It should be to no ones surprise to hear that The Elder Scrolls Online ("ESO") Play versus Player ("PvP") is plagued with issues: class imbalances, armor imbalances, skill imbalances, generally poor mechanics, lack of diverse game-play (the train track around the imperial city), TERRIBLE game performance, and so much more. If you disagree with any of the above that okay. I'm not looking for discussion as to what is wrong with Cyrodiil and how to fix it. I would like to address the concept of Risk and Reward ("RR") and how I believe it should apply to ESO (as well as any game that wants to have any level of competitive game-play).

Risk and reward is a simple concept that most people already know. Low levels of uncertainty (low-risk) are associated with low potential returns, whereas high levels of uncertainty (high-risk) are associated with high potential returns. This concept is primarily applied to financial investments but I believe risk-return can benefit any game that seeks to embody a competitive environment. As I see it, RR is a fleeting concept in ESO. In this narrative, I would like to apply RR to player builds and groups in ESO PvP.

BUILDS

The best aspect of ESO, in my opinion, is the diversity of builds that players can choose from: race, armor, attribute points, skills, food/drinks, potions, play-styles, etc. Diversity such as this is something that I look for in any game that I play and at first ESO did it so well. . . but not any more. Being able to balance so many variables is no small feat, and there is no guaranteed way to accomplish this (except maybe soft/hard caps. . .). Applying RR to character builds is pretty straight forward. The reward in a combat scenario is to survive and ultimately defeat your opponent. Your build determines the amount of risk you are willing to give to accomplish the reward. The amount of risk associate with a character build is determined by how difficult that build is to play. Low risk builds allow players to make more mistakes in combat, while high risk builds are very unforgiving. It is more difficult to play and be successful with a high risk build but the reward should be greater. Currently, low risk builds are easier to survive, sustain, and defeat opponents with. The following paragraphs will outline inconsistencies with RR and builds.

For this example I would like to look at armor types, although the RR concept can be applied to any of the variables listed above. As I see it and as it currently is in ESO, light and medium armor hold more risk than heavy armor. If armor type were to adhere to the RR concept, then light and medium armor should have a greater reward than heavy armor. This is not currently the case. The reward of wearing heavy armor definitely outweighs that of light or medium. Sure, you wont technically be able to output as much damage when wearing heavy armor over light or medium but it is not too far behind. The primary benefits to wearing heavy armor are that you wont have to worry about healing yourself as frequently, avoiding damage, or resource management. This adds up to more time spent dealing damage as compared to a light or medium armor wearer, who would have to suspend dealing damage to survive. If you agree with this then the concept of RR does not apply to the current state of armor. Wearing heavy armor provides the user a lower risk of death and greater reward of survival and defeating their opponent.

Reminder, this issue does not a only apply to armor types. For example, I would argue that each race (magic and stamina oriented) can be placed on a spectrum of risk or survivability. My list is as follows, from least to most risky: MagPlar, StamDK, StamSorc, StamPlar, StamNB, MagSorc, MagDK, and MagNB. It is difficult to place the races on a risk spectrum without considering other build variables so I admit that the order to my list is somewhat based upon most common build (armor and loadout) seen in cyrodiil. I also took into consideration the amount of skill that is required to be successful with each build. For example, MagSorc can be quite survivable with their ability to remain mobile and stack shields under pressure but only a skilled player will be able to do that and also be able to output damage. Also, StamNB are one of the most played classes if not the most played class in the game but they can be difficult to survive with when compared to the other classes above them. StamNB, as a class, have a low level of survivability but very high reward as they have the some of the most burst damage in the game. The order of my list may be somewhat subjective and may be adjusted but, in general, I believe it is quite true to the point I am trying to make.

The race-risk list above places each race on a spectrum of least to most risky. If the RR concept were to be applied, then the MagPlar should have the least reward, the ability to defeat their opponent or heal themselves or their allies, and the MagNB should have the greatest reward. As I see it, this is not currently the case in ESO. There are specific builds that limit the amount of risk (i.e. survivability and mistakes made without repercussions) but offer high reward.

Note: I do not want to consider character builds that survive almost all incoming damage without dealing damage, are able to sustain resources indefinitely, and rely upon group member to actually defeat opponents. Those builds should not exist but that is for another conversation.

It should also be noted that the discussion above pertains to an open world environment. I understand that balancing builds in various scenarios is difficult (i.e. dueling or one vs. one, small group vs. group, and zerg vs. zerg). As I see it, any build in a group, depending upon the group dynamic, alters the RR concept but can also exacerbate the balance issues. Again, that is for another conversation.

