Dedicated Server For ESO+ Subscribers

DenMoria

Tandor wrote: »

DenMoria wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

One of the worst ideas ever, to be brutally honest. It would be awful to separate players in this way, and it wouldn't work. It would just lead to even more complaining every time the players on the special server started lagging - which could be for any number of reasons but probably not directly related to the actual server itself. The player's end, the server hardware, the network between the player and the servers and the server/game code would all be the same regardless of such a measure.

But why on Nirn would you want to mingle with the unwashed (or in this case unpaid) masses?

We are simply better than the "cheap". It's a fact!

I achieve that already by playing mainly on the EU server !

Agreed.

I get in trouble 'cause I always pay a "lady" on the EU and I'm no lady. Nope... no lady... no lady at all...

My snootiness gets me killed on NA.

Dracan_Fontom

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

Why should ESO+ subscribers have to finance the servers that are being put under such strain by non-subscribers?:
.


Where is the value for money for those that pay it?:

That is the most self absorbed question I have ever seen.

Verbal_Earthworm

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

Why should ESO+ subscribers have to finance the servers that are being put under such strain by non-subscribers?:

People who don't sub to ESO still pay for their game. They need to access DLC through a separate purchase, and are funding the servers just as much as subscribers are. They still buy mounts, pets and cosmetics. They do all of the same things subscribers do...and may even be paying more since we get crowns with our subs we can save up to buy things with. Why should I get a special server for subscribing, when someone who doesn't subscribe may very well be paying more per month in crown store purchases than I do? You can't assume that everyone you see is a "Non-subscriber" or that they haven't spent money on the game.

Why should I play on a server with a select few when our money could go to fund -better servers for everyone- and we could have a full game that supports both a subscribing and non subscribing community?

Server improvements need to be universal. They are being strained by -everyone-.

Where is the value for money for those that pay it?:

This answer is subjective and dependent on what you value personally. I'm happy with my sub, and what it gives me. This game provides so much more with its subscription than other games. Most wouldn't even dream of giving you any cash shop currency, and would make you buy the craft bag inventory space separately, slot by slot. Not to mention in many games dying clothing would cost you, you'd never get the dyes back if you decided to change colors, and you would pay a considerable amount of money for each dye in each slot. My sub lets me dye for free any time I want. (Some games even make dying RNG based so you never know if you'll actually get the color you want.) If this isn't valuable to others? Okay. But value is, again, subjective.

My question is where is the value for the money for those who are buying DLC's and other content without a sub? Why should they get the short end of the stick if they don't sub?

Tying server performance to subbing would be the fast track to breeding further resentment towards the game and claims of "P2W". Again, server performance needs to be universal. This is all around, a very, very bad idea that would divide the community into "us" and "them" and we simply do not need more of this. There is already enough of it between PVP vs PVE, RP vs PVE

I like your answers. Cheers for taking your time to reply.

Perhaps my idea could stretch to including non-subbed players who have purchased x amount from the crown store?

Verbal_Earthworm

DenMoria wrote: »

OP

You're a MEANIE!

While I'm probably the most pretentious and elitist prig you'll ever meet, even I think that's a little bit over the top.

Still... Don't get me wrong... If it was available, I'd be the first to sign up and lord it over the plebians at every opportunity.

I am Altmer at heart, after all...

Yes, I am a meanie.

Verbal_Earthworm

Starlock wrote: »

Not a big believer in the common good, are you?

Certainly not, there is nothing common about good.

I only believe in the common bad.

Starlock

Verbal_Earthworm wrote: »

Starlock wrote: »

Not a big believer in the common good, are you?

Certainly not, there is nothing common about good.

I only believe in the common bad.

I'm sorry life has been so rough for you then. I hope this game helps provide some solace for you.

Edited to add - I for one am perfectly okay letting it be a solace for those who are financially impaired as well. If you aren't, I suppose that's your prerogative.

Verbal_Earthworm

Dracan_Fontom wrote: »

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

Why should ESO+ subscribers have to finance the servers that are being put under such strain by non-subscribers?:
.


Where is the value for money for those that pay it?:

That is the most self absorbed question I have ever seen.

I sincerely doubt that, this is exactly the question(s) we ask ourselves when something we have paid for is found wanting.

We quantify and we judge purchases as a matter of course.

