Destai wrote: »

peacenote wrote: »

I just want to make the point that 12 more small QoL improvements won't keep people here

No, they won't.

Some of the QoL is great - but it should've happened years ago. I'm not trying to be unreasonable, but they're acting on really, really old feedback. I'm glad they are, but more's needed now. It feels like more than they give, so I can see old timers going on hiatus or walking away entirely.

The reality is the game's not doing well. And we all know that it needs money to grow - which is their stated commitment. But people are increasingly unlikely to give them money because of a content draught that's been worsening since Gold Road.

For me, I was sticking around in hopes of the Warden refresh and some of the features this year. Most of what I was sticking around has been delayed or fell flat. It's unfortunate, but I'm not going to mercy-spend on this game.

I fully agree on all points here. It's a very reasonable and empathetic take on what is happening to ESO right now.

To be quite fair, most of the issues have been the result of former leadership focusing on static release cadences, quantity-over-quality, and ignoring loads of player feedback.

We've only started seeing improvements to communication and acting on player feedback after Nick Giacomini took over last year. Yes, it was still ZOS as a whole entity that was responsible for all of the longstanding issues in ESO, but I think it's also unfair to ignore the amazing work that Nick has put into the game even through multiple layoffs.

Maybe it's glazing, but I think Nick absolutely deserves acknowledgement for powering through all the bad cards that have been dealt to him and working for a better ESO. Just this once, under these circumstances, I want to give ZOS a pass for the lacklustre communication since the recent layoffs.

Here's to hoping for a return to form by Update 52.

AzuraFan wrote: »

Destai wrote: »

Like I said, the Warden was weeks away from landing on PTS, so it's hard to see why it needs to be pushed out so far.

It was scheduled to be on PTS, but there seemed to be something up before the layoffs. There was a stream the week before the layoffs to preview upcoming content, and the warden refresh wasn't mentioned at all. That suggests to me that they were perhaps having problems with the refresh even before the layoffs, and that it's possible the refresh was definitely going to be delayed, perhaps not into 2027, but delayed. My guess is that they didn't talk about it on the stream because they didn't want to say anything about the refresh until they knew how much it would be delayed, and that probably depended on who was going to be laid off.

Thanks, I was aware of that.

Still, it warrants a lot of explanation. The class refresh is a big deal. Right now, it feels like the team in charge of the refresh doesn't want to communicate. There's no other explanation right now. @ZOS_JessicaFolsom has acknowledged the frustration, I know @ZOS_Kevin is seeing comments on Reddit. So, the feedback's being seen, it's just not being acted on.

I can appreciate the layoffs impacted the class refresh, but again, just say what happened. Because to your point, and mine, it was looking bad well before. I just find it hard to be understanding when things get handled in this coy fashion. They know it's frustrating and they keep doing it.

AzuraFan wrote: »

Destai wrote: »

Like I said, the Warden was weeks away from landing on PTS, so it's hard to see why it needs to be pushed out so far.

It was scheduled to be on PTS, but there seemed to be something up before the layoffs. There was a stream the week before the layoffs to preview upcoming content, and the warden refresh wasn't mentioned at all. That suggests to me that they were perhaps having problems with the refresh even before the layoffs, and that it's possible the refresh was definitely going to be delayed, perhaps not into 2027, but delayed. My guess is that they didn't talk about it on the stream because they didn't want to say anything about the refresh until they knew how much it would be delayed, and that probably depended on who was going to be laid off.

That’s the whole point that people are trying to get at. What exactly are the challenges being faced with this refresh? Is it technical, is it matter of design/thematic alignment? Is it that the memory for new animations is problematic? (All guesses made by different people here and elsewhere). Are these challenges specific to warden or is this something all classes are going to struggle with meaning delays to all other refreshes? Why can’t they talk to us about this, even if they don’t get into the nitty gritty?

Be transparent. Communicate. That’s what we’re asking for here. Ignoring the word “warden” is the opposite of that and, as others have pointed out, is very reminiscent of past communication behavior where players concerns were ignored and ignored and ignored and then dismissed with what felt like barely-contained derision. I do not want to go back to those days of being treated like all players are idiots.

tomofhyrule wrote: »

And yet, despite everyone asking for communication and saying that they'd be fine if it needed to get delayed if they said so as soon as they knew they needed to delay, they waited until the last possible minute to do the rug pull and delay it by over 6 months.

...

The reason people are all frustrated is not because of the delay. It's because of the Combat Team going right back into zero-communication mode as soon as there's an issue.

