Zos is making the same mistakes with ESO as Bungie did with Destiny 2

Shadow_Akula · October 2018

I’d say no because bungie’s mistake was making Destiny in the first place.

Kolache · October 2018

Oh look, another "I've played a lot of games and see the bigger picture" thread sprinkled with "your game will tank like this other game tanked if you don't listen to me".

I do like the reversal with the "casuals don't stick around, don't cater to them" twist. I think that's the first time I've heard that one.

rfennell_ESO · October 2018

Nyquil_zZ wrote: »

This probably won't ring a bell if you aren't familiar with the Destiny series. Destiny 2 crashed and burned because Bungie went overboard with nerfs in an attempt to cater to the casual audience. They didn’t consider that the casual audience will only play the game a short time before moving on, no matter what they did. Both Destiny (1) and ESO both experienced a shaky release with many issues. Over the life of the games and DLC’s they slowly become polished experiences. Since there is no ESO 2, we can start at the Morrowind era as the beginning of the current game there is today.
Morrowind saw a nerf to sustain, Destiny 2 also saw a nerf to sustain with the hidden juggler effect (ammo does not drop for equipped weapon)
PvP was never “balanced” in either game, because in PvP meta setups are just more effective. Destiny 1 had a lot of powerful weapons and abilities, but they rewarded a skilled player since by everyone being OP, it was an even playing field. Destiny 2 went the opposite direction, making pvp bland and slow paced, focusing on a team shot meta because 1v1’s aren’t feasible when your opponent could just disengage. See the heavy armor meta in high MMR bg’s now.

Locking item types previously earned through gameplay activities behind the crown store (new mounts, motifs) is similar to Destiny 2’s decision to lock sparrows and ships behind Eververse (obtainable by gameplay in D1)

Mobility is one of the things that saved D1 from obscurity. The game felt fluid and fast, and had hands down some of the best and most rewarding movement in an FPS. Destiny 2 saw a full on nerf to mobility and the character movement is painfully slow. ZOS’s next target after shields is none other than mobility.

High gunskill was rewarded in Destiny 1 with hand cannons being a crisp 3 tap precision kill in PvP and snipier rifles being the highest DPS against bosses. Magblades in ESO reward a skilled player by having the highest DPS ceiling for those who are skilled enough to weave the bow. Guess what was nerfed in Destiny 2? Gunskill (bloom mechanic, no special weapon slot, slower TTK and gameplay) The only thing other than being one of very few MMO’s on console that makes ESO successful is the faster paced combat, yet the nerf hammer is coming down on it.

The more of Bungie’s failures with Destiny 2 that you are aware of, the more apparent it is that ZOS is making the same mistakes today. I still play ESO because I enjoy the game, but I also stuck with D2 for longer than I should have hoping Bungie would turn it around into the game that D1 was.

I guess it's easy to use the "this probably won't ring a bell unless" line assuming that many didn't play Destiny 2.

I played Destiny 2, it doesn't remotely ring a bell as to that games problems.

Destiny 2 had the distinction of having devs that changed much of the fun people had in D1 and wouldn't respond at all to the criticism. They changed where weapons could be slotted (3 slots for weapons in D2) and moved off certain formerly 2nd weapon choices to the 3rd special weapon category (which was extremely limited in ammo, more like an ultimate in eso). Shotguns, sniper rifles etc.. which were not limited weapons and big fan favs in D1 were suddenly ammo dependant "specials".

Worse and by far the largest issue D2 had was that their "eververse" store was not only integral to gameplay it was also "in your face". So much so that the character that represented their cash grab tactics was voiced by Claudia Black. You couldn't go to "town" without hearing the npc... it was in your face and constantly part of the game. Bungienet had entire pages of the forums (sometimes 3-4 pages deep) of people demanding Bungie remove Eververse from the game. They deleted it all and didn't respond to it for months. That was what killed the game for most people.

The other big issue was a total lack of content (not remotely so with ESO), there are so many times you can bother doing to the public events on the tiny worlds with no content before you got sick of it. There was so many times you could get the exact same weapon or armor piece before you got sick of the game. When the first "DLC" dropped it was a tiny zone that was so small that they chose to disable mounts there.

Guilds that were active became totally inactive and guild after guild was people that no longer played. The game was dead and the bulk of people that had bought the game and two dlc's package didn't even bother logging in for the 2nd dlc.