Kidgangster101

ArchMikem wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

Verbal_Earthworm wrote: »

ArchMikem wrote: »

I think you have a misguided idea on just what contributes to server lag.

Fair enough, so what does contribute to server lag then?

Guide me, oh wise one.

Something happens on the client, client sends all info about what happened to sever, server has to find out what outcome to choose, server needs to have all variables, calculate all variables, send back answer.

Now think of all the information that has to be sent to resolve that, now times it by the number of people in an active area doing the same.

Even if you segregated the ESO+ and Non-ESO+ players you would still get enough people on both servers to cause issues.

^ That. Its not the number of people in the instance, its the number of calculations the Server has to do, which keep going up the more complicated ZOS makes the game. Even a single person spamming their skill bars can cause an issue. Why do you think Trials with just 12 players in their own instance still produce horrid lag and connection issues?

Bit if this is the case how come games as old as ff11 and wow have better performance than eso? And why does ff14 a game that has more subscribers than eso has not have much problem with as much lag or load screens? Hell I think my EverQuest online adventures from ps2 has less lag then ESO lol.

What is really happening us all that money from crowns they are making isn't really being pushed back into the game the way it should.

Battlegrounds should be starting with full teams, lag in 12 man content shouldn't be causing the delay from the server when you are CC and can't break out. Same with even 4 man dungeons.

Zos should be putting a lot of money into their servers to upgrade them and give us a playable game where we can not experience an "unusually long load time" every single time we use a wayshrine.

Verbal_Earthworm

Starlock wrote: »

Verbal_Earthworm wrote: »

Starlock wrote: »

Not a big believer in the common good, are you?

Certainly not, there is nothing common about good.

I only believe in the common bad.

I'm sorry life has been so rough for you then. I hope this game helps provide some solace for you.

Edited to add - I for one am perfectly okay letting it be a solace for those who are financially impaired as well. If you aren't, I suppose that's your prerogative.

There is always someone that has had it rougher so no need to apologise. It is what it is.

I am very much a glass half empty person and its the wrong glass and the wrong contents.

I am okay with supporting others to a point, and that point is when it detriments me.

The servers just get worse and the content and the players keep coming.

Something has to give.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Yeats.

DenMoria

Starlock wrote: »

Verbal_Earthworm wrote: »

Starlock wrote: »

Not a big believer in the common good, are you?

Certainly not, there is nothing common about good.

I only believe in the common bad.

I'm sorry life has been so rough for you then. I hope this game helps provide some solace for you.

Edited to add - I for one am perfectly okay letting it be a solace for those who are financially impaired as well. If you aren't, I suppose that's your prerogative.

Life Bad? Why would you assume that? The OP could just be elitist prig like me!

My life is AWESOME, and I have all the compassion of a glacier.

ArchangelIsraphel

Dracan_Fontom wrote: »

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

Why should ESO+ subscribers have to finance the servers that are being put under such strain by non-subscribers?:
.


Where is the value for money for those that pay it?:

That is the most self absorbed question I have ever seen.

@Dracan_Fontom Not sure if this comment is directed at me or not since you quoted me, but those are the OP's questions, not mine. My answers to them had a focus on sharing with the community.

I like your answers. Cheers for taking your time to reply.

Perhaps my idea could stretch to including non-subbed players who have purchased x amount from the crown store?

Glad you liked my answers, happy to discuss!

I'm still firm in the belief however that the playerbase does not need to be segregated based on how much money we've spent in the game. The most benefit overall, both to the community and for the longevity of the game, is to improve the servers universally. Happy players who aren't currently buying from the crown store or subscribing may consider doing so more often with smoother performance because the game is putting its best foot forward at the outset, rather than making people feel forced to pay for better performance. Again, that kind of marketing breeds an enormous amount of resentment, which spreads and discourages new players from picking up the game.

Starlock

DenMoria wrote: »

Starlock wrote: »

Verbal_Earthworm wrote: »

Starlock wrote: »

Not a big believer in the common good, are you?

Certainly not, there is nothing common about good.

I only believe in the common bad.

I'm sorry life has been so rough for you then. I hope this game helps provide some solace for you.

Edited to add - I for one am perfectly okay letting it be a solace for those who are financially impaired as well. If you aren't, I suppose that's your prerogative.

Life Bad? Why would you assume that? The OP could just be elitist prig like me!

My life is AWESOME, and I have all the compassion of a glacier.

