Would you support a new feature that allowed us to OPTIONALLY mute bards or other ambient chatter?

LoneStar2911

I feel that the audio options need a new setting added.

A setting that would allow us to adjust the volume of dialogue heard around us. A setting separate from the dialogue we hear in conversations with NPCs we actually interact with (for quests, lore, etc).
I'm talking about adjusted the volume (or muting) the repetitive dialogue from random NPCs that is probably meant for "immersion", when it's actually just quite annoying after being heard more than once or twice.

For example, Stuga's "Do you know how long I've been looking for you?!"
And the NPCs in Southern Elsweyr that love to repeat over and over again, "Salted pork?!?!" or the ones that yell "****, this humidity!"
Ugh.
Or how about the NPCs near the wayshrine in Elden Root? Wow. Those are... just.... Wow. So awful. So repetitive.

ZOS, please give us an option to either turn off (mute) these little dialogue snippets, or an audio slider so we can adjust the volume to our liking.

Would you support (or be "okay with") this setting being implemented?
Why or why not?

Edit/Update: Changed the title and some wording in attempt to better clarify what this thread was meant for.

LindsC

Heck yes. I would really like to have this available. ("Yes")

I would LOVE to have Stuga stop pestering me!

vibeborn

Other. (Please explain.)

Stuga yes, everyone else no. How else is I'm gonna know when to brag when people talk about my heroic deeds?

spartaxoxo

Other. (Please explain.)

I wouldn't mind but i don't like such biased poll options

Ysbriel

Other. (Please explain.)

Biased poll options kill potential discussions

LoneStar2911

Sure, why not? What's the harm? ("Yes")

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I wouldn't mind but i don't like such biased poll options

How are they biased??? There's 5 different responses to choose from. LOL WHAT

LoneStar2911

Sure, why not? What's the harm? ("Yes")

Please explain and give examples as to how "yes, why not?", "yes, i would love this", "no, i dont like QoL changes or polls.", "no, i need the immersion." and "other" is biased. Sounds to me like I hit a nerve more than anything.

hiyde

DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG I'VE BEEN LOOKING FOR THIS THREAD?

spartaxoxo

Other. (Please explain.)

Amber322 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I wouldn't mind but i don't like such biased poll options

How are they biased??? There's 5 different responses to choose from. LOL WHAT

"I'm grumpy and I don't like QOL changes" is not a neutral reason for No. In fact, if you don't want the change, you have to select an option that makes you sound like a fetcher. If you choose yes, you do not.

LoneStar2911

Sure, why not? What's the harm? ("Yes")

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Amber322 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I wouldn't mind but i don't like such biased poll options

How are they biased??? There's 5 different responses to choose from. LOL WHAT

"I'm grumpy and I don't like QOL changes" is not a neutral reason for No. In fact, if you don't want the change, you have to select an option that makes you sound like a fetcher. If you choose yes, you do not.

Hence the option for "other".
Anyone who chooses "no" probably is a fetcher. Because, it's something that would be toggle-able or adjustable in some way. To say no to something like this just doesn't make sense. It's...... selfish? I'm not sure what the correct word would be. But "selfish" feels pretty close.

You should either want it, or not care if those that do want it get it. And people who wouldn't use it and don't care about it have "other" to choose. But I've asked that those that choose that option explain why their answer isn't a "yes".

What I'm requesting wouldn't be forced on anyone.
Once again, it would be toggle-able. Or adjustable. You wouldn't have to use it at all. You may not even know it exists unless you looked for it in the settings, or someone else told you about it.
So....... what's the harm? It's a QoL implementation to save some of our sanity. For those of us that have any left.

Edit/Update: Also... I chose my "No"s the way they are for a reason. People want to shoot down almost every idea people post on the forums. It's like a lot of people just sit around waiting for an opportunity to be negative on the forums or make someone feel crappy for making a request.
So, if for some reason your answer isn't a "yes", the "other" is there for you. It's okay.

spartaxoxo

Other. (Please explain.)