Oh, I agree (and with the other responses to my post). I wasn't trying to justify how it's played out regarding the lack of communication. I was specifically responding to the statement that the Warden refresh must have almost been ready to go because it was scheduled to be on the PTS. I was pointing out that we knew something was fishy before the layoffs, meaning that something was going off the rails with the refresh and it probably wasn't going to go onto the PTS as scheduled, because they wouldn't talk about it on that stream before the layoffs.

DenverRalphy wrote: »

A subsequent response from Jess clarified that the delay had nothing to do with the Warden refresh and that it was still slated for PTS.

I've been around long enough not to believe everything that ZOS says because often things don't play out the way they say they will, or features aren't quite as advertised, etc. I'm not trying to imply anything about Jess - she will say what she's allowed to say or told to say and that's the job.

DeathandDebauchery wrote: »

Ultimately, time will tell here. They get to use the 'we need time for quality' excuse once when shifting in to maintenance mode. If the next several things released are not perfectly QA'd and high quality, they've signaled the Death Knell for the game.

• Significant bugs related to even getting in the door of a quest for thieves guild are not what I would consider 'high quality.'
• Significant bugs related to the launch of Dynamic Encounters (broken loot tables, broken items) are not what I would consider 'high quality'

The argument is we can't release Warden/Veldt because of quality issues, if its going to take you almost an extra 8 months past your promised date to deliver something, it better be /truly/ perfect and spectacular.

If the Warden Refresh is released in February of Next Year and its worse received then the DK Refresh, we are in trouble.

To be fair, they built a lot of goodwill over the DK refresh. It's just so sharp. So I'm at least a little more confident that it'll deliver in good shape.

Were it any other feature, I don't think I could extend the same grace.

Destai wrote: »

HatchetHaro wrote: »

We've only started seeing improvements to communication and acting on player feedback after Nick Giacomini took over last year. Yes, it was still ZOS as a whole entity that was responsible for all of the longstanding issues in ESO, but I think it's also unfair to ignore the amazing work that Nick has put into the game even through multiple layoffs.

Nick's unfortunately presided over the game's steepest decline. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the development and release of the Writhing Wall happened in his first year at the helm. I'm not blaming him, I'm just trying to correlate the facts and the timeline.

I do want to give Nick credit though, and some degree of empathy. He's been handed a rough hand, and that's hard for anyone to navigate. The focus on communication since his ascension has been great. But going back to my earlier statement where ZOS is viewed as a problem child: even if that problem child behaves, that history will always be there.

Let's shine some light on the timeline. Big events like Writhing Wall are usually planned and developed many months, sometimes over a year, in advance. In this instance, it is safe to assume that the Writhing Wall was already fully planned and in its middle-to-late phases of development by the time the 2025 Content Pass was announced in April 2025, QA tested and core mechanics locked in some time in the middle, and made available on the PTS in July 2025 for bug testing.

Nick didn't take the helm until August, and the Writhing Wall was expected to start in October. Expecting a new director to fundamentally rewrite the event and have it go through QA phases in such little time is completely unrealistic. So, of course he is not to blame. If anything, him granting every player 8,000 Seals of Endeavour as an apology for the disappointing event was an unprecedented demonstration of accountability.

Yes, I am in complete agreement that it doesn't wipe ZOS's history; it is still the same Zenimax Online Studios that had made all of those poor decisions early on, and nothing will change that.

Destai wrote: »

HatchetHaro wrote: »

Maybe it's glazing, but I think Nick absolutely deserves acknowledgement for powering through all the bad cards that have been dealt to him and working for a better ESO. Just this once, under these circumstances, I want to give ZOS a pass for the lacklustre communication since the recent layoffs.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but I'm sorry, I refuse to give them a pass on lackluster communication.

Again, they've had 10+ years of people saying "improve communication". I myself have given them a lot of really strong, pointed feedback. Questions to ask, suggestions left and right. It's gone nowhere.

I get it, I'm a forum nobody. But others in their circle have done the same, especially prominent streamers. They hop on stream, take soft ball questions, and then go quiet on the topics that get them into heat.

Most of the major drama in this game's history goes back to combat related decisions. Most other stuff has blown over. Combat - no. It doesn't blow over, it festers.

One would think that ZOS leadership would see that and push the teams to communicate more. Especially on something as sensitive as people's classes. It's a fundamental thing about someone's experience in this game. It should be treated much more carefully and openly.

