Overland Content Feedback Thread

Kelenan7368 · December 2

As far as overland content and delves and public dungeons, I think there should be a toggle that we can activate causing a debuff on us to make the content harder. This should also increase exp. while active.
The content otherwise is very well done and fun to play.
Side note, add more comedic scenarios. I need a lot more Narrcis Dren!

Dahveed · December 3

Kelenan7368 wrote: »

As far as overland content and delves and public dungeons, I think there should be a toggle that we can activate causing a debuff on us to make the content harder. This should also increase exp. while active.
The content otherwise is very well done and fun to play.
Side note, add more comedic scenarios. I need a lot more Narrcis Dren!

Yes, this has been the main suggestion, probably about a hundred times at this point. You can be forgiven for not scrolling through hundreds of pages of posts though.

Indeed technically the code to do this already exists and just needs to be tweaked: as a vampire your health regen is stopped (you could apply this to the two other resources) and apply the damage buffs/debuffs that the vampire player gets to be across the board and easily tweakable according to players' desires.

At this point I am utterly mystified as to why ZoS refuses to do ANYTHING like this after all these years and all these ubiquitous complaints about everything being too easy.

SilverBride · December 3

Dahveed wrote: »

At this point I am utterly mystified as to why ZoS refuses to do ANYTHING like this after all these years and all these ubiquitous complaints about everything being too easy.

Maybe the data doesn't support that a change is needed. Only they can tell us that.

But they did do something by making all the boss fights more difficult and long, which no one has been happy with.

spartaxoxo · December 3

Dahveed wrote: »

At this point I am utterly mystified as to why ZoS refuses to do ANYTHING like this after all these years and all these ubiquitous complaints about everything being too easy.

They did. They made the world bosses, world events, and story bosses mandatory more difficult. They added Bastian Nymics. And they added wandering world bosses (which to be fair wwb are something myself and others suggested as one part of the overall package that might help).

None of these things solved the main issue people are having with overland though. They then declared this a happy medium and talked about it an interview instead of addressing this thread. This thread they have purposefully ignored for years. It is us users that have had to stumble upon interviews and ask in unrelated threads and bring that information back here. So, I can certainly understand why someone would miss it.

BasP · December 3

SilverBride wrote: »

Dahveed wrote: »

At this point I am utterly mystified as to why ZoS refuses to do ANYTHING like this after all these years and all these ubiquitous complaints about everything being too easy.

Maybe the data doesn't support that a change is needed. Only they can tell us that.

But they did do something by making all the boss fights more difficult and long, which no one has been happy with.

"No one" is perhaps a bit of an overstatement; I personally enjoyed tackling West Weald's world bosses solo for example (though most of the time other players showed up as well). If quest bosses could optionally be as difficult as Fang and Talon at Centurion’s Rise, that would be great in my book.

Now of course I would prefer it if the base difficulty of all of the bosses in future content would be reduced and there would be an optional way to increase their difficulty (significantly). But as it stands, I have to admit that I'm glad that at least some of the Overland isn't a walk in the park.

spartaxoxo · December 3

BasP wrote: »

But as it stands, I have to admit that I'm glad that at least some of the Overland isn't a walk in the park.

I'm not because it's clearly designed for groups with no thought about when a player is solo.

I enjoyed soloing Harrowstorms because you can semi-scale it by slowing down ghosts. But, Mirrormoor incursions don't have that. So, while the mechanics are fine, the add pool isn't solo friendly. And that's going to be an issue once it's dead content.

Vents the adds have less health so even if you're by yourself, it's not as much of a slog.

