ESO Should Embrace a Path in 2025

katanagirl1 · January 15

I think ESO can please all types of players if they stick to the format they had previously, where everyone had a “swim lane”. Casual players had overland and quests, including story quests, and endgamers had vet and hard mode trials and dungeons. That isn’t enough for some players, who insist on harder overland, and will undoubtably ruin the casual experience for some in favor of themselves, whether that is their goal or not. This is going to alienate almost all new players coming into the game, and displease a lot of vet players like myself. As for casual PvP vs sweaty PvP, players can contribute some in Cyrodiil regardless of skill since it is a team based effort whether you group or not. I admit it would be much more pleasant if some specific gear that is most definitely OP was nerfed so the zone was more enjoyable for all players, which would help populate the zone more, and provide actual AvA instead of tower battles with ball groups or home keeps with ball groups as the only activity in the zone.

Also the point about PvP content being able to be sold is a good one. I’m all for players participating in all content to get stuff, but the number of “systems” in the game is getting quite large. At this point it cannot be expected that all players do all content. The game economy is struggling right now, and being able to sell content from specialized gameplay would benefit both sellers and buyers and boost the economy.

Warhawke_80 · January 15

katanagirl1 wrote: »

I think ESO can please all types of players if they stick to the format they had previously, where everyone had a “swim lane”.

Watching some of the Hardcore content creators I find this hard to believe...they want one lane...the Raid or PVP loop

if casuals are allowed to play it is in service to them in some way.

WoW's early days had this too they called it "be quiet" and make me water...(due to material requirements for certain classes)

I would love if the games communities could accept all play styles...it's just not reality.

Necrotech_Master · January 15

Stamicka wrote: »

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

theres been a many a times i would see in zone or guild chats that some update coming up was gonna "destroy the game" like when they rebalanced some of the dot skills the first time (i hardly noticed a difference on my character, or i actually got a dmg increase from those changes), some more recent changes ive still barely made any adjustements to characters builds unless i was unhappy with the characters to begin with and rebuilt them

There have been many updates that have destroyed the game’s combat over time. I don’t think those people were being dramatic. In my view, combat and balance are in a horrible place and it’s from years of these “destroy the game” patches. The DOT patch you are referencing was scalebreaker, we are still dealing with some consequences from that and it was years ago. I think hybridization ultimately destroyed the game’s combat. We still have hybridization. If I listed all the bad changes that have been made, this post would be a massive.

looking long term, generally speaking i dont think things are anywhere near as bad as people make it out to be

ive been playing since launch so ive played through all of these major combat changes and i barely noticed anything

theres been a few changes ive questioned as a "why" moment (i think the necromancer change for stalking blastbones to grave lords sacrifice was one of the most mystifying and overall worse changes i can think of)

i like hybridization, playing a hybrid build before hybridization just felt awful, all of my stamina characters 100% had to rely on vigor or forward momentum for healing because the mag based heals were horribly weak and didnt even justify the cost of casting the skill

so every one is going to have their own perspective on what change was "good" or "bad"

for example i was pretty indifferent on most of the U35 combat changes, i didnt really like the look of the new templar jabs, but functionally speaking the skill still seemed about the same effectiveness for me so i didnt switch off of it. i didnt really care for the 2 sec tick rate on dots, but i like the dots lasting longer so i dont have to recast as much

Stamicka · January 15

katanagirl1 wrote: »

I think ESO can please all types of players if they stick to the format they had previously, where everyone had a “swim lane”. Casual players had overland and quests, including story quests, and endgamers had vet and hard mode trials and dungeons.