My intention with "giving them a pass" isn't to erase that history or excuse the years of softball Q&As. It's strictly recognizing the immediate, human reality of severe studio layoffs. When a team gets hit with restructuring, the immediate priority becomes basic operational triage just to keep the lights on and pipelines moving, which inevitably causes short-term communication blackouts.

I'm not asking you, or anyone for that matter, to do the same; I'm just saying that I, even through my many, many years of criticizing ZOS, would.

Player frustration with the lack of communication is valid; they have every right to be angry at that, and they are entitled to view ZOS as a full corporate entity. I simply just prefer to separate the ZOS phases, split right at the Blackbird-layoffs, because I think it's also important to acknowledge and encourage any improvement we see, and the ZOS that has been under Nick's leadership has been more than golden before this new round of layoffs.

Destai wrote: »

To make matters worse, the statement from @ZOS_JessicaFolsom implies that it's not the combat team working on the combat refresh. If leadership can't see, and ultimately address, the fact that specificity is required, then sorry, no benefit of the doubt is being extended.

I read her statement differently. She was responding directly to a post assuming the Combat Team delayed the class refreshes because they were busy working on Vengeance.

Her point was that the delay isn't because the Combat Team is off doing other tasks, meaning the Combat Team is still the one handling the class reworks, but external factors (scheduling, pipeline dependencies, studio-wide resource allocation) forced the timeline to shift.

If anything, even without her statement, based on what we have seen of the recent Vengeance test week, it is safe to assume that the Combat Team wasn't responsible for any work done on that. That Vengeance test simply just flipped the switch on item set bonuses without a care on how those bonuses would interact with Vengeance stats and perks; it was plain to me that it was nothing more than a network test for the effects of item set bonus calculations on the server, a job for live-ops engineers, not combat designers.

We do agree on the broader principle: the class refreshes require specificity and transparency. Class identity is core to ESO and player investment, and vague statements during this tumultuous time for ZOS and the ESO playerbase will naturally breed anxiety. Whether someone chooses to extend benefit of the doubt or hold ZOS's feet to the fire, clear communication about this particular pain point is the one thing many players want to see right now.

Wuuffyy wrote: »

1) because of you then they annihilated Relequen to the point it’s basically unusable outside of a duel against one of your target dummies.

It was an overperforming set that needed to be adjusted in PvP.

Wuuffyy wrote: »

2) I still kill sorcs. Sorcs are strong yet for the most part, they can still die. I don’t care if the sorc runs away after a stale mate, they are not insta-killing me on my DK or my wolf and they’re one mistake with their shielding away from dying to me (especially on my DK)

I am talking about U40 Sorc, not the current U50 Sorc. At the time, it was one of the most broken specs in the game.

Wuuffyy wrote: »

3) you concluded the obvious, this was always the intent (high sustain in kit)

No lol, it is obvious AFTER everyone had figured it out. It's easy to say that when it's been 6 months after the change. Just look at the PTS threads around U49 and tell me how many clueless people there were

Wuuffyy wrote: »

4) plenty of werewolves are either skewed towards more damage or more tankiness. My DK has been capable of killing any werewolf I’ve come across 1 on 1 and my werewolf can kill most other werewolves unless they’re high health builds with little to no intent for doing damage the average player can’t just heal out of.

HP builds are mainly what needs adjustments.

Wuuffyy wrote: »

I also really appreciate how you’ve stated ‘you’ve concluded’ like you’re the supreme authority on all things balance by the way yet you, React/Pelican, and gang are both nothing to me and nothing to a lot of players and I for sure don’t want things gutted because of your hyper-biased opinions.

There's no "supreme authority" here. You can paint me as some "elitist" all you want but all my stances have been backed up with real in-game evidence. I don't care about feelings. If a skill/class seems to overperform on paper, I test it in game and confirm whether it is. It's literally a basic trial and error process and I have done that through and through for every PTS cycle. Anyone who's read my posts can see that. If I was truly biased, I would be screaming for nerfs to DK and WW only, not nerfs to my own class.

HatchetHaro wrote: »

Let's shine some light on the timeline. Big events like Writhing Wall are usually planned and developed many months, sometimes over a year, in advance. In this instance, it is safe to assume that the Writhing Wall was already fully planned and in its middle-to-late phases of development by the time the 2025 Content Pass was announced in April 2025, QA tested and core mechanics locked in some time in the middle, and made available on the PTS in July 2025 for bug testing.