The world bosses are mostly fun and fine though. It's mostly the world event.

colossalvoids · December 3

I'm also not fine but because it's inconsistent - it takes into consideration no one as it's a compromise that helps no party in there. People who want to feel a difference can't because it's negligible at best and people who can experience any difference are the ones who already struggled and do not need that increase. In summ that's an annoyance for both parties, one feels ignored and the other betrayed of sorts as starting to feel that company isn't catering to them enough.

spartaxoxo · December 3

colossalvoids wrote: »

I'm also not fine but because it's inconsistent - it takes into consideration no one as it's a compromise that helps no party in there. People who want to feel a difference can't because it's negligible at best and people who can experience any difference are the ones who already struggled and do not need that increase. In summ that's an annoyance for both parties, one feels ignored and the other betrayed of sorts as starting to feel that company isn't catering to them enough.

Yup. As demonstrated in my video earlier, the story bosses are still downed in seconds for a vet player. Meanwhile, some players who were already struggling have stopped bothering with the new zone story bosses altogether.

BasP · December 3

spartaxoxo wrote: »

BasP wrote: »

But as it stands, I have to admit that I'm glad that at least some of the Overland isn't a walk in the park.

But, Mirrormoor incursions don't have that. So, while the mechanics are fine, the add pool isn't solo friendly. And that's going to be an issue once it's dead content.

True, I didn't think of the Mirrormoor Incursions when I made that post - just the difficulty of the World Bosses and the pre-nerf Viikor Brazen Hoof. It would definitely be better if the Incursions would have some kind of scaling in the future so that they're easier to complete once there are less people in the zone.

colossalvoids wrote: »

I'm also not fine but because it's inconsistent - it takes into consideration no one as it's a compromise that helps no party in there. People who want to feel a difference can't because it's negligible at best and people who can experience any difference are the ones who already struggled and do not need that increase. In summ that's an annoyance for both parties, one feels ignored and the other betrayed of sorts as starting to feel that company isn't catering to them enough.

True. As I've said a couple of times a few pages back, I would infinitely prefer to see a proper solution (such as a Difficulty Slider, the less likely Veteran instances or something else) that would indeed cater to all players. It's a shame that some people won't do the Main Quests anymore because they can't complete them, while others won't bother with them because the current difficulty doesn't engage them.

SilverBride · December 3

BasP wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Dahveed wrote: »

At this point I am utterly mystified as to why ZoS refuses to do ANYTHING like this after all these years and all these ubiquitous complaints about everything being too easy.

Maybe the data doesn't support that a change is needed. Only they can tell us that.

But they did do something by making all the boss fights more difficult and long, which no one has been happy with.

"No one" is perhaps a bit of an overstatement; I personally enjoyed tackling West Weald's world bosses solo for example (though most of the time other players showed up as well). If quest bosses could optionally be as difficult as Fang and Talon at Centurion’s Rise, that would be great in my book.

What about the multiple immune phases? That is the biggest complaint I have and have heard from others. Besides making the bosses more difficult, they are now long and drawn out and I don't even go to West Weald anymore because I don't enjoy the bosses or incursions at all.

I think a lot of players could live with the increased boss difficulty for world bosses and incursion bosses, because those are meant to be group content. But the story bosses were also increased in difficulty and some players can't defeat them any more.

I wish they would bring all the bosses from High Isle forward down in difficulty to be more in line with what they were before they started progressively increasing their difficulty, then give players a slider. Because I am frankly tired of my experience being made much less enjoyable by the direction they are taking.

spartaxoxo · December 3

I just want to quote myself here as a reminder the story bosses still die way too fast for a vet player. The changes made to them have done nothing for us. The quotes have been snipped for brevity. I just wanted to show the YouTube videos as a reminder of my experience with the first boss in Necrom using a few different setups.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

https://youtu.be/plQYxCXk5z0?si=bm3FIwgOj_03s8f4

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Just as easy on my sorc
https://youtu.be/lUvzkAXUyD0

And on my sneak thief night blade, which is in gear meant for lowering the detection radius.
https://youtu.be/6nOEinB2dbs

Franchise408 · December 4

I still don't see why they can't do separate instances. Diablo 4 has proven that separate instances don't actually split the player base anymore than it already is. There are plenty of players within each difficulty shard, and no shortage of players to do the group content with (i.e. world bosses), and players have a choice to play in whatever difficulty they want to.

