Can we get actual transparency regarding combat balancing and decision-making?

evLRise · July 1

As the title suggests, this is something the community has been requesting for years. Since the team has been promoting a more transparent and communicative future for the game, when can we realistically expect that approach to extend to combat balancing and the decision-making behind it?

I think the majority of players would love to understand how these decisions are actually made and what kind of testing goes into them.

Does the team create new sets or rework skills and then simply parse on a target dummy or duel against each other? If so, what kind of meaningful or reliable data is being gathered from that process?

We've already seen the team participate in BGs on livestreams, and the reaction from a large portion of the community was concern over how disconnected that gameplay appeared from the reality of the gameplay environment. When balance decisions are being made, what level of hands-on experience and actual performance data is being taken into account?

Is there a structured process involving target metrics, combat simulations, extensive PvP testing, and expected damage calculations for new setups, or are balance decisions ultimately based on assumptions, gut feeling, and what "sounds right" on paper?

Do we have actual statistics of what the ESO player base runs?
- If yes, is the current PvP class distribution (for example, around 50% Dragonknights and 30% Sorcerers) considered acceptable by the team? Is the expectation that players simply wait until each class receives its own rework, even if that means spending months or years on significantly weaker classes?
- If not, what data is primarily used to inform balance decisions? What is the decision-making process behind major balancing changes, and how do you determine which issues should be prioritized?

There are plenty of knowledgeable people within the game, and every PTS cycle brings extensive feedback from individuals who are highly respected in their respective niches and regarded by the community as credible sources of information.

Yet, time and time again, that feedback appears to be ignored.

At this point, what actually determines who gets heard? Is there a meaningful process for evaluating valuable, knowledgeable feedback, or does it ultimately come down to whoever makes the most noise? Is balancing genuinely intended to create a healthier game environment, or is it simply a form of damage control where the loudest complaints dictate the direction of the game?

Why exactly can't we have a proper MMR system for competitive 4v4 Battlegrounds?

Not only would it create a healthier matchmaking environment by ensuring teams are matched against players of more comparable skill levels, but it would also provide an enormous amount of valuable data for balancing decisions.

The same argument applies to an MMR-based 1v1 arena, something that has been, again, requested by the community for years. If the team currently lacks enough reliable statistics and combat data to make informed balance changes, why not implement features that naturally generate those statistics?

With a proper competitive system, identifying balance issues would become significantly easier. If, for example, 60 out of the top 100 MMR players are running the same class, build, or setup, that is no longer a matter of opinion or anecdotal feedback — it's measurable evidence pointing toward a potential issue.

There is much more that could be discussed for both PvP, PvE and other aspects of the game as well, but the core point remains, as many other users have already stated, and will probably continue to do so until something is done about it or they eventually give up on hope.

Destai · July 1

evLRise wrote: »

As the title suggests, this is something the community has been requesting for years. Since the team has been promoting a more transparent and communicative future for the game, when can we realistically expect that approach to extend to combat balancing and the decision-making behind it?

I think the majority of players would love to understand how these decisions are actually made and what kind of testing goes into them.

@tomofhyrule really made a good point earlier about how every other team has opened up their communication channels. I really wish the combat team would come to the table and discuss things in detail. I've suggested they share their builds, parses, and now more people are asking for information. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one.

evLRise wrote: »

Does the team create new sets or rework skills and then simply parse on a target dummy or duel against each other? If so, what kind of meaningful or reliable data is being gathered from that process?

I really think they should be sharing their parses and builds each combat change. If they're worried it'll be debacle, then that's precisely why they need to share them.

evLRise wrote: »

We've already seen the team participate in BGs on livestreams, and the reaction from a large portion of the community was concern over how disconnected that gameplay appeared from the reality of the gameplay environment. When balance decisions are being made, what level of hands-on experience and actual performance data is being taken into account?

That stream will always stick with me. It was eye-opening. That's precisely why I want them to share their builds and whatever else informs their design because we've all seen where it goes.

evLRise wrote: »

There are plenty of knowledgeable people within the game, and every PTS cycle brings extensive feedback from individuals who are highly respected in their respective niches and regarded by the community as credible sources of information.

