Update 49 is now available for testing on the PTS! You can read the latest patch notes here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/categories/pts
Maintenance for the week of January 26:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – January 26
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – January 26
We will be performing maintenance for patch 11.3.2 on the PTS on Monday at 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC).
Separate PvP and PvE servers
BruteRX7
✭✭
ESO as a whole has been largely shaped by pvp, with pvp and pve players butting heads over changes through out the years. Different classes becoming less than desirable with each patch. Devs already have the ability to import characters to PTS with each patch while maintaining separate skills, classes, updates, and all. Why not just have account wide achievements that update from one server to the other when a new patch goes out and do a character transfer at the same time? Most people change their builds with each patch that changes anyway.
Any other mmorpg that I can think of that have been successful have separate pvp and pve servers or a mixed pvp/pve server. But still have the option for just being on a strictly pvp server.
Majority of what I see complaints on in these forums is players complaining about pvp imbalance but then a class ends up getting nerfed into the ground because of it and limits use in PvE at all. Warden used to be a great dps till it got complaints about pvp, now I rarely see it used in pve unless subclassed. Sorc was the same, now I see it subclassed or made into heavy attack builds that get frowned on by alot of people. Then lightning staff heavies got nerfed and oaken soul took a hit.
All just examples and the changes were largely made around PvP experiences. We would be better off just having separate servers since the community seems to have alot of differences of opinions.
Edited by BruteRX7 on January 25, 2026 1:48PM Any other mmorpg that I can think of that have been successful have separate pvp and pve servers or a mixed pvp/pve server. But still have the option for just being on a strictly pvp server.
Majority of what I see complaints on in these forums is players complaining about pvp imbalance but then a class ends up getting nerfed into the ground because of it and limits use in PvE at all. Warden used to be a great dps till it got complaints about pvp, now I rarely see it used in pve unless subclassed. Sorc was the same, now I see it subclassed or made into heavy attack builds that get frowned on by alot of people. Then lightning staff heavies got nerfed and oaken soul took a hit.
All just examples and the changes were largely made around PvP experiences. We would be better off just having separate servers since the community seems to have alot of differences of opinions.
0
-
Jestir✭✭✭✭✭ESO PVP is limited in the where so significantly that it isn't needed
And they already have the systems in place to balance separately they just need to use them7 -
BruteRX7✭✭ESO PVP is limited in the where so significantly that it isn't needed
And they already have the systems in place to balance separately they just need to use them
100% balance should be separate for both play styles. We wouldn't need as extensive of class reworks like they are planning if the classes hadn't been buried in the pvp issues.
Could potentially reduce server lag for both sides too.Edited by BruteRX7 on January 25, 2026 2:35PM0 -
BruteRX7✭✭MXVIIDREAM wrote: »This is just silly imo
No value in this comment, must be part of the PvP side of things. PvE is really limited for class/set use atm. Most boss fights in pve majority of the dd's are fairly cookie cutter. Almost all are running Deadly Strike in combination with null/tideborn/ or ansul. In u49 the dk seems to be moving in the same direction. Separating pvp and pve even by sets would improve variety. I like deadly myself as it just works, but without it I think we would get more variety. And taking null out of pvp would resolve alot of the complaints I've seen pvp players having with that set too.0 -
CameraBeardThePirate✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭ESO as a whole has been largely shaped by pvp
This is one of the biggest myths perpetuated in this game.
It's both. It goes both ways and it always has. Are we just forgetting the fact that Azureblight was nerfed into the ground because some people were using it to clear trash packs too fast?
How about the fact that Stalking Blastbones, Necromancer's best PvP ability by far, was literally removed from the game so PvE players could have a parse option that was less intensive?
How about trial sets literally determining the meta for ball group PvPers?
How about ZOS refusing to adjust Tri-Focus despite people abusing it in PvP to one shot players because they want heavy attack PvErs to have decent cleave?
Or the fact that people were using Arcanist's teleport to farm chests in trials without having to beat the bosses/trash pulls, forcing ZOS to make the ability completely unusable?
ZOS balances the game around both. Sometimes a PvE change hurts PvP, sometimes a PvP change hurts PvE. Acting like it's only one or the other is disingenuous at best and purposefully misleading at worst.Edited by CameraBeardThePirate on January 25, 2026 4:39PM11 -
GloatingSwine✭✭✭✭ESO PVP is limited in the where so significantly that it isn't needed
And they already have the systems in place to balance separately they just need to use them
100% balance should be separate for both play styles. We wouldn't need as extensive of class reworks like they are planning if the classes hadn't been buried in the pvp issues.
