I wouldn't want it to be the default, but I do like the idea of having the option. Most of the time I'm happy to see other players around, but sometimes it's frustrating, I barely get to do anything because every time enemies respawn another group of players come through and burn everything down before I get the chance to do more than get the odd hit in. That's fine if you just want to get in and out as fast as possible, but sometimes I'd like to actually play my way through a delve, and then it would be nice to have the option to switch if one is too crowded.

I think what you're looking for is a single player game.

AlnilamE wrote: »

I think having other people in the world is a good thing, even in delves. Sometimes I just want to get to my objective as quickly as possible and other players killing everything before me are doing me a favour.

So you will have two options for the zone: where there will be no one, and where the common zone is, where they will clear the way for you ahead. Did you read my post carefully?

The thing that this post doesn't take into account is that space is limited. If you open a private instance of a zone/delve/whatever, that means the server has to spin up that private instance and have the space for that private instance exclusively because one person is like "eww other people"

This was really made evident in the U47 preview stream. When Finn was going to show off the mount swimming, he had to leave the dungeon to a zone that he could swim on the mount. But since that was a private developer server, that meant that anywhere he went would need a new instance spun up, and the load time for him was in the minutes (note: no addons, no lag from other people, and a server private to the developers). And they explained right there that it took so long specifically because the server had to spin up a brand new instance and they talked briefly about the logistics of that.

This will never happen, unless people get really okay with having 5+ minute load times any time you go through a door. This will also never happen unless people get really okay with performance over the whole game going way down to support the fact that the server has to handle so many private instances.

Maybe one of the things they could do that would solve a few problems at once would be to offer an additional subscription on top of ESO+ that would let players do private instances, and then they could also customize things like difficulty level. That would need to have a separate fee attached to it so they could afford the extra server space without affecting the current instances.

tomofhyrule wrote: »

The thing that this post doesn't take into account is that space is limited. If you open a private instance of a zone/delve/whatever, that means the server has to spin up that private instance and have the space for that private instance exclusively because one person is like "eww other people"

This was really made evident in the U47 preview stream. When Finn was going to show off the mount swimming, he had to leave the dungeon to a zone that he could swim on the mount. But since that was a private developer server, that meant that anywhere he went would need a new instance spun up, and the load time for him was in the minutes (note: no addons, no lag from other people, and a server private to the developers). And they explained right there that it took so long specifically because the server had to spin up a brand new instance and they talked briefly about the logistics of that.

This will never happen, unless people get really okay with having 5+ minute load times any time you go through a door. This will also never happen unless people get really okay with performance over the whole game going way down to support the fact that the server has to handle so many private instances.

Maybe one of the things they could do that would solve a few problems at once would be to offer an additional subscription on top of ESO+ that would let players do private instances, and then they could also customize things like difficulty level. That would need to have a separate fee attached to it so they could afford the extra server space without affecting the current instances.

Yes, with a subscription as an option. I don't think that everyone will rush into a single-player playthrough. It will be a few people. They shouldn't load the server. Most will run as before, in general access.
So the subscription option - is quite reasonable.

Yes and no.

Story instances should be solo (some are), because it's really funny when the dialogue says you're going to encounter a big baddie or whatever, but you essentially walk in and there's nothing there because someone went through it just before you did. Or there are players already there and it takes you 3 seconds to kill the baddie that's supposedly so strong that they're going to destroy the world. You complete that part of the quest without lifting a finger and leave wondering what the big baddie would have been like. And you can't repeat it on that character, which sucks.

In later zones of the game, they started to use solo story instances, but in earlier zones, the story is sometimes ruined because of that. So I can see a case for having anything connected to the story being a solo instance. That includes rooms off delves, etc. By solo I mean "private" because if you're grouped with anyone, that would be okay. It just means that the group, whether one person or more, would have a private instance.

But for delves and PDs, I don't think it makes sense in an MMO. I'm sometimes disappointed when I enter a delve or whatever and someone has just been through and killed everything, but it's the nature of the beast.

I have four reasons:

1. Personally I would be annoyed to constantly be getting prompts any time I entered anything.
2. I like seeing other players be present in the open world, so anything that would reduce the amount of players available, by funneling them into a private session, would diminish my enjoyment, because I like MMOs. Splitting the players always lengthens queue times (or in this case, it would reduce frequency of seeing other players). Running into a heavily farmed area and deciding to go somewhere else vs. waiting is part of the MMO experience.
3. I don't support the idea that all kinds of players must have each kind of content served up in the way they like to play it. I feel that this is a waste of dev resources and the payoff is limited for player enjoyment. Not EVERYTHING has to be solo, and not EVERYTHING has to be scaled up to be hard, etc.
4. I like to do this content with friends, grouped. It would be "unfair" if they had an option for solo only, or open world, but not "private instance for a group of friends." That takes us down the road of... can you enter these instances grouped? Is there a cap? What's the experience? It's not really a good compromise or an inclusive solution if you MUST be completely solo to get an instance that has all the mobs refreshed with no interference.

I agree that it can feel anticlimatic, if a horde of players rushes into your delve boss fight. But at the same time, it isn't really wrong. Sometimes it is the good guys who have the numbers and the power on their side.

peacenote wrote: »

I have four reasons:

1. Personally I would be annoyed to constantly be getting prompts any time I entered anything.
2. I like seeing other players be present in the open world, so anything that would reduce the amount of players available, by funneling them into a private session, would diminish my enjoyment, because I like MMOs. Splitting the players always lengthens queue times (or in this case, it would reduce frequency of seeing other players). Running into a heavily farmed area and deciding to go somewhere else vs. waiting is part of the MMO experience.
3. I don't support the idea that all kinds of players must have each kind of content served up in the way they like to play it. I feel that this is a waste of dev resources and the payoff is limited for player enjoyment. Not EVERYTHING has to be solo, and not EVERYTHING has to be scaled up to be hard, etc.
4. I like to do this content with friends, grouped. It would be "unfair" if they had an option for solo only, or open world, but not "private instance for a group of friends." That takes us down the road of... can you enter these instances grouped? Is there a cap? What's the experience? It's not really a good compromise or an inclusive solution if you MUST be completely solo to get an instance that has all the mobs refreshed with no interference.