Then they starting "balancing" things, but the game was already dead. The game died pretty much in the December (after first dlc) to Jan timeline... people stopped logging in and never came back.

It really does not even remotely compare to ESO. Like... not even close. There WAY too late balancing attempts they only put in place as a way to stop the bleeding was pointless, as corpses aren't bleeding... they are just dead.

mikemacon · October 2018

THIS.

RD065 · October 2018

Tired of hearing that the casuals fault when things change. Imo, it's the so called "hard core" that *** the most.

randomkeyhits · October 2018

I'd more compare ESO with DCUO and say with 1Tamriel they avoided the worst mistake that DCUO made.

Over there each new DLC was 100% gear progression so only those few % who were on the leading edge actually got to play it. They even had an open API for stats and you could easily see that 98% never got near the latest stuff. At least over here all content is always relevant which is a big plus.

If you do talk about catering to the high end players then their example would be Paradox/Nexus, the Tier 5 stuff. Forums were full of "we need challenging content" "Make it HARD" and so on.

So they did.

Active player base went through the floor and it took them a long time to recover. The sheer amount of QQ and salt.... amazing. Sad thing was if you were skilled it actually was a good DLC but few were so most initial completions were bug abusing.

Would hate to see ESO go through something similar though with the direction for dungeon mechanics...... worried.

Cadbury · October 2018

...Wait, wasn't Bungie "forgiven" and Destiny 2 now considered a "good" game?

At least, that seems to be the general consensus from talking to players I know.

Agenericname · October 2018

Casual and transient aren't the same thing.

I dont see how any of these nerfs benefit casuals. Shield nerfs, sustain nerfs, etc will have a larger impact on the mid tier of players.

starkerealm · October 2018

Kolache wrote: »

I do like the reversal with the "casuals don't stick around, don't cater to them" twist. I think that's the first time I've heard that one.

Not sure if that's sarcasm or not, because that does pop up on here intermittently.

NewBlacksmurf · October 2018

Destiny 1 - Destiny 2 and all decisions as to why that game causes a poor perception from its customers is completely different than what’s going on here.

There are three similar issues that’s I’ll touch on tho.

In short Destiny has issues because the first and second game are drastically awkward for new and existing players. I’ll go as far as saying Destiny 2 should have never existed and only that Destiny 1 would’ve been better off as a redesign using a new name requiring a purchase of $39 or so DLC as Destiny 2

Any ideas that “casuals” are the cause of any games issues is the wrong thought process. That term is often utilized without any logic or meaningful bearings or often assumed it means one thing but actually refers to another.

The games...problems

It starts out great like Destiny with a new character who levels up and moves around for different encounters.

Problem 1:
Veteran Ranks, Champion Points, Light levels, etc are terrible ways to offer progression.

Problem 2:
Any intentional server based games that seek to offer PvP and PvE through the same character progression will never appease both types of gameplay without negatively impacting the other.

Problem 3:
Each developers idea of paywalls, virtual currency and DLC has proven to disenfranchise parts of their customer bases.

Observation of each that could be problem 4:

The Elder Scrolls Online seeks to draw from TES series but instead of the game being TES with options to co-op with friends, it’s really DAoC I’m another skin which is a game that failed and has moved to EA to milk it’s traditional customer base.

Destiny is nothing more than a Halo game with PvE Online experiences added that fails to make any sense.

Both games are mimics of an earlier much more successful single player game whose devs seemingly want to find a way to monetize customers rather than making a great game with logic based offerings that are seen as worth buying by its customer base.

Ilithyania · October 2018

Bungie and D2 has more in commen with Star Wars Battlefront 2

Go try that forum instead

Huyen · October 2018

I played both games, and altho I liked both of them I noticed while playing Skyrim is both games lack serious depth, and in the case of ESO a decent difficulty. No more ESO or destiny 2 for me.

Reverb · October 2018

Zeni's player stats indicate that most of their players are casuals who play for a week or two, then move on, then come back for the next update. These players also spend the most on cosmetics. This is who they are designing content and combat for. Their "hard-core" players who log in daily are given nods, and vet and HM versions of group content, but we're not their targeted customers. Matt Firor has openly gone on record with that.

And it's a strategy that's working for them.