Personally, I find SkinnyCheeks and Hyperioxes are the most articulate when it comes to combat system. I would expect that ZOS be on par with them and walk through changes like they do. I don't see why Brian and team can't get on stream and walk through parses and patch notes. Are they worried it'd slow them down? If they're worried about that being its own fiasco, then even more reason to do it.

evLRise wrote: »

At this point, what actually determines who gets heard? Is there a meaningful process for evaluating valuable, knowledgeable feedback, or does it ultimately come down to whoever makes the most noise? Is balancing genuinely intended to create a healthier game environment, or is it simply a form of damage control where the loudest complaints dictate the direction of the game?

It's so opaque, that's the main issue. We have PTS but it doesn't seem to be really changing anything. And they're still coming to the table with ideas that we find alarming or baffling. That's the core issue.

tomofhyrule · July 2

Destai wrote: »

evLRise wrote: »

As the title suggests, this is something the community has been requesting for years. Since the team has been promoting a more transparent and communicative future for the game, when can we realistically expect that approach to extend to combat balancing and the decision-making behind it?

I think the majority of players would love to understand how these decisions are actually made and what kind of testing goes into them.

tomofhyrule really made a good point earlier about how every other team has opened up their communication channels. I really wish the combat team would come to the table and discuss things in detail. I've suggested they share their builds, parses, and now more people are asking for information. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one.

Yeah, the Combat team’s evasiveness is just emblematic of falling back into old habits. I’m so happy to see the weekly PTS summary threads, and then the streams where the Player Experience team or the Encounters team or the Design team go over what they did are nice to see where things are going.
But Combat? Nothing. Silence. That entire team is a black box.

I’ll admit, not everything they’re doing in 2026 is up my alley (I can’t stand that overused “lol cheese!” idiot and the lack of standard Dungeons this whole year hurt a lot), but I was willing to give ZOS the benefit of the doubt so far this year. But even though I’m excited to see the Warden rework (assuming they still keep the three themes since mine was built around those themes), the Combat team’s return to the old way of “we’re not telling you anything so we can surprise you, despite that backfiring on us literally every time” is just negating all of the good will they built up.

I could even see it on the last stream. Jess was obviously told by someone that she wasn’t even allowed to say the word Warden, which only made it more obvious that the team was hiding something. But what? And why? Really, you don’t have literally anything you can show off by now?
I guess the Combat team doesn’t want feedback? Last patch, the Art team showed off the werewolf model concept and players gave feedback. They then fixed the model and made it look better and it was much better received on release. The only reason I can imagine that the Combat team doesn’t want to show anything off yet is because they… don’t want feedback until it’s too late to change anything? That attitude is entirely emblematic of the old thought process of “we’re know better than the players.”

Which leads to…

Destai wrote: »

evLRise wrote: »

We've already seen the team participate in BGs on livestreams, and the reaction from a large portion of the community was concern over how disconnected that gameplay appeared from the reality of the gameplay environment. When balance decisions are being made, what level of hands-on experience and actual performance data is being taken into account?

That stream will always stick with me. It was eye-opening. That's precisely why I want them to share their builds and whatever else informs their design because we've all seen where it goes.

That stream.

I’m not expecting the devs to be expert players. At all. That’s ridiculous.
But it is reasonable to expect that they have at minimum an average level of competence at the part of the game they play.

When they used to have the streamer trials with the devs (which did trend towards clique-iness itself) we were able to see Finn playing in his team’s trials. And he was a competent tank in HMs. We know that Cardinal was big in the housing community before being hired for the Housing team. It fits.
But then that stream showed that I (who stick to solo and PvE and dabble in PvP because I need a specific cosmetic reward) know more about PvP than the Combat lead…? Oof. He specifically said his strategy was to turtle up (when people were already frustrated with the tank meta), he couldn’t answer a “what is this effect?” question relating to the most commonly complained about set across all of PvP… Like, those things not only made him look bad, but it actively spit in the faces of PvPers because those were issues for a while and he showed the tram had zero knowledge of them.

I do wonder how much money ZOS spent to hire Sypher for the day to advertise the new BG modes. And then they pulled the VOD immediately, meaning all of that money they spent to market PvP just got thrown out.

Destai wrote: »

evLRise wrote: »

At this point, what actually determines who gets heard? Is there a meaningful process for evaluating valuable, knowledgeable feedback, or does it ultimately come down to whoever makes the most noise? Is balancing genuinely intended to create a healthier game environment, or is it simply a form of damage control where the loudest complaints dictate the direction of the game?

It's so opaque, that's the main issue. We have PTS but it doesn't seem to be really changing anything. And they're still coming to the table with ideas that we find alarming or baffling. That's the core issue.