I agree with you. ESO can definitely cast a wide net for a lot of different types of players by going with the idea that not all content is for all players. The thing is, when they lower the ceiling and keep watering down the combat in order to try to boost engagement with the HM trials and dungeons, it goes against that idea. Making things easier so that all types of players have a chance to engage is a great goal too. However, when they do this, the sweatier players will leave as we saw with update 35. Like I said earlier, they can't have it both ways. Either go with the idea that not all content is for everyone and keep many types of players happy, or go with the idea that content should be for all types of players.

katanagirl1 wrote: »

That isn’t enough for some players, who insist on harder overland, and will undoubtably ruin the casual experience for some in favor of themselves, whether that is their goal or not.

I'm happy with people having their own corners of the game to enjoy. I don't care that much that overland is easy a long as I have dungeons, trials, arenas, and PvP. It goes both ways though. My experience is ruined when people call for weaving to be nerfed, bash canceling to be nerf, or content itself to be nerfed. Wanting harder overland or easier combat are both understandable. The problem is, both people can't really be catered to at once.

One solution is keeping the people in their corners happy and ignoring those who want to 'ruin' the experience of other corners. Another solution is to pick a target audience and lean into either a sweaty game or a more casual game. ZOS keeps bouncing around between these solutions though. Sometimes they try to keep people in their corners happy, sometimes they lean into a casual game, sometimes they lean into a sweaty game. That doesn't work and that's the problem I'm outlining here.

Desiato · January 15

Stamicka wrote: »

I don’t think a casual solo friendly game and a traditional MMO for PvE and PvP enthusiasts can easily coexist. Those two things don’t mesh well.

I agree they don't mesh well, but I think it can be done. And actually, in many ways, I think there is some brilliance in the way ZOS has refactored the game over the years, even if I don't like the results. I think they have the talent among their game designers to do it again. And surely they will because refactoring the game to current market conditions is now in their DNA.

To me, the elephant in the room is TES6. Industry insiders expect it to be announced this year. I don't know how true that is. But its eventual release will make story chapters in ESO somewhat redundant. I theorize this has something to do with their decision to transition away from Chapters and the apparent interest they now have in more challenging content.

IMO, the target audience has been single player chapter customers since Morrowind, but I think the highest ARPU customers are the MMO players. I think this is why they've tried so hard to get the former into the latter category. IMO, this approach hasn't succeeded.

I think challenging endgame PVE can exist within the current combat meta just through trial mechanics and mob strength.

PVP is a different story. I would call its current state a disaster. I truly believe it is the worst pvp I have ever played. Compared to a "real pvp game", it is nerf t-ball compared to hardball. I think it needs to be significantly decoupled from the rest of the game to be successful. With that said, I think it's totally possible, even if extremely unlikely. Unfortunately, I doubt ESO PVP will ever live up to its potential. However, I have no doubt we will see its gameplay implemented by another party in the future.

katanagirl1 · January 16

Stamicka wrote: »

katanagirl1 wrote: »

I think ESO can please all types of players if they stick to the format they had previously, where everyone had a “swim lane”. Casual players had overland and quests, including story quests, and endgamers had vet and hard mode trials and dungeons.

I agree with you. ESO can definitely cast a wide net for a lot of different types of players by going with the idea that not all content is for all players. The thing is, when they lower the ceiling and keep watering down the combat in order to try to boost engagement with the HM trials and dungeons, it goes against that idea. Making things easier so that all types of players have a chance to engage is a great goal too. However, when they do this, the sweatier players will leave as we saw with update 35. Like I said earlier, they can't have it both ways. Either go with the idea that not all content is for everyone and keep many types of players happy, or go with the idea that content should be for all types of players.

katanagirl1 wrote: »

That isn’t enough for some players, who insist on harder overland, and will undoubtably ruin the casual experience for some in favor of themselves, whether that is their goal or not.

I'm happy with people having their own corners of the game to enjoy. I don't care that much that overland is easy a long as I have dungeons, trials, arenas, and PvP. It goes both ways though. My experience is ruined when people call for weaving to be nerfed, bash canceling to be nerf, or content itself to be nerfed. Wanting harder overland or easier combat are both understandable. The problem is, both people can't really be catered to at once.