RD065 · October 2018

Reverb wrote: »

Zeni's player stats indicate that most of their players are casuals who play for a week or two, then move on, then come back for the next update. These players also spend the most on cosmetics. This is who they are designing content and combat for. Their "hard-core" players who log in daily are given nods, and vet and HM versions of group content, but we're not their targeted customers. Matt Firor has openly gone on record with that.

And it's a strategy that's working for them.

I never understand the difference between hardcore and casual.. I consider my self a casual I generally log in each day but some times I quit because of life and other things I want to do.. Are you saying hardcore players don't stop once in a while?

starkerealm · October 2018

code65536 wrote: »

ZOS stated that the Morrowind nerfs were supposed to "raise the floor and lower the ceiling". It lowered the ceiling, slightly lowered the floor, and devastated the midlevels.

The problem for a lot of players who are engaging in progression is that they're following the, "solved," solutions.

The shield situation now is an example. If you're legitimately top tier, this isn't that threatening. It will require some adaptation, but it's not like this is, "the end of all life as we know it."

Same story with the Morrowind nerfs. If you're actually on the upper end of the spectrum as a player, it just forced adaptation.

The progressing players, or midlevels, don't have the systems knowledge to actually adapt. They take the solved, "broken," setups that are over-performing, and think that's the only road forward. Then, when those builds get corrected, they absolutely lose their ****, because they don't know any other way to play.

For new players, this stuff literally doesn't affect them, unless they start copying an old build. They don't know you can get 15k shields without giving up anything more than a slot, nor are they running content where that's even particularly useful. They weren't seeing the infinite sustain before Morrowind because, again, you needed a semi-coordinated group for that stuff to happen. Which they didn't have.

It doesn't even really it make it that much harder to climb into progression, except for community behavior.

rfennell_ESO · October 2018

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

The Elder Scrolls Online seeks to draw from TES series but instead of the game being TES with options to co-op with friends, it’s really DAoC I’m another skin which is a game that failed and has moved to EA to milk it’s traditional customer base.

DAoC didn't fail. It was quite good and the pvp was some of the best ever.

It just ran into the WOW launch which bled away their subscriber base and a really bad expansion (Atlantis, where they tried to do pve crap) and with WOW taking off... well, there was very few MMO's that survived that period with a vibrant sub base.

In many ways Cyrodiil is the spiritual successor to the Pvp frontiers of DAOC.

The Rest of the game is very very different.

Crafts_Many_Boxes · October 2018

Cadbury wrote: »

...Wait, wasn't Bungie "forgiven" and Destiny 2 now considered a "good" game?

At least, that seems to be the general consensus from talking to players I know.

Well, I had two friends that played regularly. They both stopped due to, in their words, a combination of the DLC being underwhelming and the whole eververse controversy. The funny thing is, I played a while too, and the eververse never seemed too bad to me. It seemed like a pretty reasonable cash shop, I dunno. But I'm not crazy about cosmetics to begin with, especially in a shooter.

Anywho, when the latest DLC came out, one of those friends tried it, and he said he really like it, and the eververse stuff was better. The other one never came back is kinda much busier with IRL stuff now but he said he was burned pretty bad by the whole thing and might never come back.

So, based on my very limited sample size, some came back and their faith was restored, but some are gone for potentially good. I never really saw any issues to begin with, but I'm pretty easygoing in terms of cost vs content. I care more about stuff like mechanics and game balance haha. They were both unemployed at the time, so it was like "value! Content! Bang for my buck! Arrrrghhhhh!" for them, and I get that. They were small DLCs, interesting though they were.

Skraticus · October 2018

I've been gone a few years and just now coming back, so I'm a bit out of touch with how bad balance is at the moment. I know it wasn't great the first time that I played.

But on that note, I will say that regardless of the game, it does often feel like the devs don't really play their own game(s). And I know they do, but I would imagine their views are often lacking just for the simple fact they're looking at the same thing day in and day out. That causes a lot of problems in itself.

I often catch myself trying to make sense of their decisions, but then I remember, it's all about the money. We call the devs and designers dumb, and they might very well be, but more than likely it's somebody over them pulling the money strings and telling them what to do. I'm sure the devs would have liked to never implemented a crown store and left it as a sub simply because that's less work for them, but somebody somewhere read a report that said "crown store = more money." Just the way it goes I'm afraid.

Money first, quality later.

Oreyn_Bearclaw · October 2018

code65536 wrote: »

Why the hell do people feel like making things about casuals-vs-hardcore?