It always rubbed me the wrong way that we see input on PTS from other team leads (at least this year), but the Combat lead basically is never on the forums.

Yes, a good 50% of the combat-related posts are “[thing] killed me in PvP so nerf it immediately!!11!1” but the PTS threads generally also have a lot of parses and video evidence one way or the other. That is actionable. And the major Combat-related changes that we had that backfired spectacularly (U35’s nerfs and Subclassing) both has massive threads detailing why it would be bad and they released regardless… to the exact outcomes the players warned about. And then we have the playstyle invalidations that they’ve done (removing Harmony bombers and changing Blastbones to Grave Lord’s Sacrifice) that are seemingly for no reason at all.

It seems the other teams have figured out that more communication = happier players = players more willing to pay money = happier Microsoft. But the Combat lead still seems to be stuck in the old-guard land of “we know what the players want and they’ll like it when we do it.”
The new director really needs to sit that person down and show him that this obstinance is dragging the whole game down.

Frayton · July 2

PTS seems like black box testing. They want us to test how well what they've already made.holds up. They don't want our feedback to make changes. They want to know if their code will hold up for what they intend it to do.

React · July 2

tomofhyrule wrote: »

Destai wrote: »

evLRise wrote: »

As the title suggests, this is something the community has been requesting for years. Since the team has been promoting a more transparent and communicative future for the game, when can we realistically expect that approach to extend to combat balancing and the decision-making behind it?

I think the majority of players would love to understand how these decisions are actually made and what kind of testing goes into them.

tomofhyrule really made a good point earlier about how every other team has opened up their communication channels. I really wish the combat team would come to the table and discuss things in detail. I've suggested they share their builds, parses, and now more people are asking for information. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one.

Yeah, the Combat team’s evasiveness is just emblematic of falling back into old habits. I’m so happy to see the weekly PTS summary threads, and then the streams where the Player Experience team or the Encounters team or the Design team go over what they did are nice to see where things are going.
But Combat? Nothing. Silence. That entire team is a black box.

I’ll admit, not everything they’re doing in 2026 is up my alley (I can’t stand that overused “lol cheese!” idiot and the lack of standard Dungeons this whole year hurt a lot), but I was willing to give ZOS the benefit of the doubt so far this year. But even though I’m excited to see the Warden rework (assuming they still keep the three themes since mine was built around those themes), the Combat team’s return to the old way of “we’re not telling you anything so we can surprise you, despite that backfiring on us literally every time” is just negating all of the good will they built up.

I could even see it on the last stream. Jess was obviously told by someone that she wasn’t even allowed to say the word Warden, which only made it more obvious that the team was hiding something. But what? And why? Really, you don’t have literally anything you can show off by now?
I guess the Combat team doesn’t want feedback? Last patch, the Art team showed off the werewolf model concept and players gave feedback. They then fixed the model and made it look better and it was much better received on release. The only reason I can imagine that the Combat team doesn’t want to show anything off yet is because they… don’t want feedback until it’s too late to change anything? That attitude is entirely emblematic of the old thought process of “we’re know better than the players.”

Which leads to…

Destai wrote: »

evLRise wrote: »

We've already seen the team participate in BGs on livestreams, and the reaction from a large portion of the community was concern over how disconnected that gameplay appeared from the reality of the gameplay environment. When balance decisions are being made, what level of hands-on experience and actual performance data is being taken into account?

That stream will always stick with me. It was eye-opening. That's precisely why I want them to share their builds and whatever else informs their design because we've all seen where it goes.

That stream.

I’m not expecting the devs to be expert players. At all. That’s ridiculous.
But it is reasonable to expect that they have at minimum an average level of competence at the part of the game they play.

When they used to have the streamer trials with the devs (which did trend towards clique-iness itself) we were able to see Finn playing in his team’s trials. And he was a competent tank in HMs. We know that Cardinal was big in the housing community before being hired for the Housing team. It fits.
But then that stream showed that I (who stick to solo and PvE and dabble in PvP because I need a specific cosmetic reward) know more about PvP than the Combat lead…? Oof. He specifically said his strategy was to turtle up (when people were already frustrated with the tank meta), he couldn’t answer a “what is this effect?” question relating to the most commonly complained about set across all of PvP… Like, those things not only made him look bad, but it actively spit in the faces of PvPers because those were issues for a while and he showed the tram had zero knowledge of them.

I do wonder how much money ZOS spent to hire Sypher for the day to advertise the new BG modes. And then they pulled the VOD immediately, meaning all of that money they spent to market PvP just got thrown out.

