freespirit wrote: »

I've often said that maybe as a starting point remove the categories, that would make a 700 slot house a 830 slot house.

Whilst not the extra spaces we would ideally like, it would be a start.

At one point there was an argument that special furnishings were limited due to their typically more flashy graphical effects but that seem to be less the case these days with many traditional furnishings now also being quite heavily animated.

I rarely use the 110 collectable furnishing slots, surely books are no more taxing than trophies?

@ZOS_Kevin is there a reason this cannot be a starting point?

That is actually absolutely brilliant. You're right, 110 collectible furnishings seems a bit excessive and even right now I'm using 19/100. That right there would actually solve my issue because I'm trying to figure out how to shave 76 traditional furnishings to accommodate the rest of the books I'm missing....

Desiato wrote: »

Chrisilis wrote: »

Hopefully once they figure it out they'll let us know. We shall see.

They already did. They told us at around the beginning of the year how ESO is changing. They ended the chapter model. We can see the result in the game right now.

I keep repeating myself because I'm amazed that people can't see what's right in front of them. They didn't just change the name of the annual update for no reason. ESO has entered a new phase.

It's an 11 year old game, so this kind of thing is to be expected.

Let's not forget that some people in these forums had been complaining for years about how the annual chapter releases had become formulaic in structure-- every year, there was a new dungeon DLC in Q1, a chapter in Q2, another dungeon DLC in Q3, and a zone DLC concluding the year-long story in Q4. To be sure, there were also people who defended that formula and said they liked the year-long stories. But if I remember correctly, there were even some people posting polls about this topic.

ZOS responded by announcing that the year-long story formula was going to be changed up by making story arcs spanning multiple years. Naturally, some people reacted negatively to that announcement.

Also, there had been people complaining for years that there were too few bug fixes. Again, some people suggested dropping one of the quarterly DLCs each year for a release of bug fixes, and even posted polls in these forums about that topic.

ZOS responded by announcing that the Q3 and Q4 DLCs would focus more on fixing bugs and adding new game systems. It may have been part of the decision to do away with year-long story arcs and do more story arcs that span multiple years-- I'm hazy on the specifics-- but my point is, it was more or less something that people had been suggesting in these forums, and of course some people reacted negatively to it.

I could go on.

The card game that a vocal percentage of the playerbase loves to hate on and has said ZOS needs to delete from the game? A response to people in these forums asking ZOS to incorporate Legends into ESO (which I don't think would have worked) or add some kind of "tavern game."

The first version of the Vengeance test where we had very limited templates of skills and sets to reduce the calculations the server needs to deal with? A response to people in these forums voicing their opinions about how unbalanced PvP is, how ZOS needs to balance PvE and PvP separately, praising other MMOs where PvP and PvE have separate gear sets, etc.

And etc. (Destructible bridges.) And etc. (Update old zones with new graphics.) And etc. (You get the idea.)

It seems to me that ZOS has been bending over backwards for years listening to the playerbase and trying to give the people some workable version of what have they been asking for. And whenever ZOS has announced some change that's essentially a response to suggestions or complaints in these forums, somebody starts yelling about "maintenance mode."

It seems to me like it's tiime for the players to go look in their bathroom mirrors for answers.

I return to PvP for the event after taking a break, and imagine my surprise when healing was removed from Magsorc shields. Does anyone at ZOS actually take part in fights?? We NEED the healing in order to be able to fight, especially in tight areas around flags! How many heals do we now have to slot, because Dark Conversion sucks! Drained stamina is horrific when every single skill in this game can cc you! I have to use my stamina in order to heal myself, just to be made unplayable by not having any stamina to break free in intense fights.

Good job ZOS, good job. Any other Magsorc ruinations upcoming? Would be good to know before I start playing another game instead.

Desiato wrote: »

And for all the talk of human decency, I know for a fact we all play ESO on computer hardware assembled by extremely disadvantaged people who work and live in terrible conditions. Who here is willing to say no to that? [by speaking with their actions]

"Society should improve"

"Yet you live in a society. Curious 🤔"

If I tried to boycott every product that was not ethically made then I would be unable to function in society. My time is better spent being vocal when I see something wrong (and sticking to that topic when it comes up) and voting for policies and politicians that want to do something about it.

Besides, this thread is not about that. It is about our feelings about how the employees at ZOS have been treated. And I think they should have been given notice. It should be required. The same as it is in other countries with little negative side effects. I don't have to hate capitalism, be perfectly self sufficient, and try to stop every wrong in the world to want ZOS to have been treated better and say as much.

I support the employees at zos. I support workers in general.

Just a comment on various people saying it wouldn't make sense to cancel Blackbird if they thought it would be successful.

This is not actually how sound businesses necessarily make decisions, especially large publicly traded groups. The question isn't just will it be successful, but will it be more successful than X, Y and Z and therefore a good use of our capital, employee and management time (which is limited), does it cannibalise revenue or resources from our other products, does it fit with our broader strategy for the group and if not why are we doing it, etc, etc.

One very vivid example of this came up in the original discussions in MS of the Microsoft Courier (not the one that eventually came out, the original concept, which developed a bit of a cult status as the most amazing product never made). As the story goes, Bill Gates took one look at it and asked how it fitted with Windows, Office, etc, and that was the end of the project.

I'm not saying this to excuse the layoffs and the way they have been conducted sounds absolutely appalling and I have huge sympathy for everyone at ZOS, most especially because most of them will not have signed up for a culture like this.

I'm saying this only to shed some light on why "but this product would have made money" is quite often irrelevant to why layoffs happen, products get cancelled, and so on. This can be one of the disadvantages of operating in a large, publicly trade corporate group that makes decisions at a very macro level. And, yes, when handled as badly as this the human cost can be horrific and grim.