ZOS stated that the Morrowind nerfs were supposed to "raise the floor and lower the ceiling". It lowered the ceiling, slightly lowered the floor, and devastated the midlevels.

These nerfs? Same thing again. It will lower the ceiling a little. Not by that much. Won't really affect the floor. And it will again devastate the middle.

ZOS doesn't cater to the hardcore or the casuals. If you paid any attention at all to the feedback and grievances, you'll see that they come from players of all levels of skill.

The problem is a dev team that is wildly out of touch with how the game is played. That's the problem. They don't play their game enough to understand their game. They push for cast-time abilities and heavy attacks. Nobody like that stuff. They blame shields for making healers useless. If they did their own content, they'd see why healers feel useless (hint: it has nothing to do with shields). They claim that shields mean a player can just stack damage. If they actually PvP as sorcs, they'll see that with the sorc's poor sustain and poor self-healing, every good PvP sorc runs at least one--often two--sustain sets. Stacking damage? What damage?

The game suffers from a combat team that has no vision (or at the very least fails to demonstrate that they have a vision). Magblades in PvP generally rely on stacking heals. Sorcs stack shields. DKs have a lot of CC. I wouldn't want to play a magblade like a sorc and I wouldn't want to play a sorc like a magblade. Each class has--or had--an identity. ZOS doesn't seem to realize this and instead push through change that force classes to play more and more similarly. E.g., introducing a too-good-to-pass-up Ele Weapon in Summerset and nerfing class abilities, pushing everyone to use the same ability.

To claim that this is about casuals-vs-hardcore demonstrates your own lack of understanding of this game--which is no better than that of the dev team's.

CODE FOR CLASS REP!!!! And by class rep, I mean they should prob just give him Wrobel's job...

ATomiX96 · October 2018

dont compare two completely different games with each other. k thx bai

NyassaV · October 2018

The only things casually really truly want is better tabard system. They don't care nearly as much about balance

NewBlacksmurf · October 2018

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

The Elder Scrolls Online seeks to draw from TES series but instead of the game being TES with options to co-op with friends, it’s really DAoC I’m another skin which is a game that failed and has moved to EA to milk it’s traditional customer base.

DAoC didn't fail. It was quite good and the pvp was some of the best ever.

It just ran into the WOW launch which bled away their subscriber base and a really bad expansion (Atlantis, where they tried to do pve crap) and with WOW taking off... well, there was very few MMO's that survived that period with a vibrant sub base.

In many ways Cyrodiil is the spiritual successor to the Pvp frontiers of DAOC.

The Rest of the game is very very different.

@rfennell_ESO
The game itself did fail...which is why the originating studio is no more and their game was acquired by EA.
More proof as such...

This dev team lead by one of the same lead devs from DAoC….and the other whose trying to finish DAoC Unchained have tried to keep that dream going.

DAoC didn't have good PvP...it offered unbalanced PvP with constant changes that further damaged PvE or the reverse for PvP. What people remember is the first massive PvP experience along with destructible environments and as a result "think or feel" it was good overall.

While I did enjoy parts of the game the PvP portion of that game was no better than what we have here. Each just have their different issues and opportunities spanning from a very eerily similar design flaw.

zaria · October 2018

ResTandRespeC wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Casuals pull in more money, not the 1% because they are the bulk of a playerbase.

I am not talking about those people who come and go quickly.

I'm talking about the ones that play for years, pay lots of money for cosmetics, *** around for a couple of hours, and then log off. They don't have the best gear. There is loads of content they haven't done. And they don't care too much about what is or isn't balanced. Many of them don't even read the patch notes and just learn important changes through the grapevine.

As long as those people always have something to do (and they go through content very slowly) they will spend money and play.

Hardcore people are good to have because they tend to provide feedback, make videos and other fan content, and spread word of mouth. This all attracts more casual audiences.

But it isn't the casual player coming here for buffs and nerfs. It is the hardcore player.

And the gap has to be wide enough that hardcore people feel their effort is worth it, but not so wide that their tendency to exclude anyone who isn't perfect at the game doesn't completely kill casual progression.

That is what tends to cause PvE nerfs. The casual being unable to progress to a hardcore if they so choose because every group has demands that are completely ludicrous unless you were hardcore from the beginning.