GROUPS

The RR concept should also be applied to group play. Group play balance for the purpose of this discussion only considers size and not other variables such as character build. To apply the RR concept to group size let us consider two different groups, larger and smaller. Larger groups have a lower risk of survival compared to smaller groups. Larger groups also have a greater reward, the ability to output more damage and healing, than smaller groups. And it should be the case that larger groups have an "easier" time defeating smaller groups. Easier is in quotations because I believe that there should be a consideration to player skill that allows for smaller groups or solo players to defeat larger groups. And to some extent there is. On each ESO server there are a few small groups that coordinate character builds and skill very well and are able to consistently defeat groups larger than their own. But, in general, the mechanics/changes to the game that are currently implemented in PvP are almost always, if not always, in favor of larger groups. The only game mechanic that would benefit small groups when combating larger groups are AOEs and this mechanic has been specifically changed to assist larger groups, who already had the advantage. Again, this is a discussion about RR, not AOEs. AOEs are just a factor of RR in this conversation. Recent patch notes indicate that the AOE cap percentages are expected to change for the better (in my opinion), although they will still benefit larger groups due to the reduced damage to groups larger than six.

I believe that smaller group play/solo play should be encouraged. Always playing in groups larger than your opponent's group is a crutch for lack of skill on an individual level. These players (the majority of ESO PvP players) will more than likely never improve and do not care when they can just join a larger group and "steamroll" the inner ring of keeps. And I completely understand why players are drawn towards large group play. It is very frustrating having all odds stacked against you when playing solo or in an outnumbered situation and you are being barraged with game mechanics that hinder your ability to compete (i.e. AOE caps, snares, poisons, etc.). Especially when you are challenging your abilities to become a better player. I also completely understand why it is in ZeniMax Online Studios ("ZOS") interest to benefit larger groups through in game mechanics. Larger groups equal more players and more player equal more games sold and potential for in game purchases.

I only argue that there should be changes to game mechanics that reward solo players/small groups for taking all of the risks associated with rivaling larger groups. I do not claim to have definite answers as to how to accomplish this but I would start by looking at all the mechanics that benefit large groups and go from there.

CONCLUSION

Risk and reward was once a concept that made ESO a diverse and fun game to play. Today (unless you are in a large group) if you want compete, you better using a "meta build". It should be the case that any two players with the same skill level wearing end game gear have an even chance of success regardless of race, armor, or skills on the bar. That is far from a reality and as I see it will not change.

MY ENDNOTES AND THOUGHTS

I chose not to include my opinions on how to fix issues with ESO PvP because I do not see a benefit. As far as I can tell, the ESO Forums are a place for people to bicker between one another to no end and for ZOS to selectively chime in on issues that they agree with while not commenting on issues that they disagree with because their answers are not to the benefit of the game or the players but to themselves. ZOS is a company that needs to make money to continue to produce content and operate servers, which I understand. If ZOS alters content to benefit skilled game play, then unskilled game play will suffer.

The fact is that the vast majority of players in Cyrodiil are low skill players and don't have the patience or interest to actually improve because it is too easy to outnumber your opponent and be "successful". I believe that almost every decision ZOS makes comes down to pleasing the masses and making a profit. Creating a good game has taken a back seat to getting more people playing and making in game purchases. Every patch released makes this more and more apparent, especially the latest patch notes that are being sold to PvP players as a "balance" patch when in reality it is a homestead patch (and ZOS is going to make a whole lot of money from homestead). Some of the adjustments to balance are welcomed but most of the adjustments make it clear that ZOS does know what is wrong their own game and/or just do not care. The largest problems, as I see it, are that ZOS is not transparent with their intentions and does not communicate with the people that know the game the best, the committed and skillful players. Ultimately, balance and PvP are not a priority. And why would it be, ZOS can't sell improvements to an existing infrastructure.

I believe that if there were significant investments (people, time, and money) into performance (actually fixing lag and not just chipping away at campaign player capacity or killing wildlife), balance, and actually creating a GOOD game and not just pleasing the masses, then people would be excited to play and ZOS would be rewarded with a larger player base. For quite some time I haven't been able say that ESO is a good game when people ask and I don't believe that will change. The sad thing is that I would bet the nice employees of ZOS (and I mean that) believe that they are making a good game because player count and profits are up (I don't know if that is true but I think it is). When in reality ZOS lost sight of creating a good, competitive game a long time ago.

For the time being I will play ESO here and there while trying to find another game that I am as passionate about as I once was for ESO.

END-ENDNOTES

ZOS prioritizes content based on players historical reactions and purchases. The first time I really saw this was when the Dro-m'Athra Senche Mount ($$$) was released and people ate it up. Then some more expensive mounts were released and then crown crates and now housing. Which in my subjective opinion, is a complete waste of time but it appeals to many people. I would only argue that if you truly care about PvP, to stop reinforcing ZOS's decisions to prioritize aesthetic content by purchasing it. ZOS has limited resources (people, time, and money) and if those resources are being diverted to create more aesthetics then there are less available resources to improve PvP.

I understand that this forum post is far too long for most people to take an interest in and I don't expect it too get much attention. My intent was to attempt to create an objective narrative that addressed the "big picture" issues of PvP and ESO and not specific issues. From what I can see, forum threads are about what skill, armor, class, etc. are broken and the conversation has no real impact because, as stated above, ZOS rarely meaningfully chimes in to balance changes that would benefit skilled game play.

Objectivity is not an easy task to accomplish when one is passionate about a subject. And I am/was very passionate about ESO. The game had so much potential, a GREAT platform, combat system, play-style diversity, and a passionate community.

I am terrible at editing my own writing, so please excuse poor spelling, sentence structure, and grammar.