Nick didn't take the helm until August, and the Writhing Wall was expected to start in October. Expecting a new director to fundamentally rewrite the event and have it go through QA phases in such little time is completely unrealistic. So, of course he is not to blame. If anything, him granting every player 8,000 Seals of Endeavour as an apology for the disappointing event was an unprecedented demonstration of accountability.

Thanks for clarifying that timeline. I was fuzzy on it.

His leadership, and the overall tone since he took over, has been better than the previous leadership. The Seals thing you mentioned spoke volumes, so did the honest reflection after Writhing Wall's poor reception. That accountability was refreshing. There's no denying that.

My perspective is just looking at what we've gotten in that timeframe. There's a clear wind down of content. I'm not blaming him, he's probably trying to get the most out of the situation. Like he said, he wants the game to grow, even now. I just think that's a tall order. And so far, since he took over, most content continues to be lightweight and will be for the foreseeable future.

That's just an observation, not a knock on him or his leadership. It's going to take a miracle or two to right this ship. I wish him luck in doing it.

HatchetHaro wrote: »

Player frustration with the lack of communication is valid; they have every right to be angry at that, and they are entitled to view ZOS as a full corporate entity. I simply just prefer to separate the ZOS phases, split right at the Blackbird-layoffs, because I think it's also important to acknowledge and encourage any improvement we see, and the ZOS that has been under Nick's leadership has been more than golden before this new round of layoffs.

That's a reasonable take. We'll never know the full impact of Blackbirds development and closure on ESO. But it seems pretty severe and was certainly foreshadowing some of what we see now. Again, that's really on previous leadership.

DeathandDebauchery wrote: »

This isn't how leadership transitions actually work. Nick became game Director on August 19, 2025, less then 3 months before the Part 2 debacle. If you think he had a significant hand in the development/arc of the Worm Cult and wasn't just responsible for making a turd shippable, you have a complete misunderstanding of how long it takes for development cycles and the timeline. Rich spent years actively killing the games population with his decision making, culminating in the absolute disaster that was Subclassing + the Worm Cult approach which was a 1-2 punch that dropped the population by an almost 30% in less then a year.

Nick's 'creative vision' arguably starts with U49/U50 and the data suggests he had effectively stopped the bleeding and things were trending in the right direction.

This is all really good context, thank you.

DeathandDebauchery wrote: »

If you want to levy (valid) criticism at Nick, the fact that Warden Refresh is being pushed out 6 more months when it was supposed to release 3 weeks from now - /that/ is a very valid criticism. Because it suggests that MANY elements of it were not ready when promised (animation, balance, etc).

I don't think it's fair to blame Nick for it per se. For me, the bulk of the blame rests on the combat team right now. Because again, things were fishy with the Warden refresh well before the layoffs and that wasn't communicated. And it treated was like a taboo topic. For me, that's the cardinal sin. If things didn't like line up internally months ago, whatever. We'd be none the wiser. It just comes back to the communication, especially the coy way it's been handled. I just find it insulting.

My only real criticism of Nick would be not stepping in and getting the teams to communicate - especially given the history of combat changes on the population of the game.

And I say this not out of finger pointing. I say this all so ZOS can recognize where the problems are and fix them. Like many other, I'm worried about the game's future, and being coy about something as important as the game's combat will only call it further into question.

I truly don’t understand how layoffs that occurred the week before the Warden rework PTS somehow translate into a 6+ month delay—and that’s being generous, considering we weren’t even given a 2027 date.

The combat team was clearly never going to have the class ready for this PTS regardless of the layoffs. I can understand delaying it one patch. Fine, move it to U52. But pushing it indefinitely is completely unacceptable to your end-game player base and comes across as incredibly disrespectful.

It genuinely feels like neither the trial nor the Warden rework was ever going to make this update, and now the layoffs are being used as the explanation. We then had to endure another round of Vengeance testing in complete silence from the combat team, but that’s a discussion for another day.

At some point there has to be accountability from the combat team. The communication has been consistently poor, and after everything that happened on July 6th, <snipped>

<snipped for abusive and disruptive comment>

Wuuffyy wrote: »

1) buff nb 0.o does not equate to nerf everything else

2) balance in a wizard game matters to players. My characters should feel powerful and there are an abundance of ways to fix problems or gaps other than nerfs which are basically your go to method of resolving, well anything. There were essentially NO werewolves prior to the rework likely because a playstyle that is meant to represent something powerful was woefully lacking in every department, that trickles down to even the most casual of players with RP (a place that your ‘one bar bad’ and ‘should be meme spec’ camp undoubtably helped create).