Destai wrote: »

evLRise wrote: »

At this point, what actually determines who gets heard? Is there a meaningful process for evaluating valuable, knowledgeable feedback, or does it ultimately come down to whoever makes the most noise? Is balancing genuinely intended to create a healthier game environment, or is it simply a form of damage control where the loudest complaints dictate the direction of the game?

It's so opaque, that's the main issue. We have PTS but it doesn't seem to be really changing anything. And they're still coming to the table with ideas that we find alarming or baffling. That's the core issue.

It always rubbed me the wrong way that we see input on PTS from other team leads (at least this year), but the Combat lead basically is never on the forums.

Yes, a good 50% of the combat-related posts are “[thing] killed me in PvP so nerf it immediately!!11!1” but the PTS threads generally also have a lot of parses and video evidence one way or the other. That is actionable. And the major Combat-related changes that we had that backfired spectacularly (U35’s nerfs and Subclassing) both has massive threads detailing why it would be bad and they released regardless… to the exact outcomes the players warned about. And then we have the playstyle invalidations that they’ve done (removing Harmony bombers and changing Blastbones to Grave Lord’s Sacrifice) that are seemingly for no reason at all.

It seems the other teams have figured out that more communication = happier players = players more willing to pay money = happier Microsoft. But the Combat lead still seems to be stuck in the old-guard land of “we know what the players want and they’ll like it when we do it.”
The new director really needs to sit that person down and show him that this obstinance is dragging the whole game down.

Seriously great comment, sums up a lot of the frustrations I'm sure many of us have in a very succinct way.

@ZOS_JessicaFolsom @ZOS_Kevin worth giving this a read and/or passing it along. The silence on the combat front of the game is not a good look amidst all the improved communication across every other sector.

LPapirius · July 2

tomofhyrule wrote: »

Destai wrote: »

evLRise wrote: »

As the title suggests, this is something the community has been requesting for years. Since the team has been promoting a more transparent and communicative future for the game, when can we realistically expect that approach to extend to combat balancing and the decision-making behind it?

I think the majority of players would love to understand how these decisions are actually made and what kind of testing goes into them.

tomofhyrule really made a good point earlier about how every other team has opened up their communication channels. I really wish the combat team would come to the table and discuss things in detail. I've suggested they share their builds, parses, and now more people are asking for information. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one.

Yeah, the Combat team’s evasiveness is just emblematic of falling back into old habits. I’m so happy to see the weekly PTS summary threads, and then the streams where the Player Experience team or the Encounters team or the Design team go over what they did are nice to see where things are going.
But Combat? Nothing. Silence. That entire team is a black box.

I’ll admit, not everything they’re doing in 2026 is up my alley (I can’t stand that overused “lol cheese!” idiot and the lack of standard Dungeons this whole year hurt a lot), but I was willing to give ZOS the benefit of the doubt so far this year. But even though I’m excited to see the Warden rework (assuming they still keep the three themes since mine was built around those themes), the Combat team’s return to the old way of “we’re not telling you anything so we can surprise you, despite that backfiring on us literally every time” is just negating all of the good will they built up.

I could even see it on the last stream. Jess was obviously told by someone that she wasn’t even allowed to say the word Warden, which only made it more obvious that the team was hiding something. But what? And why? Really, you don’t have literally anything you can show off by now?
I guess the Combat team doesn’t want feedback? Last patch, the Art team showed off the werewolf model concept and players gave feedback. They then fixed the model and made it look better and it was much better received on release. The only reason I can imagine that the Combat team doesn’t want to show anything off yet is because they… don’t want feedback until it’s too late to change anything? That attitude is entirely emblematic of the old thought process of “we’re know better than the players.”

Which leads to…

Destai wrote: »

evLRise wrote: »

We've already seen the team participate in BGs on livestreams, and the reaction from a large portion of the community was concern over how disconnected that gameplay appeared from the reality of the gameplay environment. When balance decisions are being made, what level of hands-on experience and actual performance data is being taken into account?

That stream will always stick with me. It was eye-opening. That's precisely why I want them to share their builds and whatever else informs their design because we've all seen where it goes.

That stream.

I’m not expecting the devs to be expert players. At all. That’s ridiculous.
But it is reasonable to expect that they have at minimum an average level of competence at the part of the game they play.