Amber322 wrote: »

l

Hence the option for "other".
Anyone who chooses "no" probably is a fetcher. Because, it's something that would be toggle-able or adjustable in some way. To say no to something like this just doesn't make sense. It's...... selfish? I'm not sure what the correct word would be. But "selfish" feels pretty close.

Your personal opinion about "No" votes should not be discernable from the poll options. If you can't play devil's advocate for a brief moment when craft a poll with explanatory options to choose something reasonable and likely to come up, then you just don't say anything at all.

Yes, No, Other would have sufficed.

FYI

No could be something like

"No" I don't want developer resources wasted on such a minor issue.

Or

"No" I would rather Zos simply change the location or behavior of the specific NPCs that are likely to cause annoyance. Ambient chatter in quest areas should remain as is so people don't miss it

Well that last option is probably too long, but you should get the idea by now. If you can't play devil advocate for even a moment while you're making a poll to come up with reasonable explanations for both poll options, it's better not to offer them at all.

RefLiberty

Your poll is biased and childish.
No vote from me.

Reverb

Heck yes. I would really like to have this available. ("Yes")

You wanna cry about it? Go ahead, maybe you can float your way out of Craglorn.

LoneStar2911

Sure, why not? What's the harm? ("Yes")

spartaxoxo wrote: »

No could be something like

"No" I don't want developer resources wasted on such a minor issue.

Or

"No" I would rather Zos simply change the location or behavior of the specific NPCs that are likely to cause annoyance. Ambient chatter in quest areas should remain as is so people don't miss it

First, "developer resources" is not the player's responsibility or concern. That's ZOS's concern. We're here, as players, to support and enjoy the game, and offer suggestions and requests.
Second, that 2nd "no" sounds more like an "other" to me. It's not "no" you don't want it. It's "I'd rather it worked a different way than what you've described." So, obviously "no" is still too vague.

Someone give me a good reason why this shouldn't be implemented. A legitimately good reason why a player (not ZOS/devs or addon authors, etc) would not want an extra setting to toggle or adjust ambient chatter from NPCs.

LoneStar2911

Sure, why not? What's the harm? ("Yes")

I like how people vote "no" (or not at all) in a way to try to get back at me for being "biased" or "childish". LOL. I can't even!
And then they feel the need to leave a comment about it.
Some people really can't see past their self-righteousness for a second to notice a decent idea when there is one.

Hapexamendios

Sure, why not? What's the harm? ("Yes")

I’d silence the bard outside the Flaming Nix permanently.

spartaxoxo

Other. (Please explain.)

Amber322 wrote: »

Edit/Update: Also... I chose my "No"s the way they are for a reason. People want to shoot down almost every idea people post on the forums. It's like a lot of people just sit around waiting for an opportunity to be negative on the forums or make someone feel crappy for making a request.
So, if for some reason your answer isn't a "yes", the "other" is there for you. It's okay.

That's even worse. You're shooting down others opinion and trying to make someone feel crappy for it, for the crime of shooting down others opinion and making others feel crappy about it. That's worse than just being too biased to think of a good "no" response.

LoneStar2911

Sure, why not? What's the harm? ("Yes")

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Amber322 wrote: »

Edit/Update: Also... I chose my "No"s the way they are for a reason. People want to shoot down almost every idea people post on the forums. It's like a lot of people just sit around waiting for an opportunity to be negative on the forums or make someone feel crappy for making a request.
So, if for some reason your answer isn't a "yes", the "other" is there for you. It's okay.

That's even worse. You're shooting down others opinion and trying to make someone feel crappy for it, for the crime of shooting down others opinion and making others feel crappy about it. That's worse than just being too biased to think of a good "no" response.

Sigh. You obviously don't understand, and are set in staying in your stubborn mindset. Once again, a "no" response to this suggestion doesn't make sense.
I'm done debating with you. Happy holidays.

Acrolas

More audio subsettings would be great. I'm just not certain if that would require recompiling the current audio libraries to a point where they all need to be redownloaded. It may be a larger project than simply adding a few additional sliders to the current volume controls.

spartaxoxo

Other. (Please explain.)