One solution is keeping the people in their corners happy and ignoring those who want to 'ruin' the experience of other corners. Another solution is to pick a target audience and lean into either a sweaty game or a more casual game. ZOS keeps bouncing around between these solutions though. Sometimes they try to keep people in their corners happy, sometimes they lean into a casual game, sometimes they lean into a sweaty game. That doesn't work and that's the problem I'm outlining here.

The thing about harder overland is that it leaves casual players with no place to go.

As for nerfing content, the only thing I can come up with are the requests for the story quest bosses to be easier. The only reason people are asking for that is because, since High Isle, they have been made much harder. Even as someone who has done a few vet hard mode trials, I can see the difference. So it’s not nerfing anything but instead reverting to what it was before people started complaining they were too easy.

Muizer · January 16

Desiato wrote: »

From my POV, ZOS has simply refined this approach since then. They have continued to try to make ESO more accessible to get their single player fans into the MMO side of the game by making everything easier for them. It hasn't seemed to work.

Interesting take. As a 'Skyrim player', I've always come at this from a different side, but the conclusion seems to be the same:

For years and years ZOS have espoused a philosophy that where PvE is concerned, Overland was for casual players and that people wanting a greater challenge were to be 'funneled' into dungeons and trials. I think you're right that this 'funneling' model just hasn't worked. And they could have known that it would not.

Based on my own experience as a 'Skyrim player', I would say there is really no reason to expect that someone like me would naturally progress to dungeons and trials! That's a completely different kind of game play! Arguably, they have next to nothing in common with the 'Skyrim' experience. So, if this 'funneling' actually never happened, despite efforts to ease the transition, that is not at all surprising.

I would hazard that if one really wanted to get 'Skyrim players' to engage in group activities, those activities would have to be way more organic extensions of the solo experience. They should have designed content around 'ad-hoc' grouping, rather than bet on formulaic, trinity based obstacle courses requiring 'mastery' of mechanics with only the aesthetics reminding us we're in an ES universe.

kurbbie_s · January 16

Amottica wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

By choosing one they're rightfully afraid losing some of us, the players stuck with them in that unknown state where you're just hoping that "the next year surely will be about us as they've said in a letter!" and that's always getting shifted the next year with actual releases and how helpful they are for the health of PvP or endgame PvE.

Exactly, which is why this game had PvP and a lot of different aspects of PvE from the start, it was never one focus, and that is the case with large MMORPGs. Some call them theme park MMOs because of the various activities.

this is false. The pve content was to get you from 1-50, most of the action and game up til morrowind was centered around pvp. The game was advertised as a 3 banners war pvp game.

Then kids whined about not being able to play with their friends. One Tamriel was the start of the downfall. ESO was first and foremost a pvp game and is the reason why many of us came to play.

rothan117 · January 16

I have the distinct feeling that focusing on just one of those paths long term will not appeal to a large enough demographic to justify ZOS continuing to support the game at the level they presently do as they will not have enough paying players to pay for it.

Isn't that why they got off the pvp-centric path after the big overhaul? I know I looked at the game back when it came out and saw how pvp oriented it was and marked it off my list of games to consider playing.

TaSheen · January 16

rothan117 wrote: »

I have the distinct feeling that focusing on just one of those paths long term will not appeal to a large enough demographic to justify ZOS continuing to support the game at the level they presently do as they will not have enough paying players to pay for it.

Isn't that why they got off the pvp-centric path after the big overhaul? I know I looked at the game back when it came out and saw how pvp oriented it was and marked it off my list of games to consider playing.

Me too. I did pvp in WoW and RIFT, hated every minute of it, even though I got good enough to stay alive (mostly). Even played on a pvp realm in WoW, in a friend's guild. I also raided in both those games - ran friends and family guilds, and we raided 3 nights a week (much to husband's disgust!)