As mentioned, no matter how many times you try and ridiculously refute in favor blanket nerfs, adjusting with a sledgehammer has clearly serves to run more players off than they serve to help. I personally recognize the game is entering into a new era and I’m willing to embrace new power levels, you simply just refuse change and argue ‘but meh balance’ while willfully ignoring the intentional changes and the obvious; all seemingly because this may affect your close knit dueling circle in Riften or something ego-related, I’m almost certain.

For the record, I’m happy to fill a pseudo-mantle of werewolf advocator if it means people like you can’t soapbox and spread misinformation and exaggerations just to achieve your pretty goals ‘for free’; also, once again thanks completely for destroying Relequen (strange flex, again) I guess so your weird sense of dueling pride is better maintained (can you go for Jerall’s, Marse, and Vat next… like actually though)

1) Yes, it does equate to nerfing everything else IF they are proven to be overperforming too much. Even if ZOS gave NB its full 25% crit damage + crit healing and 2000 spell damage class mastery values, a reworked DK with 39k HP and Pyrebrand + Wildfire passive, a 47k HP Sorc/Warden WW with 3 procs, or a stamsorc with 3 procs would still pull ahead.

2) Yes, balance in a wizard game matters to players. That is why I constantly create threads on the forums and voice my stance (obviously backed with hours of in-game data). I have also pin-pointed the key areas in which WW and DK needed adjustments (HP scaling heals for both DK and WW, and either sustain or access to class mastery passives).

And if you're confiding in the notion that "your characters should feel powerful", then I don't understand how my class, a Sorcecer who can tap into the immensely destructive power of lightning and dark magic to create thunderstorms, hurl sharp crystals from max range, teleport around the battlefield at the speed of lightning, or conjure daedric minions to serve by my side, is somehow weaker or slower than a WW whose primary attacks are shoving their arms up people's rear until their death. If anything, my class should be infinitely stronger than yours.

And I'm sorry, but an RPer shouldn't have any business participating in a PvP or PvE balance discussion where people are competing against each other.

hoangdz wrote: »

Wuuffyy wrote: »

1) buff nb 0.o does not equate to nerf everything else

2) balance in a wizard game matters to players. My characters should feel powerful and there are an abundance of ways to fix problems or gaps other than nerfs which are basically your go to method of resolving, well anything. There were essentially NO werewolves prior to the rework likely because a playstyle that is meant to represent something powerful was woefully lacking in every department, that trickles down to even the most casual of players with RP (a place that your ‘one bar bad’ and ‘should be meme spec’ camp undoubtably helped create).

As mentioned, no matter how many times you try and ridiculously refute in favor blanket nerfs, adjusting with a sledgehammer has clearly serves to run more players off than they serve to help. I personally recognize the game is entering into a new era and I’m willing to embrace new power levels, you simply just refuse change and argue ‘but meh balance’ while willfully ignoring the intentional changes and the obvious; all seemingly because this may affect your close knit dueling circle in Riften or something ego-related, I’m almost certain.

For the record, I’m happy to fill a pseudo-mantle of werewolf advocator if it means people like you can’t soapbox and spread misinformation and exaggerations just to achieve your pretty goals ‘for free’; also, once again thanks completely for destroying Relequen (strange flex, again) I guess so your weird sense of dueling pride is better maintained (can you go for Jerall’s, Marse, and Vat next… like actually though)

1) Yes, it does equate to nerfing everything else IF they are proven to be overperforming too much. Even if ZOS gave NB its full 25% crit damage + crit healing and 2000 spell damage class mastery values, a reworked DK with 39k HP and Pyrebrand + Wildfire passive, a 47k HP Sorc/Warden WW with 3 procs, or a stamsorc with 3 procs would still pull ahead.

2) Yes, balance in a wizard game matters to players. That is why I constantly create threads on the forums and voice my stance (obviously backed with hours of in-game data). I have also pin-pointed the key areas in which WW and DK needed adjustments (HP scaling heals for both DK and WW, and either sustain or access to class mastery passives).

And if you're confiding in the notion that "your characters should feel powerful", then I don't understand how my class, a Sorcecer who can tap into the immensely destructive power of lightning and dark magic to create thunderstorms and teleport around the battlefield at the speed of lightning, is somehow weaker or slower than a WW whose primary attacks are *** people to death. If anything, my class should be infinitely stronger than yours.

And I'm sorry, but an RPer shouldn't have any business participating in a PvP or PvE balance discussion where people are competing against each other.

