I wouldn't expect to hear any significant details till 2027. They've been extremely clear that it's not coming soon.

Not saying that a FAQ and some more information would be a bad thing. But I think people have gotta manage their expectations - just because zos did something to the server yesterday does not mean crossplay is impending or magically happening sooner now.



It would be good for them to address some of the community concerns and pain points to start a dialogue early, but I wouldn't be surprised if they're still at the stage of just trying to figure out what's even technically possible right now.

GeneralGrundmann wrote: »

But it will be quite some time until crossplay finally arrives and I would prefere a FAQ with some final decisions short before the release of crossplay instead of planned and/or work in progress updates now.

That's the problem.

ZOS has a habit of not saying anything until they finish it... which means that if players don't like the way it works, now there's nothing that can be changed about it. That then results in a lot of people leaving the game.

The name conflict thing is touchy, and there are a lot of fears that ZOS (or even other players) don't understand how touchy it is. Sure, it sounds great on principle to get more people on the same server, but there are a lot of players who prefer ESO as a single-player experience or are very into their character RP. If they are forced to change their character names for any reason... well, the 'uninstall' button is much easier to hit than changing 10+ years of personal lore.

For large overarching changes, it would be in ZOS's best interest to say "hey, this is probably a year out, but here are our thoughts." mainly so the players could say "hey, could you do it this way instead?" That would help with this idea that they keep saying about building the game with the players, and then the feedback could actually be implemented... as opposed to every other time they do something big and then the feedback goes in the "thanks for the feedback but it's too late to do anything about it now, so I'm sure the players will think like us and not you, right?" folder.

...never intentionally, let's put it that way.

LadyGP wrote: »

YffresTrill wrote: »

I did not vote because my response would be "Overall don't care, but have some concerns." That is, they have not given us any detail about how character names and such will be handled. While I understand this is unlikely, I am concerned that I might be forced to rename some of my characters or have an ugly "-PC" tag appended to them. It would be nice if ZOS could come out and explain how this will be handled.

My 2 second thought on this is they would just offer one/both of the people a way to change their toon name to avoid all this.

And if both players say "My toon's name and identity is very important to me so I'm not changing it!"...?

I'm sure they could just hand out name change tokens like candy - they already do if a name breaks ToS. But some people are hardcore into RP and have had these names for a decade at this point, so changing it is effectively a nonstarter for these people.

The only solution that would be acceptable for both parties would be for ZOS to remove the requirement that every character name on the server be unique. That way everyone could keep the name they care about. Account names still would need to be unique, and those could append a server.
Yes, that means you would have 15 "Geralt of Riverhold"s walking around. But if everything (reports/mail/etc) goes through account name, then it'd still work out. The character name would essentially be just something for RP used in dialogue, and then we already have the "show character/account name" options for people who want to see either one around.

i sure hope not. none of these golden pursuits interest me even a little and i am being spammed with an intrusive banner blocking my view on the screen demanding i claim their "rewards." feels more like a punishment to me.