Well, I have a policy of assuming the best of people rather than the worst of people. The vast majority of the time, this is the correct call. Besides, if you treat someone like an $#@%, you'll tend to get treated that way right back. And there's enough trouble in the world without me needlessly adding to it by making such mean-spirited assumptions.

Verbal_Earthworm wrote: »

Starlock wrote: »

Verbal_Earthworm wrote: »

Starlock wrote: »

Not a big believer in the common good, are you?

Certainly not, there is nothing common about good.

I only believe in the common bad.

I'm sorry life has been so rough for you then. I hope this game helps provide some solace for you.

Edited to add - I for one am perfectly okay letting it be a solace for those who are financially impaired as well. If you aren't, I suppose that's your prerogative.

There is always someone that has had it rougher so no need to apologise. It is what it is.

I am very much a glass half empty person and its the wrong glass and the wrong contents.

I am okay with supporting others to a point, and that point is when it detriments me.

The servers just get worse and the content and the players keep coming.

Something has to give.

Fair enough. Personally, I couldn't say what causes the server issues. I hardly notice any problems with this game, but I also don't play PvP (which I have noticed is gods awful when I've done stuff there with guild mates).

I also recognize that if something like that was done, it'd be really bad for the game. As others have mentioned, it would fracture the player base. It would also probably mean going back to a subscription-only model. I don't know the story about why the game shifted to non-sub model, but I would bet it is because non-sub models put the game in a better place financially to support future content and continued development or support. I'm pretty sure your suggestion would hurt game development too, but I could be wrong about that.

In any case, I've never played an online game that hasn't had some stability issues. Often it is on the user end just as often as it is on the server end.

Mintaka5

I would love to get some pampering for subscribing. Hell, I'd pay more to get away from soul-sucking F2P whiner plebs that bog the servers down with trolling, trash talk, and manic key-mashing!

DenMoria

Starlock wrote: »

DenMoria wrote: »

Starlock wrote: »

Verbal_Earthworm wrote: »

Starlock wrote: »

Not a big believer in the common good, are you?

Certainly not, there is nothing common about good.

I only believe in the common bad.

I'm sorry life has been so rough for you then. I hope this game helps provide some solace for you.

Edited to add - I for one am perfectly okay letting it be a solace for those who are financially impaired as well. If you aren't, I suppose that's your prerogative.

Life Bad? Why would you assume that? The OP could just be elitist prig like me!

My life is AWESOME, and I have all the compassion of a glacier.

Well, I have a policy of assuming the best of people rather than the worst of people. The vast majority of the time, this is the correct call. Besides, if you treat someone like an $#@%, you'll tend to get treated that way right back. And there's enough trouble in the world without me needlessly adding to it by making such mean-spirited assumptions.

Verbal_Earthworm wrote: »

Starlock wrote: »

Verbal_Earthworm wrote: »

Starlock wrote: »

Not a big believer in the common good, are you?

Certainly not, there is nothing common about good.

I only believe in the common bad.

I'm sorry life has been so rough for you then. I hope this game helps provide some solace for you.

Edited to add - I for one am perfectly okay letting it be a solace for those who are financially impaired as well. If you aren't, I suppose that's your prerogative.

There is always someone that has had it rougher so no need to apologise. It is what it is.

I am very much a glass half empty person and its the wrong glass and the wrong contents.

I am okay with supporting others to a point, and that point is when it detriments me.

The servers just get worse and the content and the players keep coming.

Something has to give.

Fair enough. Personally, I couldn't say what causes the server issues. I hardly notice any problems with this game, but I also don't play PvP (which I have noticed is gods awful when I've done stuff there with guild mates).

I also recognize that if something like that was done, it'd be really bad for the game. As others have mentioned, it would fracture the player base. It would also probably mean going back to a subscription-only model. I don't know the story about why the game shifted to non-sub model, but I would bet it is because non-sub models put the game in a better place financially to support future content and continued development or support. I'm pretty sure your suggestion would hurt game development too, but I could be wrong about that.

In any case, I've never played an online game that hasn't had some stability issues. Often it is on the user end just as often as it is on the server end.

Whatever. Humans are the worst.

AD FOREVER!

Verbal_Earthworm

This thread is suddenly relevant for me and others on PC-EU.

If not a separate server then how about preferential login queue status for ESO+ members?

Why should paying players be locked out of the game when non-paying players are filling it to the brim?