When they used to have the streamer trials with the devs (which did trend towards clique-iness itself) we were able to see Finn playing in his team’s trials. And he was a competent tank in HMs. We know that Cardinal was big in the housing community before being hired for the Housing team. It fits.
But then that stream showed that I (who stick to solo and PvE and dabble in PvP because I need a specific cosmetic reward) know more about PvP than the Combat lead…? Oof. He specifically said his strategy was to turtle up (when people were already frustrated with the tank meta), he couldn’t answer a “what is this effect?” question relating to the most commonly complained about set across all of PvP… Like, those things not only made him look bad, but it actively spit in the faces of PvPers because those were issues for a while and he showed the tram had zero knowledge of them.

I do wonder how much money ZOS spent to hire Sypher for the day to advertise the new BG modes. And then they pulled the VOD immediately, meaning all of that money they spent to market PvP just got thrown out.

Destai wrote: »

evLRise wrote: »

At this point, what actually determines who gets heard? Is there a meaningful process for evaluating valuable, knowledgeable feedback, or does it ultimately come down to whoever makes the most noise? Is balancing genuinely intended to create a healthier game environment, or is it simply a form of damage control where the loudest complaints dictate the direction of the game?

It's so opaque, that's the main issue. We have PTS but it doesn't seem to be really changing anything. And they're still coming to the table with ideas that we find alarming or baffling. That's the core issue.

It always rubbed me the wrong way that we see input on PTS from other team leads (at least this year), but the Combat lead basically is never on the forums.

Yes, a good 50% of the combat-related posts are “[thing] killed me in PvP so nerf it immediately!!11!1” but the PTS threads generally also have a lot of parses and video evidence one way or the other. That is actionable. And the major Combat-related changes that we had that backfired spectacularly (U35’s nerfs and Subclassing) both has massive threads detailing why it would be bad and they released regardless… to the exact outcomes the players warned about. And then we have the playstyle invalidations that they’ve done (removing Harmony bombers and changing Blastbones to Grave Lord’s Sacrifice) that are seemingly for no reason at all.

It seems the other teams have figured out that more communication = happier players = players more willing to pay money = happier Microsoft. But the Combat lead still seems to be stuck in the old-guard land of “we know what the players want and they’ll like it when we do it.”
The new director really needs to sit that person down and show him that this obstinance is dragging the whole game down.

Maybe the combat team isn't previewing or sharing anything with us because there isn't anything to share or preview.

tomofhyrule · July 2

LPapirius wrote: »

tomofhyrule wrote: »

Destai wrote: »

evLRise wrote: »

As the title suggests, this is something the community has been requesting for years. Since the team has been promoting a more transparent and communicative future for the game, when can we realistically expect that approach to extend to combat balancing and the decision-making behind it?

I think the majority of players would love to understand how these decisions are actually made and what kind of testing goes into them.

tomofhyrule really made a good point earlier about how every other team has opened up their communication channels. I really wish the combat team would come to the table and discuss things in detail. I've suggested they share their builds, parses, and now more people are asking for information. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one.

Yeah, the Combat team’s evasiveness is just emblematic of falling back into old habits. I’m so happy to see the weekly PTS summary threads, and then the streams where the Player Experience team or the Encounters team or the Design team go over what they did are nice to see where things are going.
But Combat? Nothing. Silence. That entire team is a black box.

I’ll admit, not everything they’re doing in 2026 is up my alley (I can’t stand that overused “lol cheese!” idiot and the lack of standard Dungeons this whole year hurt a lot), but I was willing to give ZOS the benefit of the doubt so far this year. But even though I’m excited to see the Warden rework (assuming they still keep the three themes since mine was built around those themes), the Combat team’s return to the old way of “we’re not telling you anything so we can surprise you, despite that backfiring on us literally every time” is just negating all of the good will they built up.

I could even see it on the last stream. Jess was obviously told by someone that she wasn’t even allowed to say the word Warden, which only made it more obvious that the team was hiding something. But what? And why? Really, you don’t have literally anything you can show off by now?
I guess the Combat team doesn’t want feedback? Last patch, the Art team showed off the werewolf model concept and players gave feedback. They then fixed the model and made it look better and it was much better received on release. The only reason I can imagine that the Combat team doesn’t want to show anything off yet is because they… don’t want feedback until it’s too late to change anything? That attitude is entirely emblematic of the old thought process of “we’re know better than the players.”

Which leads to…

Destai wrote: »

evLRise wrote: »

We've already seen the team participate in BGs on livestreams, and the reaction from a large portion of the community was concern over how disconnected that gameplay appeared from the reality of the gameplay environment. When balance decisions are being made, what level of hands-on experience and actual performance data is being taken into account?