If thats why theyve been doing pve nerfs then zos is pretty bad at it lol. Every single PvE nerf, while aimed at the top tier player has made the game harder for middle tier players to progress. The nerfs make hard content harder, by making the highest dps numbers harder to achieve and survivability harder to maintain making groups even more stringent.

This, and its pretty simple the expert players adapt fast, mid level to mediocre far slower.
Now the upcoming nerf hardly hit mediocre as they don't use shields or swift but hit the mid level hard, especially lower cp ones.
vBC1 final boss one shot is one good example of an place you need shields with low cp. If you block you can not dodge fire on an magic build. direfrost is another. nAS is jet another.

rfennell_ESO · October 2018

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

The Elder Scrolls Online seeks to draw from TES series but instead of the game being TES with options to co-op with friends, it’s really DAoC I’m another skin which is a game that failed and has moved to EA to milk it’s traditional customer base.

DAoC didn't fail. It was quite good and the pvp was some of the best ever.

It just ran into the WOW launch which bled away their subscriber base and a really bad expansion (Atlantis, where they tried to do pve crap) and with WOW taking off... well, there was very few MMO's that survived that period with a vibrant sub base.

In many ways Cyrodiil is the spiritual successor to the Pvp frontiers of DAOC.

The Rest of the game is very very different.

@rfennell_ESO
The game itself did fail...which is why the originating studio is no more and their game was acquired by EA.
More proof as such...

This dev team lead by one of the same lead devs from DAoC….and the other whose trying to finish DAoC Unchained have tried to keep that dream going.

DAoC didn't have good PvP...it offered unbalanced PvP with constant changes that further damaged PvE or the reverse for PvP. What people remember is the first massive PvP experience along with destructible environments and as a result "think or feel" it was good overall.

While I did enjoy parts of the game the PvP portion of that game was no better than what we have here. Each just have their different issues and opportunities spanning from a very eerily similar design flaw.

For it's run it did fine.

As for Mythic Entertainment... it's demise was at the hands of the disaster that was Warhammer Online... My guess is you didn't play either game...

NewBlacksmurf · October 2018

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

The Elder Scrolls Online seeks to draw from TES series but instead of the game being TES with options to co-op with friends, it’s really DAoC I’m another skin which is a game that failed and has moved to EA to milk it’s traditional customer base.

DAoC didn't fail. It was quite good and the pvp was some of the best ever.

It just ran into the WOW launch which bled away their subscriber base and a really bad expansion (Atlantis, where they tried to do pve crap) and with WOW taking off... well, there was very few MMO's that survived that period with a vibrant sub base.

In many ways Cyrodiil is the spiritual successor to the Pvp frontiers of DAOC.

The Rest of the game is very very different.

@rfennell_ESO
The game itself did fail...which is why the originating studio is no more and their game was acquired by EA.
More proof as such...

This dev team lead by one of the same lead devs from DAoC….and the other whose trying to finish DAoC Unchained have tried to keep that dream going.

DAoC didn't have good PvP...it offered unbalanced PvP with constant changes that further damaged PvE or the reverse for PvP. What people remember is the first massive PvP experience along with destructible environments and as a result "think or feel" it was good overall.

While I did enjoy parts of the game the PvP portion of that game was no better than what we have here. Each just have their different issues and opportunities spanning from a very eerily similar design flaw.

For it's run it did fine.

As for Mythic Entertainment... it's demise was at the hands of the disaster that was Warhammer Online... My guess is you didn't play either game...

@rfennell_ESO

I know you mean no harm....
I actually played both and was in the closed betas of each waaay back similar this this game.

rfennell_ESO · October 2018

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

The Elder Scrolls Online seeks to draw from TES series but instead of the game being TES with options to co-op with friends, it’s really DAoC I’m another skin which is a game that failed and has moved to EA to milk it’s traditional customer base.

DAoC didn't fail. It was quite good and the pvp was some of the best ever.

It just ran into the WOW launch which bled away their subscriber base and a really bad expansion (Atlantis, where they tried to do pve crap) and with WOW taking off... well, there was very few MMO's that survived that period with a vibrant sub base.

In many ways Cyrodiil is the spiritual successor to the Pvp frontiers of DAOC.

The Rest of the game is very very different.

@rfennell_ESO
The game itself did fail...which is why the originating studio is no more and their game was acquired by EA.
More proof as such...

