last couple of years may contribute to the decline of the game.

I see new blood as necessary, but fickle. They may not stick around in enough quantity to become "old blood", and it is old blood that keeps the game alive. I think that attempting to cater to an ever changing clientele coming in through the revolving door is futile.

New blood is always necessary, and I do not think anyone here has suggested otherwise. Both retention and new players are both required for a game to keep the lights on.

ESO saw good growth in the years leading up to the pandemic. We saw that growth while the combat system, dungeon design, and engine we have now were in play which demonstrates those are not the issue. To be clear, when I look at the growth and decline, I do not include approximately 2 years heavily affected by the COVID lockdown. That period does not reflect success or failure.


Oh, and game developers do not completely rework a huge 11 YO MMORPG from the ground up to cater to ever changing clientele and that is exactly what is being suggested. Even if they would such work takes years and would more likely be a second game which is why we have GW2 and I understand 3 is in a "review stage".

spartaxoxo

You're asking for a sequel not improvements for this game.

spartaxoxo

Also, Kevin has made a few comments about a new engine over the years. I'll quote a couple of them. As these are also responses to other threads, I've also cut the parts out not relevant to this thread. You can view the full comment in context by going to the source. There's some other great information in them about things like content cadence, further comments about tech limits, etc.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Just wanted to chime in here. Yeah an engine swap is not likely. That literally requires building ESO as a new game from the ground up. So that likely is not going to be the case. Halo going to Unreal does not mean that Halo Infinite is being ported to Unreal. It means that future Halo titles will be made using Unreal. However, that does not mean there are not things we can do to enhance visual quality with our current engine. We have passed this feedback to the team from various threads to see how we can tackle this problem in-game. So the team is aware.

Source: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/8206876#Comment_8206876

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

To LadyGP's general point, changing engines is no small feat. It isn't like copying assets and placing them in a new engine and everything will work as is. Totally understand the thought of switching the engine sounds like it will solve problems, but doing that is more or less the equivalent building a whole new game. Even then, there is no miracle engine. All engines come with pros and cons, which the team has to adapt for.

Technical limitations can encompass a lot. Some of it is we would need to build out the tech to make x thing happen. Sometimes it's "we could do x thing, but then it could cause y issue to happen and that could impact performance." So it is working around those problems and hopefully finding a good solution. And those things conflict with the biggest enemy of all, time.

Source: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/8279378#Comment_8279378

Amottica

@spartaxoxo

Thx for both of these posts. I had noted in my previous post that such a rework would likely be a second game and pretty sure I said something similar in an earlier post.

And big thanks for adding Kevin's comments as they are official Zenimax statements. It explains why a new engine is a big no.

Grizzbeorn

Rungar wrote: »

1) they have the engine, its the basis of their new game. They have the people hired to take care of that engine. They may have their work somewhat complete on the other game and may be free to do this at some point before most of them get layed off. If i had to take care of two games id want them both on the same engine. Its not like theres ever going to be another elser scrolls mmo. This is it. If they want new blood, this is the best way to get it. If its fine for Oblivion, why cant it be fine for ESO? Wow doesnt need to change. Its still on top. Eso is on the bottom.

For some reason, you keep ignoring the reality of this one.

You cannot simply transfer an existing game from one engine to another, you have to build the game totally from scratch on the new engine; re-write the entirety of the game's code, essentially making a completely new game.
A very time-intensive process.

sans-culottes

Quoted post has been removed.

Nevertheless, it is extremely unlikely that ZOS will rebuild ESO with a new engine.