Communication and Two Things ESO can learn from a game you wouldn't expect

spartaxoxo

First of all, I know that FPS are a completely different genre of games. This isn't about core gameplay as those things aren't comparable between the two games. So, what do I mean then? This may be a bit long but please bear with me. It will also require some discussion of Overwatch but the purpose of this thread isn't to talk about that game but communication and risk-taking that ESO can learn from.

In the past, a long time ago, you guys had asked us for examples from other games that were working. It was stated that you wanted more concrete examples of how communication could be improved. While that was a long time ago and maybe you're not looking for this now. I feel like Overwatch was in a similar spot to ESO and now that game is a spot that's better than ever. So, I hope you bear with me as I make necessary comparisons to this other game that I have also played for a long time. I also hope that this feedback proves to be useful.

Well, first of all, let's take a look at Overwatch's yesteryear. Years ago, Overwatch was known as a game with poor communication. Information about future updates were not exactly forthcoming. And the director of that game got very candid with the community as to why. Given some of the statements about not wanting to promise too much, I think ESO's team may relate to his statement here. I also think it's something we as players can learn from.

Overall, the community is awesome to us. But there are some pretty mean people out there,” he writes on the Overwatch forums. “All of our developers are free to post on these forums. Very few of us actually do because it’s extremely intimidating and/or time consuming. It’s very easy to post the wrong thing and make a ‘promise’ to the community that no one intended to make. Once we say we’re working on something, we’re not allowed to ‘take it back.’ It’s set in stone.” The extremely hostile reaction in some corners when some of those expectations ended up unmet is enough to make any developer want to just clam up and go “heads down,” as Kaplan puts it.

Source

At a certain point, the worst fear came true. They had ceased meaningful updates on Overwatch 1 to focus on Overwatch 2. For a long time, they were radio silent about all of this. And then they begun teasing what Overwatch 2 would be long before what they were working on was in good shape.

Overwatch 2 was supposed to include extensive PvE mode. It was supposed to advance the lore that had been put forth in the first game's excellent marketing materials and include a ton of different talents and perks for each hero. Except, this mode ended up being development hell. And it ended up getting scrapped. They had to cancel the PvE shortly after Overwatch 2 launched without it. Something that sent shockwaves all over the community and certainly hurt OW2 quite a lot. It's the type of situation no developer wants to find themselves in and the community was understandably hopping mad about it.

For a while afterwards, communication remained poor and updates were rather conservative. We'd get some balance changes or a new hero but nothing crazy. The developers acknowledged there needed to be more and better communication from time to time, such as this example. But for a while, that didn't really play out. Players hear that and state "We've heard that one before." Sound famililar?

But then, at some point, they began to realize that they had been playing things too safe and conservative. That they needed to provide more communication in more places (for example, you can developer feedback from social media, as well as blog posts). They had more frequent updates. And they decided to stop being afraid of taking risks in the types of content that they offered. They were also willing to acknowledge mistakes and revert changes quickly when they realized that initial negative sentiment was not going to change. Overwatch's developer said the following on the new strategy.

A lot of players are now telling us that this is the best state that Overwatch has ever been in and we think that some of that is because we're making bigger changes to the game than we typically would have in the past. If you look back on the history of Overwatch, you could say that maybe we're a little bit conservative, but we have a new mindset and a new vision for how we operate the game. [We want] to be taking bigger swings and bigger bets with Overwatch, and I think you'll see that when we get to Season 18.

I think you can now see where I'm going with this. The Overwatch team improved communication. They created regular blogs that gave us insight onto things about the development process of the game and updates.

Let's take a look at the most recent example: The Loud and Clear Developer Blog Post. In this example, they tell us what their goals had been for a reverted change and how our feedback shaped the development of the game.

Season 19 launched with a big change to Stadium Ranked: matches would now be a best-of-five series instead of a best-of-seven series. Our goal was to speed up the Stadium Ranked experience so you’d get to the fun more quickly; we also felt this was a way to mitigate the chance you’d be locked into long or unsatisfying matches.