ESO already has separate shards. Whatever "split" happens due to difficulty instances won't be noticed. There will still be plenty of players in every instance.

spartaxoxo · December 4

Separate Instances separate the playerbase, Diablo just had enough people in an area it's not an issue.

ESO does too in some zones. Other zones are single shard zones that need more people, not less.

disky · December 5

Also, it's just not necessary. There are ways to handle this problem which don't separate players.

Tannus15 · December 5

Every time i asked Rich about this issue, he said they did the separate instances thing with veteran ranks back in the day and no one did it, and they did "harder" overland with craglorn and no one did that either.

Apparently there is no middle ground and that a % of the player base find overland too boring to play doesn't matter.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

SilverBride · December 5

Asking a game to change back to what didn't work for it before isn't likely to happen.

disky · December 6

Tannus15 wrote: »

...and they did "harder" overland with craglorn and no one did that either.

Apparently there is no middle ground and that a % of the player base find overland too boring to play doesn't matter.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

The problem is that their previous implementations of change either didn't satisfy those who wanted the change or they alienated another group of players. There is a reality in which everyone can have what they want which doesn't separate players and doesn't *** anyone off, and personally I feel like all the tools are already available to make it happen. ZOS just needs to do the work and put it up on the test server for a while to get feedback.

colossalvoids · December 6

Observing their actions and reactions to me personally the next year is the first one we might been able to see a glimpse of attempts on a larger scale than just boosting some numbers on some inclusion event. Personally I don't see their lack of action as a denial, but I do see their answers going around issues as a denial though.

But if we count their reaction time from not the beginning of the thread but this year, for example it being a big disappointment for a lot, then it's at the very least 2-3 year from now.

Franchise408 · December 6

I'm going to take the unpopular approach and say that the population *should* be split.

If I want to play harder level content, then I should be in an instance with people also doing the same higher level content. It will make it easier for me to find people to do content with when I am in an instance shared by like minded individuals who want to do the same things. If I am in a zone with people who are playing undertuned content, then I have less people that I can actually engage in the game with, thus making me more unlikely to play with others.

The argument about not splitting the population doesn't work for me, as I don't see the population splitting as a bad thing that should be avoided.

disky · December 7

Franchise408 wrote: »

I'm going to take the unpopular approach and say that the population *should* be split.

If I want to play harder level content, then I should be in an instance with people also doing the same higher level content. It will make it easier for me to find people to do content with when I am in an instance shared by like minded individuals who want to do the same things. If I am in a zone with people who are playing undertuned content, then I have less people that I can actually engage in the game with, thus making me more unlikely to play with others.

The argument about not splitting the population doesn't work for me, as I don't see the population splitting as a bad thing that should be avoided.

Why would it make it easier to find individuals who want to do the same content? No matter how the servers are set up, the people who don't want to do it won't do it and won't go looking for like-minded people. With an optional setting, those who choose to play on a lower difficulty will continue doing what they always enjoyed previously, and those who want to increase challenge will do so, possibly seeking out others to group with. It still works just as well for you. With split servers however, you will only have fewer opportunities to engage with anyone at all.

spartaxoxo · December 7

disky wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

I'm going to take the unpopular approach and say that the population *should* be split.

If I want to play harder level content, then I should be in an instance with people also doing the same higher level content. It will make it easier for me to find people to do content with when I am in an instance shared by like minded individuals who want to do the same things. If I am in a zone with people who are playing undertuned content, then I have less people that I can actually engage in the game with, thus making me more unlikely to play with others.

The argument about not splitting the population doesn't work for me, as I don't see the population splitting as a bad thing that should be avoided.

Why would it make it easier to find individuals who want to do the same content? No matter how the servers are set up, the people who don't want to do it won't do it and won't go looking for like-minded people. With an optional setting, those who choose to play on a lower difficulty will continue doing what they always enjoyed previously, and those who want to increase challenge will do so, possibly seeking out others to group with. It still works just as well for you. With split servers however, you will only have fewer opportunities to engage with anyone at all.