This dev team lead by one of the same lead devs from DAoC….and the other whose trying to finish DAoC Unchained have tried to keep that dream going.

DAoC didn't have good PvP...it offered unbalanced PvP with constant changes that further damaged PvE or the reverse for PvP. What people remember is the first massive PvP experience along with destructible environments and as a result "think or feel" it was good overall.

While I did enjoy parts of the game the PvP portion of that game was no better than what we have here. Each just have their different issues and opportunities spanning from a very eerily similar design flaw.

For it's run it did fine.

As for Mythic Entertainment... it's demise was at the hands of the disaster that was Warhammer Online... My guess is you didn't play either game...

@rfennell_ESO

I know you mean no harm....
I actually played both and was in the closed betas of each waaay back similar this this game.

Fair enough, but you have to admit that Warhammer Online was what killed Mythic. It was sad, because there were some cool aspects to the game... but that crippling lag in pvp was totally unreal.

The fact that they scrapped an entire game (Imperator online, which was Roman empire in space) for Warhammer and failed was the end of them.

Raammzzaa · October 2018

I came to ESO only this past January as D2 was dying. I actually purchased ESO at console release, but didn’t play it since Imwas too absorbed into D1. I really don’t see the parallel with Destiny, myself. I think they are very different games, and I don’t think ESO caters to casual players at all.

Feric51 · October 2018

@rfennell_ESO @NewBlacksmurf

I’d just like to chime in here and say that although I didn’t play either DAoC or Warhammer (ancient pc good for barely running Microsoft Works (didn’t even have Word!)), I was greatly affected by the whole demise of Mythic Entertainment.

If you look back on the professional history of ESO’s head honcho Matt Firor, he got his start with Mythic with a little text-based MUD called Tempest. The final product of that was renamed to Darkness Falls which was an expansive MUD with open world PvP at all times, corpses were lootable, each death cost you some of your “Constitution” attribute, and if you didn’t pay in-game currency to have the Constitution restored and it dropped to 0, your character would be “souled” which meant the entire character would be permanently deleted.

The follow up to that game was Darkness Falls: The Crusade (DFC) and introduced a three-realm (faction) based PvP with other realms only accessible by a 7-10 minute boat ride. (You couldn’t kill anyone from your own realm). Each realm possessed three idols that you could steal and transport back to your own realm for boosts to either strength (weapon skills) power (magic skills) or intelligence (xp gain boost and subsidiary skills) - 10% for each idol possessed).

DFC also had an independent realm called Kaid (think Cyrodiil) that changed between all-access open world PvP (still could only kill opposing realm players) to a weekly rotation where each realm would have sole occupancy for their week without fear of being pked. Kaid was the true end-game PvE content and some areas would see whole groups of high level characters wiped out and forced to “release” which meant you respawned at a safe zone, but all of your gear would be left where you died and would be picked up by the mobs and eventually despawn with them after a period of time.

Your character could not be “souled” for reaching 0 constitution in DFC, but your skills would be cut by 50% until you paid to restore it.

Anyway, DFC was the immediate predecessor to DAoC and I’m sure it shared many of those same similarities. DFC servers stuck around until sometime in 2004 when the EA fiasco happened and they were shuttered for good. DAoC might have got a reboot, but my beloved DFC is now just a Wikipedia entry and a Facebook support group for alumni of the game.

In conclusion, I don’t care why Mythic failed, but I do know it cost me my favorite pc game of all time, and I still harbor hard feelings for whomever caused its demise.

Sorry for that little trip down memory lane, but. All this reference to DAoC just triggered the past.

@ZOS_MattFiror - why don’t you use some of ESO’s billions in revenue to reacquire the code to DF1 and DFC and put them on a dedicated server somewhere for nostalgia purposes? I think it would do folks at ZOS some good to see the origins of the whole ESO template for three alliance combat!!

NewBlacksmurf · October 2018

@Feric51

I’d bet many are here because of experiences with Mythic. It’s what peaked my interest at least

Karivaa · October 2018

I have not played ESO since Destiny Forsaken came out. I never played Destiny 2. I am loving Destiny Forsaken! There is a ton to do and tons to explore. I love how Bungie addresses everything weekly and also puts out immediate patches on problems. I play on Xbox so they get approval for patches to fix the game immediately. Funny how Zos has said they are unable to get immediate patches. I was also an ESO player for 3 years and this is the first time I have quit.