That stream will always stick with me. It was eye-opening. That's precisely why I want them to share their builds and whatever else informs their design because we've all seen where it goes.

That stream.

I’m not expecting the devs to be expert players. At all. That’s ridiculous.
But it is reasonable to expect that they have at minimum an average level of competence at the part of the game they play.

When they used to have the streamer trials with the devs (which did trend towards clique-iness itself) we were able to see Finn playing in his team’s trials. And he was a competent tank in HMs. We know that Cardinal was big in the housing community before being hired for the Housing team. It fits.
But then that stream showed that I (who stick to solo and PvE and dabble in PvP because I need a specific cosmetic reward) know more about PvP than the Combat lead…? Oof. He specifically said his strategy was to turtle up (when people were already frustrated with the tank meta), he couldn’t answer a “what is this effect?” question relating to the most commonly complained about set across all of PvP… Like, those things not only made him look bad, but it actively spit in the faces of PvPers because those were issues for a while and he showed the tram had zero knowledge of them.

I do wonder how much money ZOS spent to hire Sypher for the day to advertise the new BG modes. And then they pulled the VOD immediately, meaning all of that money they spent to market PvP just got thrown out.

Destai wrote: »

evLRise wrote: »

At this point, what actually determines who gets heard? Is there a meaningful process for evaluating valuable, knowledgeable feedback, or does it ultimately come down to whoever makes the most noise? Is balancing genuinely intended to create a healthier game environment, or is it simply a form of damage control where the loudest complaints dictate the direction of the game?

It's so opaque, that's the main issue. We have PTS but it doesn't seem to be really changing anything. And they're still coming to the table with ideas that we find alarming or baffling. That's the core issue.

It always rubbed me the wrong way that we see input on PTS from other team leads (at least this year), but the Combat lead basically is never on the forums.

Yes, a good 50% of the combat-related posts are “[thing] killed me in PvP so nerf it immediately!!11!1” but the PTS threads generally also have a lot of parses and video evidence one way or the other. That is actionable. And the major Combat-related changes that we had that backfired spectacularly (U35’s nerfs and Subclassing) both has massive threads detailing why it would be bad and they released regardless… to the exact outcomes the players warned about. And then we have the playstyle invalidations that they’ve done (removing Harmony bombers and changing Blastbones to Grave Lord’s Sacrifice) that are seemingly for no reason at all.

It seems the other teams have figured out that more communication = happier players = players more willing to pay money = happier Microsoft. But the Combat lead still seems to be stuck in the old-guard land of “we know what the players want and they’ll like it when we do it.”
The new director really needs to sit that person down and show him that this obstinance is dragging the whole game down.

Maybe the combat team isn't previewing or sharing anything with us because there isn't anything to share or preview.

If that were the case, then the proper response would be to release a statement of “hey, we needed to delay the Class refreshes so none will release with U51.”

We know they’re working on the refreshes, and that Warden is next. They can’t not be doing something.

But if a refresh isn’t ready and they need to delay them for another patch, people would accept that… assuming they came out and said as much. Leaving us all in the dark as to whether it’s going to be ready or not is only making it worse the longer they say nothing.

Firstmep · July 2

I personally don't think the devs need to share their parses or builds or whatever, as it would likely be picked apart by the community and thats just not good for anyone. However, I would definetly welcome a bit more communication on their thought process about balancing and the current state of the game.

We had a few promising posts on the pts threads like their reasoning for nerfing or outright disabling certain masteries in pvp. While I completely disagreed with their points, at least we got to get a glimpse into their thinking.

ceruulean · July 2

I have a lot of thoughts and this post is gonna go all over the place.

To answer OP's question:

Is there a structured process involving target metrics, combat simulations, extensive PvP testing, and expected damage calculations for new setups, or are balance decisions ultimately based on assumptions, gut feeling, and what "sounds right" on paper?

The anwwer is both hard data and soft intuition. This video is really good at explaining how to balance PvP games:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdVRL2SLNI0

Riot in LOL looks at a variety of factors:

1. Player frustration/perception of OPness
2. Banrates in matches
3. Popularity
4. Win rates and pick rates
5. Effectiveness in pro matches vs casual/solo queue (skill curve)

I'm sure ZOS also looks at the same things, but you'd need experts in psychology and statistics to balance properly. ESO doesn't really have tourneys and banrates, we don't know how MMR works enough to gauge "pro" vs "casual" usage, and I don't even know if their team has permission to spend time and wages on research to gather and interpret statistics, so unfortunately we have to rely on community members to express what they can.