It would not make it easier. The vast majority of the playerbase is into the story and exploration part of the game. That's overland. We know that because the devs have told us. Before any other consideration about help comes into play, you have to be aware someone even needs it. This is done by proximity/visibility. Less people in the same area is going to decrease the amount of helper potential because you can't consider a request that you're not aware of.

This might make sense if the vast majority of players weren't using overland and thus the split would increase the number of people in proximity. But that's not the case and the devs have been very clear about that as one of the biggest reasons for not doing it.

Franchise408 · December 9

disky wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

I'm going to take the unpopular approach and say that the population *should* be split.

If I want to play harder level content, then I should be in an instance with people also doing the same higher level content. It will make it easier for me to find people to do content with when I am in an instance shared by like minded individuals who want to do the same things. If I am in a zone with people who are playing undertuned content, then I have less people that I can actually engage in the game with, thus making me more unlikely to play with others.

The argument about not splitting the population doesn't work for me, as I don't see the population splitting as a bad thing that should be avoided.

Why would it make it easier to find individuals who want to do the same content? No matter how the servers are set up, the people who don't want to do it won't do it and won't go looking for like-minded people. With an optional setting, those who choose to play on a lower difficulty will continue doing what they always enjoyed previously, and those who want to increase challenge will do so, possibly seeking out others to group with. It still works just as well for you. With split servers however, you will only have fewer opportunities to engage with anyone at all.

It does not work well for me as is with a slider. If I have my slider set for more difficult and am fighting an encounter, and someone with their slider set for lower comes along, then there is a conflict in our encounters. There is a reason why multiplayer games don't have sliders, they have different instances.

Secondly, if I am in an instance for higher difficulty, I am also playing alongside players looking for higher difficulty. Therefore, we have the same objectives, or more likely to. As the game currently stands, I will never group with someone outside of my group, for a number of reasons: 1. the content doesn't require grouping and 2. with the content being so easy, it is very likely that the other players have different objectives than I do. If I am in an instance for higher difficulty, I will be more likely to group because 1. the content requires it and 2. the other players are more likely to have the same goals as I do, making grouping viable.

SilverBride · December 9

There are always going to be players of different levels, and different experience, and different goals no matter where we are. Different difficulty levels isn't going to prevent that.

And I don't know any players that group up for overland questing and the story anyway. Grouping for questing is filled with it's own problems such as having to be on the same step of the quest chain, etc..

The real solution is for players to participate in the activities that match how they like to play, because no game is going to be everything for everyone.

disky · December 10

Franchise408 wrote: »

If I have my slider set for more difficult and am fighting an encounter, and someone with their slider set for lower comes along, then there is a conflict in our encounters.

How does this create a conflict if the slider essentially enables a debuff, or group of debuffs, on your character? Other players are unaffected and this shouldn't be a problem for you, because you chose to increase the difficulty for yourself. If we assume that the baseline difficulty is similar to what we have now, then you're not going to have someone come along and sweep the zone with you unable to do what you want to do. Your experience will simply be more challenging, just as you wanted it to be.

And no one should complain about anyone failing to contribute, because in overland there are already players of varying degrees of skill playing alongside each other, with vastly different character builds. Everyone gets what they want, everyone can still play together.

Franchise408 wrote: »

Secondly, if I am in an instance for higher difficulty, I am also playing alongside players looking for higher difficulty. Therefore, we have the same objectives, or more likely to. As the game currently stands, I will never group with someone outside of my group, for a number of reasons: 1. the content doesn't require grouping and 2. with the content being so easy, it is very likely that the other players have different objectives than I do. If I am in an instance for higher difficulty, I will be more likely to group because 1. the content requires it and 2. the other players are more likely to have the same goals as I do, making grouping viable.