Could potentially reduce server lag for both sides too.
Given the magic wand of infinite resources, I would redo the concept of skill morphs to make one explicitly the PvE morph and the other the PvP morph.0 -
JustLovely✭✭✭✭✭
✭I'd pay extra monthly for dedicated PvP servers if it meant good performance in Cyrodiil. And I'd do it happily so long as it wasn't more than the cost of ESO+.2 -
BruteRX7✭✭CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »ESO as a whole has been largely shaped by pvp
This is one of the biggest myths perpetuated in this game.
It's both. It goes both ways and it always has. Are we just forgetting the fact that Azureblight was nerfed into the ground because some people were using it to clear trash packs too fast?
How about the fact that Stalking Blastbones, Necromancer's best PvP ability by far, was literally removed from the game so PvE players could have a parse option that was less intensive?
How about trial sets literally determining the meta for ball group PvPers?
How about ZOS refusing to adjust Tri-Focus despite people abusing it in PvP to one shot players because they want heavy attack PvErs to have decent cleave?
Or the fact that people were using Arcanist's teleport to farm chests in trials without having to beat the bosses/trash pulls, forcing ZOS to make the ability completely unusable?
ZOS balances the game around both. Sometimes a PvE change hurts PvP, sometimes a PvP change hurts PvE. Acting like it's only one or the other is disingenuous at best and purposefully misleading at worst.
These all sound like good reason to separate the two all together to me. Keep pvp sets in pvp, and pve sets in pve. Make changes to each based around the playstyle on those servers.
Changes to sets is one thing, but changes to whole classes in the past (largely because of pvp) have made several classes almost worthless all together aside from some passives to subclass into. Might just be the reason for all these class overhauls they have to do now.Edited by BruteRX7 on January 25, 2026 5:25PM0 -
MincMincMinc✭✭✭✭✭
✭CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »ESO as a whole has been largely shaped by pvp
This is one of the biggest myths perpetuated in this game.
It's both. It goes both ways and it always has. Are we just forgetting the fact that Azureblight was nerfed into the ground because some people were using it to clear trash packs too fast?
How about the fact that Stalking Blastbones, Necromancer's best PvP ability by far, was literally removed from the game so PvE players could have a parse option that was less intensive?
How about trial sets literally determining the meta for ball group PvPers?
How about ZOS refusing to adjust Tri-Focus despite people abusing it in PvP to one shot players because they want heavy attack PvErs to have decent cleave?
Or the fact that people were using Arcanist's teleport to farm chests in trials without having to beat the bosses/trash pulls, forcing ZOS to make the ability completely unusable?
ZOS balances the game around both. Sometimes a PvE change hurts PvP, sometimes a PvP change hurts PvE. Acting like it's only one or the other is disingenuous at best and purposefully misleading at worst.
These all sound like good reason to separate the two all together to me. Keep pvp sets in pvp, and pve sets in pve. Make changes to each based around the playstyle on those servers.
The problem is zos has never wanted the experiences to differ.......yet they are obviously so absurdly different. The whole reasoning for battlespirit is to make pvp numbers and TTK to sorta match pve. Except we are 10+ years down the line and that doesnt really hold up anymore.
They could easily use the new vengeance system that lets them make PvP specific skills......however now you would be doubling the workload anytime a patch balances or modifies a skill.I only use insightful0 -
BruteRX7✭✭GloatingSwine wrote: »ESO PVP is limited in the where so significantly that it isn't needed
And they already have the systems in place to balance separately they just need to use them
100% balance should be separate for both play styles. We wouldn't need as extensive of class reworks like they are planning if the classes hadn't been buried in the pvp issues.
Could potentially reduce server lag for both sides too.
Given the magic wand of infinite resources, I would redo the concept of skill morphs to make one explicitly the PvE morph and the other the PvP morph.
I could agree with this to some extent with the weapon/guild/alliance skill lines but class skill lines I think should remain stable with damage/healing/tanking morphs using the class as a base with weapon/guild/alliance skill lines to build with.0 -
BruteRX7✭✭MincMincMinc wrote: »CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »ESO as a whole has been largely shaped by pvp
This is one of the biggest myths perpetuated in this game.
It's both. It goes both ways and it always has. Are we just forgetting the fact that Azureblight was nerfed into the ground because some people were using it to clear trash packs too fast?
How about the fact that Stalking Blastbones, Necromancer's best PvP ability by far, was literally removed from the game so PvE players could have a parse option that was less intensive?
How about trial sets literally determining the meta for ball group PvPers?