When we add a new feature or make a big change, sometimes initial community feedback skews negative but evens out as time goes on and players get acclimated. We noticed this didn’t happen when it came to Stadium Ranked going to best of five. We saw continued critical feedback for multiple weeks, which made us take a serious look at our options.

Based on the content of the feedback—that many of you missed the strategic joy of longer games, countering your opponents’ builds, and the possibility of glorious comeback runs in a close series—as well as internal opinions and gut checks from the team, we ultimately decided to revert the change to Stadium Ranked last week.

Let's compare ESO's Roadmaps to Overwatch's Roadmap. You'll notice that Overwatch's roadmap gives more details on gameplay features as well as significant cash shop things that people may want to save up for to make sure that they can claim in time.




Let's also take a look at some of the things that helped players understand the development cycle, even when things weren't getting updates. Like for Halloween, we got a dev blog dedicated to "scary" bug situations. It was humorous and helped players better understand why things don't always work out the way even the devs want them to.

Overall, while some players still feel they'd like better communication. There's also no doubt that 2025 was a triumphant year for Overwatch. They upped communication and they took risks to shakeup gameplay while ensuring the core gameplay of the game remained strong.

Obviously, that game is an FPS and this game is an MMO. There are things they can do, like offer alternative game modes disconnected from the core game, that ESO cannot. But the risk-taking in offering more variety in gameplay and the increased communication is something that ESO is completely capable of doing.

Let's take a look at events as an area that could benefit from the risk-taking. Currently, there are two types of events. Go kill X and get y (Witches). Or go do fetch quest for x and get y (New Life). The main reward will pretty much always be a themed armor style page. You'll get a certain number of tickets to buy 5 collectibles over time. I acknowledge Writhing Wall was a risk in that it was at a greater scale than you'd ever done before (and therefore also more work!) and the idea of a server competition was novel, even though it didn't land.

At the core it was more of the same. Go grind kills for NPCS to get rewards. For us as players, Phase 1 and 2 are just the same event gameplay that we've always experienced from events but now stretched out for a longer, indefinite amount of time. I will admit the rewards were more varied even though drop rate being so bad muddied that fact. So, I want to acknowledge the good and the bad there.

Overall, Phase 1 and 2 didn't offer any new gameplay experiences. Even the big feature this year, subclassing, is all about reusing skills we're already familiar with rather than giving us something new. The work done in the past to make the skills less unique so that they all fit neatly into a spreadsheet also greatly undermined the gameplay variety the system could offer. If all the AOES except one do roughly the same type of thing (and are really weak at that), there's really no reason to slot them over the singular unique and powerful aoe.

I saw in the Reddit AMA that you couldn't do potion hybridization because it wouldn't work with a spreadsheet and you'd have to nerf things so much to make it work in that spreadsheet and players would hate that more than the current potions. To that I ask, why are we that beholden to a spreadsheet that players can't get something that would feel better to play? Why not take the risk of potions becoming more powerful?

TL;DR
Overall, I feel like ESO has played it too safe and communicated too little. We're told to get hyped about a better future that will definitely be a big change with more and better communication. And then that change ends up being the same old, same old. I really think that the core of ESO is one of the best MMOS in the genre. This game has captured my playtime in a way that no other game has. But, it also feels like things are becoming a bit stale and formulaic. Please take more opportunities to shake up the storytelling, the gameplay, and the rewards. And communicate more often. Do more blogs. Better roadmaps. Communicate stuff on social media sometimes. If you read all of this, thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

Gabriel_H

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Let's take a look at events as an area that could benefit from the risk-taking. Currently, there are two types of events. Go kill X and get y (Witches). Or go do fetch quest for x and get y (New Life).

I want to pull up this specific point because I feel that it is something players continually fail to understand, and by using "currently" you also seem to.

There are not currently 2 types, there are only ever 2 types, and will only ever be 2 types. Every quest, task, mission, in every MMO, FPS, Solo etc. game is based on these 2 types.