Essentially paying for the game so someone else can play it.

MrGraves

I feel like there's probably a reason they switched from having to sub to just having to buy the game to play. lol. And the game has improved alot since then. & yeah everyone is a 'paying' player and if they are active on eso chances are they've bought either plus at some point or other crown store things.

SteveCampsOut

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

Why should ESO+ subscribers have to finance the servers that are being put under such strain by non-subscribers?:

People who don't sub to ESO still pay for their game. They need to access DLC through a separate purchase, and are funding the servers just as much as subscribers are.

As a FORMER ESO+ Subscriber I'm calling BULLCAKA on this assertion! Non-Subscriber nowayinhell pay as much for the game as Subscribers do! You can't even claim they all buy the DLC's let alone buy crowns for cosmetics. This is completely disingenuous!

idk

Verbal_Earthworm wrote: »

Why should ESO+ subscribers have to finance the servers that are being put under such strain by non-subscribers?

Where is the value for money for those that pay it?

Everyone who plays this game, outside of free trials, has paid to play this game. No one plays this game for free. Further, people are only able to play what they paid for. No one is getting a free ride

All of us have two options. We can subscribe and get access to everything (chapter zones eventually become DLCs) or we can outright purchase access to zones (and dungeons).

To bring out the most obvious issue, someone who purchased the game, every DLC and chapter is a second class citizen in the eyes of the suggestion in the OP. They have purchased access that the idea wishes do deny.

No snide remark. Just stating the glaring issue beyond the reality it would double the costs for Zos to run 12 servers instead of the current 6.

Edit: I also forgot to mention the idea would split up players who enjoy playing together. I would split up guilds. That alone could lead to some players leaving as our longevity is tied more to who we enjoy playing with than what we play. In other words, Zos could lose some subscribers.

Segregation is not a good idea.

xenowarrior92eb17_ESO

that would be bad cuz it would just separate the playerbase….and honestly im a sub since beta and I dont wanna be a part of the elitist few who sub cuz it makes no sense...I came to play an MMO with a megaserver...its bad already that we have NA and EU separated instead of being 1 true megaserver...last we need are subservers...

JJBoomer

ESO+ subber here, and here is my uninformative... NO.

Gythral

Lets have a better server for the whole EU player base & a team (that can communication in English, French & German) that oversees making the server work to an acceptable standard (ie about 5 or 6x as the EU heaps do now) & reports to us the player base...

Danikat

Ignoring the fact that ZOS wouldn't do this, especially after all the efforts they've made to bring people together instead of separating us more I'm curious: would this be optional, or would subscribers be forced onto this seperate server? What if someone subscribes for just a month? (Or a few months?) Would they be dumped onto a seperate server from their friends, guilds etc. and have to play alone until it expires, or could they choose to stay on the "free" server?

(I assume people who subscribe, play on this server, and then stop subbing for a bit will have no choice except to be separated from everyone they know in the game until they start paying again.)

For that matter ZOS have said server transfers aren't possible, so does that mean if your sub status changes you'd not only be separated from all your friends in the game but you'd have to make new characters and start over with none of the stuff you've unlocked (including crown store purchases)? Or would this have to be a one-time transfer like the one offered to PC players who moved to the consoles when those servers first opened, and then those people would have to promise to never, ever stop subscribing?

Honestly the more I think about this the more impractical it seems, for everyone involved.

Ratzkifal

Maybe because every flipping player paid for the game? You are no better than anyone else just because you are paying ESO+. But sure, let's return to pay-to-play and see how much you enjoy 5hours queue time for older content when the player base gets decimated like that.
I think this is the worst case of entitlement I have seen on the forums yet.
If you begrudge paying ESO+ for *** performance then stop subbing to show ZOS what's up!

ZonasArch

I paid for the game, I have subbed on and off at times, you are NOT funding my non-sub game time. At all. I already paid for it when I bought the game. And this is the feeling you'll get from so many others, that doing this silly idea would kill the game. Notice that the amount of people playing today is huge amounts larger than when sub was mandatory, and the game only gets better. If you were here before, you'll know this game sucked as far as everything goes.

Different servers would split friends that have played together for years now, it would quite literally be the end of the game.

Besides, being non-sub but playing so much, I've bought so many crowns with gold that I probably indirectly helped fund zenimax coffers by probably just as much as I would if I had sub. This is true for lots of people. Killing my access to the same server as most my friends would mean I would stop playing the game for sure.... Imagine how many others are in the same situation?