But if players choose to enable a higher difficulty, then no matter how it's implemented it's more likely that they're going to seek out others to group up with. I don't see why cutting a population into fractions, forcing them to choose how they want to play forever and locking them out of interaction with anyone who may not have the exact same motivations is a better choice. Giving people options and letting them choose in the moment simply provides a higher degree of freedom to players, and mixing players together provides a diversity of perspectives that is valuable to everyone, even if it may not seem like it on paper.

ereboz · December 10

Every zone has a main story questline. Would be awesome, if after completing that quest line, you unlock new game plus in that zone, making enemies harder, and drop better loot

Franchise408 · December 10

disky wrote: »

But if players choose to enable a higher difficulty, then no matter how it's implemented it's more likely that they're going to seek out others to group up with. I don't see why cutting a population into fractions, forcing them to choose how they want to play forever and locking them out of interaction with anyone who may not have the exact same motivations is a better choice. Giving people options and letting them choose in the moment simply provides a higher degree of freedom to players, and mixing players together provides a diversity of perspectives that is valuable to everyone, even if it may not seem like it on paper.

I'm in the mood for a cheeseburger. I see a burger joint that's known for their burgers. Everybody goes there to get their burgers.

Next door is a restaurant with a variety of food. They may or may not have a burger on the menu, but because they have a wide selection of dishes, I figure it's possible they may have a burger on the menu.

Which restaurant am I going to go to get my burger?

Same goes for ESO. I want to play a more challenging game, and find groups to do this content with. I can go into an instance that is dedicated to people looking to do the same thing as me, or I can go into an instance that is flooded with anyone and everyone who has any wide range of objectives for their playtime. Which one is going to give me the best experience?

We even already have versions of this in guilds. Guilds cut out all the elements that we aren't looking for to focus on the parts of the game we do want to engage with, and do so with like minded individuals.

Me being in an instance of non-like-minded individuals serves no purpose to the gameplay. I will not be grouping up with those people, they will not be grouping up with me. We won't be doing anything together. Keeping us in the same instance is an inefficient use of resources. The game already *has* instances. Instead of instancing it by when people log in (i.e.: there were already 100 people in the instance, you're 101, so you get a new instance), instance it by the experience people want to have. Have an instance for lower difficulty, have an instance for higher difficulty, and then you are more efficiently using the instances that *are already in game* to allow people to more easily find players that are working towards similar goals.

We have these with guilds, we have these with normal and vet dungeons and trials, and other persisting online games already have overworld instances based on difficulty. If ZOS were to work a solution for the game's difficulty, difficulty based instances is something that could *easily* be done and work within the game's already existing structure.

disky · December 10

As you say, there are already multiple ways to find the groups you want to join. Guilds, Group Finder, zone chat. And if you had a dedicated instance for hard mode, you'd be doing exactly the same things you're doing now to find those players, just with a smaller group of players.

A separate instance is the opposite of an "efficient use of resources" because it's more effort to maintain from a development perspective for minimal benefit to anyone involved. Who cares if some of the people don't want to do what you're doing in the current state of things? That's going to be the case if you have a separate instance as well, there are just going to be fewer people to convince to do whatever it is you want to do.

You already have the tools you need to find people if you want to group up for overland content, and the game isn't stopping anyone from seeking you out if they so choose. It's just that the overland game doesn't motivate anyone to do it right now because it's so trivially easy.

Franchise408 · December 10

disky wrote: »

As you say, there are already multiple ways to find the groups you want to join. Guilds, Group Finder, zone chat. And if you had a dedicated instance for hard mode, you'd be doing exactly the same things you're doing now to find those players, just with a smaller group of players.

No, I'd be doing it with a more curated group of players.

disky wrote: »

A separate instance is the opposite of an "efficient use of resources" because it's more effort to maintain from a development perspective for minimal benefit to anyone involved. Who cares if some of the people don't want to do what you're doing in the current state of things? That's going to be the case if you have a separate instance as well, there are just going to be fewer people to convince to do whatever it is you want to do.