But both those games went in directions I wasn't going to find fun anymore, and I quit WoW permanently in early 2013 (had been playing it alongside Skyrim as well as RIFT), and then quit RIFT in early 2014 IIRC (though I did continue with housing in RIFT for a couple more years - SO much better than anything else out there!)

My daughter and granddaughter were in ESO's open beta for a little while, so I took a look at ESO, and talked to them about it. The amount of pvp was why they quit the beta, and why I never started the game until after 1Tam. I'm just not interested in pvp or even instanced or any other group content any more.... burned out on all that in the other MMOS....

sans-culottes · January 16

kurbbie_s wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

By choosing one they're rightfully afraid losing some of us, the players stuck with them in that unknown state where you're just hoping that "the next year surely will be about us as they've said in a letter!" and that's always getting shifted the next year with actual releases and how helpful they are for the health of PvP or endgame PvE.

Exactly, which is why this game had PvP and a lot of different aspects of PvE from the start, it was never one focus, and that is the case with large MMORPGs. Some call them theme park MMOs because of the various activities.

this is false. The pve content was to get you from 1-50, most of the action and game up til morrowind was centered around pvp. The game was advertised as a 3 banners war pvp game.

Then kids whined about not being able to play with their friends. One Tamriel was the start of the downfall. ESO was first and foremost a pvp game and is the reason why many of us came to play.

I don’t remember anyone saying PVE content was just for leveling. Cyrodiil was absolutely presented as a draw and endgame activity. That didn’t happen, though. It’s also needlessly inflammatory to claim “kids whined,” and this was somehow what led to One Tamriel. Better, more effective PVE content is a good thing.

Stamicka · January 16

rothan117 wrote: »

Isn't that why they got off the pvp-centric path after the big overhaul? I know I looked at the game back when it came out and saw how pvp oriented it was and marked it off my list of games to consider playing.

2014 ESO had a mandatory sub, it was buggy, it was incomplete, people were cheating, etc.. They had a lot of things to overcome on launch so we can’t really say it was the fact that the game was PvP focused that caused it to struggle.

If you decided not to play because of the PvP focus, things are working as they should. This would make it so that most people who do decide to play ESO have an interest in PvP. This would make a more cohesive playerbase which would grow over time.

ESO would also be easier to develop with a more cohesive playerbase. They would just have to focus their efforts on Cyrodiil performance, adding new PvP modes, and then they could primarily balance the game around PvP as well.

You might try to say that the game wouldn’t attract enough people to pay for the game. I don’t think that’s true. If ESO primarily attracted PvPers they would sell a lot of race changes, alliance changes, and horse upgrades. They could also introduce subscriptions that would appeal to PvPers. Operating costs would also likely be lower since they would have a target demographic to develop for.

Also don’t forget that ESO was actually pretty big on Twitch for the time. The metrics might not look great if you look back, but Twitch as a whole was much younger and not as popular then. If the game stayed appealing to the people who pulled in a lot of viewers (Sypher, Fengrush, King Richard) they could actually bring a lot more people into the game.

So yea, I think ESO could have definitely been successful as a PvP MMO if they stuck to it. It probably wouldn’t have as many players as it has today, but it still could’ve been very profitable long term.

Getsugatenso · January 18

Só a uma solução reraça do zero

Amottica · January 18

kurbbie_s wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

By choosing one they're rightfully afraid losing some of us, the players stuck with them in that unknown state where you're just hoping that "the next year surely will be about us as they've said in a letter!" and that's always getting shifted the next year with actual releases and how helpful they are for the health of PvP or endgame PvE.

Exactly, which is why this game had PvP and a lot of different aspects of PvE from the start, it was never one focus, and that is the case with large MMORPGs. Some call them theme park MMOs because of the various activities.

this is false. The pve content was to get you from 1-50, most of the action and game up til morrowind was centered around pvp. The game was advertised as a 3 banners war pvp game.

Then kids whined about not being able to play with their friends. One Tamriel was the start of the downfall. ESO was first and foremost a pvp game and is the reason why many of us came to play.