1. You can make a setting so that you automatically select what you want. Good review!

2. Most likely, you will continue to see other players as before, but a little less than before I do not think that everyone will suddenly become loners-introverts). Teso - is a unique game and is not obliged to repeat anything from other MMORPGs.

3. Well, how can I say ... If it is really difficult to do, and will require a lot of resources, then maybe it is not worth it. However, the person above suggested an option with a subscription, so that the private would be only for selected users of an additional subscription) There will be few of them. Why not. Subscription options need to be expanded, now the subscription gives too few goodies.

4. So that no one has a misunderstanding: the topic is about regular lairs, and regular open dungeons. I do not touch group dungeons, and do not talk about them.
Well yes, a private instance for a group of friends is also a good option, why not.

kargen27 wrote: »

FullMax wrote: »

peacenote wrote: »

I have four reasons:

1. Personally I would be annoyed to constantly be getting prompts any time I entered anything.
2. I like seeing other players be present in the open world, so anything that would reduce the amount of players available, by funneling them into a private session, would diminish my enjoyment, because I like MMOs. Splitting the players always lengthens queue times (or in this case, it would reduce frequency of seeing other players). Running into a heavily farmed area and deciding to go somewhere else vs. waiting is part of the MMO experience.
3. I don't support the idea that all kinds of players must have each kind of content served up in the way they like to play it. I feel that this is a waste of dev resources and the payoff is limited for player enjoyment. Not EVERYTHING has to be solo, and not EVERYTHING has to be scaled up to be hard, etc.
4. I like to do this content with friends, grouped. It would be "unfair" if they had an option for solo only, or open world, but not "private instance for a group of friends." That takes us down the road of... can you enter these instances grouped? Is there a cap? What's the experience? It's not really a good compromise or an inclusive solution if you MUST be completely solo to get an instance that has all the mobs refreshed with no interference.

1. You can make a setting so that you automatically select what you want. Good review!

2. Most likely, you will continue to see other players as before, but a little less than before I do not think that everyone will suddenly become loners-introverts). Teso - is a unique game and is not obliged to repeat anything from other MMORPGs.

3. Well, how can I say ... If it is really difficult to do, and will require a lot of resources, then maybe it is not worth it. However, the person above suggested an option with a subscription, so that the private would be only for selected users of an additional subscription) There will be few of them. Why not. Subscription options need to be expanded, now the subscription gives too few goodies.

4. So that no one has a misunderstanding: the topic is about regular lairs, and regular open dungeons. I do not touch group dungeons, and do not talk about them.
Well yes, a private instance for a group of friends is also a good option, why not.

Commenting on number two. ZoS spends time and resources to devise ways to get players back into older locations. Targeting these locations with drops, events and/or new quests gets the players to return. That is an effort to make that area feel more alive and active. Anything that diminishes the effort even if just by a few players diminishes the vibrancy of the area that many in an MMO are looking for.

Do you agree that oversaturation of a location with players is also bad? There is a solution that will suit everyone, we just haven't come to it yet.
I don't think that the absence of a couple of players will greatly affect the brightness of the location. I assure you: you won't notice their absence.

The subscription option was mentioned above.
There is another option.
What if we make a private one, for example, during some event? And only for that lair where this event takes place? What do you think?

Haven't they said relatively recently they are reworking the original main quest in part due to the performance impact of having so many solo instances running have on the servers.

They reduced the XP compared to overland or got rid of it for some mobs in delves to combat people grinding in them a long time ago.

Right now you have subclassing causing people who would have run past most of those mobs to kill everything in their path to help level various skill lines all over again, until people have most of what they want levelled it won't change anytime soon.

I like the idea of having it as an option, but I'm between yes and no (no other option unfortunately).

80% of the cases for me are:
- I need to go fast due to rl, so I run straight through, kill boss and off me.
- I go there just to pick up something then leave (I don't finish).
- I want to do it at slow pace, taking my time, reading all books, opening all chests...

All in all, most of the time, I'm a bother to others and/or others are a bother to me, due to different objectives. So yes, I would be more than happy to have a solo instance.

However, this game already tends to have many solo player (I'm one), and if this option of solo instances would exist, this tendency would probably increase a lot more. I'm not sure if it would be good or bad.

It's just not practical.

Yes. Other players ruin my game experience. I'm okay with having other player in the open world, mostly, but I don't want them in delves and other places. I like to take things slowly, explore places, look for chests and so on, and those guys are just running like crazy, jumping and killing everything like there's no tomorrow. I don't like to see dead npc's and bosses lying around and wait for their respawn.

Honestly, I would much prefer a single-player mode for ESO. And I want solo mode for Craglorn.

Tbh I always thought that public dungeons should be... well the "public" dungeons. While delves should be something else, seeing as they are categorized differently. But for whatever reason, there's hardly any difference between them. Delves are smaller and they get pretty crowded, so yeah, I wouldn't mind an option. After all, if it's an option, people who want the multiplayer experience can still pick that, and those who don't can pick something else.

But I would never actually expect this to happen. Even quest instances that have no right being public, are mostly public. Main story stuff where you should absolutely be alone, just your character, where the story makes clear that you are very much alone. Yet right there is another guy in his flashy little transmog, spinning around and pulling out his map, then putting it back again. If even those things aren't solo... Well, I think that says everything.