There is a new addon that can gather statistics. It's really exciting to me. It's still in beta so the MVP calculation feature is still wonky:
- https://www.esoui.com/downloads/info4672-Battleboard.html

Also, the official API is flawed, since necro pets are not counted as dmg, and shielding is not counted as healing. So necros are going to be shown as weak when they're strong. Shield healers will be shown as useless when they're strong.

However, without developer buy-in and a way to centralize the data and verify that the algorithms are reasonable, we're just gonna be spinning in circles or hope for more MVP community members to volunteer their expertise and make something of this data.

And this is just for PvP. ZOS definitely prioritizes PvE over PvP. PvE is probably gonna be similar philosophies but pickrates instead of banrates. Devs definitely read ESO Logs and CMX parses. This also shows how reliant devs are on community data and addons. By and large, I know the programmers at ZOS communicate with addon devs. There's a niche but public group chat if you're into addon development. Obviously the majority of players aren't going to seek it out.

Here's a PvP developer interview for WOW, where the dev admitted that he used to be a player who complained on forums and accused devs for not playing their own game, then he got hired and was now on the other side. There's some discussion of dev reluctance to interact with the community. Some devs are more sensitive to criticisms and personal attacks, and not equipped to deal with social media, which I completely understand and support. There's risk taking in community members and having them work with the devs as it ends up in flames over drama, like with the former Class Rep system.

A great win is this article about hybridization: I loved reading about it and I support the devs making this QOL change. Admittingly, I also don't like some of the changes like templars/sorcs getting nerfed in solo/small groups, and players immediately took to forums and vocalized the problem.

I think these dev blog articles/case studies are the most reasonable and controlled way for dev teams to communicate to the playerbase, but they also take a LONG time to research and write properly. Even with AI. Most people are not journalists, companies do not hire them during economic depressions, and the task gets piled onto some random employee.

Destai · July 2

Firstmep wrote: »

I personally don't think the devs need to share their parses or builds or whatever, as it would likely be picked apart by the community and thats just not good for anyone. However, I would definetly welcome a bit more communication on their thought process about balancing and the current state of the game.

We had a few promising posts on the pts threads like their reasoning for nerfing or outright disabling certain masteries in pvp. While I completely disagreed with their points, at least we got to get a glimpse into their thinking.

That is precisely why they should share it.

It highlights the issue, so we can help them resolve it. Things will never get better under the current approach. They certainly haven't so far. All too often, combat changes get introduced that confuse players and invalidate their efforts. That's not good for anyone.

For a team that keeps asking for data, well, we want data too. They should prove to us they know how things fit together. Not just say a calculation is incorrect 3 years later even though they kept releasing content, sets, and skills around it. They're so focused on "power budgets" and other concepts that don't visibly exist in-game. Meanwhile, after they've deemed something must be nerfed, I then have to regear up my characters to stay at the power levels I previously earned.

So, yes, I absolutely think it's fair to ask for way more transparency from, and for them to show things from the player's perspective.

And to be clear, I'm not expecting anyone on the combat team to be the best parser in the world, be on some leaderboard, or horde the world-firsts. But I think it's fair to see demonstrated knowledge of mechanics, build-making, and player perspectives. If content creators can do an hour-long video on the very thing we do most in the game, every time they change it, so can the people making it.

ivaylo.krumoveb17_ESO · July 2

Dude, just suck it up and move along. The "Black Box" has always been the modus operandi for ZOS. Handcrafted and imposed by their former boss. And a part of their corporate culture. And what you perceive as "balance" has never been a part of the game. And the "listening to community" they currently simulate is just a marketing gimmick because all they cringe in the face of impending budget cuts - nothing more, nothing less.

Destai · July 2

ceruulean wrote: »

There's some discussion of dev reluctance to interact with the community. Some devs are more sensitive to criticisms and personal attacks, and not equipped to deal with social media, which I completely understand and support. There's risk taking in community members and having them work with the devs as it ends up in flames over drama, like with the former Class Rep system.

If a team keeps making changes that invalidate people's efforts or simply do not stand up to scrutiny, and they don't adopt anyone's recommendations, yes, it's going to land them in hot water.

And the community's given them a lot of suggestions and feedback over the years, and I really don't see any marked improvement on their communication around combat.