Go somewhere and kill something
Go somewhere and do something other than killing something

That's it. That in a nutshell is the human existence. Now you can add various stages and various obstacles to the completion of each of those tasks, but the tasks themselves will boil down to those 2 types.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I saw in the Reddit AMA that you couldn't do potion hybridization because it wouldn't work with a spreadsheet and you'd have to nerf things so much to make it work in that spreadsheet and players would hate that more than the current potions. To that I ask, why are we that beholden to a spreadsheet that players can't get something that would feel better to play? Why not take the risk of potions becoming more powerful?

You're taking the comment too literally. Of course they have spreadsheets that produce outcomes based on the variables input. A spreadsheet or something similar is the only way to track the effects of change. You add 100 WD to your build for example - well that affects every damage skill, but to different degrees, because they all have differing coefficients. It also affects every healing skill for the same reason.

That doesn't mean they are beholden to the spreadsheets, it means that the proposed changes are throwing out numbers that they feel are too much. That means they would have to adjust other things in other places. That then has further impacts. Which can produce odd numbers again, etc etc etc.

Think of it like this: When ZOS make changes they are effectively playing Jenga, except it's not some wooden blocks on a table, it's a functioning office block with people working in it or visiting. One mis-step and it comes down. Lets take the prime example of complaints: "U35 killed the game". Why? Some felt it nerfed damage and healing output to the point end-game was unplayable - which simply wasn't true, and ZOS spreadsheets were showing them the numbers were right, and players continuing to clear content back that up.

Not for nothing but people still make the same complaint today that U35 killed the game - yet the damage and healing output as at right now is the highest it has ever been.

spartaxoxo

Gabriel_H wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Let's take a look at events as an area that could benefit from the risk-taking. Currently, there are two types of events. Go kill X and get y (Witches). Or go do fetch quest for x and get y (New Life).

I want to pull up this specific point because I feel that it is something players continually fail to understand, and by using "currently" you also seem to.

There are not currently 2 types, there are only ever 2 types, and will only ever be 2 types. Every quest, task, mission, in every MMO, FPS, Solo etc. game is based on these 2 types.

Go somewhere and kill something
Go somewhere and do something other than killing something

That's it. That in a nutshell is the human existence. Now you can add various stages and various obstacles to the completion of each of those tasks, but the tasks themselves will boil down to those 2 types.

A fetch quest is specifically when you go and collect something or do something and then come back real quick. Stuff like stealth missions, which are also in this game, are not fetch quests.

Gabriel_H

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Let's take a look at events as an area that could benefit from the risk-taking. Currently, there are two types of events. Go kill X and get y (Witches). Or go do fetch quest for x and get y (New Life).

I want to pull up this specific point because I feel that it is something players continually fail to understand, and by using "currently" you also seem to.

There are not currently 2 types, there are only ever 2 types, and will only ever be 2 types. Every quest, task, mission, in every MMO, FPS, Solo etc. game is based on these 2 types.

Go somewhere and kill something
Go somewhere and do something other than killing something

That's it. That in a nutshell is the human existence. Now you can add various stages and various obstacles to the completion of each of those tasks, but the tasks themselves will boil down to those 2 types.

A fetch quest is specifically when you go and collect something or do something and then come back real quick. Stuff like stealth missions, which are also in this game, are not fetch quests.

They are still fetch quests. Your are arguing subjective semantics based on what you feel a fetch quest is. As I said: "Now you can add various stages and various obstacles to the completion of each of those tasks, but the tasks themselves will boil down to those 2 types."

spartaxoxo

Gabriel_H wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Let's take a look at events as an area that could benefit from the risk-taking. Currently, there are two types of events. Go kill X and get y (Witches). Or go do fetch quest for x and get y (New Life).

I want to pull up this specific point because I feel that it is something players continually fail to understand, and by using "currently" you also seem to.

There are not currently 2 types, there are only ever 2 types, and will only ever be 2 types. Every quest, task, mission, in every MMO, FPS, Solo etc. game is based on these 2 types.

Go somewhere and kill something
Go somewhere and do something other than killing something

That's it. That in a nutshell is the human existence. Now you can add various stages and various obstacles to the completion of each of those tasks, but the tasks themselves will boil down to those 2 types.

A fetch quest is specifically when you go and collect something or do something and then come back real quick. Stuff like stealth missions, which are also in this game, are not fetch quests.