That is not the case at all. The 3 Banner war is also part of the base game PvP so that does not support any claim that PvP was the focus of ESO at any point. It is why there are three alliances, and at launch, PvE alliances were as divided as Cyrodiil in that they could not group.

What makes the mix, as I have noted, so evident and apparent is the cost to create Cyrodiil would be pocket change to what the cost was to create all the original alliance PvE zones, stories, dungeons, delves, and more.

Oh, and BTW, people level in Cyrodiil after 10, and nowhere does it suggest PvE was just for leveling. It would not make sense to spend so much money on something that is just for leveling.

TaSheen · January 18

Getsugatenso wrote: »

Só a uma solução reraça do zero

I think there's likely not any possibility that ZOS will remake this game from scratch.

Stamicka · January 18

Amottica wrote: »

That is not the case at all. The 3 Banner war is also part of the base game PvP so that does not support any claim that PvP was the focus of ESO at any point. It is why there are three alliances, and at launch, PvE alliances were as divided as Cyrodiil in that they could not group.

What are you even saying? How does the 3 banner war being part of the base game not support that ESO was PvP focused?

Amottica wrote: »

Oh, and BTW, people level in Cyrodiil after 10, and nowhere does it suggest PvE was just for leveling. It would not make sense to spend so much money on something that is just for leveling.

PvE kind of was just for leveling though. Zones were tied to level. So once you hit vet rank 1, what would be the reason to go back to a level 1-16 zone for example? You would basically get no XP for killing stuff in that zone. You could experience the quests, but you would out level them by a lot and they also wouldn’t give much XP.

I remember that most people would just grind mobs in the PvE zone for their level and then move on to the next zone until they made it to max level.

sans-culottes · January 18

Stamicka wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

That is not the case at all. The 3 Banner war is also part of the base game PvP so that does not support any claim that PvP was the focus of ESO at any point. It is why there are three alliances, and at launch, PvE alliances were as divided as Cyrodiil in that they could not group.

What are you even saying? How does the 3 banner war being part of the base game not support that ESO was PvP focused?

Amottica wrote: »

Oh, and BTW, people level in Cyrodiil after 10, and nowhere does it suggest PvE was just for leveling. It would not make sense to spend so much money on something that is just for leveling.

PvE kind of was just for leveling though. Zones were tied to level. So once you hit vet rank 1, what would be the reason to go back to a level 1-16 zone for example? You would basically get no XP for killing stuff in that zone. You could experience the quests, but you would out level them by a lot and they also wouldn’t give much XP.

I remember that most people would just grind mobs in the PvE zone for their level and then move on to the next zone until they made it to max level.

This individual was responding to someone who had claimed the intention of PvE content was for leveling up one’s characters. Once that was done, apparently, you were to then focus on Cyrodiil. I’m not saying I agree with this statement, but that’s the context.

Anyway, zones can be level-dependent without that somehow making them pointless for other players.

Amottica · January 18

Stamicka wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

That is not the case at all. The 3 Banner war is also part of the base game PvP so that does not support any claim that PvP was the focus of ESO at any point. It is why there are three alliances, and at launch, PvE alliances were as divided as Cyrodiil in that they could not group.

What are you even saying? How does the 3 banner war being part of the base game not support that ESO was PvP focused?

Amottica wrote: »

Oh, and BTW, people level in Cyrodiil after 10, and nowhere does it suggest PvE was just for leveling. It would not make sense to spend so much money on something that is just for leveling.

PvE kind of was just for leveling though. Zones were tied to level. So once you hit vet rank 1, what would be the reason to go back to a level 1-16 zone for example? You would basically get no XP for killing stuff in that zone. You could experience the quests, but you would out level them by a lot and they also wouldn’t give much XP.

I remember that most people would just grind mobs in the PvE zone for their level and then move on to the next zone until they made it to max level.