So effectively, they're asking for us to have confidence in them, even though they keep giving us reasons not to. We keep telling them why we don't, and they stay the course. Rather than adopting the ideas that would give us confidence. That's the issue. That's been the issue for years.

It's wrong for people to get personal about it, no denying that, but they should also demonstrate they understand the impact of their decisions. If they want this game to be around another 30 years like they've stated, that's the only way we'll get there.

To be fair, I think they're starting to. They dialed back the Empower nerf some, they've added class masteries, but then things like the Signet release and subsequent nerf show there's still issues with decision making.

I am worried we still have to tell them an idea is bad rather than them seeing that further upstream.

Soarora · July 2

I was under the impression that we would get more information on classes after DK before PTS, or at least more surveys, so that mains of the class can help with the development. But I guess not.

With several other teams doing much better on communication, it really shows how secretive the combat team is. I know they’re in charge of very divisive changes but… so is Finn (such as with Night Market) and he’s been around. (We love Finn)

Stamicka · July 2

evLRise wrote: »

Why exactly can't we have a proper MMR system for competitive 4v4 Battlegrounds?

Not only would it create a healthier matchmaking environment by ensuring teams are matched against players of more comparable skill levels, but it would also provide an enormous amount of valuable data for balancing decisions.

The same argument applies to an MMR-based 1v1 arena, something that has been, again, requested by the community for years. If the team currently lacks enough reliable statistics and combat data to make informed balance changes, why not implement features that naturally generate those statistics?

With a proper competitive system, identifying balance issues would become significantly easier. If, for example, 60 out of the top 100 MMR players are running the same class, build, or setup, that is no longer a matter of opinion or anecdotal feedback — it's measurable evidence pointing toward a potential issue.

This is an interesting point. I don’t think we know how well the BG MMR system works because once the audience gets too small, matchmaking becomes about whoever is in the queue and less about skill brackets. Using competitive/MMR based matches to gauge balance is a good idea on its own, but I think it’s a tool fit for more finer tuned balance at the high end. ESO is very far away from that and it needs much more broad balancing before a finer tuned tool like this can work.

The introduction of the 2 team BGs was very out of touch IMO. ESO seemed to be carving out a niche for itself as a very casual solo based MMO. Lots of combat changes reflect that. Over the years this has shifted the demographics of ESO players. A lot of the audience it captured despises PvP and sometimes all non-solo activities. Some of these people are impossible to convert into PvPers because they refuse to ever try it.

In its current state, the game’s combat is way too unserious to capture the MOBA/Team Shooter crowd and lapsed PvPers. Seriously, who is trying to sweat 4v4s in ESO in 2026? The point is, the game needs to first appeal to competitive players in general before balancing around them becomes possible. Almost all of these players were driven away because the game doesn’t really appeal to them anymore.

I think the even more broad problem is that ESO has an identity issue. Who are they balancing for? No one really seems to know who ESO is being made for at this point. I think this is part of why a lot of combat related changes have looked so bizarre to us. When the game was clearly going in a more casual direction, the combat team seemed to be focused on intentionally lowering the ceiling. However, when the ceiling is lowered, the size of the possible skill gap shrinks. Then more experienced players start avoiding each other because everything turns into a stalemate/waste of time without ways to outplay each other. In PvE, teams just quit cause they aren’t really challenged anymore.

However, a lot of the players who bother to give feedback and test things do so through a more competitive lens. They may say “X is too strong compared to Y” or “X over performs in PvP”. In some cases they’re listened to and in some cases they’re ignored.

This is how we end up with the Shattered Path signet situation. It looked to me like an item designed around very casual play. It ended up being nerfed due to the fact that it was causing serious PvP balance issues. ZOS is in a situation where there’s always going to be a loud and unhappy crowd. Pre nerf the less casual PvP crowd unhappy that it made it to live. Post nerf the more casual crowd was unhappy that they lost an item they’d come to enjoy.

TLDR:
I think ZOS is often too afraid to be transparent about the combat because of the divided playerbase. They’re either “balancing for the 1%” as the casuals would say or “lowering the ceiling/introducing broken mechanics” as the more competitive people would say. Either way they’ll get a lot of backlash. This is what happens when they don’t pick a lane though. They don’t know who to balance for or really what the “players” want because the player base is made up of different groups of remaining alienated players. Unfortunately ZOS loses all crowds by trying to cater to all at once since they are so different. It’s a mess.