Btw, I've bought over 40k crowns with gold. We're talking equivalent of 300+USD that someone dumped in the game because I created demand for it. 20 months worth of sub... Plus my 11 months I subbed proper. No one sub is funding this game for my non-sub time.


And the value for sub, even for me after having it all set up to not need it, is having access to all DLC, double bank, extra home furnishing slots, craftbag, 1650 monthly crowns and a few interesting (others not so much) discounted crowns items. Craftbag alone is enough for me, really... Only reason why I'll sub again eventually. So much easier to make gold with that. So there are plenty of value there. Otherwise no one would do it.

method__01

this is terrible idea,i feel bad already when some from group dont have a DLC dungeon and forces to quit
having players separated? sorry NO

Salvas_Aren

I wonder how some noob in his first month of subscription would justify the payment argument against an old [snip] who bought all DLCs and 10ks of crowns.

I'm not saying that this is true for the OP, but it is something to take into consideration.

Not to mention that orchestrated raid packs and guilds would be torn apart, depending on who is on and off sub atm.

[Edit to remove profanity]

KoultouraS

Verbal_Earthworm wrote: »

This idea will probably draw a lot of fire but hear me out.

I begrudge paying for ESO+ with the server performance only getting worse over time.

ESO+ players should get their own server to play on, they are paying for it already.

Why should ESO+ subscribers have to finance the servers that are being put under such strain by non-subscribers?

Where is the value for money for those that pay it?

Verbal_Earthworm wrote: »

This thread is suddenly relevant for me and others on PC-EU.

If not a separate server then how about preferential login queue status for ESO+ members?

Why should paying players be locked out of the game when non-paying players are filling it to the brim?

Essentially paying for the game so someone else can play it.

Edit: Getting some expected replies, some expected snide remarks and an uninformative "No" but nobody has answered my questions yet. Let's assume that they aren't rhetorical. I shall bold them so you cant miss them.

To answer your questions.
1. I am a non ESO+ member . I have payed for every single dlc out there. So I have invested money as well. I just like to bargain more for what I buy. So , I chose to buy crowns only on discount periods, and I buy the highest amount , this way eventually I have the same services with an ESO+ member , given that I have a) 5 (4 grand and a minor one) chests in my house 3 fully upgraded characters in terms of capacity and a maxed out bank space b) All dlcs released, and all that with an amount of EUROS that would be far less than a years sub. What about the money I ve invsted? Am I gonna be treated like a pariah just because I fail to fit in the SUB model that ESO offers?

2. There is value for money exactly where it was in the 1st place: i) craft bag(which by any means I don't undestand why it is such a big deal, since you can manage the same for free if you follow my plan with chests), ii) crowns being given in a discount rate (12.99 is 1500 crowns whereas 12.99 in sub is 1650) iii) all dlcs unlocked and by stacking up your ESO+ crowns given you may also buy them just in case you need to unsub. You also need to understand that my money doesn't worth less than yours...

DenMoria

Sub = Important

Non-Sub = deadbeats

That seems to be the attitude.

I may Sub, but I rarely use the the Crown Store so I'm not much of a judge. Sub - since inception - probably about 1.5K at this point on subs. Crown Store - maybe 45, once.

Many non-subs that I know buy all kinds of crap in the Crown Store.

In the long run, ZoS makes money off both of us factions.

We should just stop fighting.

ATomiX96

"Splitting the playerbase is a good idea" ~no one, ever...

also if eso+ becomes mandatory to play eso you might as well go play wow.

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

Tying server performance to subbing would be the fast track to breeding further resentment towards the game and claims of "P2W"

acceptable server performance shouldnt be considered P2W

Androconium

Turelus wrote: »

Verbal_Earthworm wrote: »

ArchMikem wrote: »

I think you have a misguided idea on just what contributes to server lag.

Fair enough, so what does contribute to server lag then?

Guide me, oh wise one.

Something happens on the client, client sends all info about what happened to sever, server has to find out what outcome to choose, server needs to have all variables, calculate all variables, send back answer.

Now think of all the information that has to be sent to resolve that, now times it by the number of people in an active area doing the same.

Even if you segregated the ESO+ and Non-ESO+ players you would still get enough people on both servers to cause issues.

So. Too many players is the problem?