ESO already has separate instances. The tech and structure to separate the player base is already there and is already in usage. Instead of randomly separating people, there is now a purpose and outcome to the separation.

disky wrote: »

You already have the tools you need to find people if you want to group up for overland content, and the game isn't stopping anyone from seeking you out if they so choose. It's just that the overland game doesn't motivate anyone to do it right now because it's so trivially easy.

You are changing the argument. Nobody is complaining about dungeons and trials being too easy, because they have separate instances. We are complaining about overland, which is too easy and does not have separate instances. If we have tools to group up with our preferred difficulty levels in other content, we should for overland as well.

There has always been an argument in this thread against separating the playerbase through separate instances. People feel it's a bad thing to split the playerbase. My argument is that it is not a bad thing, it is already happening in game right now this very moment as we have this conversation, and my recommendation gives a purpose to that playerbase splitting outside of just "too many people in the instance, time to create a new one".

Online games in general already have methods of splitting the playerbase. MMO's have different servers with different rulesets. Some for PVP, some for roleplay, some for more gameplay restrictions or less, some for different difficulty settings, and in some games, for different content altogether. Games that use more of a super server structure like ESO does still have separate instances of that server based on difficulty settings. The argument against splitting the playerbase is, for me, completely invalid. It is not "too hard" for the devs to implement when it is the industry standard for games like ESO, and it is not harmful to the playerbase when the splitting of the playerbase will stand to actually serve a purpose by putting people who will play together... together, instead of arbitrarily splitting the base by population size. Splitting the playerbase through separate instances is not a new concept that is introducing something new to ESO. Splitting the playerbase is 100% happening right now. That's why PC players can't play with X-Box players, and that's why players sometimes don't see each other despite being in the same area.

disky · December 10

Franchise408 wrote: »

No, I'd be doing it with a more curated group of players.

A more curated group of players, of like-mind, that are going to be just as evenly spread out across the same number of zones we have now. Even if those players feel the way you do about the game that doesn't mean they're going to want to do what you're doing in the moment you're doing it. That means you're going to have a smaller number of potential group members, even if they are all looking for a challenge.

Franchise408 wrote: »

ESO already has separate instances. The tech and structure to separate the player base is already there and is already in usage. Instead of randomly separating people, there is now a purpose and outcome to the separation.

It's still a separate set of rules, and therefore an additional degree of server maintenance and development time which didn't exist before.

Franchise408 wrote: »

You are changing the argument. Nobody is complaining about dungeons and trials being too easy, because they have separate instances. We are complaining about overland, which is too easy and does not have separate instances. If we have tools to group up with our preferred difficulty levels in other content, we should for overland as well...

I said you have access to guilds, Group Finder and zone chat. Those are all tools which you can use to organize overland content. I didn't say anything about dungeons or trials.

Certain games like World of Warcraft have different server rules for different servers, but that's generally reserved for very popular games, and ESO just doesn't have that level of popularity. To say that ESO is running different instances right now and so it shouldn't be a challenge to create a new one with a different ruleset is specious. It's not the same as maintaining console servers or the test server, it's a wholly-separate, permanent game balance configuration which requires its own dev time and constant balance just like the other servers, which will also split the PC population, and it's simply not necessary when there are more reasonable player-level solutions. It is not the "industry standard" to do what you're suggesting and it is not as trivial as you're making it out to be.

It's also worth noting that neither players nor MMO development studios like empty servers, and server merges happen all the time when populations dwindle. You're asking ZOS to implement a massive change and then roll the dice on whether people show up for a feature that is desired by a minority of the population at best. There is no doubt in my mind that they would eventually have to either merge or close the server due to low population. It just doesn't make sense from a development perspective to do it this way.

Franchise408 · December 11

disky wrote: »

A more curated group of players, of like-mind, that are going to be just as evenly spread out across the same number of zones we have now. Even if those players feel the way you do about the game that doesn't mean they're going to want to do what you're doing in the moment you're doing it. That means you're going to have a smaller number of potential group members, even if they are all looking for a challenge.