How about ZOS refusing to adjust Tri-Focus despite people abusing it in PvP to one shot players because they want heavy attack PvErs to have decent cleave?
Or the fact that people were using Arcanist's teleport to farm chests in trials without having to beat the bosses/trash pulls, forcing ZOS to make the ability completely unusable?
ZOS balances the game around both. Sometimes a PvE change hurts PvP, sometimes a PvP change hurts PvE. Acting like it's only one or the other is disingenuous at best and purposefully misleading at worst.
These all sound like good reason to separate the two all together to me. Keep pvp sets in pvp, and pve sets in pve. Make changes to each based around the playstyle on those servers.
The problem is zos has never wanted the experiences to differ.......yet they are obviously so absurdly different. The whole reasoning for battlespirit is to make pvp numbers and TTK to sorta match pve. Except we are 10+ years down the line and that doesnt really hold up anymore.
They could easily use the new vengeance system that lets them make PvP specific skills......however now you would be doubling the workload anytime a patch balances or modifies a skill.
The experience all together are very different. I myself came to play an mmorpg, not a war game. So yeah I am a bit biased for sure, but the class balance has been getting worse and worse over the years it feels like. So I do appreciate the class reworks they are going through to try and fix it. But it might have never needed much fixing if the 2 playstyles were kept separate.0 -
ShadowPaladin✭✭✭✭Hm...
As far as I can remember, all the games I have been playing or at least looking into, who had separated pvp and pve servers ended up with 99% of the pvp-servers shuting down and the one(s) remaining being 90% of the time nearly empty.
Separating them may sound like a good idea at first. But in the long run it is not. Especially if you do not have a large number of players who are only playing PvP and nothing else. In ESO I would say that at least 80% perhaps even 90% of the player base is NOT primarily PvP focused but instead more PvE or on a mix out of both, while PvP is the minor part of it.2 -
GloatingSwine✭✭✭✭GloatingSwine wrote: »ESO PVP is limited in the where so significantly that it isn't needed
And they already have the systems in place to balance separately they just need to use them
100% balance should be separate for both play styles. We wouldn't need as extensive of class reworks like they are planning if the classes hadn't been buried in the pvp issues.
Could potentially reduce server lag for both sides too.
Given the magic wand of infinite resources, I would redo the concept of skill morphs to make one explicitly the PvE morph and the other the PvP morph.
I could agree with this to some extent with the weapon/guild/alliance skill lines but class skill lines I think should remain stable with damage/healing/tanking morphs using the class as a base with weapon/guild/alliance skill lines to build with.
The number of skills that actually have role changes on morphs is tiny though. Most are damage, healing, or tanking skills on all their morphs with slightly different applications of the concept.0 -
Emeratis✭✭✭Logistically, I don't think this game has the population to split the game two or even three ways like that. I also feel this ignores players who enjoy both pvp and pve and enjoys the current freedom to swap, because what would the servers that function like the servers do now look like in your vision? Given the current server split without crossplay, pvp, pve, and mixed servers would mean we go from the population split between six servers to eighteen. We already have zones and certain types of content that are largely dead outside of events and that would get much worse.
Things I've loved in pvp and pve have been ruined over the years because of the other and I get the frustration, but I would rather they learn to balance better and more frequently for both pve and pvp health than something as dramatic as splitting servers and making several new problems without offering a satisfying solution to the old. I'd rather them learn to balance in a way that both pvp and pve can feel respected and rewarded. It may not be easy but I think with the new directions the teams are taking, they can definitely do it if they try.Edited by Emeratis on January 25, 2026 6:09PM0 -
MincMincMinc✭✭✭✭✭
✭MincMincMinc wrote: »CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »ESO as a whole has been largely shaped by pvp
This is one of the biggest myths perpetuated in this game.
It's both. It goes both ways and it always has. Are we just forgetting the fact that Azureblight was nerfed into the ground because some people were using it to clear trash packs too fast?
How about the fact that Stalking Blastbones, Necromancer's best PvP ability by far, was literally removed from the game so PvE players could have a parse option that was less intensive?
How about trial sets literally determining the meta for ball group PvPers?
How about ZOS refusing to adjust Tri-Focus despite people abusing it in PvP to one shot players because they want heavy attack PvErs to have decent cleave?
Or the fact that people were using Arcanist's teleport to farm chests in trials without having to beat the bosses/trash pulls, forcing ZOS to make the ability completely unusable?
ZOS balances the game around both. Sometimes a PvE change hurts PvP, sometimes a PvP change hurts PvE. Acting like it's only one or the other is disingenuous at best and purposefully misleading at worst.