The 3-banner war does not support the game being PvP or PvE-focused. That is the point; it is a part of the story across the entire game as it launched. So no, it is indicative that ESO is or was ever PvP focused by any stretch. Nothing has been presented to suggest otherwise.

The realization that the development of Cyrodill was low budget compared to what went into developing the PvE content demonstrates that PvP was not even the slightest bit the main focus of ESO. Not even close in effort and cost.

Granted, "PvP is interesting for players" which is why Zenimax created Cyrdodiil (expressly stated by Rich). So yes, PvP has always been intended to be part of the game but considering Zenimax chose early in the game's development not to include PvP across the entire game. They decided to keep the PvE areas pure PvE. Also stated by Rich. That is rather indicative that the game has been intended to include both areas and not have one the focus.

Stamicka · January 18

Amottica wrote: »

The 3-banner war does not support the game being PvP or PvE-focused. That is the point; it is a part of the story across the entire game as it launched. So no, it is indicative that ESO is or was ever PvP focused by any stretch. Nothing has been presented to suggest otherwise.

The realization that the development of Cyrodill was low budget compared to what went into developing the PvE content demonstrates that PvP was not even the slightest bit the main focus of ESO. Not even close in effort and cost.

Granted, "PvP is interesting for players" which is why Zenimax created Cyrdodiil (expressly stated by Rich). So yes, PvP has always been intended to be part of the game but considering Zenimax chose early in the game's development not to include PvP across the entire game. They decided to keep the PvE areas pure PvE. Also stated by Rich. That is rather indicative that the game has been intended to include both areas and not have one the focus.

This is just contrarian to be contrarian at this point and it’s a waste of time to engage with. You can find lots of feedback even on this thread that many people did not have interest in early ESO because of how PvP centered it was. I remember playing back then and outside of the stuff in Craglorn (which ESO didn’t launch with btw), there was not much else to do EXCEPT PvP for the end game. At max level you would have basically outleveled every PvE zone in the game. I remember even the advertising for ESO mostly highlighted PvP.

You can plug your ears and shake your head all you want, but ESO did once primarily focus on PvP.

thedocbwarren · January 18

I think it would be possible to help if they release ES: VI and some of us wanting chapters and PVE-solo only stuff will go over there instead. They could focus ESO to group content if they desire to. Not sure what the focus of the game is or should be but I want to play an Elder Scrolls game more like the single-player games to be completely honest. I jumped on ESO to hope for that while ES: VI was cooking. Anyway no idea how many of us there are. I don't want to play the game with high difficulty and group content like Craglorn in every single location.

Amottica · January 19

Stamicka wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

The 3-banner war does not support the game being PvP or PvE-focused. That is the point; it is a part of the story across the entire game as it launched. So no, it is indicative that ESO is or was ever PvP focused by any stretch. Nothing has been presented to suggest otherwise.

The realization that the development of Cyrodill was low budget compared to what went into developing the PvE content demonstrates that PvP was not even the slightest bit the main focus of ESO. Not even close in effort and cost.

Granted, "PvP is interesting for players" which is why Zenimax created Cyrdodiil (expressly stated by Rich). So yes, PvP has always been intended to be part of the game but considering Zenimax chose early in the game's development not to include PvP across the entire game. They decided to keep the PvE areas pure PvE. Also stated by Rich. That is rather indicative that the game has been intended to include both areas and not have one the focus.

This is just contrarian to be contrarian at this point and it’s a waste of time to engage with. You can find lots of feedback even on this thread that many people did not have interest in early ESO because of how PvP centered it was. I remember playing back then and outside of the stuff in Craglorn (which ESO didn’t launch with btw), there was not much else to do EXCEPT PvP for the end game. At max level you would have basically outleveled every PvE zone in the game. I remember even the advertising for ESO mostly highlighted PvP.

You can plug your ears and shake your head all you want, but ESO did once primarily focus on PvP.

I am just stating the reality with actual proof. I respect you have a different view of the game.