1) No one expects a bump in masteries to fully close the gap (hence the term rework and not just numerical changes) yet I don’t want DK, wolf gutted to solve an ‘interim’ problem now just so I can get mediocre reworks down the line as well for other classes in the process.

Any increases to non-reworked classes would absolutely help in closing the gap and allow for more finesse with player skill. Additionally, every class should have a CoE level proc like sorc to further assist in bridging this gap.

2) you act as if this is going to stop people from running high health. It’s mandatory unless you reduce DK damage by basically half right now for the sheer amount of burst damage being outputted alone. With this being said- do I want DK gutted when it’s clear to me that reworked classes (or sorc due to masteries benefiting them skewed towards sustain alongside streak) can much better handle this when properly built? No.

Additionally, you quite literally and basically want werewolf to be unable to properly heal themselves at all from that incoming damage (‘one bar shouldn’t compete’ and ‘meme spec’, minutely reminder) so even with a solution like ‘wep and spell scaling’ under battle spirit- you’d want the absolute lowest values possible.

Sorc is still very strong right now (more so in OW) and the free cast damage you can outpoint at range with magical wards up is very high on a target that isn’t blocking.

Let’s be serious that in a magical world like this, you would NEVER want a werewolf to be close to you and lore-wise that werewolf would rip you apart (RP stuff of course), so yes… if you engage in extended combat with a werewolf then they’d probably do more damage to you than the other way around (not to mention you and I both know that werewolf performs far better with procs than without… so basically magical artifacts on top of that too)… hence tools like streak etc. to mitigate basically anything if used correctly.

Destai wrote: »

My perspective is just looking at what we've gotten in that timeframe. There's a clear wind down of content. I'm not blaming him, he's probably trying to get the most out of the situation. Like he said, he wants the game to grow, even now. I just think that's a tall order. And so far, since he took over, most content continues to be lightweight and will be for the foreseeable future.

This was the one part of the letter which sat uncomfortably with me. I kept thinking, HOW? They only have half (or thereabouts) of their team, and moreover they are going to have to help out on TES6. Plus, a lot of players seem to have been scared off by the news of the layoffs.

I kept thinking, either this was not a realistic/genuine goal, or there are some pretty heavy expectations on ESO from MS.

BretonMage wrote: »

Destai wrote: »

My perspective is just looking at what we've gotten in that timeframe. There's a clear wind down of content. I'm not blaming him, he's probably trying to get the most out of the situation. Like he said, he wants the game to grow, even now. I just think that's a tall order. And so far, since he took over, most content continues to be lightweight and will be for the foreseeable future.

This was the one part of the letter which sat uncomfortably with me. I kept thinking, HOW? They only have half (or thereabouts) of their team, and moreover they are going to have to help out on TES6. Plus, a lot of players seem to have been scared off by the news of the layoffs.

I kept thinking, either this was not a realistic/genuine goal, or there are some pretty heavy expectations on ESO from MS.

I can promise you that MS is not expecting them to scale back on actual work and lick their wounds for 6+ months, but that seems to be ZOS’s approach.

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

tomofhyrule wrote: »

Combat and Class balance is something that affects all facets of the game, from the most casual of overland questing to hypersweaty PvP. Leaving that to languish for any length of time will only serve to drive more and more people away. This is especially obvious from the recent surprise Vengeance test - Vengeance as it currently is was running fine and had a population that enjoyed it as is, so the Combat Team taking time away from the Refreshes to focus on modifying that mode (especially in a way that removed what its main userbase enjoyed to try in vain to entice a userbase that wants nothing to do with it) seemed like a case of skewed priorities.

Hey all, related to the above, while we aren't going go into specifics (and I recognize that's disappointing), the class refresh schedule change is not due to anything the Combat Team is or will be working on. Vengeance work is unrelated.

If its something that can change, or if things can be shifted, it really should be considered. I just hope you guys understand the damage that will be done this year with a lack of this refresh. Among other things.

Like i said in another comment, ill play regardless, to some extent. Its disappointing, but not something im going to quit over. The biggest disappointment to me is what i know will come with a lack of content, trial, and the class refresh that so many people want more than anything. And what is going to come is an overall decline in players. Which absolutely sucks, and is the complete opposite of what this game needs.

The things that some people at zos think are going to be enough, to hold people over til next year, are just not going to cut it. But i hope im wrong. Id love players numbers to skyrocket, but amidst all this chaos and disappointment, i just dont see any outcome other than the opposite.