These all sound like good reason to separate the two all together to me. Keep pvp sets in pvp, and pve sets in pve. Make changes to each based around the playstyle on those servers.
The problem is zos has never wanted the experiences to differ.......yet they are obviously so absurdly different. The whole reasoning for battlespirit is to make pvp numbers and TTK to sorta match pve. Except we are 10+ years down the line and that doesnt really hold up anymore.
They could easily use the new vengeance system that lets them make PvP specific skills......however now you would be doubling the workload anytime a patch balances or modifies a skill.
The experience all together are very different. I myself came to play an mmorpg, not a war game. So yeah I am a bit biased for sure, but the class balance has been getting worse and worse over the years it feels like. So I do appreciate the class reworks they are going through to try and fix it. But it might have never needed much fixing if the 2 playstyles were kept separate.
In the beginning pvp was the main focus endgame, but the game was also far more homogenized. Because pvp and pve got split so heavily you never saw intermingling teaching people. Cyrodil typically is just old guild groups at this point. You rarely ever see new pugs learning how to pvp in cyrodil these days. Now I would say its near impossible for a pug to join eso and learn pvp on their own. They either need a friend or they need to binge youtube/streamers to learn. IMO this main decline is due to simply having no new content consistently, while also the group set issue has ballooned to a crazy degree that coordinated groups sit on an insane mound of stats compared to pug groups.
Zos didnt help either with general combat either......between subclassing, bloated skills, or proc sets with 5 paragraph tooltips. Without knowing the innerworkings of pvp combos you are just guaranteed to flop over and get one shot so simple stuff. Things like offbalance stun into merciless has next to no counter and has no telegraph and they usually do 80%+ of most pug healthbars.I only use insightful0 -
heimdall14_9✭✭✭we dont need to be anymore separated from the whole then we already are what we need is an new battle system that they could use to control PVP with the system that was put in the game to keep from having to balance any part of the game off another .... 98% of eso players dont even know what is or isn't covered under battle spirit nor what else it could control IF we'd just push for it locking gear sets to pvp/pve would hurt both pvp/pve we truly need an ROBUST BATTLE SPIRIT that the team can use to keep both PVP and PVE fun as well as balancedEdited by heimdall14_9 on January 25, 2026 8:21PMNordic-Knights (PSN)/Sir-A-Crowley (PSN)/Sir_Crowley ( PC) 16 account holder !!!!!!!!!!!!! 19x emperor , 98% full game all vet HM SR ND release day ESO VET !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 -
MincMincMinc✭✭✭✭✭
✭heimdall14_9 wrote: »we dont need to be anymore separated from the whole then we already are what we need is an new battle system that they could use to control PVP with the system that was put in the game to keep from having to balance any part of the game off another .... 98% of eso players dont even know what is or isn't covered under battle spirit nor what else it could control IF we'd just push for it locking gear sets to pvp/pve would hurt both pvp/pve we truly need an ROBUST BATTLE SPIRIT that the team can use to keep both PVP and PVE fun as well as balanced
Well battlespirit is a dummy buff that can affect your stat sheet. They can conditionally affect the stat sheet. However it cant do things like change how dots tick or timers, that code is on each individual skill.
Server wise they have the ability to make special rules like blocking or enabling things. For that they can likely just drop in a true/false statement. "Is_in_no_proc = true/false" Then they just slap that before each set trigger whether or not it should go off.
One of the rule changes brought up was back in the day the game used to not allow hots/dots and really any over time effect to stack. This got changed in the first 2 years as trials became more popular and we only had 4 classes......not much variety so builds would overlap super easily. A rule like this is much harder to implement again because this is hard coded onto each skill. Meaning you'd need to double the code, one for pve and pvp to allow stacking and not allow stacking. TECHNICALLY zos already has the means to do this because for vengeance they made a system that allowed pve and pvp skills to be split differently. So technically what the OP is asking is possible. Then they could disable the non rewards for the worthy sets and begin making pvp gear for pvp players to farm.I only use insightful0 -
Why not keep the GH campaign but change all the class skills so they fit PvP.
In vengeance there was ideas that I liked where necros could tether other players and such.
I believe it could be a nice way to balance PvP.
There would be PvE skills while in PvE areas, and PvP skills in PvP areas.PC EU0 -
BattleAxe✭✭✭✭✭ESO PVP is limited in the where so significantly that it isn't needed
And they already have the systems in place to balance separately they just need to use them
Whole heartedly agree. If they would just balance PvE and PvP separately as much of an annoyance that might be both player bases could and would enjoy the game a lot more than currently and less tension between both player bases1