They are still fetch quests. Your are arguing subjective semantics based on what you feel a fetch quest is. As I said: "Now you can add various stages and various obstacles to the completion of each of those tasks, but the tasks themselves will boil down to those 2 types."

Massive differences in gameplay aren't just semantics. Killing vs Not-Killing is so overly broad that the idea of "not killing," loses all meaning. You're making false equivalencies to a variety of different gameplay types by defining the terms as killings vs not killing. Races aren't generally defined as fetch quests. Stealth Missions aren't generally defined as fetch quests. Card games aren't generally defined as fetch quests. None of those things involve killing. Fetch quests are when you go and get an object for an NPC and it involves little-to-no complex gameplay or storytelling. They are primarily used for world building and a staple of side quests.

ESO_player123

Gabriel_H wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Let's take a look at events as an area that could benefit from the risk-taking. Currently, there are two types of events. Go kill X and get y (Witches). Or go do fetch quest for x and get y (New Life).

I want to pull up this specific point because I feel that it is something players continually fail to understand, and by using "currently" you also seem to.

There are not currently 2 types, there are only ever 2 types, and will only ever be 2 types. Every quest, task, mission, in every MMO, FPS, Solo etc. game is based on these 2 types.

Go somewhere and kill something
Go somewhere and do something other than killing something

That's it. That in a nutshell is the human existence. Now you can add various stages and various obstacles to the completion of each of those tasks, but the tasks themselves will boil down to those 2 types.

A fetch quest is specifically when you go and collect something or do something and then come back real quick. Stuff like stealth missions, which are also in this game, are not fetch quests.

They are still fetch quests. Your are arguing subjective semantics based on what you feel a fetch quest is. As I said: "Now you can add various stages and various obstacles to the completion of each of those tasks, but the tasks themselves will boil down to those 2 types."

There is a wide variety of what those stage could be. I very much liked quests in Runescape (I played the regular one, not the Old School). While there was definitely some fetching and killing involved, a large number of their quests required solving various puzzles. And many of those puzzles required some thinking and trial and error. (For those who played, the Elemental Workshop series were my favorite one). This is the kind of quests I would like to see, but I do not think ZoS would ever add them since harder puzzles have never been a part TES games to my knowledge.

DenverRalphy

Unfortunately I think the devs are rather limited to what they can create and add to ESO. There's just so much that would rely on some actual low level programming within the game's engine, which they're no longer staffed to handle. Over the years they lost their heavy hitters (not the names people know, the actual talent in the trenches) to work on their now defunct project Blackbird. And aren't budgeted to hire them back to work on ESO.

So now they're working with a team of devs, who are kinda stuck developing within the boundariess of the IP they have on hand. Even Scribing and Subclassing, when looked at closely, are pretty much retooling efforts within those same boundaries. I would absolutely love to see some added content like simple mini-games designed solely for event tasks. But I just don't think that that's even possible under present circumstances.

This is not to say that they can't get more creative.They do seem to insist on sticking to a forumula that we've all seen ad-nauseum.

I play multiple online games, as I don't commit all or nothing to just one title. It's pretty common for me to see something in another title and find myself wishing ESO did something similar. So quite often when I see someone on the forums ask "Do the devs even play this game?". I can't help but feel the actual question should be "Do the devs ever play any other games?". Because I can't help but think it would provide some inspiration.

I also think that the Daily Login Rewards should be ditched for a Reward Track like litarally every other game out there is doing these days. Is it original? Nope. But at least they provide a progression goal.

metheglyn

DenverRalphy wrote: »

I also think that the Daily Login Rewards should be ditched for a Reward Track like litarally every other game out there is doing these days. Is it original? Nope. But at least they provide a progression goal.

I would much prefer a reward track over a daily login calendar. LotRO has a pretty good reward track: each one runs for about three months and the rewards are good enough to strive for but not so spectacular that you feel like you really missed out if you don't complete it.

On the thread topic: Very insightful post @spartaxoxo. I've often wondered why ZOS is so reticent about the game and while I fully understand them not wanting their words taken out of context or considered to be a promise, I think they've gone too far over to the safety side of communication.