I already have the same number of potential players, because I am not more likely to group with someone who isn't doing what I'm doing just because they are in my instance. As ESO stands, I am 0% likely to group up with someone outside of pre-designed group content, because there is zero reason to. The content doesn't warrant it. Higher difficulty content makes me more likely to group up with players, as it becomes more efficient, and in that case, having split instances makes sense because I will be with players looking to play the same type of content. As overland currently stands, I will be grouping with 0% of the player base. I am effectively already split from the rest of the playerbase because I will not interact or engage with you. Put me in an instance of higher level content with people doing the same thing, even if that percentage is only 1% likely to group up with someone, it is still infinitely more than 0%.

disky wrote: »

It's still a separate set of rules, and therefore an additional degree of server maintenance and development time which didn't exist before.

Not at all. They are already doing it with trails and dungeons. The tech is already in place and already being used.

disky wrote: »

I said you have access to guilds, Group Finder and zone chat. Those are all tools which you can use to organize overland content. I didn't say anything about dungeons or trials.

Dungeons and trials are the only forms of content where any of that is viable. We are talking about overland content, which now requires 0% grouping. All of those grouping tools mean nothing for overland in its current state.

disky wrote: »

Certain games like World of Warcraft have different server rules for different servers, but that's generally reserved for very popular games, and ESO just doesn't have that level of popularity. To say that ESO is running different instances right now and so it shouldn't be a challenge to create a new one with a different ruleset is specious. It's not the same as maintaining console servers or the test server, it's a wholly-separate, permanent game balance configuration which requires its own dev time and constant balance just like the other servers, which will also split the PC population, and it's simply not necessary when there are more reasonable player-level solutions. It is not the "industry standard" to do what you're suggesting and it is not as trivial as you're making it out to be.

This is just factually and objectively wrong. EverQuest does it. EverQuest in 2024 is wildly less popular than ESO. And to say that ESO isn't popular enough is again just factually and objectively wrong. ESO is one of the top MMO's on the market currently. It absolutely is the "industry standard" to do what I am suggesting, and to argue that ZOS does not have the talent or resources to implement it is disingenuous at best.

disky wrote: »

It's also worth noting that neither players nor MMO development studios like empty servers, and server merges happen all the time when populations dwindle. You're asking ZOS to implement a massive change and then roll the dice on whether people show up for a feature that is desired by a minority of the population at best. There is no doubt in my mind that they would eventually have to either merge or close the server due to low population. It just doesn't make sense from a development perspective to do it this way.

There won't be empty servers, because they don't have to make separate servers. Going into a vet dungeon doesn't put you in a different server. Going into the numerous instances of Cyrodiil doesn't put you in a different server. It's all the same server, just different instances of it.

Different instances are already done for dungeons, trials, Cyrodiil, and Imperial City. The tech and foundation for different instances is already being utilized in ESO for every aspect of the game *except* overland. There is zero reason why it cannot be done now.

The playerbase is already being split in the game's current state. As I write this post, the population is split between PC, X-Box, and PS5 megaservers, along with NA and European versions of each one.

The tech for different instances, including different rulesets, is already being utilized in every aspect of the game except overland. Different instances with different rulesets are already being used for dungeons, trials, Cyrodiil, and Imperial City.

Having different servers or instances with different rulesets is an industry standard, and not limited to games that are more popular than ESO. ESO is one of the top MMO's on the market, and games with far lower populations and revenue generation are implementing these strategies. In fact, ESO is probably the only one that I can think of that I've played that *hasn't* done it, and the only one that is stubbornly insisting that it can't be done.

I see 0 valid argument against separate instances, and it is really the preferred method over some arbitrary "debuff" that hardly solves the actual problem.

ZOS certainly doesn't have to implement it, it is their game afterall. However, until separate overland instances are implemented, I have 0 incentive to buy new content expansions. Overland in its current state is unacceptable to me, and debuffs are not an acceptable solution to that for me.