Amber322 wrote: »

Sigh. You obviously don't understand, and are set in staying in your stubborn mindset. Once again, a "no" response to this suggestion doesn't make sense.
I'm done debating with you. Happy holidays.

I just posted 2 things that made sense for no, and I personally would like the option. I'm sorry that I didn't find hypocritical reasoning to be a particularly good justification for biased options in your poll.

Your own opinion about what people should concern themselves with has no bearing on how reasonable an opinion is to hold.

LoneStar2911

Sure, why not? What's the harm? ("Yes")

Acrolas wrote: »

More audio subsettings would be great. I'm just not certain if that would require recompiling the current audio libraries to a point where they all need to be redownloaded. It may be a larger project than simply adding a few additional sliders to the current volume controls.

I understand. But again, I don't think that's something players should have to concern themselves about. This is just a thread concerning an idea and if others would also like to have the setting available to them. But thank you for the insight!

spartaxoxo

Other. (Please explain.)

Acrolas wrote: »

More audio subsettings would be great. I'm just not certain if that would require recompiling the current audio libraries to a point where they all need to be redownloaded. It may be a larger project than simply adding a few additional sliders to the current volume controls.

That's a pretty good point. I would actually change my opinion to "no" if I had to redownload the audio files. My internet is pretty slow at downloading and I know others have slow internet AND caps. I wouldn't want to deal with that just for an optional setting that few would probably utilize.

Sylvermynx

Other. (Please explain.)

I already muted voices and enabled subtitles, so I don't hear the Stugas of the world. I don't mind the bards for the most part. If I run across one that bothers me I just go somewhere else.

Salix_alba

Other. (Please explain.)

I think we should be able to silence bards alright.



We should be able to silence them with the blade of woe

Path

No way. We need the chatter for immersion!!!!!! iMeRsIoN!!1!1!!!11 Sanity is for the weak! ("No")

Nope. Love it.
I miss the old days when all chat was spatial.

Yes, yes say, "Ok Boomer," but remember, we invented this stuff.

Chaos2088

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w50ZUCeveok

Replace some of them with this......would laugh one's butt off if that happened...

Sylvermynx

Other. (Please explain.)

Path wrote: »

Nope. Love it.
I miss the old days when all chat was spatial.

Yes, yes say, "Ok Boomer," but remember, we invented this stuff.

Um. I'm a boomer. I HATE VA. I certainly didn't invent it, and I don't want it at all!

WiseSky

No way. We need the chatter for immersion!!!!!! iMeRsIoN!!1!1!!!11 Sanity is for the weak! ("No")

I accepted the quest.
Solved.

LoneStar2911

Sure, why not? What's the harm? ("Yes")

Sylvermynx wrote: »

I already muted voices and enabled subtitles, so I don't hear the Stugas of the world. I don't mind the bards for the most part. If I run across one that bothers me I just go somewhere else.

I do wish they'd switch bards from using "effects" to "dialogue". That would be a decent first step to my request.

LoneStar2911

Sure, why not? What's the harm? ("Yes")

Amber322 wrote: »

Sylvermynx wrote: »

I already muted voices and enabled subtitles, so I don't hear the Stugas of the world. I don't mind the bards for the most part. If I run across one that bothers me I just go somewhere else.

I do wish they'd switch bards from using "effects" to "dialogue". That would be a decent first step to my request.

Moving bards and other NPC chatter to "ambience" would be wonderful, in my opinion. And then "dialogue" would only cover the speech heard while in a conversation with an NPC for a quest or whatnot. That would be a decent option, imo.

Edit: Rofl. I didn't mean to respond to my own post, but to edit and add to the other one. Bahaha. Smooth.

spartaxoxo

Other. (Please explain.)

Sylvermynx wrote: »

Path wrote: »

Nope. Love it.
I miss the old days when all chat was spatial.

Yes, yes say, "Ok Boomer," but remember, we invented this stuff.

Um. I'm a boomer. I HATE VA. I certainly didn't invent it, and I don't want it at all!

You hate voice acting? The only good modern game I can think of without it is Journey and that game is so old!