I enjoy both solo and group content in ESO. My preference is solo — exploration, story, lore, looting, talking to NPCs — but I sometimes queue for dungeons and join groups for world bosses and other content. I also have to step away from the keyboard unexpectedly much of the time, and so I am not often able to commit to group content. For most of the content I can do that, and just queue for a group when I know I have enough uninterrupted time.
I'm posting because I think there are some design issues with Night Market that are worth raising, separate from the difficulty debate that's dominated most of the feedback.

On supporting multiple play styles
The vast majority of ESO zones support both solo and group play naturally. Even Craglorn, which is the closest precedent to what Night Market is trying to be, threads a solo path through its quests while keeping the harder content group-focused. That balance is one of ESO's strengths, and it's what has kept a broad playerbase engaged across years of content.
What concerns me about Night Market isn't that it's group-focused — I understand the MMO argument, and I'm not asking for group content to be removed or made easier. What I'm asking is that we don't arrive at a point where the game has three distinct and largely incompatible play types to support: PvP, solo PvE, and group PvE. Group and solo play have coexisted naturally in the same content throughout ESO's history. That's worth preserving.
I'm also aware that the response to solo accessibility concerns is often "it can be done with the right build." I'm sure that's true. But build optimisation at that level is appropriate for things like trials, arenas, vet dungeons and IA — content that has always been understood as requiring that investment. Applying it to what's being presented as a zone sets a different precedent, and I don't think it's the right answer for players who have never needed to approach the game that way to access standard content.

On zone completeness and quality
ESO zones have a consistent design pattern that gives them lasting structure: you start with an empty map, you explore, you discover content progressively, and there's a zone completion checklist — delves, world bosses, skyshards, points of interest — that gives a sense of working through and finishing something. Some of that content requires groups, which is fine. The point is the framework exists for both play styles.
Night Market is missing that framework. The map icons are all discovered at the start, which removes the exploration loop entirely. There's no zone progression to work through. I understand it's an event zone with a limited run, but that doesn't preclude it being completable in the ESO sense of the word — and since ZOS has said it will return later in the year, having that structure in place would give it real replay value.
This gives me the impression that the content was released before it was finished, and that there was not enough time to implement some of the typical zone features like this.
A few other smaller things felt unfinished rather than intentionally different:
The entrance through Fargrave is down a passageway that isn't marked on the map, even though the map shows other passageways with dotted lines. It felt like the map wasn't updated beyond adding an icon.
There are two Curators with largely the same dialogue. I spoke to the one outside the portal, went through the full conversation, and then had to zone in and repeat essentially the same dialogue with the one inside to advance the quest. It would have been less confusing if the outside Curator simply sent me through the portal, or if there were just one.
These are small things individually, but they reinforce the same impression. That's been a recurring concern since the Writhing Wall, and I'd like to see it addressed going forward.
I genuinely want ESO to succeed. I paused my sub a few weeks ago and was hoping Night Market would be the reason to renew it. It wasn't, but I'm still here giving feedback because the game matters to me.

LitzySoDitzy wrote: »

I was happy to read, "Feedback regarding the faction points influencing faction choice (specifically seeing the scores before making a choice) is also heard and we will look at what we can do to address that." I had not read all of the details regarding picking a faction, so went with Ruckus to help get different ingredients and because he's a cool cat. Then I read that the "winning" faction would get better rewards at the end. That's disappointing.

"Better rewards" is technically true but a bit generous with the term "better".
There's a few more banners and flags, and the monster set is gold instead of purple or blue.
But that's it, you're really not missing out on much.
On the flip side, while maybe not intentional, the factions with fewer players can sell their recipe drops for decent gold.

---

Adding to the voices to re-think the keys system. I understand the reason but the implementation is really hostile to organising groups, joining random groups, and helping players out.